[00:00:01]
CLOSED CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY BEAVER COUNTY, FAMILIAR AND ARTICLE OR SECTION 3, 10, 3 8, OR THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.
UH, THERE ARE SIX CRITERIA THAT YOU WILL CONSIDER WHEN REVIEWING A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR APPROVAL.
UM, OUR ORIGINAL FINDING WAS THAT PER THE ZONING DETERMINATION LETTER, UH, PROVIDED ON OCTOBER 7TH THAT THE SITE PLAN WAS IN CONFLICT WITH SECTION 5.8 0.3 OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AS THE FRONT BUILDING SETBACKS USE WOULD NOT ALLOW THAT THE LOTS TO FUNCTION AS INTENDED, WHATEVER AS DISCUSSED.
UM, IF THAT SETBACK WERE CHANGED TO A DIMENSION OF 20 FEET, UM, THE LOTS WOULD FUNCTION, THE DRIVEWAYS WOULD FUNCTION AND THE, UM, THE APPLICANT AND THE BUILDER HAS A PRODUCT THAT WOULD FIT THAT FOOTPRINT.
UM, THE SECOND CRITERIA, UM, SINCE THIS IS NOT WITHIN ANY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, UH, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR SUBDIVISION, UM, THAT DOES NOT APPLY, UM, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, UH, THAT INDICATES NO ADDITIONAL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ARE WARRANTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT WITH THE TWO FULL ACCESS POINTS THAT ARE PROVIDED ON BALL FIELD AND BUCK ISLAND ROAD.
UM, HOWEVER, WE WILL STILL REQUIRE AT THE TIME OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THEY WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE ENCROACHMENT PERMITS FROM S C D O T FOR THE BUCK ISLAND ROAD ACCESS POINT.
AND THEY'LL HAVE TO PROVIDE AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM BUFORD COUNTY FOR THE BALL FIELD ROAD ACCESS POINT AND ANY TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS AT THAT TIME THAT ARE WARRANTED PER THE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICANT.
UM, AS FAR AS, UH, UTILITIES, WATER AND SEWER, BUT WILL BE PROVIDED BY VJ WSA, UM, ELECTRICAL SERVICE BY PALMETTO ELECTRIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS, MY HEART GRAY, UM, AND ALL REMAINING LETTERS CAN BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL.
UM, AT THIS TIME, NO PHASES HAD BEEN INDICATED FOR CONSTRUCTION THAT COULD ALWAYS CHANGE WHEN WE GET INTO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, VERY RARELY WOULD ANYONE TRY TO CONSTRUCT A 87 LOTS AT ONE TIME, THEY PROBABLY WOULD PHASE THIS, UH, JUST TO FACILITATE THE CLOSEOUT PROCESS, UM, SO THAT THEY CAN ISSUE COS ON HOUSES AS THEY ARE CONSTRUCTED RATHER THAN WAITING FOR EVERYTHING TO BE BUILT BEFORE THEY ISSUE WITH CO RICH.
I'M SORRY, I'M LOOKING AT THIS SCREEN.
UM, BUT ANY PHASING WOULD BE APPROVED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THEIR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WE WOULD MAKE SURE THAT ANY PHASE COULD OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY OR, OR IT TO BE PHASED AS SUCH.
SO A AND LAST CRITERIA, THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY STAFF AND WE HAVE DETERMINED THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE.
UM, SO TONIGHT PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED.
YOU CAN APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS.
YOU COULD TABLE THE APPLICATION AND REQUEST SOME UPDATED EXHIBITS OR INFORMATION, OR YOU COULD DENY THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED NOW.
AS, UM, AS I INDICATED, WHEN I STARTED INITIALLY, UM, WITHOUT ANY, UH, CHANGES TO THE PLAN, STAFF WAS GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT IT BE DENIED BECAUSE IT COULD NOT FUNCTION AS INTENDED UNDER THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.
AFTER WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT, LITERALLY UP UNTIL LATE THIS AFTERNOON, UM, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU APPROVE THIS APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS TO CONDITIONS THAT THE APPLICANT BE REQUIRED TO UPDATE THE PLANS, TO SHOW A 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK ON ALL LOTS.
AND SECONDLY, TO UPDATE THE EXHIBIT FOR THE CROSS SECTION OF THE ROAD PROFILE TO REFLECT THE NEW 20 FOOT SETBACK.
AND IF I MAY, I'VE GOT A PDF, I'M GOING TO PULL UP HERE JUST TO HELP DEMONSTRATE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
SO I SHOULD BE ABLE TO ZOOM IN ON THIS.
SO HERE, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ROAD, THE FRONT SETBACK.
[00:05:02]
WELL FEET FROM THE ROAD, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO WAY ANYONE COULD EVER PULL THEIR CAR INTO THAT DRIVEWAY AND NOT ENCROACH INTO EITHER THE RIGHT OF WAY, DEPENDING ON HOW THE PROFILE IS, IS DETERMINED AND CONSTRUCTED OR, OR INTO THE ROAD ITSELF.HOWEVER, IF THAT WERE MOVED AND I DID NOT PUT A DIMENSION ON HERE, BUT IF THAT WERE MOVED EIGHT FEET INTERIOR TO THE LOT 20 FEET WOULD ACCOMMODATE MOST NORMAL SIZE, IT WOULD ACCOMMODATE MY PICKUP TO BE IN THE DRIVEWAY WITHOUT ENCROACHING INTO THE ROADWAY.
UM, THE SECOND CONDITION IN CONJUNCTION WITH MOVING THAT SETBACK, THEY, THE APPLICANT, WE ALSO REQUIRE THEM TO PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF THE ROAD PROFILE THAT SHOWS THE TRAVEL LANES, A PARKING LANE, SIDEWALK WITS.
UM, SO WE WOULD ASK THEM IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NEW SETBACK, THEY WOULD ALSO BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A NEW CROSS SECTION OF THE ROAD PROFILE THAT WOULD DEMONSTRATE HOW THAT WOULD BE LAID OUT.
SO I AM HAPPY AFTER ALL OF THAT.
I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
UM, AND WE HAVE THE APPLICANT OF RECORD THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS THE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, ARE HERE AS WELL.
WE'RE GOING TO TAG TEAM YOU ALL A LITTLE BIT IF THAT'S OKAY.
UM, MY NAME IS ROBERT MCCORKELL FROM THE LAW FIRM OF CORVEL JOHNSON, MCCOY AND SAVANNAH.
UH, WE'VE GOT JOHN GEO DHARNA HERE WITH MATT DID SAY THAT, RIGHT? RIGHT.
DID YOU JUST CALL HIM JOHN? HE LIKES HE IS FINE.
UM, AND ONE, I WANT TO JUST THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.
OBVIOUSLY WE KNOW WE HAD THE TOWN HAD A SPECIFIC ITEMS ON THE AGENDA AS WELL, BUT THIS IS OUR THIRD ATTEMPT, UH, TO HAVE THIS HEARD, UH, WE HAD AN ELECTRICAL OUTAGE AND THEN WE HAD A TIME CRUNCH LAST TIME.
AND THEN NOW WE'RE BACK HERE TODAY ON A THIRD ATTEMPT.
UM, MAYBE ULTIMATELY IT WAS TO EVERYONE'S BENEFIT, UH, BECAUSE WE WERE WORKING ON THIS UNTIL I GOT IN MY CAR AT FIVE 10, UH, WORKING WITH WILL AND WITH RICHARDSON AND EVERYBODY ELSE ON THIS.
AND THEN I APPRECIATE BOTH Y'ALL'S PATIENTS TO HAVE US HERE TONIGHT, AS WELL AS, UM, Y'ALLS WITH WORKING WITH US.
WE GO THROUGH THIS, UM, I DON'T KNOW MOST OF YOU.
UM, I DO A LOT OF LAND USE AND ZONING AND ENTITLEMENT WORK IN SOUTHEAST GEORGIA AND SOME IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
UM, UH, IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF YEARS SINCE I'VE BEEN IN BLUFFTON FOR ANYTHING.
UM, TONIGHT'S HEARING IS A LITTLE BIT UNUSUAL FOR ME, I WILL SAY, UH, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT'S THE THIRD TRY.
IT'S A LITTLE UNUSUAL BECAUSE IT'S A SITE PLAN HEARING AND I DON'T OFTEN GET ASKED TO ATTEND SITE PAIN HEARINGS FOR OUR CLIENTS, PARTICULARLY PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN HEARINGS.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE REASON GENERALLY IS THAT SITE PLANS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE, ARE, ARE A PROCESS OF, OF KIND OF OBJECTIVE REVIEW.
YOU GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS WITH STAFF AND, AND THE IDEA IS, DOES IT MEET THE ZONING CRITERIA OR NOT? UM, DOES IT MEET THE DESIGN STANDARDS OR NOT? UM, ALMOST EVERY MUNICIPALITY THAT WE WORK IN HAS A VERY SIMILAR ORDINANCE TO Y'ALL'S, UM, AS FAR AS WHAT THE CRITERIA ARE AND WHAT THEIR CRITERIA IS FOR GETTING A SITE PLAN APPROVED, UM, UNLIKE ZONINGS AND VARIANCES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS, AND A LOT OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU ALL HERE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE CRITERIA FOR A SITE PLAN DON'T INCLUDE, UM, THE WORDS INTENT.
IT DOESN'T INCLUDE, UH, DETRIMENTAL TO NEIGHBORS.
IT DOESN'T INCLUDE CONSISTENCY WITH CHARACTER OF THE AREA.
IT DOESN'T INCLUDE CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IT DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY OF THOSE KINDS OF SUBJECTIVE TERMS THAT ARE TYPICALLY FOUND IN ZONINGS AND VARIANCES.
AND A LOT OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT Y'ALL DEAL WITH, I THINK THE GENERAL IDEA IS THAT IF A PIECE OF PROPERTY IS ZONED AND IT IS OWNED BY AN OWNER IS HIS OWN FOR THE USE AND THEY WANT TO USE IT FOR THAT USE.
IF IT MEETS THE DESIGN CRITERIA, THEN THE SITE PLAN IS TO BE APPROVED.
THE OWNER HAS VESTED RIGHTS TO USE THAT PROPERTY AS LONG AS HEIGHT AND BUFFERS AND PARKING AND DENSITY AND THE THINGS THAT ARE SET FORTH TO GUIDE THEM AND THE DESIGN OF THEIR PROJECT ARE MET.
UM, AND BLUFFTON UDO'S WAS SHOWN UP THERE EARLIER THREE POINT 10.3 IS GENERALLY THE ONE REAL STANDARD THAT'S APPLYING TO WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR TONIGHT.
AND IT SAYS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MUST BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE PROVISIONS, PROVIDED AN ARTICLE FIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
AND THAT'S IT A CONFORMANCE, UH, IS WHETHER SOMETHING MEETS A SPECIFIED STANDARD.
AND SO WE BELIEVE THAT THE PLAN THAT WE PROVIDED AND WE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED THOSE BEFORE YOU ALL TONIGHT IN YOUR PACKET, DOES IN FACT MEET ALL OF THE
[00:10:01]
REQUIREMENTS OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS.THE ONE DESIGN STANDARD THAT WAS POINTED OUT IS NOT BEING MET.
IF IT WAS POINTED OUT AS NOT MEETING THE INTENT OF THE SETBACK.
UM, THIS HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF A STRUGGLE GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH US ON THIS, HONESTLY, CAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW, SETBACKS HAD INTENSE AND IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE UNCLEAR YOUR, YOUR ORDINANCE ALSO HAPPENS TO HAVE A PROVISION IN IT.
THAT EXPLAINS WHAT THE INTENT OF THE SETBACK IS.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE SETBACK AS IT EXISTS, THESE ARE SMALL HOUSE, LOTS, THE SETBACK, AS IT EXISTS IN SECTION OR TABLE 5.8 0.3 B IS JUST SAYS, SMALL HOUSE, LOTS, 10 FOOT MINIMUM, 24 FOOT MAXIMUM.
THERE'S NO EXPLANATION AS FAR AS WHAT THAT MEANS OR WHETHER, YOU KNOW, 10 FEET IS FOR A CERTAIN TYPE OF HOUSE OR 24 FEET IS FOR A CERTAIN TYPE OF HOUSE.
LUCKILY THERE IS GUIDANCE IN YOUR ORDINANCE WAS VERY WELL-WRITTEN IN SECTION 9.3 AND SECTION 9.3 SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES HOW TO INTERPRET A SETBACK.
AND IT SAYS THAT A SETBACK LINE IS A DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE NEAREST PART OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING OR STRUCTURE.
AND IT SAYS IN CASES WHERE SETBACK LINES ARE LISTED AS A RANGE INDICATING A MINIMUM AND A MAXIMUM SETBACK, THE RAIN SHALL BE INTERPRETED AS A BUILD TO RANGE AT OR WITHIN SUCH DISTANCE.
THE BUILDING LINE MUST BE ESTABLISHED.
SO IT IS IN FACT, A RANGE WITHIN WHICH THE BUILDING LINE MUST BE ESTABLISHED.
IT CAN BE 10 FEET, IT CAN BE 24 FEET, IT CAN BE 10 AND A HALF.
IT COULD BE 17, IT CAN BE 16, BUT ALL THAT'S PROVIDED IN THE ORDINANCE IS A RANGE IN THAT RANGE AS A HA WE HAVE TO PROVIDE A BUILDING LINE WITHIN THAT RANGE.
AND WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO YOU.
WE WORKED REALLY HARD WITH STAFF OVER A YEAR AND YOU SAW SOME OF THE BACK AND FORTH, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE PROJECT HAS GOTTEN BETTER AND BETTER THROUGHOUT THIS PROJECT.
AND IT GOT BETTER TODAY TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, BUT EITHER WAY, WHETHER IT'S WITH THE CONDITIONS OR WITH WHAT WE'VE SUBMITTED ALREADY, THE SITE PLAN MEETS REQUIREMENTS OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE ONLY CRITERIA THAT WE REALLY HAVE, SO IT SHOULD BE APPROVED EITHER WAY.
THE GOOD NEWS IS, IS THAT WE'RE IN SUPPORT OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE REACHED OR OF THE SUGGESTIONS THAT ARE BEING MADE THAT WERE MENTIONED ABOUT, I THINK THAT IT'S GOING TO MAKE A BETTER PROJECT.
UM, AND I'M GOING TO HAND IT OVER TO JOHN AND HE'S GOING TO GO THROUGH, UM, A LITTLE BIT OF THE DESIGN CRITERIA WITH Y'ALL, UM, AND WHAT THOSE STANDARDS ARE AND WHAT WE'VE SHOWN.
AND THEN ALSO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CONDITIONS IT EVENING, JOHN GIORDANO WITH THOMAS AND PUTIN, WOULD THAT ROBERT GO FIRST BECAUSE IN A MUCH BETTER SPEAKER THAN I AM.
UM, AND AGAIN, WANT TO THANK THE TOWN AND STAFF FOR WORKING WITH US THROUGH THIS PROCESS, BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN A LONG PROCESS.
UM, AND, UM, I'M JUST GONNA REAL QUICK KIND OF RUN THROUGH THE SITE PLAN AS IT WAS SUBMITTED.
UM, I KNOW WILL, HAS ALREADY KIND OF GONE THROUGH THAT, BUT JUST KIND OF RECAP IT AGAIN.
UM, SO AS, AS WE'LL MENTION, THIS IS AN ASSEMBLAGE, UH, PROJECT.
SO THERE WERE MULTIPLE PARCELS THAT WERE, UH, THAT ARE LOOKING AT COMBINING AND DEVELOPING THIS NEW SUBDIVISION.
UM, IT'S APPROXIMATELY 24.8 ACRES, UH, I'D SAY JUST SHY OF 25 AND THE CURRENT PLAN PROPOSES 87 SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL LOTS, UM, WHICH IT IS OWNED RG RESIDENTIAL GENERAL, WHICH ALLOWS FOR UP TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
SO WITH, UH, A LOT COUNT OF 87, WE'RE CURRENTLY BENEATH THAT WE'RE AT 3.48 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
UM, AS MENTIONED, WE ARE PROPOSING SMALL HOUSE, LOTS THE LOT WITH 30 FOOT MINIMUM, 50 FOOT MAXIMUM WORK PROPOSING 42 FOOT WIDE LOTS THROUGHOUT, UH, COVERAGE, 65% MAX, WE ARE BENEATH THAT OUR LOCK COVERAGE WILL BE BENEATH THAT, UH, MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THREE STORIES.
NONE OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING TYPES THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT WILL EXCEED THREE STORIES, UM, AS MENTIONED 42 FOOT WIDE, A LOT WITH THE SETBACK.
UM, SO BUFFERS, WE ARE PROPOSING BUFFERS ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THESE, THESE, THIS PROJECT.
UM, WE DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE PROPOSING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE ALSO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
SO PER THE UTO, WE DON'T NECESSARILY FEEL THAT ANY TYPE OF BUFFER IS REQUIRED BECAUSE WE ARE COMPATIBLE USES ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER.
THAT BEING SAID, WE ARE STILL PROVIDING BUFFERS SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY.
UM, AS FAR AS OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS, WE MEET ALL OF THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE UDL, UM, THE REQUIRED OPEN
[00:15:01]
SPACE, UH, FOR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT, 4.96 ACRES WE'RE CURRENTLY PROVIDING 10.93 WITH THE PLAN THAT WAS PREVIOUS THAT WAS SUBMITTED, UM, AS PART OF A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WE'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 10% OF THE GROSS RESIDENTIAL USE ACREAGE AS OPEN SPACE.SO THAT WOULD RESULT IN OUR REQUIRED 1.8 ACRES OF, UH, OPEN SPACE ACCESSIBLE TO THE RESIDENTS.
OUR CURRENT PLAN PROVIDES 2.03.
AND WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, THE, UH, THE OPEN SPACES, THE GREEN AREA, THE, UH, THE PORTIONS OF THE SITE PLAN THAT ARE, IT HAD THE RED PATCH ACROSS THE TOP WOULD BE THOSE AREAS THAT, UH, ARE BEING COUNTED TOWARDS THE RESIDENTIAL USE ACREAGE.
SO, UH, YOU CAN SEE THE, I WAS WORKING.
SO THIS WAS THE, THE PORTION OF THE SITE THAT A WILL HAD MENTIONED.
WE'VE ELECTED TO KEEP THAT AS OPEN SPACE.
UH, WE'VE GOT SOME, THERE'S SOME VERY NICE OAK TREES, MATURE OAKS THAT ARE IN THIS AREA.
UH, THE PLAN IS TO PROVIDE A WALKING TRAIL AROUND THE POND.
THERE'S ALSO A VERY NICE CLUSTER OF TREES LOCATED IN THE CENTRAL AREA.
UM, ALSO WANTED TO MENTION THAT THIS KIND OF OPEN SPACE PARK AREA WAS SOMETHING THAT CAME OUT OF SOME OF THE EARLY ON DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF DURING OUR PRELIMINARY, UH, PLAN REVIEWS.
UM, THEY HAD SUGGESTED CREATING KIND OF THIS OPEN CENTRAL PARK AREA.
AND THAT IS ALSO WHERE THE MALE KIOSK IS LOCATED.
SO THE, UM, THE, UH, SO ANY OF THE RESIDENTS WILL, WILL TRAVEL DOWN.
WE'VE GOT ON-STREET PARKING SURROUNDING THE PARK, SO THAT THEY'VE GOT ACCESS TO THE, TO THE MALE KIOSK.
UM, AS FAR AS THE CURRENT TYPICAL SECTION THAT IS SUBMITTED, UM, WE ARE USING ROAD TYPICAL SECTION S T 50 DASH 34, UH, WHICH PER THE UTO IS A 50 FOOT RIGHT AWAY.
UH, WE ARE PROPOSING A 50 FOOT RIGHT AWAY, UH, FOR THE UTO.
THE PAVEMENT WITH IS, UH, 32 FEET.
WE'RE ACTUALLY PROVIDING 34, UH, TO THE UTO REQUIRES TWO NINE FOOT TRAVEL LANES.
OUR CURRENT PLAN PROPOSES TO 10 FOOT TRAVEL LANES.
THAT'S ACTUALLY WHERE THE X, THE ADDITIONAL WIDTH IS COMING IN.
UH, WE FELT LIKE 10 FOOT TRAVEL LANES WERE A LITTLE BIT BETTER FOR A, YOU KNOW, NOT CREATING A POINT BETWEEN OPPOSING TRAFFIC, UM, PARKING LANES, THE UTO, UH, DIFFICULT SECTION S T 50 DASH 34, ACTUALLY CALLS OUT FOR ON-STREET PARKING.
AND SO WITH THE REDUCED SETBACK OR, OR THE 12 FOOT SETBACK THAT WE ARE PROVIDING THE ON-STREET PARKING WOULD PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL PARKING THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WILL WAS REFERENCING, UM, AND PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL SPACE IN ORDER TO GET INTO THE LOT.
UM, SO THAT, THAT WAS KIND OF WHERE WE WERE LOOKING AT.
THE PARKING SPACES, UH, WAS THROUGH THE USE OF THE, THE ON STREET PARKING.
UM, WE WERE PROVIDING ON-STREET PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD TO EIGHT FOOT, UH, PARALLEL PARKING LANES.
THE UTO HAS, UH, FOR THAT TYPICAL SECTION ACTUALLY REFERENCES A NINE FOOT SIDEWALK WE'RE PROVIDING, UH, TWO, FIVE FOOT SIDEWALKS, ONE ON EACH SIDE.
SO RESULTING IN A 10 FOOT WORTH OF, UH, 10 FOOT WALKWAYS PLANTER, PLANTER TYPES, THE UDL TYPICAL SECTION DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY, WE WERE PROVIDING A SMALL ONE AND A HALF FOOT GRASS STRIP TO JUST KIND OF BREAK IT UP A LITTLE BIT.
UM, AND CURB TYPE, UH, BOTH THE UTO AND OUR PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION FOR BOTH PROVIDE FOR, UH, CURB AND GUTTER.
SO WITH, WITH REGARDS TO THE PARKING, ALL OF THESE PROPOSED UNITS WOULD HAVE A TWO CAR PARKING GARAGE, A TWO CAR GARAGE TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED TWO PARKING SPACES.
HOWEVER, AS MENTIONED, WE WOULD HAVE THE ON-STREET PARKING THAT WOULD PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR GUESTS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO NOBODY WOULD HAVE TO BE PARKING IN THE DRIVEWAY AND HANGING OUT INTO THE ROAD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THEY WOULD ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO PARK ON STREET.
UM, THEN I GUESS KIND OF WRAPPING THIS UP WOULD COME BACK TO THE SETBACKS.
UM, AND AS ROBERT MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, LOOKING THROUGH THE UTO, THE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK
[00:20:01]
IS A RANGE 10 FEET TO 24 FEET.MAX, WE'RE PROVIDING 12 FEET IN THE CURRENTLY SUBMITTED PLAN.
UH, WE MEET THE 25 FOOT MINIMUM REAR SETBACK AND INSIDE SET BACKS ARE FIVE FEET, WHICH ALSO HOTLINES WITH THE UDL.
NOW, AS ROBERT MENTIONED, WE'VE BEEN WORKING RIGHT UP UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE AND THE CONDITIONS THAT WILL HAS MENTIONED WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH, I MEAN, WE, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IF WE GO TO THE 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK, UM, IT WILL CREATE A BETTER PROJECT.
THE, WE WOULD GO AHEAD AND REVISE THE SITE PLAN TO SHOW THE 20 FOOT SET FRONT SETBACK.
UH, WE WOULD REVISE THE TYPICAL SECTION.
ONE QUESTION THAT I DID HAVE FOR YOU WILL, UM, AS YOU WERE MENTIONING THAT, AND WE UPDATE THE TYPICAL SECTION, UH, WHEN WE GO TO THE 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK, WE WOULD ALSO WANT TO LOSE THE ON-STREET PARKING.
UM, AND SO THAT WOULD PROVIDE THE, THE TRAVEL LANES.
WE WOULD NO LONGER NEED THE ON STREET PARKING IN ORDER TO PREVENT A CAR FROM HANGING OUT INTO THE, INTO THE TRAVEL WAYS.
BUT THE, UH, SO THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE TO THE, TO THE TYPICAL SECTION AS PART OF THAT CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.
UM, SO YOU JUST HAVE ONE SIDE OF THE PARKING MADAM CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY, I I'D RECOMMEND THAT YOU ALLOW, UM, IF YOU, SO CHOOSE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS FROM A CONDITIONAL STANDPOINT IS ALLOW STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT, AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO NEGOTIATE, UM, DURING THE MEETING AS TO WHAT THIS ROAD PROFILE WILL LOOK, I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT HE WAS SAYING.
HE WAS TAKING ONE OUT IT'S CURRENT, HIS CURRENT PROFILE THEY'RE SHOWING ON THE STREET PARKING LOT.
BUT HE WOULD TAKE THEM ONE OUT IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
WE WOULD PROPOSE TO TAKE BOTH SIDES OF THE ON STREET, PARKING OUT.
UH, THAT'S WHERE I WOULD LET YOU ALLOW STAFF TO WORK WITH YOU, JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHICH, AND WE WORK WITH STAFF W WE WOULD STILL WANT TO KEEP THE ON-STREET PARKING AROUND THE CENTRAL SQUARE PARK AREA ONLY JUST TO PROVIDE PARKING FOR THE RESIDENTS TO COME AND VISIT THAT PARK AREA.
THAT'S ALSO WHERE THE MAILBOX KIOSK IS.
SO THAT WOULD PROVIDE PARKING FOR THAT.
UM, I'LL JUST SUMMARIZE UP HERE.
UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS PROCESS, I THINK ULTIMATELY THIS PROCESS HAS DONE WHAT IT WAS, WHAT IT'S FOR, UH, WHICH IS TO HELP US MAKE A BETTER PROJECT.
UM, AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE PLAN IS SUBMITTED, MEETS THE DESIGN STANDARDS, UM, AND SHOULD BE APPROVED.
I THINK THE PLAN WITH THE CONDITIONS WILL MEET THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND CAN BE APPROVED, UH, WITH, WITH THE CONDITIONS.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH KNOW PROBABLY SOMEWHERE BETWEEN SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 20, PROBABLY 24 AND 28 FEET BETWEEN THE PAVEMENT OR BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE GARAGE, UM, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY PLENTY OF SPACE.
THESE ARE TWO WIDE, TWO LANE WIDE DRIVEWAYS.
SO YOU'LL HAVE NOT ONLY A TWO CAR GARAGE, BUT TWO OFF STREET PARKING SPACES IN THOSE DRIVEWAYS.
SO WE'D ULTIMATELY BE PROVIDING FOUR PARKING SPACES PER UNIT, EVEN WITHOUT ANY ON STREET PARKING.
UM, AND SO WE WILL OBVIOUSLY MEET THE TWO, THE TWO SPACE REQUIREMENT.
UM, AND SO WITH THAT, ULTIMATELY WE WOULD ASK THAT Y'ALL WOULD APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED AND HELP US GO FORTH AND, AND BUILD A BETTER PROJECT THAN THE ONE WE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED.
BUT LET US GO FORWARD AT WE'RE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, SHOW UP.
I JUST WANTED TO DEFEND STAFF IN THE STUDIO REAL QUICK.
LIKE THEY BEEN A REALLY GREAT JOB EXPLAINING ALL OF THIS AND THE UTO IS NOT PERFECT AND WE'RE CONSTANTLY AMENDING IT.
AND THE VERBIAGE, WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE IFFY, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO THINK OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE.
SO UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 10 TO 24.
I KNOW THAT'S LIKE A GRAY AREA, BUT WHEN YOU'RE THINKING OF A PLAN AND YOU HAVE A FRONT LOADED PRODUCT VERSUS A REAR LOADED PRODUCT, THAT'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
THE UDL COULD SPELL IT OUT A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT.
AND, AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WERE COMING THROUGH IT FROM, FROM, FROM THE STAFF IS DOING THEIR JOB AND YOU GUYS ARE DOING YOUR JOB IN ANY WAY THAT ANYONE WASN'T, UM, IS JUST THAT FROM A DEVELOPER STANDPOINT, YOU KNOW, THE TERMS REAR LOADED AND FRONT-LOADED, DON'T APPEAR IN THE UDL.
I CAME IN, UM, TO TREAT THE MINIMUM MAXIMUM AS AN EITHER, OR THOUGH I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF IT AND Y PERFECTLY UNDERSTAND WHY, UM, IT'S JUST NOT WHAT IT PROVIDES, BUT THE GOOD NEWS IS, IS THAT WE THINK THAT WE'VE REACHED A RESOLUTION THAT RESOLVES THE
[00:25:01]
ISSUE.AND SO BY, BY HAVING THESE CONDITIONS IN PLACE, THE OTHER GOOD NEWS IS THIS IS A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.
AND SO WE STILL HAVE TO HAVE A FINAL SITE PLAN AND GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS WITH STAFF.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THESE CHANGES, I DON'T THINK ARE PARTICULARLY MATERIAL, EXCEPT FOR THAT THEY ARE MATERIALLY TO THE BETTER FOR THE PROJECT.
AND SO THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT THESE CONDITIONS, THAT STAFF WERE VERY HARD TO HELP US COME UP WITH, DO IN FACT, REMOVE THE ISSUE.
UM, MR. HOWARD, I THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY BEST TO ANSWER.
I THINK MAYBE A COUPLE OF THESE QUESTIONS.
UM, ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WAS FROM A PREVIOUS DERIVATION OF THIS PLAN, BUT I THINK STILL PERTAINS TO THE CURRENT ITERATION OF THE PLAN.
THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT MULTIPLE HOUSING TYPES, UM, BEING REQUIRED.
THIS STILL ONLY SHOWS ONE HOUSING TYPE.
SO THE APPLICANT HAS, I DID NOT INCLUDE IN THE PACKET, BUT THE APPLICANT DID SHARE, UM, THE FACT THAT A POTENTIAL BUILDER THAT I BELIEVE THEY'RE WORKING WITH HAD MULTIPLE PRODUCTS, DIFFERENT HOUSE PRODUCTS THAT WOULD FIT THESE FOOTPRINTS.
SO THEY'RE SHOWING ONE TYPE OF LOT, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
YOU HAVE SEVERAL HOME PLANS THAT WILL FIT ON THE LOTS, BUT THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.
IS THERE IN THIS, AS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN GOES THROUGH, IS IT WOULD SEEM TO ME IT'S OUT OF STAFF'S HANDS, AS THIS MOVES FORWARD, SAY THEY DECIDED TO SELL THIS.
THE NEXT PERSON GETS THAT THEY ONLY ONE BUILDER, ONE HOUSE PLAN.
IS THERE ANY WAY, IS THERE ANY RECOURSE FROM THE TOWN STANDPOINT TO ENFORCE A MULTIPLE HOUSING TIGHT OR MULTIPLE HOUSE FORMS, I GUESS IF YOU WILL, OR MODEL THAT WOULD BE FROM A DEVELOPMENT PLAN? UH, I DEFERRED TO OUT OF HER STAFF ON THAT, THAT QUESTION, IF THAT'S OKAY.
UM, IS THERE A, IS THERE A PART IN THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, REVIEW PROCESS WHERE YOU WOULD, OR THE INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS ACTUALLY, TECHNICALLY WHEN WE'RE REVIEWING THIS PLAN, WE'RE REVIEWING HORIZONTAL DEVELOPMENT.
WE DON'T REVIEW ANYTHING IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, OUTSIDE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND OUTSIDE OF THE HIGHWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY, WE DON'T REVIEW ANY VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION.
SO WE, WE CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT THERE WOULD BE MULTIPLE HOUSE SITE PLANS.
UM, WE CAN ONLY GUARANTEE THAT THEY PROVIDE ALL OF THE HORIZONTAL DEVELOPMENT PER THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.
UM, I GUESS WHAT I SHOULD'VE SAID WAS THEIR OWN MASTER PLAN OR WHATEVER WOULD HAVE DICTATE WHAT GOES IN IT.
YOU SEE IN OURS COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS.
YEAH, YEAH, NO, WE, WE TYPICALLY WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO PROVIDE ONCE RECORDED A COPY OF THE CCNRS FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
AND THEN THAT WOULD JUST LIKE BLUFFTON PARK OR JUST LIKE THE WALK OR THE LANDINGS OR ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT, THEY WOULD HAVE THEIR OWN ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS.
SO THERE, THERE WILL BE SOMETHING THERE'LL BE CCNRS THAT ARE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE US.
UM, WELL, MY, MY POINT IS, IS THAT IN THE GUIDELINES, IT'S VERY IN THE STUDIO, IT'S SPECIFIC OF MULTIPLE HOUSING TYPES.
SO IT IS ENFORCEABLE FROM, IT IS SOMETHING THAT'S WITHIN OUR JURY, WITHIN OUR PURVIEW, NOT THE VERTICAL, JUST NOT THE VERTICAL, RIGHT.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE, TO ME, WHEN YOU'RE CREATING THIS 40 FOOT 42 FOOT HOUSING TYPE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE THING, THE WAY IT'S WORDED, UM, AND I DON'T HAVE IT PULLED UP RIGHT AT THE MOMENT IS IT'S INDICATIVE THAT IT'S NOT JUST A SPECIFIC HOUSE PRODUCT.
IT'S, IT'S MULTIPLE HOUSING TYPES, WHICH WOULD IMPLY TO ME, IT COULD BE TOWNHOMES.
IT COULD BE LARGE, LOTS, SMALL LOT, BUT THE WAY THAT THESE LOANS, I MEAN, THEY'RE INDIVIDUAL WALKS.
SO IT'S NOT A TOWNHOME PRODUCT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT COMBINED.
SO WHAT THEY'RE SHOWING IS ONE PRODUCT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, RIGHT.
AND THE WAY THAT THE CODE IS WRITTEN, THE WAY I WAS READING IT, AND I DON'T HAVE IT PULLED UP AT THIS MOMENT.
SO THERE WAS A VERBIAGE THAT MADE ME FEEL LIKE THERE SHOULD BE A SECOND HOUSE TYPE TO CREATE AND REALLY IDENTIFY WHAT A RESIDENTIAL GENERAL ZONING SHOULD HAVE.
I THINK THE SECTION YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS PURPOSE AND INTENT.
THE RG DISTRICT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE FOR MODERATE DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
THIS DISTRICT WILL INCLUDE A RANGE OF DWELLING TYPES, UH, AND AN INTEGRATED NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING WITH OTHER CIVIC.
RECREATIONAL USES REGULATIONS ARE DESIGNED TO PROMOTE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER
[00:30:01]
AND ACCOMMODATE A VARIETY OF DWELLING TYPES, THE MULTIPLE DWELLING TYPE IT'S ALSO THAT ALSO COULD BE VIEWED AS APPLIED TO THE ZONING DISTRICT AND NOT TO AN INDIVIDUAL PLAN.UM, THE, THERE WAS ANOTHER COMMENT ABOUT THE DEAD END ROAD BY THE LARGER RETENTION POND THAT IS OBVIOUSLY THE DEAD END ROAD IS STILL THERE.
I SAW A COMMENT TO THE EFFECT OF, WELL, IT'S GOING INTO A ROAD THAT LEADS TO A DOCK, WHICH MY UNDERSTANDING IS OUR STORM WATER ISN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO BE USED FOR DOCS.
SO I'M CURIOUS AS TO, I THAT'S OBVIOUSLY THAT DIDN'T, THAT COMMENT DID NOT STAY THROUGH TO THE END.
SO I WAS CURIOUS HOW THAT WAS ADDRESSED.
UM, HONESTLY, WE, UM, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION AS AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF APPROVAL, UM, I KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT HAD SUBMITTED AT ONE POINT A PLAN THAT DID SHOW THE ELIMINATION OF THOSE FEW, LOTS AND AN ACTUAL ROAD CURVE, AS OPPOSED TO AN INTERSECTION RIGHT THERE.
UM, I DON'T THINK THE APPLICANT WOULD OBJECT TO THAT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL AND THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THEIR RESUBMITTAL MATERIALS.
AND THEN WE WOULD ENSURE AT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THAT THAT WAS THE CASE.
IS THERE A PLAN THAT SKETCHED THAT OUT? CAUSE I HAD THE SAME QUESTION SHE DID AS FAR AS THAT DEAD END, ROY WAS THERE, IT WAS SUBMITTED AFTER WE HAD DONE OUR STAFF REPORT AND IT WILL, WE WERE WORKING ON THE STAFF REPORT, BUT ON THEIR RESUBMITTAL.
AND THEN THEY SUBMITTED AN ALTERNATE PLAN THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO REVIEW BEFORE AND PROVIDE IT TO YOU CONDITIONED TO SAY THAT THEY NEED TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE AND THEN LEAVE IT TO STAFF.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT STAFF, IF YOU, IF YOU INCLUDE THAT AS A THIRD CONDITION OF APPROVAL, THEN STAFF WOULD MAKE SURE THAT IT IS ADDRESSED ACCORDINGLY.
UM, OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A PERFECT 5.3 0.7, THAT STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED, UM, AS THIS CROSS SECTION IS CURRENTLY DRAWN.
AND I KNOW YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT, UM, REMOVING THE ON STREET PARKING, SO THIS MAY SOLVE THIS ISSUE, BUT THERE WAY, THIS IS CROSS SECTION TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION IS DRAWN.
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM FOR A STREET TREE IN HERE.
AND EVEN WITH AN, EVEN IF YOU PUSH THOSE SETBACKS AND WELL, IF YOU, THE SETBACKS BACK THAT DOES HELP, YOU COULD ACTUALLY GET THE TREES ON THE LOTS, BUT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
I DIDN'T SEE ANY COMMENTS REGARDING STREET TREES IN HERE WAS THERE, NO, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED A, A FINAL, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED A LANDSCAPE PLAN.
UM, IT'S ALSO NOT UNCOMMON WHEN YOU HAVE A, A MULTILINE SUBDIVISION LIKE THIS, THAT A LOT OF TIMES THE, THE STREET TREE IS PLANTED AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION ACTUALLY ON HOMEOWNER PROPERTY.
AND IT SERVES THE INTENT OF THE STREET TREE AND IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, THAT WAY THAT THE POA DOES IT HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE, UH, TO, UH, UH, ABSORB THE EXPENSE OF MAINTAINING ALL OF THOSE TREES AND LANDSCAPE.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE, UH, STAFF COULD REVIEW AS PART OF THE CCRS THAT WOULD BE WRITTEN INTO THE CCRS.
IT'LL ALSO BE PICKED UP ON THAT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AND AS YOU GUYS KNOW, UM, AS THREE OF YOU ARE PART OF THE DRC, UM, WHEN THAT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES COME THROUGH THAT, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE COMMENTS AT THAT TIME AS WELL.
SO IT'LL BE, WELL, IF IT'S DEVELOPED ON AN INDIVIDUAL LOT, WE WOULDN'T SEE IT ON THEIR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CORRECT.
OR AM I MISTAKEN NOT GOING TO PROVIDE THEM ON THE RIGHT OF WAY, THEN THEY'D HAVE TO SHOW THEM NO, NO DELVE SHOW AN APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EACH ONE OF THEM.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS IT WOULDN'T ACTUALLY, THEY WOULDN'T ANY TREE WOULD NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL ACTUALLY THAT THE HOUSE IS, IS FINAL IN.
THAT'D BE PART OF THAT CEO PROCESS.
SAME THING HAPPENS WITH SIDEWALKS.
NO, NO FLAT WORK IS EVER DONE.
YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T GO IN AND CONSTRUCT ALL THE SIDEWALKS AND THEN CONSTRUCT AND THEN INSTALL ALL THE TREES AND THEN GRADE AND BILL HOUSES.
THEY DO IT PIECEMEAL AS EACH LOT IS DEVELOPED.
SO IT COULD BE REFLECTED ON THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS FAR AS THE CONCEPT OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
UM, AND THEN WE WOULD JUST ENSURE AS PART OF THE SIO PROCESS, THAT'S WHEN IT'S INSPECTED AND THAT'S WHEN IT WOULD BE PICKED UP AND ENSURE THAT IT WAS TO COMPLIANCE.
UM, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT TO THE EFFECT OF THE ON-STREET I'M SUPPORTIVE OF NO ON STREET PARKING.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS REQUIRED BECAUSE WITH THESE 20
[00:35:01]
FOOT DRIVE, 20 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAYS AND A 42 FOOT WIDE LOT, THAT LEAVES PRECISELY 22 FOOT BETWEEN DRIVEWAY TO DRIVEWAY, WHICH MAKES RENDERS UP ON STREET, PARKING USELESS ENTIRELY.I MEAN, YOU COULD FIT IN A CAR IN IT.
UM, GETTING OUT OF A DRIVEWAY, IT CREATES, UH, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL NEIGHBOR DROP KNOCKOUT DRILLS, YOU KNOW, DRAG OUT FIGHTS.
HAVE YOU BLOCKED MY DRIVEWAY? SO, OR YOUR GUESTS BARKING APART BLOCK MY DRIVEWAY.
SO I, UNLESS IT'S REQUIRED BY THE STUDIO AND I DIDN'T SEE THAT I'M SUPPORTIVE ABOUT BEING, UM, AND THEN ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MKS GATE HAD PICKED UP ON THEIR PLAN WAS THAT CONNECTION TO BALL FIELD ROAD.
UM, I I'M ASSUMING THAT WAS A COST, THERE WAS A COST FACTOR AS TO WHY THAT WASN'T INCLUDED IN THIS, THE CONNECTION, THERE IS A CONNECTION TO ALL FIELD ROADS.
SO I'M NOT, I'M SORRY, I'M FROM THE ISLAND ENTRANCE.
UM, THERE IS NOW A RISK INITIALLY THEY DIDN'T OWN THAT PROPERTY AND THEY, THEY DIDN'T HAVE AN EASEMENT ACROSS IT ON THE INITIAL, THE FIRST SUBMITTAL.
WELL, I'M LOOKING AT THE SEPTEMBER 30TH SITE PLAN, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK IS RIGHT UP HERE.
SO M K S K HAD IN THEIR COMMENTS THAT TO ENCOURAGE A CONNECTION THROUGH THAT EIGHT ROAD EASEMENT, THAT'S WHERE BALL FIELD ROAD ENDS.
IT COULD, IT LOOKS LIKE IT STILL COULD CONNECT TO THE ROAD THAT CONNECTS TO BUCK ISLAND, BUT THAT NEW LITTLE LIGHT TO THE EXTENSION IS THAT CENTER FIELD THAT THAT'S CALLED RIGHT HERE, RIGHT THERE.
UM, AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS JUST NOT DONE AS A PART OF A COST SAVINGS THING, BUT I FEEL LIKE FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD STANDPOINT IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL.
THAT'S A PRIVATE ROAD FROM THAT POINT AND THEY DON'T OWN THE PROPERTY TO DO THAT.
SO THERE'S A ROAD EASEMENT THERE THAT THERE WAS A ROSE EASTMAN.
I THOUGHT I READ ON ONE OF THOSE, THIS ROAD, I THINK STOPS HERE.
THAT'S PEOPLE'S PROPERTY DRIVES LIKE DIRT.
IT'S JUST AN ACCESS EASEMENT BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT ARE BACK HERE.
I MEAN, IT'S JUST CROSS ACCESS WHERE PEOPLE CAN DRIVE ACROSS SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY TO GET TO, TO THEIR PROPERTY, BUT THE ACTUAL BALL FIELD ROAD, UH, IT KIND OF STOPS, IT STOPS BACK UP HERE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS ACTUAL TRUE ROAD RIGHT AWAY.
JUST SAYING IT WOULD BE NICE IF I COULD, BUT THEY DON'T OWN THAT.
THAT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING WAS, YOU KNOW, SHOULD THE TOWN IN THE FUTURE DECIDE TO ACQUIRE THE RIGHT OF WAY WE'VE PROVIDED A SPOT WHERE THERE COULD BE A PERPENDICULAR INTERSECTION.
I THINK THAT ANSWERS THAT I WANT TO THANK STAFFER, UH, WORKING WITH APPLICANT TO MAKE A WORKABLE PRODUCT THAT I POTENTIALLY COULD SUPPORT AND WOULD IT'S LOOKING AT IT FIRST GLANCE AND UNDERSTAND REPORT.
I KNOW, I KNOW, UH, I'VE BEEN IN COURT ENOUGH TO KNOW ABOUT THE INTENT OF ORDINANCES AND I APPRECIATE YOU ALL LOOKING OUT FOR THE TOWN.
AND WHY WOULD THE INTENT, I GUESS, UM, AS A NEW GUY, IS IT TYPICAL FOR US TO, UM, HAVE THIS MANY CONDITIONS AND NOT SEE THE FINAL PRODUCT BEFORE WE APPROVE IT? YEAH.
I MEAN, IT'S A PRELIMINARY PLAN.
SO AS LONG AS WE GIVE THE STAFF CONDITIONS, THEY KNOW HOW TO DIRECT THEM AND THEN IT'S GOING TO GO FOR FINAL.
AND LIKE HE SAID, THERE'S GOING TO BE THREE OF US ON THAT, ANY WAY TO SEE IT.
SO, BUT THE, THE ANSWER IS WE COULD MAKE IT A CONDITION.
WE COULD TABLE IT AND ASK FOR THOSE DRAWINGS, DO THAT HERE.
UM, WHEN THOSE SETBACK LINES MOVE BACK.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S COMING TO DOWN HERE IS THAT IT'S A 40, 42 FOOT WIDE LOT AT THE SETBACK LINE ON THE CURVE WHERE IT'S CONCAVE.
UH, I DON'T, WELL, WHEN IT GOES CON I DON'T KNOW WHAT LOT NUMBERS THOSE ARE.
UM, I CAN'T SEE ON THERE 40, 41 42, NO, SORRY, ACTUALLY, IT'S GOING TO BE 1720 IT'S OVER THERE BY THE POND.
WE WOULD MEASURE IT AT THE CORNER OF THE SETBACK LINE.
I'M JUST SAYING THOSE LOTS MAY OR MAY NOT BE WIDE ENOUGH ONCE YOU MOVE THAT SETBACK
[00:40:01]
LINE.I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY CURRENTLY ARE IN WIDTH, ON IT'S RIGHT THERE BY THE, THE SQUARE TO THE LEFT OF THAT.
YOU CAN SEE WHEN YOU SET THAT SETBACK LINE, WHEN YOU PUSH THAT SETBACK LINE INTO THE LOT, IT'S GOING TO NARROW THE Y WITH THE VET.
YEAH, IT WOULD, THEN IT DIDN'T ESSENCE ASHLEY, I ASKED TO BE PUSHED BACK.
SO THAT WAY THAT IT MEETS THAT REQUIREMENT.
I'M JUST SAYING, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CAUGHT.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? YOU'RE GOOD.
UM, JUST, JUST TO COMMENT, I APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPER.
I'M WORKING WITH STAFF BECAUSE I CAN'T SPEAK TO ANYBODY ELSE UP HERE, BUT HEY, I APPRECIATE YOU WORKING WITH THEM STAFF.
I APPRECIATE YOU WORKING LONG HOURS.
SO JUST, UM, ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? WELL, DID YOU HAVE A PROPOSED MOTION? YEP.
WELL, I DON'T HAVE A PROPOSED MOTION.
I DO HAVE THE TWO CONDITIONS THAT WE WERE PROPOSING.
UM, AND I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER DUNKIN HAD A THIRD CONDITION.
SO LET ME, UH, SEE IF I CAN THAT A LITTLE LARGER, UM, UH, UM, A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITIONS AS STATED BY TOWN STAFF AND TO RECONFIGURE A PORTION OF THE, THE PORTION OF THE PLAN TO REMOVE THE DEAD AND ROAD AT THE POND.
HE ALREADY MENTIONED THAT I HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION I WAS IN FAVOR.
ANY OPPOSED? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS IN THE RECORD.
BEFORE HEARING, UH, JEN ITEMS NUMBER TWO AND THREE, UM, TALK TO STATE FOR THE RECORD, AMANDA, THAT'S RECUSED HERSELF FOR A POTENTIAL CONFLICT.
UM, SHOULD WE HEAR THESE BOTH TOGETHER OR IS IT SEPARATE ITEMS? YES, SIR.
SO, UM, AND BEAR WITH ME WHILE I'M ON THE PRESENTATION UP.
ONE IS THE ANNEXATION REQUEST.
AND THEN, UH, THE SECOND ONE IS THE ZONING REQUESTS.
SO, UH, PRESENTATION-WISE, THERE'LL BE, UH, TO PRESENT, OR YOU SEEN ME ONE PRESENTATION WITH TWO ACTIONS AT THE END.
SO, UM, AND IF YOU'D LIKE, I MEAN, I'VE GOT IT SITTING UP HERE RIGHT HERE.
UM, THIS IS THE ANNEXATION REQUEST, A HUNDRED PERCENT PETITION, UH, FOR THE 9.27 ACRES, UH, AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED AND APOLOGIST SAYS REZONING, UH, IS THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY TO GENERAL MIXED USE PURSUANT TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.
UM, SO FROM AN INTRODUCTION STANDPOINT, UM, APRIL OF THIS YEAR TOWN COUNCIL, UM, UH, AT ONE OF THE MEETINGS, UM, HAD A CONSIDERATION TO PROVIDE DIRECTION, UH, FOR STAFF REGARDING THE ANNEXATION, UM, INTO THE TOWN, UH, WITH THE ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF THE PROPERTY.
THAT'S OWNED BY THE TOWN, INTO THE TOWNS, MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES, UH, THEY DIRECT DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY ANNEXATION APPLICATION AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT REQUESTS AND TO ZONE THE PROPERTY GENERAL MIXED USE.
UH, AND THEN, UH, ON JUNE 29TH, UM, TOWN COUNCIL, UM, ARE IN ACCORDANCE TO 5, 3, 1 50, UM, TURN THEM OFF AN ANNEXATION POLICY AND THE PROCEDURAL MANUAL, UM, AND TOWN COUNCILS DIRECTION, TOWN STAFF ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY AND IT, WHICH IS THE TOWN SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION.
UM, THEY ASKED THAT THE PROPERTY BE ZONED, UH, THAT GENERAL MIXED USE,
[00:45:01]
UM, AND THAT THE INITIAL STEP WAS TO HAVE THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ANNEXATION PETITION AND THEN TO DETERMINE IF IT NEEDED TO GO TO THE NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE, THEY DECIDED THAT IT DID NOT NEED TO GO TO THE NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE.UM, SO JULY OF THIS YEAR, UM, TOWN COUNCIL VOTED TO ACCEPT, UM, THAT ANNEXATION PETITION.
UM, AND THEN AT THE AUGUST 25TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAD A WORKSHOP, UM, TO GO OVER THIS ANNEXATION AND ZONING MAP REQUEST.
UH, SO THIS EVENING, THE REQUEST IS FOR YOU TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, AND SO FOR THE TOWN COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION FOR ANNEXATION TO THAT, UH, GENERAL MIXED USE FOR THE PROPERTY AT ONE 15 BLUFFTON ROAD, I HERE'S AN AERIAL MAP OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, YOU CAN SEE, UH, THE REASON THAT IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S TWO PARCELS BECAUSE AT ONE POINT, UH, A, UM, RIGHT OF WAY WAS, UM, PROVIDED TO SE DDOT.
UM, AND THAT'S FOR A, A, A, A, UM, STORM PAWN, UH, NOT POINT, UH, STORM PIPE, UM, TO BISECT THE PROPERTY.
AND YOU CAN SEE FROM AN, A LARGER CONTEXT, UH, FROM A CURRENT STANDPOINT, THE CURRENT ZONING IS THAT T4 HAMLET CENTER, UM, WHICH IS THE FRONT PORTION OF IT, ABOUT ONE AND A HALF ACRES.
AND THEN THE T3 NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS THE REMAINING PORTION OF IT.
UM, THESE ARE THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, UH, YOU CAN SEE TO THE NORTH, UM, IT'S IN BUFORD COUNTY HAS THAT HAMLET CENTER, THE T4, UM, ZONING DISTRICT, UM, TO THE SOUTH, SAME, THE T4, UM, EAST TO THE WEST IS THE COMMUNITY CENTER MIXED USE.
AND THEN THE PROPERTY THAT MAKES THIS ALL, WHY WE'RE HERE, UM, WHICH IS THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
AND THAT IS THE BURNT CHURCH DISTILLERY.
AGAIN, WE'D PROVIDED A COPY OF ALL OF THE VARIOUS USES THAT WERE ALLOWED UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING, UH, IN BUFORD COUNTY.
AND THIS IS WHAT THE PROPOSED USES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THAT GENERAL MIXED USE.
UM, WE DID A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS.
UH, THIS WAS IN YOUR PACKET, DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO GO OVER THIS.
WE WENT OVER THIS LAST TIME, SAME HERE.
SO WE ARE HERE FOR THE REQUEST, UM, THEIR REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THE ANNEXATION.
UM, IF YOU'D LIKE WE CAN PULL IT UP AND GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THEM.
UH, THERE WERE 14 CRITERIA, UM, ALL MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
AGAIN, THIS IS IN THE, SO THIS IS IN THE FUTURE ANNEXATION AREA MAP, COPY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE FRAMEWORK, MAP, MIZ LOCATED IN THAT VILLAGE PLACE TYPE ASSEMBLY, ZONING MAP, PORTION OF IT, THE REVIEW CRITERIA, I'M HAPPY TO PULL UP AND GO THROUGH ALL THESE, UH, THEY ARE MET.
SO THIS EVENING WE'RE HERE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, UM, AND RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL.
SO YOU'RE EITHER, UM, OR, UH, ACTIONS THIS EVENING ARE TO RECOMMEND APPROVE, APPROVE, UM, WITH AMENDMENTS OR TO DENY THE REQUEST, TO TELL COUNCIL, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL.
THIS IS, THAT IS, THAT IS CORRECT.
AND WE WILL NEED TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF IT.
UM, WE JUST STARTED BEFORE OR AFTER I WOULD RECOMMEND GO AHEAD AND LET'S JUST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WHAT WE NEED IS A AND COMMISSIONER WETMORE.
I KNOW YOU'RE, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS, BUT JUST FOR EVERYBODY ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, THE WAY WE TYPICALLY OPEN UP SOMETHING FOR PUBLIC HEARING IS A MOTION TO OPEN UP AND THE AGENDA ITEMS FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
THERE'LL BE A SECOND, UH, VOTE.
AND THEN IN A CASE LIKE THIS, UH, THE COMMISSIONER WETMORE WILL CALL FIRST CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING SECOND CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING THIRD AND FINAL CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
AND THEN WHEN THERE IS NONE, WE'LL JUST SIMPLY SAY THERE BEING NO PUBLIC COMMENT, PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.
AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE PROCESS.
YOU HAVE A MOTION TO, UH, OPEN, UM, ITEMS NUMBER TWO AND THREE, 115 BLUFFTON ROAD, ANNEXATION AND ZONING MAC AMENDMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
SO MOVED YOU HAVE A SECOND AGAIN? FAVOR.
UH, FIRST CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEMS TWO AND THREE SECOND CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING
[00:50:01]
ON ITEMS TWO AND THREE THIRD AND FINAL CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, PUBLIC HEARING AND ITEMS TWO AND THREE THERE BEING NO PUBLIC COMMENT.UM, I CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND IF I, COULD I JUST GOING TO PROVIDE A LITTLE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THIS PROPERTY? SO, UM, OBVIOUSLY THIS PROPERTY OWNED BY THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON.
SO WE HAVE OWNED THIS PROPERTY FOR DECADES.
UM, IT IS, AND IT, IF YOU'VE LOOKED THROUGH THE REPORTS, IT'S BEEN EVERYTHING FROM A DUMP TO A FIRING RANGE FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
UM, YOU KNOW, AFTER THAT TIME, THERE WAS A LOT OF, UH, LEAD CONTAMINANT IN THE PROPERTY TOWN WENT THROUGH, DID AN ABATEMENT AND CLEANED THAT UP.
SO, UM, CURRENTLY, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH THE BURNT CHURCH DISTILLERY, UM, YOU KNOW, BEING ANNEXED INTO THE TOWN, WE'RE NOW CONTIGUOUS.
SO THE TOWN COUNCIL HAS, HAS BEEN VERY, VERY DIRECT ON WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
UM, THIS PROPERTY IS, UM, IT'S UNDER CONTRACT RIGHT NOW, UM, ARE UNDER CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS, UH, FOR A POTENTIAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT.
THAT'S GOING TO BE GOING THERE.
SO TOWN COUNCIL IS VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THIS PROPERTY, AND THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE COMING IN AND PROVIDING ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY, UM, AS THEY MOVE FORWARD.
NOW, AGAIN, ONE OF THE THINGS IN THE REASONS THAT WE'RE DOING THIS RIGHT NOW IS THAT ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF, UM, THE, UM, THE CONTRACT WE HAVE IS THAT THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE IN THE TOWN.
SO PART OF THAT PROCESS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, AS WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, UM, THAT WE HAVE THIS PROPERTY IN THE JURISDICTION.
SO WE HAVE JURISDICTION OVER, UM, TOWN COUNCIL, AS YOU SAW IN THE MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES THAT THEY'VE HAD.
THEY'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR AS TO, UM, HOW THEY ARE WANTING TO HAVE THIS PROPERTY ZONED.
WELL, AND TO REITERATE SOMETHING, YOU SAID A LITTLE EARLIER, UM, THE OTHER REASON PRACTICING 30 YEARS AGO, LIVING IN ONE OF THOSE TRAILERS, GUNS BEING FIRED IN THE CASE, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME.
THAT'S BEEN, UM, COMMENTS THAT WELL, DO WE WANT TO DUMB? I'M GOOD.
UM, ONE QUESTION I HAVE, I SAW, I THOUGHT I READ IT, WAS IT, IT WAS A LANDFILL.
WAS IT A DUMPING SITE, LIKE A CONVENIENCE CENTER LIKE WE HAVE, OR WAS IT A LANDFILL? NO, IT WAS JUST A DUMP.
THE TOWN, THE TOWN THREW DEBRIS THERE FOR YOU.
YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER, YOU KNOW, 60 YEARS AGO YOU JUST WENT OVER ONTO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND YOU JUST THREW OUT WHATEVER YOU HAD.
SO, SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S A CAP LANDFILL.
SO THERE'S NOTHING UNDERNEATH IT THAT LIKE, WHEN THEY STARTED DIGGING, WE'RE OPENING UP SOME CASES LIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ROAD IN SOUTH CAROLINA, THEY DID HAVE TO DO, AS YOU SAID, THEY DID HAVE TO DO REMEDIATION.
THEY DID THE REMEDIATION ON THAT AND CLEAN THE SOIL AND THEY HAD TO TAKE OUT QUITE A BIT OF SOIL AND REPLACE IT WITH CLEAN, CLEAN DIRT.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE THE REASON THAT THIS IS YOU'RE GOING FOR GENERAL MIXED USE HERE IS BECAUSE, UH, IT CREATES THE MOST FLEXIBILITY.
MY CONCERN FOR THIS IS THIS IS A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL, UH, UPS OWNING ON THIS PROPERTY AND THE TOWN CONSIDERED STAFF CONSIDER OTHER OPTIONS THAT STILL PROVIDED THEM FLEXIBILITY, BUT DIDN'T QUITE PUSH THE BOUNDS OF THE INTENSITY SO MUCH.
THE THOUGHT PROCESS IS COULD THIS GO INTO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT? THAT WAS ONE, ONE THOUGHT PROCESS WITH THAT OPTION THAT IT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MIXTURE OF USES.
YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE HIM MAKE SURE IF HE USES, YOU HAVE TO CREATE ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.
AND THEN YOU'RE CONFINED TO THOSE DOCUMENTS FOR HOWEVER LONG.
UM, THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE GIVES THE FLEXIBILITY, UH, TO BE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT WHAT IS NECESSARY.
UH, WE'RE STILL IN THE PROCESS.
WE DON'T KNOW IF, UM, THIS DEVELOPMENT MEANS THAT THERE MAY BE SOME COMMERCIAL COMPONENT TO THE FRONT OF IT, UH, IN ORDER TO OFFSET THE COST FOR THE DEVELOPER TO CONSTRUCT THE UNITS.
WE'RE NOT SURE IF THESE UNITS ARE GOING TO BE ATTACHED TOWNHOME PRODUCT.
WE'RE NOT SURE IF IT'S GOING TO BE AN APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH A RENTAL AND OR HOME OWNERSHIP, OR IF IT'S GOING TO BE A SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED PRODUCTS.
SO ALL OF THAT IS STILL IN THE WORKS.
[00:55:01]
THE ABILITY TO, TO, TO REZONE THIS, UH, OR TO ZONE IT AS THEY SEE FIT, UM, IN THEIR MIND, THIS IS NOT ENOUGH ZONING.UM, THIS IS THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD, UM, WITH THE, WHAT THEY HAVE PUT OUT IN THEIR STRATEGIC PLAN AS TO HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR, UH, THE CITIZENS OF BLUFFTON.
AS FAR AS I READ THE BEAUTY OF OTHER OPTIONS IN TERMS OF THESE, THE ZONING THAT COULD ALLOW THEM TO DO COMMERCIAL THAT COULD ALLOW THEM TO DO TAM TOWNHOME, COULD ALLOW THEM TO DO SINGLE FAMILY.
THE TOWN COUNCIL HAS DIRECTED US TO, AS YOU GO FORWARD WITH A GENERAL, UM, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, IS THERE ANY PERCENTAGE THAT THEY'RE INTENDING, I MEAN, WITH THE PLAN AS LOOSELY AS IT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED, THERE'S NO, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, THERE'S NO ARRANGEMENT THAT WOULD BE UNDER PURVIEW RIGHT NOW, EVEN TO BE LOOKING AT THE PERCENTAGE OF HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THIS ISN'T ENDING UP 75% COMMERCIAL AND 25%, AND WE'RE ONLY OFFERING A FEW HOUSES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE KNOW TOWN COUNCIL HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT THIS PROPERTY WILL BE USED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING? AND LET ME, IF I, A COMMISSIONER DUNCAN JUST INTERJECT, APPRECIATING YOUR CONCERNS AND UNDERSTANDING WHY YOU WOULD, WHY THAT PARTICULAR QUESTIONS I ASKED? UM, OBVIOUSLY IT'S IMPORTANT.
OBVIOUSLY IT PLAYS A BIG ROLE IN THE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF BLUFFTON, BUT AS FAR AS THE REZONING AND THE ANNEXATION, UH, THAT WHAT Y'ALL CHOOSE TO REZONE IT, THIS IS TOUGH TO DO WHEN YOU, WHEN YOUR APPLICANT IS THE TOWN.
UM, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLANS THAT ARE, OR AT LEAST IDEAS WITH THE CONTRACTS THAT ARE IN PLACE ARE BEING NEGOTIATED AS TO WHAT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED THERE.
BUT ULTIMATELY THE REZONING DECISION NEEDS TO BE INDEPENDENT OF WHATEVER IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED ON THAT PROPERTY.
SO AGAIN, THE CRITERIA IS FOR CONSIDERATION ON THE REZONING APPLICATION, UM, IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE NEEDED TO BE CONSIDERED, NOT AS MUCH, WHAT CAN WE DO TO CAN, WHAT CAN WE DO TO TRY TO, BUT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE WANT IN THAT LOCATION, IT NEEDS TO BE IS THIS INAPPROPRIATE ZONING DESIGNATION BASED OFF THE CRITERIA AND THE FACTORS.
AND I THINK STAFF'S OPINION AS TO THAT ON COUNCIL HAS BEEN PRETTY CLEAR TOO.
I WOULD JUST SAY, AND I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW, KATHLEEN, JUST TO, TO, JUST TO, JUST TO TELL YOU, MY, MY MINDSET ON THIS IS IT'S TOWN ON PLANT LAND, AND IT'S BEEN TOWN ON LAND FOREVER.
AND I DON'T, I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN.
I DON'T SHARE YOUR CONCERNS WITH THE CHANGE IN ZONING USE BECAUSE IT'S A PARTIAL DEVELOPER COMING IN HERE AT SOMETHING.
IF WE HAVE FAITH IN THE PROCESS, AND I DON'T HAVE CONCERN, YOU HAVE, UM, DO IT AS AN
AND WITH EACH PROPERTY IT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO TAKE AN ANALYSIS OF WHAT THE PROPERTY IS AND HAVE.
BUT THE THING ABOUT IT IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS A PIECE OF LAND.
UM, AND, AND ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU TAKE OUT HOW IT'S BEING DEVELOPED OR ITS INTENDED PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT, UM, CAUSE WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN HERE.
WE'RE LOOKING AT ZONING CONTEXTUALLY ON THE GROWTH MAP.
THIS IS IDENTIFIED AS MEDIUM DENSITY.
THIS GEM DESIGNATION, THE GENERAL MIXED IS, I MEAN, THE PURPOSE AND OF INTENT OF IT IS LISTED AS A HIGH INTENSITY MIX USE.
THAT'S IN CONGRUENT IF YOU ASKED ME.
AND THE FACT IS, IS THAT IT'S SURROUNDED BY ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT ARE INFLUENCED BY WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.
THE DENSITY OF WHAT, THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT PREVIOUSLY UNDER, YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS ALL UNDER THAT T3 AND BEFORE YOU'RE LOOKING AT A FAR LESS INTENSE PRODUCT THAN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED UNDER GM.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO INCREASE THE DENSITY.
BUT THIS SEEMS OUT OF ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT
[01:00:01]
AND IT JUST CAUSES ME GREAT CONCERN.AND I THINK WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT AN EQUAL PLAYING FIELD OF DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE BOARD, I THINK THE TALENT SHOULD BE HELD TO AT LEAST A SIMILAR STANDARD, EVEN IF THEY ARE THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY.
AND IT'S A PUBLIC PRIVATE DEVELOPER, THIS IS MY, THIS, THIS CAUSES ME MAJOR CONCERN FROM A DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT, UM, THAT UPZONING, UM, NO, I, I, I HEAR YOU.
AND I UNDERSTAND, AND I THINK, I THINK THERE'S TWO OF US AND THERE ARE OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT I'D LOVE TO, TO HEAR FROM BRIEFLY ON THIS.
I, AND YOU KNOW, I COME AT THIS FROM A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE.
THINGS DO CHANGE WITH TIME, GETTING CLEAR DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL.
THAT AGAIN, I BELIEVE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
THE OTHER THING, THE OTHER ISSUE THAT I HAVE WITH THIS IS, UM, THE NATURE OF THE INTENT IS AS YOU ANNEX PROPERTIES, NOT TO CREATE, UM, NOT TO CREATE HOLES NOW, AND, AND THIS TO ME, WHILE IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY CREATE A CLOSED LOOP, IT CREATES AN ODD FINGER COMING OFF.
SO TOO, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO CREATE A MORE CONTIGUOUS BOUNDARY FOR THE, FOR THE, FOR THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON.
THIS ACTUALLY CREATES TO ME MORE CONFUSION THAN IMPROVING THE SITUATION.
UM, AND IT DOESN'T REALLY CLOSE THOSE HOLES.
SO I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S EVEN MEETING THE INTENT OF THAT FOR ANNEXATION EITHER.
UM, ADDITIONALLY, A CONCERN I HAVE AND, AND I CAN STOP IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
BUT THE OTHER, ANOTHER CONCERN I HAVE IS THE INTENSITY OF THIS DEVELOPMENT WITH POTENTIAL, FOR THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL THAT CAN BE THERE AND THE AMOUNT AND OR AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL THAT WOULD BE THEY'RE COMING RIGHT OFF OF THAT TRAFFIC CIRCLE.
UM, THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH OF AN OPTION IN TERMS OF HOW YOU LIGHT AND SIGN THAT.
AND WE ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH ISSUES AT THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE, OBVIOUSLY A MAJOR TOWN ISSUE.
AND THIS IS ONLY ADDING TO THAT LOAD, UM, AND CREATING FURTHER CONGESTION RIGHT AT THAT TRAFFIC CIRCLE.
AND, AND THAT'S A HEALTH SAFETY, WELFARE CONCERN OF MINE.
THE ADDRESS THAT A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE DEPENDING ON ONCE THEY DO AN ASSESSMENT TO DETERMINE IF IT IS, IF IT GOES OVER, UH, TYPICALLY IT GOES OVER 50 TRIPS PER HOUR, UH, FOR PEAK, THEN YOU WOULD DO AN, UH, TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE WHAT OTHER IMPROVEMENTS WOULD THEN BE NECESSARY.
WHATEVER LET'S SAY THE TOWN DOES ANNEX ASSENT.
THERE WILL BE DEVELOPMENT PLANS THAT COME BACK.
COMMISSIONER WETMORE, UM, COMMISSIONER DUNKIN FOR ME, HAS RAISED SOME, YOU KNOW, SOME SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE AS, AS SHE HAS SAID ABOUT THIS GENERAL MIXED JUICE FIRST VERSUS SOMETHING, SOMETHING ELSE I DO REALIZE THERE'S GOTTA BE A BALANCE OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL AND, UM, ALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I WANT TO SEE THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE SO MUCH FLEXIBILITY HERE, AND I KNOW THE COMMISSION, THE TOWN COUNCIL WANTS TO DO IT, UH, THINGS HAPPEN AND, AND I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT THINGS HAPPENING THAT, THAT DERAILS US.
SO I, I DO HAVE SOME, SOME SYMPATHY FOR YOUR POINT.
I JUST THINK THAT IT'S IT'S SYSTEM WOULD, IN MY OPINION, GOOD POINTING PRACTICE AND GETTING THIS UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE TOWN.
I HAVE A QUESTION, UM, RECORD, HAVE OTHER PROPERTIES BEEN CONSIDERED FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING HEALTH ALTERNATIVELY TO THIS SITE? THERE ARE MULTIPLE PROPERTIES, YES.
[01:05:03]
QUICKLY.LET ME NOT TO NOT TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE.
UM, DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? THERE ARE TWO SUGGESTED ONES IN FRONT OF US FROM A DISCUSSION STANDPOINT.
UH, IF I MAY, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE FIRST ONE IS THE SECOND ONE AFTER LISTENING TO COMMISSIONED DUNCAN THAT I HAVE SOME, SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT AND COMMISSIONER DELCOR.
IF I MAY, BEFORE WE GET TO THE SECOND MOTION, ARE THERE ANY SORT OF QUESTIONS THAT STAFF, OR I MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER TO MAKE YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER? YEP.
HOW ABOUT WE APPROACH IT THIS WAY? HOW ABOUT WE GO AHEAD.
AND IF, IF, IF IT SEEMS LIKE THE FIRST ONE IS, UH, IS A NON-ISSUE ABOUT ANNEX, AND THEN CAN WE GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD? AND CAN I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE 100% ANNEXATION PETITION TO ANNEX CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY CONTIGUOUS TO THE TOWNS WILL HAVE TO CORPORATE BOUNDARIES CONSISTING OF A TOTAL OF 9.2 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
AND BEARING BUFORD COUNTY TAX MEMBER ARE 600 0 3, 9 0 0 5.
YOU MENTIONED NON-KIN OPPOSED.
UM, JUST TO CLARIFY, AND THE REASON I'M SAYING THAT IS I THINK IT CREATES A NEW ENCLAVE.
SO UNDER THE ANNEXATION CRITERIA, NUMBER FOUR, WHAT, WHAT I WOULD, WHAT, AND THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT, UM, THAT WAY IT'S IN THE MINUTES FOR COUNCIL, IF THEY SO CHOOSE TO ASK, UM, ON THIS SECOND PART, IF THERE ARE CONCERNS UM, NOW WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE VOTE, BUT, UM, AN AMENDMENT COULD BE MADE WITH A, WELL, LET ME JUST OPEN IT UP.
DO I HAVE, DOES ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS WANT TO ADD AN EMOTION? ABSOLUTELY.
UM, JUST SO WE'RE NOT STAYING HERE ALL NIGHT AND WE CAN SEE WHERE COMMISSION SITS.
UM, I RECOMMEND TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED REZONING OF REAL PROPERTY CONTIGUOUS TO THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON IS CORPORATE BOUNDARIES CONSISTING OF A TOTAL OF 9.27 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
AND BEARING ME FOR COUNTY TAX MAP NUMBER R 600 0 3 9 0 0 5 0 0 2 GENERAL MIXED USE PURSUANT TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE FOR A SECOND.
PASSES STAFF, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE FORWARD ON TO COUNSEL THAT SOME OF THE COMMISSION WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE HEAVY USE.
THAT WOULD BE ITEM THAT SECTION 3.4 0.3 0.8 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE LAND MAP OR PLAN, UM, BECAUSE IT WAS IDENTIFIED AS MEDIUM INTENSITY COMMERCIAL AND GM APPEARS TO BE HIGH INTENSITY USAGE.
I ALSO FOR SECTION 3.4 0.3 POINT C FROM A DENSITY, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AT THE CIRCLE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE STAFF OR ANYONE ELSE? MOTION TO ADJOURN.
[01:11:35]
THE COUNTY CHANNEL IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON VIDEO ON DEMAND.GO TO BUFORD COUNTY SC.GOV, SCROLL DOWN TO PUBLIC MEETINGS.
CLICK WATCH NOW, AND THEN CLICK THE VIDEO ON DEMAND BUTTON AND SELECT YOUR PROGRAM FROM BLISS CALL TO ORDER IF YOU'D LIKE A DVD OF THIS PROGRAM, CLICK ON THE LINK ON THE RIGHT AND FILL OUT THE ORDER FORM.
AND THANK YOU FOR WATCHING THE COUNTY CHANNEL.