City Council - Special Meeting

The special meeting of the Belmont City Council, we have a joint meeting tonight with our Planning and Zoning Board. Just as a reminder to everyone, my understanding is that this is a special city council meeting, so we'll be operating under our procedural rules. Boris, if there's anything that we need to do differently, please let me know. Okay, so at this point, I will entertain a motion to set the agenda. All right. Jim, second? Second. Seconded by Jason. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. The agenda is set. And for our first agenda item, we have Rachel with us to present. Or Kevin, are you taking it on, or how are we starting this? Okay. Tiffany, come on up.

good evening planning board and city council it's really good to see all of you and to um have you all in the room for this important dialogue tonight as you all may be aware the city is embarking on an update of our land development code this is a really critical step in ensuring that the comprehensive land use plan update that we just got adopted last year can be successfully implemented with the codes that we have in place for the development of the city and that goes everything from small infill or accessory structures all the way through mixed use and commercial developments and everything in between. So it covers a lot of different topic areas So in order to help staff to accomplish that goal, Frieza Nichols has been hired as the consultant to guide us through the land development code update process. And this, we hope, will be a facilitated dialogue and discussion this evening. And I will shortly turn it over to our team at Frieza Nichols to lead the discussion for you this evening. some housekeeping items we did place a handout on your table there in front of you and we know there's a lot of faces in the room tonight so as there are dialogues please feel free and we encourage you to write down some notes questions ideas that pop up in your head please Also engage in discussion, but we understand we have a lot of questions to get through tonight, and we don't want anybody's ideas to not be able to be entered into the room. So you can take those notes. You can give them to us anonymously, or if you have some questions or thoughts and you want us to be able to follow up with you directly afterwards, write your name on there. I have everybody's contact information, and when we collect those, we can make sure we follow up accordingly. So you can keep it anonymous. You can let us know who you are. Either one is perfectly fine, but I encourage you throughout tonight's discussion to take those notes and share as much feedback as you can with us. The more we have, the more our team will be able to pour in and help to make sure those particular areas of interest are properly addressed. So with that, I will go ahead and turn it over to the team at Friesen Nichols. And with us tonight are Alexis and I believe Liz.

Thank you, Tiffany. And just to piggyback on that, like Tiffany was saying, we have a lot of people here and a lot of, I'm sure, great ideas that are going to come out of this. So I want to facilitate an open discussion. If it gets a little crazy or back and forth, I might call it down a little bit, but I would like to see a good exchange of ideas and get the directions from everyone. So please feel free, as you think of something, to chime in if you need to. And if there needs to be any more order, I'll certainly let you know. Please, go ahead.

All right. Thank you very much. Like Tiffany said, my name is Alexis Garcia and I'm with Friesen Nichols. We are a multidisciplinary planning and engineering firm. And so we specialize in just what we're doing here today. Comprehensive plans, land use plans, and just really everything that has to do with how a city develops over time. And so what our goal here today is to work on updating the land development code and have a conversation with you all about what you think that those updates should be. As the people who are working the most with the code as a planning board, as the council, you're the ones looking at zoning changes, looking at development requests. You're really intimately familiar with what those needs and changes are and so we do want this to be an open dialogue about what those edits should be. So first, we're just gonna have introductions, a little project overview, and then really, we're just gonna jump right into it, having a nice discussion about what those things are as we're moving along. And so like I said, my name is Alexis. I'm serving as the assistant project manager. I am also joined with Danny Wilson. He was not able to join us today, but we are functioning as a project management team for this project. I also have Liz Hanson with us today. She'll be taking notes throughout the meeting, so don't worry. Along with the recording, we also have those notes being taken down. And then also Chris Westland is working on our GIS. And so as part of this process, we will be looking at updating the zoning map as well. So for this project, the main goal here is to update the LDC. It's to take a look at what's currently there, what needs to be updated, and how we can make those changes. One of the primary things is looking at meeting 160D, keeping up with all of the most recent state law changes that need to be updated as we're going along. Some of them are most recent, even as of this month. And so we just wanna make sure that we're in alignment with the current state laws, in alignment with the recently updated comprehensive plan, we wanna make sure whatever recommendations are in there are we're actually implementing into the code we'll also be looking at more consistency with the land development standards manual as well and so where those need to be in alignment where those need to be clicked together we can do that and like i said we'll also be updating the zoning map so once we identify the different zoning districts we'll also look directly at the map and make those updates as well So over this project, we have two primary phases. In phase one, we're looking at the diagnostic phase, where we're taking a look at the existing code, identifying what those issues and opportunities are to guide the development of the rest of the code. During this phase, we're looking at public engagement. We're going out. We're having listening sessions scheduled in August. We're here with you tonight, speaking with you all. We've already had conversations with technical staff. Really just finding out what does the community want out of this code? What updates do they think are... necessary as well as our review of the code and conducting a diagnostic to look at what are best practices, what's missing, what could be adjusted or what could make it more streamlined. And out of all of that, we'll have a code audit document. This will be a full diagnostic report document that will outline what we heard from the community, what kind of recommendations we have for the plan, and this document will help to guide the changes as we actually conduct the report. in phase two we'll actually be doing the grunt work of the project really getting in there getting our hands dirty and updating the code that's where we'll actually be doing the drafting doing module drafting doing each edit working closely with city staff to be able to make those edits to the code document so that at the end we have a new ldc report to be adopted by you all at city council In the second phase, we will also have a bit more public engagement. We'll have the LDC drafting, the final map, and then the final public hearing. So those will all be a part of that process. And when you're looking at the schedule, we got this all kicked off in June. In that time, we started our assessment and diagnostic review. We should be wrapping that up here in the August timeframe. That'll be followed by the code audit that I was just mentioning. In August and September, we should be able to start developing that actual code audit document and presenting that back to you all. And then we'll start the drafting around October through next year. At that same time, as we start to wrap up the drafting of the document, we'll start the zoning map update. And so we're aiming for adoption in about August of 2027. So just a little update to date. As we've gotten this project kicked off, we had an opportunity to take a citywide tour by city staff. We had a wonderful time being able to see the different neighborhoods, all the different characters around the community, how they all interact, what it looks like, what the infrastructure looks like, even walking around downtown. We also met with technical staff, really hearing about those who are working closely with the code day-to-day, permitting, engineering, planning staff. What are they seeing and how are they interacting with code? What kind of updates do they need? And then we've already started our diagnostic review, looking at the existing code and from our experience, what kind of updates we're looking at. And so that's just a brief overview of what we're looking at through this process for the code update. As we move into this next portion, this really is what we're here for. It's a discussion with you all. As the people who are approving zoning, having discussions with developers, creating with the future of what the community is going to look like. We want to make sure that we're hearing from you all about what kind of updates you think there should be in the code, as well as what shouldn't be changed, what's working well, what we should keep, how to maintain that character of the community. So in front of you, you do have a number of discussion questions that are intended to help guide the conversation. We can work through these one by one, but I don't want to stifle anyone's great ideas. This is intended to be conversational. Feel free to chime in if something comes to you. And like Tiffany said, if you just have too many thoughts, you can always jot them down and we can collect them after. Or if you leave this meeting and you realize you have additional thoughts, we can collect those as well. And so with that, are there any questions about the process? I forgot that I did not give you a moment.

Yeah, I have a quick question. So I noticed on the slide prior to this one, kind of a big, well, I'm sorry, keep going. that one okay the across the top public engagement so i understand the concept of having um community events where we bring people in we're asking them kind of what you want to see how does this work what are your thoughts what's your vision for belmont greater belmont what does the public engagement actually encompass is it just that one community outreach where we tell people to come in and we do the Envisioning with them or are there multiple things happening during that entire process of public engagement? What what is what is that engagement?

The meat of our public engagement is going to occur at the beginning of the process here in August We have an online survey that will be launched soon We also have a listening session or also known as plan Palooza that's going to be happening on August 20th and so we're inviting the community to come out and give their input and we also have a number of stakeholder uh interviews that will also be taking place so talking to those stakeholders who are more more engaged or more have targeted interest in the ldc update so those will all be a part of that i will say during the drafting portion it's going to be more in the face of updates to council and interaction with the community as well as on the project website the community does have the opportunity to give input throughout the process we are welcoming input as it comes in and so if as drafts are developed and as we're working on it if there is additional input to come in we're accepting that throughout the entire process and then towards the end we will have a presentation of the full code document and welcome welcoming further input from the community on what that'll any edits that need to happen before adoption okay thank you for that clarification It will be distributed soon, but I will ask for additional instructions.

Sure. So what we intend to do as soon as it's ready is it will be on the project website, so it will be available also linked through the city's website. We plan on putting it out on social media as well as potentially utilizing City Connect to get the word out to as many people as possible. We are also hopeful that folks will come out to Plan Palooza and will, by word of mouth, share how important this effort is and about additional public engagement opportunities.

Quick one to Tiffany, because we've mentioned this in the past. What about leveraging contacts we have at HOAs and stuff like that to see if they would be interested in circulating this information?

Sure. We absolutely can. We do have a working list. So what we can do is coordinate with Alexis and her team to make sure that we are looping in those groups and seeing if they would help us distribute that information.

Awesome. And one more quick question to the process. You mentioned stakeholders. What key stakeholders specifically are you referring to?

We're looking at a number of stakeholders, downtown groups, economic developers, real estate agents, local developers, property owners, just a wide variety to get a variety of opinions around the development process.

Okay, the only thing I'll say on that, because we've talked about this before, is that doesn't need to take priority or a higher weight than what our community is saying, right? Because that's some of the feedback we've received is that folks believe that some of our codes have been more geared to an open development policy rather than accommodating the existing population here. So keep mindfulness of that.

Sure, and the other group that Alexis hasn't mentioned that we were thinking needs to be in the room are the environmental advocacy groups to make sure that any regulations or areas of interest or concern are taken into consideration when we're doing the code update. We will be making a list of invitees or things like that. So all of that is still in the works and hasn't been finalized yet. But we do want to make sure that we hear from people that are using the code every day as a component but absolutely heard. It does not take the voice of what the total result should be for the members of the community. That voice is absolutely a priority and needs to be represented as the outcome.

Yeah, Freddie, go ahead.

While you got the schedule up, are these key points, are there touch points where you're going to come back to either the planning zoning board or city council just for updates along here?

We'll be working with city staff to present updates to you all throughout the process, especially at key points where we're going to need input. So say as we're drafting and we want to get your ideas or input on a certain section, maybe we're looking at landscaping, maybe we're looking at a certain zoning district, we'll bring that back to you, work with city staff to get that in front of you to get that feedback so we can continue with the drafting process.

Can I jump back to what Alex was saying one second ago about the key stakeholders? Because I think that's kind of like this nebulous term that's out there, who those people are and who will be identifying them as a key stakeholder. Once the initial list of those is developed, Tiffany, I assume you're going to be helping do that. Is that something that maybe all of us can look at? And if there are people that we feel like should be that are not, that they can be added on? And this is not something I'm not thinking necessarily they need to be involved at the nth degree, but at least notified of these things, making sure we're making an affirmative step to make sure those people are involved. I just don't want to miss anybody.

Absolutely. We had this conversation on some of the previous plan efforts, too. We want to make sure that we're inviting the right people into the room, so we can absolutely draft up some of the initial thoughts that we have and send them out to whoever is the most appropriate to review those and give feedback. The one thing I want to make sure of is that We have a process for doing so that's efficient enough that we can give out proper notice to all the invitees to participate at the scheduled dates. But we'll be looking to do that here probably in the next week or so, so we can get that information out as soon as possible and coordinate with you all to make sure that the right people are in the room for all of those conversations.

That's a good point. Maybe one to add, too, just to keep in your mind, historic preservation, whether it's through the county and or any of the local chapters as well.

Yeah, so... You all, actually, City Council, one of the things that we are looking to do, thanks to your decisions and leadership, is to hopefully hear back about the grant for the updated architectural survey. That grant notification we've heard might now be by the end of August. And so... In order to maximize dollars and scope and not to overlap too many things, one of the things that we talked about with the historic preservation piece is to maybe go ahead and capture some initial feedback and stories from the public at Plan Palooza, but to have that consultant team, whenever they're able to get mobilized, actually provide some of that feedback and data directly to Alexis and her team to be able to incorporate that in and have some supplemental stakeholder or focus group conversations to help inform the code.

Awesome, thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Tiffany.

Sure, so when we think about this as planning staff, we think comprehensive land use plan, high level, and these are the rules that help us get there, right? So it's just more of a fine tooth comb situation. The public feedback that was provided during the comprehensive land use plan will all be provided to Alexis and her team. So it doesn't go away and it doesn't get replaced. This is an additional level of refinement about what we've already heard. So it's just building on and layering those things in place the other thing is we have several different long-range planning efforts going on right now and so let's say alexis's team here's something but it may be more relevant to the downtown small area plan team our consultants have all met as a group and they understand the importance of information and feedback sharing so that that tidbit of feedback will be shared in the appropriate place to be incorporated and considered

All right, any other questions before we decide how we want to tackle discussion?

All right.

Any other questions? Thank you, Tiffany.

You're welcome.

I appreciate that. Well, I'm open to suggestions here. We have 15 in front of us. I think we could probably fall down rabbit holes on every one of them. So do we want to just pick them off one by one?

Get that gavel ready, Joe.

I'm telling you. I'll be rolling around on the floor here. I mean, I think we just go through them. Maybe there are some that demand more time, maybe there aren't. And I think the best way to do it is just to kind of chip away at it, so let's go.

Works for me. Okay, so starting off with, you know, what is currently working well? Because we don't want to break something that's already, if it's working, we don't want to touch it. And so what we're thinking about is, in your experience, what's working well with the code that we should maintain?

I think this comes from the planning a lot more. What do y'all see when something comes in and you're evaluating this or the world that you're living in, what you see working well? I mean, because we've kind of, you've already been involved by the time we hear it. So I guess this really goes to your point.

My thought related to questions, if there's any theme across the three pages that we kind of know and more in advance about some of these questions that might relate to one another, instead of just tackling one by one, that we can kind of shape the discussion around multiple questions so it's not, oh, well, we just covered that on page one. That kind of relates to page three.

So really, the first couple of questions are looking at what's working well and what's not working well. What do we want to see? It's really those high-level themes of what do we need to keep, what do we like in the community, and what do we want to change? Then the middle section is really digging into some kind of specific elements of the code that we just want to get some feedback on. You see stuff talking about tree preservation and landscaping, looking at the downtown standards, which would tie a lot with the downtown plan as well. looking at how do we maintain the character, looking specifically at commercial and mixed use. But then towards the end, it's really more about kind of more procedures and things that we should be fixing that are maybe higher level, global from the community. What are we hearing from the community that or you all are hearing from the community, what are common complaints, what are common issues that every time a case comes before you, you're hearing the same thing over and over. And so I think the first part really is kind of a double-edged sword of when we say what's well, what's working well, also it also comes with what's not working well. And then, oh, we really like this in our community because the code is working so well, versus, oh, the code keeps breaking and we don't like this type of development. So I think this first section really is more of what's working well and what's not working well. And those might just come out as a dichotomy in your brain.

You've already broken them up into these categories. That's great. Here's how that works. Perfect.

Yeah, I agree. Somebody throw something out there that you think works well.

This might be kind of a combination, but just in my point of view, when we've sat here and had applications come before us, the things that work well is that we have a pretty good summary of how staff has interacted on this application you know from the standpoint of the application was submitted maybe a year ago and it's just to us now however long that may be so i'd like that we're able to see how the staff has progressed to getting this application to a point where it's more in line with what our code says i know as a planning and zoning board we discussed wanting to be notified when the community meetings are happening so that we could actually participate in those if we wanted to instead of just seeing a summary because I think a lot of times our board said well did these questions come up and sometimes the community will come to us and ask the same questions and we just are wondering well how was that responded to so that that's kind of that end of things and then I think one of the other things we're constantly seeing is that when there are either requests for exceptions or variants, not variants, I know that's a more formal process, but when we can look at different exceptions to a site plan, I feel like, and this is just me talking, I feel like it would be good to do an assessment of that and see what are the constant exceptions that are being requested and what are being granted. Because I don't know if we follow a consistent process when we're doing that. So it would just be good to see, like, I think we're taking an application by application versus a large view of we're constantly doing exceptions for this, this, and this. Can we address that in the code?

So having more consistent exceptions in the code, but that you make a good point if we're constantly making that exception, should that be the standard? And that's an example of what we can look into through this process. Right.

I think something that came up to that, and tell me if I'm wrong, my colleagues here may know better than me, was the buffer discussion. That continually comes up to the point where we almost, I think council almost decided to change it and waited before they did. So something like that where, Fred, as you're saying, that constant, something that's being asked over and over and it's just having to be rehashed every time in the process. So that's a good point. I think I would ask, maybe playing Zoni here, the board, do you see staff that's coming to you and saying, or you see frustration in the staff when you're going through the process with staff on any specific points? Do you hear from that? That staff doesn't think this is working well and they're coming to you and saying that? Or is it kind of just living at y'all's level that you're making the determination?

I think by the time they come to us, they've worked through whatever they've worked through. They come to us with smiles.

That's impressive. Good job. That's not what people come to us for. That's right. We do not get that.

There's a strong recommendation from staff how to address some of these issues. It's constantly recurring. And it tends to be something that is a trend. But a lot of times, it's just brought up by the applicant. And then the staff has a great recommendation of how to accommodate that with the code and make an adjustment.

Whoops.

But part of that is by design, because it's always been that the Planning and Zoning Board is the more technical expertise. Frequently there have been architects and engineers and attorneys and whatnot on the board. So you can really look at some of the nuts and bolts based on you all's particular background and experience, where I do think council's perspective is more of a general policy, broader strokes, what's the, you know, the benefit and harm to the the community as a whole, and we're not probably going to get into the, you know, we can we have sometimes get into the technical weeds as much as you all do. I mean, so some of that's by design. I think that it works the code works well and that there there's a number of opportunities for public engagement certainly more opportunities than there were when you know I came on board in 2019 we now have and for a lot of projects there are two community meetings where there used to be only one so there have been amendments made to to strengthen the public engagement but talking about the amendments i think that's a pro and a con there have been a number of amendments over the last six years and counting since i've been on council and to some extent that's good because we've been addressing holes and flaws and we've been active in saying all right here's a problem there's a problem we need to fix that we need to clarify that we need to make it more clear whether it's the requirement of a traffic study, which I think we've worked to strengthen that. But at the same time, doing that, and I know staff always does look at, well, let's look and make sure that this is consistent, if there's any cross-references, that they're consistent. But I think it's hard to have so many amendments and retain overall cohesion I think you could whenever whether the the amendment comes from staff itself or whether it comes from council direction you can work fairly fairly well to make sure that that particular amendment is cohesive within itself and makes sense and everything we're amending in that particular time makes sense. But I think it's impossible not to have some situations and they've been brought up on occasion over the years where perhaps now one aspect of the code is sort of inconsistent or it cross purposes with another portion of the code and it would probably be good to clean up and have a holistic approach that everything is cohesive you don't have one section that seems to be more flexible whereas another section is you know rigid about buffers and setbacks whereas another section says the goal here to be is to be flexible and And I think that's something that needs to be understood too, is that how does a code work? Is it something that is rigid? Because some folks seem to think it should be rigid and like the Ten Commandments, and oh, this developer's asking, if it's not in the code, then why are they asking for it? They shouldn't be allowed, the code says what the code says, whereas I think other folks, and I might be one of them, would think that it's more, you know, here's the default. This is sort of the stand, you know, the default standard of what we want to see, but it's built in to allow for some flexibility in amendments. And then, like has been mentioned, when you start to see multiple times where people ask for amendments from the same provision, that might be an indication that those sections are ripe for amendment.

So I have a two-part question. You're talking about the flexibility versus the rigid. Are there other thoughts from other people? That is what we're looking at. Should it be more flexible, have more flexibility in there, or should it be rigid and very objective? Are there other thoughts? Maybe planning board as the first line of defense.

And if I might add one more dimension to that, there is also the aspect of flexibility. how much should be left say to the discretion of staff without ever coming to the planning board or council and that might be handled administratively versus what might council and planning board want to see and be able to weigh in on. And what are the impacts of each approach for the overall code and structure.

So I think both of those questions go together then, because that is what we're looking for today, your thoughts and opinions on should it be more flexible, should staff have more autonomy to approve some of these things, or do you want it to come before this body? This is purely just a thought. So as we're updating the text, we can give it more objective criteria, or we can keep it more flexible so that you have the ability for oversight.

During the five or six years I served on that board, it never turned down. So, you know, to the point about whether or not we need to have more efficiency, what we allow, etc. Thank you.

Do any of these exceptions come to mind? Because I've heard constantly getting the same exception, but is there an example you can speak to that might be?

Yeah, we get a lot of questions about buffers.

Like side setbacks, rear setbacks, like especially along Wilkinson Boulevard, which is 30 feet, I believe, but many of the lots there are... more narrow and so that frequently comes up in order to locate a business on these lots and again that leads to our our policies at cross purposes where on the one hand we say we want to encourage development on the wilkinson corridor, but on the other hand, we have these provisions that offer a lot of red tape and seem to be detrimental to the development that we say we want to foster and encourage.

Yeah, I think that It's out there, right? That's out. Developers know that about Belmont. That's my understanding is they kind of know our rules. They look before they invest, right? They kind of want to know what they're getting into. And then they see this and they're like, well, that lot would not work for this. And so I wonder, and we'll never know this, but I wonder what we miss by having that specific thing that we would probably just say, okay, we can give you an exception for that. But because, like Jim's saying, because it's there and it's in black and white, and if I were going to invest into Belmont and I saw a lot of light, I might say, oh, well, I can't do what I want to do there because you've got to have a 30-foot setback. But knowing, like we know, we're like, well, why is that a problem? We're probably just going to give them an exception to it that it does make sense that I mean, I don't know that it's necessarily a rigid process that's in place, but an easier way to address that and maybe not push off those initial investors that are just taking that 100-foot view.

we released that I believe but they're talking about the buffer actually coming off the road like if you see that massive sidewalk that's like coming into Belmont that would have been a requirement and you have to watch out for being

counterproductive in what we're doing that, you know, I've certainly heard, you know, on the one hand, we're trying to, you know, we want oversight and we want control because I will say, you know, and I think my colleagues on council, as elected officials, you're the ones that hear about things. You're the one that people call, how could you approve that?

How could you approve that?

So if it's going to go through and we're going to get the feedback and we're going to get the criticism or whatever, we might as well have control over what we're going to be criticized for. And so that, I think, is a temptation that we want to have a say over a lot of things because if we're going to be the ones that have to answer for it in the community, then we want to have control over that as opposed to, well, it was an administrative decision. Is that really going to How does that go over? On the other hand, if you're too rigid and you have too many of these things, I know I hear that people do say, I don't want to go anywhere near Belmont. I don't want to go through that process of nickel and diming and haggling with city council over everything. And then at the end of the day, might not get it approved anyway. And so that steers people more towards the administrative things that when we say we'd rather do conditional zoning or whatever, I think that might have a counterproductive effect of steering, well, I want to do whatever I can to get away from having to deal with city council, and you end up with things that might not be as good because of that, because they're going to do whatever they can do administratively without having to come to us and engage in the process.

Well, Jim, that's where my headspace immediately went because we've had this conversation before, like over the four or five years I've been on, right? The reason why we want that two-prong approach, you want the rigid approach so that it can force conditional use so that we can be accountable to what we're bringing into the community, right? So, I mean, that's why, and I still believe it's the best option, particularly in a day and age where our zoning abilities continue to be stripped away from us. If you take something out of the code, You probably can't add it back in due to certain laws that have been passed by the state. And I know over the past four years, I know Jason, Mark's not here, but a lot of those text amendments that were more recently brought through and the late Mayor Richard Turner was envisioned to create a conditional use perspective or force it conditional so that we as a council who are elected and accountable for what comes to our community are voted by us. right and it's not all bad i mean you think about what we get from conditional uses you get money to build roads you get money that helps support our infrastructure right you get to actually pick and choose in some instances of what we get in the community so i mean i think again i'm definitely for the rigidness because it's the only tools we have available to us because the state continues to take them away from us which i think alex makes a good point and i don't know how you

can handle that in your task. Because you can write a great code, but when the state comes along and says, oh, we really strengthened our traffic study requirements and the requirements for TIA or TTM or whatever. And when the state comes along and says, oh, well, that doesn't apply to off-site development. That doesn't apply in this instance. That doesn't apply in that instance. you know, how effective is it, how, you know, a lot of these different, that's just one example, but, and I don't know what you can really do about that, because you're not in the state, you don't control the state legislature, but that always is, no matter how strong a code is, there seems to be, you know, you know, hovering over us, the potential that the state can come along and whatever the worst possible solution is to something, that's what they choose. And they say, we can't, you know, states, you can't regulate this, you can't do this, you can't do that. So...

It definitely creates a challenge for us in our role. We're facing this in other communities, not just here, where how do you write a code when you've stripped away all of our control to be able to do that? So that is true, and it's something that we're actively working through. that we'll be looking at through the code to make sure we're in alignment and see where those opportunities are. What I will say is that there is something to be said for a level of certainty for developers. So while conditional zoning does provide control, and that does make sense when so much control is being taken away, there's something to be said that a developer can look at the code, like you said, know what's going to be happening, and they go, yeah, this works for me. And then they can just develop and know how much it's going to cost. And that works out if you all are comfortable with what the standards say, then it's okay to give that control to staff to just administratively approve it because you've all agreed that this is the standard that we believe is appropriate for a Belmont. So I think that's where the balance comes of keeping that control, but also maybe giving a little more... administrative authority.

And maybe that's where you all can help work us through, because I think I get what you're saying, but I don't think, speaking from counsel, that there's any sort of comfort with the standards as they exist, whether that's sufficient if that's fair to say if we if we as part of this process could become comfortable with those standards or we say all right, this is all well and good. And so you meet these standards, you know it doesn't have to come to us, it can be administratively approved, but I don't think there's that comfort level. based on our experience over the past time that any of us have been on council.

Well, it's also difficult too, Jim, because it's not one shoe fits all in our area. We're very unique that we're on a peninsula that's very choked right now as it pertains to traffic and infrastructure. I mean, additionally too, you know, I do believe we have the secret sauce in a lot of instances because if you look at our downtown and our main street, I mean, it's thriving. We've got people who want to come here who want to shop here who want to live here so there's something to be said that we're doing right right so it's not to say it's all doom and gloom and we're not attracting the best out there it could just be say we're not attracting the people who want to come into our community and bully us right you know I mean there's there's ways to approach it without it just all seeing doom and gloom and as you could probably tell Jim I'm not really necessarily open to undoing what we just recently did from my own perspective because we spent the last better four years trying to gain that control back so that we could get the cart back behind the horse as opposed to the other way around. And I think that's pretty a common thing when you see it in the most recent elections too, right? I mean, when you poll the people, you hear the people of what they want. It's associated with control over the development that's coming into our community so we can maintain our small town charm.

So if there is concern about control due to the criteria, I don't want to throw this back at you, but that is why we're here. What are examples that we could, if you're looking for that level of control and you're cutting those deals to make sure the development looks and functions the way you want, are there elements that we could incorporate into the code that if you're constantly making the same exception, the same criteria, conditions within the zoning, we could actually put that into the code to make sure everybody has to do that. It may not work in every case, but it could ease up on some of those regulations to make it more easy. Ashton?

Well, I feel like Going back to Wilkinson Boulevard example, it's kind of, you have a kind of a visual goal. You have one of the multi-use pair, one of the kind of, Crate Myrtle treescaping along the boulevard, but then you have these small parcels that don't align with the buffer requirements and then the full size template wide multi-use path. So from a technical perspective, trying to make sure it aligns with what the community has said in previous feedback. Public input opportunities that they provided, but some of those things aren't working and from a Community perspective and then planning and zoning and city council, what are the things that we're willing to change to put. More of a staff approval level that are low hanging fruit that we needed this modify that you know it's. Balancing the authority of conditional zoning but also. what have we already been informed by the public to go ahead and make our lives easier based on those.

Is there anything specific that planning, as the board is seeing, is like, man, you're like, this again? You know, I mean, you ask us this every time.

You're constantly reducing a buffer, constantly reducing landscaping.

Well, infill you probably wouldn't see. I think based on the amendments we've made though, most major developments that would require a traffic study at a minimum are going to come through conditional zoning now, but probably infill would not require that.

So generally look at Wilkinson Boulevard overall, see how we can fix it to make the development more achievable and specifically the buffer, possibly look at lessening, because it sounds like that's the challenge of making the lot developable by having such a deep buffer is what it sounds like.

Yeah, sure. Go ahead.

code seems to be working well and I tend to agree with that because the board hasn't been called to a meeting in several months so it must be doing its job because we're not being required to grant relief but I do agree that relief and the conditioning process that we offer does give us a sense of control this code famously started as a form-based code and as of now in recent years my reading of the minutes seem to imply that it's becoming something more of a hybrid and perhaps But it seems to indicate that that seems to be the future. But maybe a return to a form base would give us more leverage in these discussions of control. I'm not sure, but maybe that's something that could be explored. Certainly buffering is the number one topic. When I read through all the minutes before I joined this board, it's the number one thing that goes on. But maybe it's not as simple as saying reduce it by much. Recently, one of the most recent cases of the, what is it? the petrol station, the gas station, they reduced that buffer from 30 to 50 because of an elevation requirement. And the question I asked was, was there a ratio that we use? Was there some sort of mathematical prediction that we can apply here? But there wasn't a rule of thumb. So maybe some kind of examination of the conditions we've granted relief for regarding buffering in the past. Why were we allowed to reduce that? Was it because of elevation? Maybe that could give us the clue for how we can solve this buffering problem. One of the other interesting things I observed about the code in that same project with the petrol station, with the gasoline station, Section 5.15 applies to this. There's two acres minimum required. I don't know if any of us could answer the question why we had that. So maybe a return to what are these specific sections offering us? Are they giving us control? Is there a reason we have them? Maybe a return to why behind it.

I think that's a very good point that perhaps you are looking from the outside can, you know, why do you have this requirement? Why do you have this requirement? And if the answer is, well, this is how it was when we got here, we don't really, you know, then that might be an indication that maybe that's prime for, Because I would be willing to bet there's a fair number of things like that, that at whatever point it made sense, but in this, you know, whoever put it in there or drafted it is long gone, and the folks here dealing with it don't really know why it's there or what purpose it serves.

Chair, could I add one more thing to this?

Sure, yeah.

On the 21st of August in 2025, someone named Dylan Gearing from Surrey, I think another consulting company, said to our board, and this aligns with what the councilman mentioned over there, Belmont is running out of undeveloped land, and as more land is used, leveraging that investment is going to be important. Perhaps that can really guide our review of this code and actually secure this control. to make sure we're maximizing the leverage in this plan.

I mean, it's a good point too. I mean, if you think about it and look at Belmont at what city proper, I mean, there's not that many large tracts of land left to be developed. You're thinking Pittenger 2 and 3, maybe some infill, the Stowe property the city just acquired, and then the Karstarpin properties. And then, of course, anything in North Belmont, but there's only a select few. And that almost leverages me back to my example of being more specific in regards to what we can get into the city of Belmont because we're really becoming almost tapped as to what we would want or could get, I guess, from a large scale.

So just overall, hearing that go back and forth, it brought something up in my mind, and I've always wondered this, but you're absolutely right, right? Belmont, and we have a finite amount of Belmont to go around and to be developed, and that it will ultimately be redeveloped at some point that I probably will never see. but wilkinson boulevard we bring it up all the time and there's just something about that whole corridor that has it's always missed the spark that has just made it redevelop into something else other than what it is for a long time has looked the same as long as i can remember driving roses as a kid you know everything looked the same down there and is it What is it that has kept that from happening? Is it something in our code that has prevented people from coming in and redeveloping it? Is it the fact that a lot of the lots are shallow and you would have to piece together a lot in order to do something larger? What is ultimately the lack of a catalyst to make that area take off? And if it's something that's in the code that maybe we're just so used to hearing we don't know, As Jim was saying to you, I would love to know that's the case. It doesn't mean it's going to change, but I would also love to know, put an asterisk on it so that we know that this is something that is having unintended consequences.

And it could be a mix of all of these things, to be honest. The existing lot size and then the regulations being applied to it just make it that much harder. And so it could be that one simple change could spur new development or it could be overhauling the entire thing. And so we can definitely take a look at that to see how we can better encourage development and make it easier for that.

Well, I'm sorry. No, you go ahead.

I just feel like, generally speaking, the practicality of our downtown, the character that we want to see, Wilkinson Boulevard, drawing in more commercial opportunities, making it a gateway, the things that we have small area plans for, the practicality of some of those visions aren't meeting up with LDC and how those need to be applied. There's conflicts between actual parcel size and restrictions on the site that don't align with the vision that the community wants. So how do we balance the two and make it where we're meeting in the middle and finding out what's best that where it can be restricted and have conditional zoning that we can look at but it also is practical so i just feel like there's generally speaking there's those two are conflicting with one another across the city and especially in our specific areas where we're drawing attention and really trying to talk specifically about character

And along those same lines, are there other thoughts about how we can protect the character? Because I've heard a little bit about protecting the riverfront, re-envisioning Wilkinson Boulevard, if that's going to be what represents Belmont. What is that? So are there other ways the code can maybe look at that? So aligning the vision with the code and LDC update, looking at the buffers, but are there other ways that we can protect the character here through the code update?

Yeah, I don't want you to think that I would ever envision Wilkinson Boulevard being what identifies Belmont. Belmont's identity is tied up in a lot of things. Downtown, Belmont Abbey, all of our small communities. That's really our history with Mills. That's what brings our identity. That's what makes us Belmont. Now that's not to say that Wilkinson couldn't develop in a way that enhance that vision of belmont and that identity and i think we all here share that exact same desire is that we want to see balance identity maintained we want to see belmont thrive and be successful on all accounts Now, what does that mean? Well, that means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. And it takes a lot of different things to keep a town like Belmont moving forward, but thriving and being successful for the people that invest here. And so when I look at this, I can't get into the minutia of the code. I can, but that's not where I live. That's where a lot of the people on this board live. And so I want to be able to lean on the people that have the expertise to know, but then ultimately to know, that there is some overarching level of protection, as Alex likes to tell us, that we can maintain it, that we can have the things that help us develop in smart ways. And I think that's what our community wants to see. They want to see Belmont develop in smart ways. consciously intentional ways, but also doing it in a way that maintains our identity. I don't think we're reinventing the wheel either. There are a lot of places that have old historic downtowns that have done a really good job of infill development, even new developments that come in that really enhance that. for the people that live there. And that is always going to be my number one thing, is maintaining this identity that Belmont has. But that doesn't mean that we can't do this or that or whatever, or that we have to sit on our hands and not do anything. But we just have to be extremely intentional about it because me, Jim, Alex, Jason, you know, we will have one real chance at getting this right. And that's what I lose sleep over at the end of the day, is knowing that under our watch that we let something slip by, or we let a piece be developed in a way that was just completely opposite as to what really Belmont should be. When I think what should the code be, that's a tough answer for me because I don't get into it like you do. But what I can tell you is what Belmont is to our community and what they want to continue being. I say all that to say that the answer is somewhere there in the middle, and that's why you're here. That's why you guys are here, and that's why we have the staff that we have to help us get to that. I think we all come with the same desires. Just reaching those is what, we need guidance on as well.

Yes. make up our character obviously on the surface level it's going to be architecture it's going to be trees going to be sidewalks but perhaps it could be broader and even more my news as well is it fortresses it's skyline is it the lampposts are they the street sign names the store front signage It's going to be a long list. We started here, but no doubt.

If I can add something quick on that. I think that we talked about character and everything. I think a lot of that has already been defined through our other planning processes. So I don't know if this should spend a whole lot of time trying to redefine the character. It should be, what is the regulatory framework to put that character in place?

You're correct. So we're not you did all this during the comprehensive plan. You've identified what that is. But as we go in, we're going to pick out those specific things. Is it a porch? Is it a sign? That's the right way to think about it. Because when people say character, it's really hard to put tangible things to that. You just you just know this is Belmont. But as you're comparing a development to the code, you then have to align, okay, well, in this area, your signage needs to look like this. In this area, your height needs to be limited to this, because this is what I think of when I think of Belmont. So what we're gonna do is take the information from the comprehensive plan, but then, of course, putting in those tangible regulatory elements here. And so the question isn't what's the vision, but what should we be doing to protect it? And so you're thinking about it the right way. Just to keep us moving along, fantastic conversation by the way, I do a lot of meeting facilitation and so this is great. Just to make sure that we're moving along, is there anything missing from this code? So we've talked a lot about exceptions, we've talked a lot about what needs to stay, different areas to look at, but is there something that you've always thought, why isn't this in here, why aren't we addressing this, something that you're concerned about?

You may have been reading online.

And I think that's a question. How can the code adapt or be, I mean, because sometimes things, you know, 10 years ago, what's a data center? So obviously you can't have a list of everything and how it's gonna be regulated, but we have run into this three or four times over the last couple years where a certain type of use or business comes along and there are problems and sensitivities and concerns with it, but oh, it's not defined in the code, so it's just treated like a regular old business or whatever, and by the time we realize, whether it's Airbnbs or, yes, tattoo parlors, or food trucks, say, or, what's that? Food truck alley. I mean, those are just some prominent examples. Solar panels, data centers, gun shops. By the time we realize, oh, yeah, That would be nice to, we've got some concerns, that would be nice to have that in the code. Somebody's already applied and we're stuck with the code as it was when they applied. And it doesn't really deal with, but by the same token, you can't anticipate. There are things that will probably be prevalent 10 years from now that we, if you asked us today, we wouldn't even know what they are. So I don't know how you deal with that, but there has to be some sort of flexibility because I feel like sometimes it's like whack-a-mole around here where it's like we're always, oh, this pops up, oh, oh, we'll deal with that, but it's too late to address the issue as it came before us.

you are you're not incorrect this is not unique here everyone is dealing with the exact same issue actively right now as a matter of fact I was on a conversation with other planners earlier today hey what are you doing hey what are you working on and they're all taking different approaches is what I can say and so as part of this process we're definitely going to look at data centers to see what the best practices are what are other communities doing what's working those that have already implemented to see what's going to work what's been working there and what's going to work here because different tools are available in different

Because the fear is, and I will reiterate this because it seems like it perhaps went over.

Please speak clearly, Jim.

There are no applications for data centers currently pending. There are no plans. There's nothing before us. Nobody has filed an application to bring a data center to Belmont. But we want to have this conversation because... Our fear is what happens if somebody should do that before we have the regulatory framework in place, and then they get the version of the code that was in effect when they filed their application. That's the fear. That's why we partook of the exercise.

Yes. That's right. All right, let me pause for one second. I just got a message that there needs to be a mic adjustment. So if you were out there or hearing us, we need to know what that adjustment might be. Oh, perfect.

And I think that's what we were asking staff to help us understand where does that fall if it was a buy right? I think we had discussed high level maybe like in the light industrial or something of that scale, but I think I was... Okay, yeah.

So yes, that's a great point. And of course we want to look into the crystal ball and see what's coming as we know that we're very limited in our ability to do that. But that's a good point, is not to future-proof it, but we know these things are there, and it's not just data centers, it's other things, but ensuring that we're making the correct adjustments to meet those challenges if they come. Yeah.

One second. Jim's comments, essentially, but to your point, it could be liquor stores, it could be tattoo parlors, it's all these different things that are already permitted within the code. It's just the land use feedback that we've received from various planning processes don't align with the vision. And so now we want to have liquor stores and town center style locations. But before, now we're making these small modifications to the code to allow for making an allowance because it just doesn't make sense. It doesn't line up. But we don't want a total line on South Point Road. And so just essentially just converting the same things, but thinking ahead in the future of data centers and things like that, definitely. But it also relates to this, the current across the entire board.

But the guardrails we've had in place have worked on those. They've had to go through the process, and we've had we've been allowed to weigh in so there aren't like it's not to lose to where you know it's by right at least it's forced through the.

funnel so what type of guardrails are you describing.

Like with the liquor store or the pantry parlor or whatever.

Conditional zoning, special use permits, or say perhaps based on definitions or lack of definitions, something might not be allowed in a particular zoning district where there's a proposal to put it, so we'd potentially have to amend, we'd either have to define it and define which zones it's permitted in or amend those zones to include that now defined use. So to Ashton's example, like the ABC store was only allowed in a certain area zone and the ABC board wanted to put a new store in a different location but that location was zoned it was a different zoning district and the way the code was set up it couldn't be in that zone so you had to you know Things like that. And that's not the only time that that's happened where it's like we, we would like to put this in this zone, whether it's traditional labor development, whether it's BCD or whatever, but it's not defined. And because it's not defined, then it can only be an X and Y zoning districts, which aren't the ones we want to put it in. So

But in this example, you guys would have been supportive of locating in that location.

Well, we did. There was an amendment.

Because that's an example of where land uses are current. We could also look at the land uses as part of this. Where are they not? Part of it's the definition, but part of it's where it's permitted. We can change those permissions. We have some limitations to what we can and cannot do. But we can look at where things are currently located, where they're permitted, and then also how they're defined to ensure stuff like that.

and downtown might be another place to look at that because i'm not entirely sure based on some of the things that we that have come before us downtown is the zoning districts downtown or perhaps best aligned with our vision for downtown exactly

So can I comment on one thing on data centers? Jim, we've had this conversation a little bit. The biggest challenge communities are facing with some of these large data center developers or hyperscalers is water consumption. And that's why a number of them like QTS and Amazon are moving to closed-loop systems, which are more expensive to build because they require large chillers and things like that. But they don't consume as much water. So is that a hole in our LDC? Are we addressing water consumption on a large scale basis that might apply to data centers, that might apply to large industrial manufacturers? Should we have enough land for any of these types of businesses?

Is that a gap? I think that's a good point. Because if you think about it, particularly in industrial or in a data warehousing, me if i'm wrong tiffany but we talked about this at the last council meeting is is there triggers of usage of our utilities right so if you're using x amount of gallons of water and you're going to put a strain on the system you shouldn't be charged probably the nominal fee in regards to usage because you're going to be responsible for a higher wear and tear on the assets right so that's a good point

We may want to look at the sound pollution type provisions, too. I don't know if there are any.

For all uses or data centers specifically?

That's why it comes to mind. Yeah.

I mean, that's probably addressed in the noise ordinance, which is separate from the land development code. Is that correct? I mean...

That's going to come up where you get large-scale industrial data centers commercial facilities that want some type of on-site energy storage system because they require large fans to keep those cool and those fans are very noisy.

In examples of ordinances for similar developments, they have regulations for noise, performance for water and wastewater usage, where the wastewater is going to from that facility, buffers, articulation, and facade. So those are just some of the examples of regulations that are put into other ordinances for data centers and large facilities. So that may be something to look at incorporating in the code update.

So two things, and on that, I think we should be cautious about putting things in the LDC that we are not technically capable of reviewing. A noise or something like that. If somebody gave me a noise plan or a lighting plan, I'm not going to be able to say if that's good or not good. My second thing is I'm curious if any of the LDCs or UDOs you've been working on, have they included any community benefit?

In my experience, I think I've only seen one, and I think it was maybe for a specific use. It's not coming to mind. I'm sure my colleague has seen that before, but in my personal experience, I don't think I've seen that as a requirement for development or use.

That potentially could be an option to offset the technical requirements that we may not know. Is there a community benefit for some large scale project that may come here to provide community benefit back.

What do you mean by that? Is that a curiosity?

So it could be a series of, well, we'd have to define what that community benefit is. Does it go towards... public realm improvements, if it's something downtown. Hey, we wanted to focus on our streetscape. Is it something that maybe it's, I think we kind of do already sometimes with infrastructure. It could also go to an affordable housing fund.

But making it required in a by-right scenario is what you're saying?

Well, I guess that's, I'm not, I'm wondering what's out there in terms of like best practices.

And that's something that we can look into. I'm not immediately familiar, so I can't pull out an example. But we can always look into it and see what other communities are doing. Is this something they've implemented before?

I think the city of Raleigh is doing something where a community benefit is going to an affordable housing fund. And they're using that money to help offset the cost for developers to do more middle

Parks, is that like the new term to circumvent the impact fees term that the state's outlawed, I guess, in North Carolina?

Which term is that?

Community benefit.

Community benefit.

And Fred, I've seen this with applications for federal grants for large energy scale, large scale energy infrastructure projects, and part of that might be requiring hiring of local contractors. Sure. Using local labor to the greatest extent that you can.

We would have the ability to define what that community benefit is.

Yeah, that's just one example, but you're right. I've seen that as a requirement to go after grant funding for large projects. Jerry, if I may?

Sure. Lexis asked us what we thought was missing. Green stormwater infrastructure might be something that I don't know if we've really outlined in detail. Native species and perhaps specimen tree species protection and guide rails around how to safeguard that aspect of our character. And then I wonder, I was curious about, I couldn't find anything. Perhaps this is a side comment. Our code, as it currently exists on the internet, it's not that accessibly easy, right, to download each and each has four IOMs. Perhaps a small stuff. Electric vehicle charging and bicycle parking and something that came up in previous meetings that I wasn't part of that I was just curious about and don't have any real experience to speak to perhaps my colleagues on the board could but

absolutely no those are all very good um catches that we can definitely take a look at and then um it's possible that you overlooked them but also it could be that they need to be beeped up or inserted so it's definitely something that we can look into

I think infill is going to become more of a reoccurring theme. From my understanding, the parking bill passed North Carolina, goes into effect in 2027. So I think you're going to see there'll be a lot of parking lots that are looking to be developed. So that's something we definitely need to keep an eye on.

Well, I mean, infill is going to be relevant just because, like Alex has said, we're about to be, you know, before too long, we're going to be built out. So, you know, most of the what's going to occur after that would be infill, I would say.

Which is why buffers are important, because then it forces a conditional.

And that's a good example of how infill goes, especially on Wilkinson. You have an existing lot. How can you develop it if the standards are making it so difficult? The existing landscape might make it difficult. The existing setbacks, height requirement, whatever it might be, may make it difficult to develop with the parking requirement. And so just looking at all those things and how we can make sure infill is easier because it will be the next thing that happens once the community is built out.

How do we do that while also maintaining the vision that we have for that area? And that's what I think going back to that point is that that's where it's not aligning. So we're trying to make something happen, but the practicality of the site doesn't make it work, but we still don't want to give up. I mean, I don't want us to see us give up everything that we're trying to accomplish. No, I mean, council even contracted out with retail strategies to try to see what we can do there, but

I mean, there's also a big component too that we can't discredit is people have to sell their land in order for something to be developed, right? You think about two parcels, the gas station, the sake, I mean, they finally came up, the broker decided to work with it and build something. Things are coming, but you can't go and force someone to go sell their land. So, I mean, that's a big requirement in order to start the redevelopment. But didn't we also say we were gonna master plan that specific area

Sorry.

That reminded me of one other thing on Wilkinson with the gas station that we ran into is the requirement was for trees to be planted in the planting strip, but I think it was our engineer who said they didn't want them planted over the sewer line. So that probably is something to take a look at and make sure we're not putting things in our LDC that go against what other departments would approve or not approve.

Okay, definitely. And we did talk to, like I said, technical staff. So we also got their opinions. And we do have one more session where we can get additional feedback from them as well. Well, this has been a fantastic conversation. I do think we covered a lot of the topics I was hoping to, so I just want to put it out there. Is there any other thought that you have about the code as we're moving forward? This is not your last opportunity to tell us what you think, but just our first conversation to really get it kick-started. Anything you just want to make sure that we know before we leave tonight?

Yeah. Steve, go ahead while I'm collecting my thoughts.

Just real quick, the county land that's in Belmont, any vulnerabilities there to you know just want would want to understand what what control we have over those areas because i think that the duke plant down there is part of that county property and i think that was in the conversation account with council last week or two weeks ago that That with the Duke Allen plant was like a prospective location where something like that might work. Do we have any control over that? I don't I don't know that we do or don't. But if we should at least understand what the limitations are that we have for that.

Yeah, that's so, I mean, there's a lot of land. If you look at a map, you look at South Belmont, a lot of it's not Belmont. And that's always, I mean, I understand. I actually spent a lot of my years in the county on Bowen Drive, whether it's Belmont Address, but in the county. So I know there's a lot down there. That's always been kind of intriguing to me as to what's the future of that look like. To some degree, I have a level of concern to see what the county may decide to do with county property that is in the middle of Belmont City limits. We're here, we're here. You got this area in the middle that's not. So my mind is always turning on that. I know in recent years there's been a lot of changes to annexation laws and all that stuff that's really kneecapped what municipalities can do. But that's always in the back of my mind is what's that look like because as the county needs more money, everybody needs more money, as the county needs to raise more funds and they start looking at different avenues to do that, what is the impact to Belmont for those actions? I don't know the answer to that. I don't know what it looks like. We can't wave a wand and make it all Belmont as much as I would love to. Maybe to the chagrin of some other people. They want to pay the taxes. Wave the taxes for a few years.

Where you can sleep good at night is this came up with Lakeview Farms. If it has to go through the county, there are certain requirements that would require large lots. They don't have the sewer infrastructure you're having to build. Potential septic tanks or wells if they're not within our existing water structure to the coal ash so there's offsets. To what. If they would have built that multimillion dollar sewer becomes unfeasible from an Roi you just got to be practical about that stuff yeah yeah.

Real quick, there are two that I just want to touch on. If we're kind of wrapping this up, and maybe I don't want to prevent anyone from discussing anything they want to discuss, but two things that I would like to discuss is number three and number six more. I don't think we touched on those enough. Correct. What type of development should Belmont encourage? That's the loaded question, right? That's the question that we all, I think, spend more time discussing than anything. What do we want it to ultimately be? So we know that there's a demand for Belmont, which is great. That's a great place to be. people want to invest and they want to come in and develop and do all those things. And of course, to some degree, everyone here in this room is a gatekeeper to that, to put in the time and put in the effort to make sure that the right type is coming in. But I think we probably all have a different idea as to what should be encouraged. And what do we really mean when we say encourage? Putting it out there kind of to people or is it something that's just happening in the exceptions We give you know, where where does that happen? So I would love to hear a discussion as to What we should encourage and listen feel free to speak your mind You may not be in the majority, but that's okay because I still like to hear so yeah, sure Yeah, the reason we moved to Belmont seven years ago was

We believe that this city provides enough services we don't have to drive 30 minutes into Charlotte. In fact, I saw this on the news recently. People in Gastonia are looking at Belmont in the same way. They want to come here for restaurants, for medical professionals, other professionals. They want to be able to bypass the extra drive into Charlotte. to get the quality of life that they're looking for. And so what kind of businesses are those? Is it medical facilities? Is it professional facilities? Dentist's offices.

Dentist's offices. Got to keep me in business, Jim.

I think we have our share of banks. Yeah. You know, what other types of businesses would you drive 30 minutes into Charlotte to offer your business to? I mean, what are those? Great restaurants, for instance.

Vista. That's a great point, and I actually just had this conversation today with someone. When I think of Belmont, I think I want everyone to do everything they do here. That's what I want, because that's what I have slowly attempted to build my life to be, is to not have to leave Belmont. Now, there are certain things I have to leave Belmont for, but from a retail offerings kind of situation, I think there's always room. Belmont has kind of that... desire, especially when it comes to food. We like good food. We like shopping at nice places. That's what our downtown has become. And so in my mind, bolstering that, giving the people that live in Belmont the opportunity to find what they need and what they want, in Belmont is a good thing. It's a good thing because it keeps people from leaving Belmont and I think retail strategies or specialties, whichever one it was, talked to us about how much money leaves Belmont every day. How many people leave and spend money elsewhere. And it's a tremendous amount and we're never going to capture all of that. naturally, but are there places that we can? So I think there is, in my personal opinion, I think there's room for some commercial growth in Belmont, definitely some retail growth in Belmont. You know, we only have so many storefronts in downtown, and as Alex says, there's a lot of demand for those storefronts. It's very rare they sit for very long at all. So I think there's a way that we can expand that, and I learn every day, and when we talk to people that want to come in to develop into Belmont, a lot of times our Main Street board will meet with them. They'll kind of dream retail with them, and then a lot of times they'll have a consultant that says, well, as much as we would like to have 15,000 square feet of retail, if we did that, it just doesn't make sense. We don't think it would support that much retail, and they have all these reasons as to why. But I do think that Belmont specifically has this sweet spot of being able to attract that kind of higher-end restaurant scene, that higher-end shopping scene, and we need a little more retail footprint. I would love to see that kind of growth. Other side of that two-edged sword, naturally, is that to keep those businesses busy and open is that it takes feet on the ground. It takes people in downtown. And so that goes all kind of different directions when you start talking about it because then you can start talking about How many people do we want living in close proximity to downtown? How much parking do we need for people that are coming into downtown and spending an afternoon? What specifically do we have in downtown to keep people there for more than an hour or for more than just lunch or a drink or whatever it may be? So I think these are all things that are churning, and there are a lot of different volunteer boards and staff that are constantly working these things, but it's something that we're going to have to actively seek. And I think in order to do that, in my opinion, the type of development that Belmont needs is a mixture of that. It's going to be retail space that is supported by residential, to some degree, and I'm not going to say the word everybody's thinking, Because it can be a different mix. I think we've all learned that. It doesn't have to be a block of apartments. It doesn't have to be this or that or whatever.

Could be offices.

Say again?

Offices.

Well, we can use some more office space. Doesn't have to be residential. But we still need. That's true. That's true. But in my opinion, again, let me speak my mind here. In my opinion, having people that live in proximity to downtown is a good thing. because that's what I enjoy and I see a lot of people that do. So I think there's some room for that as well. And that's just specific to downtown. Now, get outside of downtown and we start looking into North Belmont. I think there's a lot of room to grow from a residential standpoint in North Belmont. I think there's a lot of retail needs up there. The exact spacing of where that would be, that's an open-ended discussion. I know that our comprehensive land use plan suggested the city center model. I found that very intriguing. I think it's neat when we start looking at how you set up these different areas of Belmont so that people aren't having to drive from way down South Point Road all the way up to where they're going, but having those retail commercial needs more centrally located to where is heavily populated from a residential standpoint. So that was something that I didn't know a whole lot about before our last update of the comprehensive land use plan. But I think the center city model is very intriguing. And then, of course, the missing middle, that middle size housing for the young families that want to be here and how they get into ownership into Belmont, put down roots here, then ultimately stay here long term is very important for me as well. So that's my take. I would be very interested to hear Any others? Supporting or opposing?

The only thing I'd add to that is I think about arts and entertainment, movie theaters, theaters, groups and troops. Where do you want to go on Friday night other than a restaurant? And does that involve some sports too, possibly? Those are things that attract people from outside the city, but also keep them in the city, too. They find more value by staying here locally.

Yeah. Like 70 years ago, if you look at downtown, you could literally do everything. You could get your clothes tailored. You could buy a car. You could get your groceries. You could do what? Stay overnight. You could see a movie. Downtown. That's right. All of those things. So it's kind of like when... I mean, that's a big ask, having all those things in today's world. And you're also catering to a very broad group now, more broad than it was before, when it was just the mill towns and the families that supported those mills. But yeah, I always find that interesting as well. We have great restaurants, we have a great scene for that, and a lot of fun to be had in downtown. But what keeps people here? Is there something there that can be expanded that keeps the people here? Involved in with our businesses and that's another thing we talk about business hours and kind of getting those to match We're getting totally outside of our what we're here to talk about tonight.

But yes, that's a great Well, I think I think what builds on that what keeps people here is is creating a place that people want to be and you know, what would bring somebody here versus Mount Holly Kramerton and and I think it's The social places the aspect of I want to be there because it's it's a fun place to be Yeah

Matt walkability in downtown like there's a few things missing like grocery store hotel. Like you said, you know, a theater, maybe it would be nice.

There's there's things in there.

we're not too far off because you said a long time ago belmont could walk everywhere like you know we've got barbershop there is some office space um there's dining um but like there was a hotel there's not any more um i don't know if there's a grocery store where that was but there's no yeah there are multiple grocery stores yeah that's that's i think the small town charm aspect the balance of trying to accommodate

I mean, we moved here, but we didn't want to go to Charlotte. We want to stay in a community that's so small. You know everybody, you feel connected, social. But a lot of it has to do is walkability to open space, to the quality of parks that we have, recreation facilities. We have a brand new county park that's coming right on the edge of Belmont. Having access there so pedestrian facility bicycle facilities But our parks and recreation and then related to my kind of my last LBC comment is Really thinking critically at this point in our juncture about our tree preservation opportunities requirements along like Riley the South Fork in particular and Heritage Street opportunities that help us maintain that character while keeping us green, keeping us feel like a small town, but maintaining the ability and flexibility to accommodate all the different types of growth that we want to have where we feel we're kind of trying to meet the middle of both worlds.

My only follow up kind of leading into the downtown standards you had mentioned that there's a need for housing around downtown in order to help support it because you need feet on the ground and to support all the retail. What kind of residential in your eyes is most appropriate in that area? And is there maybe an example that you could point to to say you would like to see more of this neighborhood?

Yeah, this is a vigorously debated point.

I worded it very broadly on purpose.

You know, I don't know that I'm in a position to really be able to tell you what I think would be the best. I think that we would want to lean, or I personally, would want to lean on people that know much more than I do because it is very important that when we think about, okay, what makes Belmont thrive or downtown thrive, our businesses thrive? Well, it's people. That's what makes our downtown great, is people. And we can have people that live in a proximity. I think Hawthorne is a great example of a development right within downtown that has added a tremendous amount of value in a lot of different ways to downtown. Then on the opposite of that, we have Chronicle Mill. that is a, I don't know if you were able to see it, but it was one of our old mills that was completely redone, floors added, and it's apartments. It's right there, I mean, walkable to everything. And it amazes me as I'm in downtown walking around with my family or doing whatever the things we're doing in downtown, the amount of people that are just walking in and out of that place every day, going to the restaurants, going to the businesses, doing the things. So I understand that downtown is like a machine. It's fuel, and the people are those fuel vehicles. or is that fuel, but does that mean that it makes sense that we build apartments? No, I don't think so. Does it make sense that it's just a bunch of town homes? No, I don't think so. Is it a bunch of single family homes? I don't know that that's the answer either, but there's only so much room around downtown. I think it has to be a very thoughtful mix of some thing that brings people in. Maybe it is a commercial that brings people in, an office space that has people coming in and out. I think it's going to be a mixture of all those things. But I can promise you that there's no magic wand as to what's going to be the perfect sweet spot for residential when you talk about downtown.

Okay. Jerry, if I could, you're speaking from the perspective And my colleague on the board and myself, we have a perspective of being out of downtown in one of the neighborhoods. And I think for a large part, that one is a neighborhood city. The last controversial thing I brought up went viral. This one, I hope, doesn't go. I hope it goes as well. But I used to live in New York City. It's a very walkable city, even though it's wonderful public transport. I'm not suggesting... transport here, but perhaps a connectivity between neighborhoods is the missing piece unlocking the wonderful walkability of the city. Because I do see people getting into their golf carts in our neighborhood and driving downtown on big days or events. I've even seen on that wonderful parade that we have every year, people from my neighborhood walking, even though it's a bit of a jog, and there are treacherous, perilous

There's a pedestrian plan as well that was recently so like a lot of that Envisions those types of things so the plans also complement each other

It's a mix of multiple things. You have the vision, you have the plan, you have sidewalks, and then you have the actual implementation of when you put in a development, build the sidewalk or a fee-in-lieu in order to get the sidewalks constructed in the locations you need them to finish the connectivity.

It's a very fine balance because I'm not a fan of New York City. But, I've been to many cities in Europe. I lived in Vilnius, Lithuania for a couple months. Same concept that I had an apartment and Airbnb and I could walk wherever I wanted, never had to worry about a car. Didn't even really have to worry about public, you know, I could just walk wherever. So I agree with you about walkability. It's just hard because until you have that situation where Everything you need is walkable you're still going to need your car at this point to go to the grocery store to do some other things, and so, then that leads to well, you know what about what does it do with what is it doing with traffic downtown so there's. you know, there's just a balance. But I hear you. I think it's great. I think I love to see people walking back and forth. I would love to be able to do that instead of having to get in my car and drive everywhere. Sometimes it's easier just to walk. So that would be great. But, you know, until... such time as perhaps everything truly is available within a walk or a bike ride, you're still going to have the traffic concerns that we've obviously talked about a lot over the last couple of years. I don't think New York's a great example, but... you know, Madrid or, you know, any European city, you see that same thing. And I like the principle. I love going there and being able to do that and not have to worry about where I'm going to park or, you know, other things like that.

Chair, for the councilman's blood pressure, let's strike New York. Let's replace it with Madrid. Perfect, perfect. So noted.

I think maybe just one thing to add. I think a developer that did a really good job isn't a client. I think the connectivity that we have between our neighborhoods and eventually the commercial and retail that will potentially get out there in restaurants is really nice.

It's a good model. It really is.

It really is a nice model.

And it encourages biking, too, by the way. A lot. Yes. Not just pedestrians, but bikes.

Yeah, I think that's something we all do a pretty good job of keeping in mind as an alternative transportation. And as Jim says, you know, we're kind of, we were locked into a certain infrastructure, right? Belmont is an old town. We've got an infrastructure that we do, roads specifically, sidewalks, those kind of things that we're constantly trying to think how it can work, function better for the people that live here. But constantly thinking about that, golf cart, kind of, touch or biking or how we can get people out more. I love that idea. I love that vision overall. And I would agree. I think it's not something that we're going to be able to just walk into immediately. But with thoughtful planning, we can absolutely get there. Hopefully when my kids are old enough to have a house here and be walking around.

Kudos to the planning staff. You've done a great job. As far as speaking from being on the multimodal plan, committee, pedestrian plan, and various looking at multi-use opportunities. I think the staff's done a great job considering that. And it needs to be considered for the land development code, making sure that we're considering greenways, multi-use paths, and different things that we're not undercutting ourselves with those facilities. The vision zero money that was given, I think, but state.

I don't know much about that, but I think some of that speaks to sidewalks and and getting around town and and safely crossing streets and that sort of thing. So I don't know if there's anything that that's in. that's conceived in that package like it or if that's been evaluated or where how we intend to spend that or whatever but maybe we could weave that into you know some of the some of the code adjustments we're going to be making at least with it in mind if we have specific plans for the use of those funds and then the 11 acre stow property that clearly is an important piece that I'm sure the that's going to want to weigh in on as to how that gets used and how we should probably keep that in mind in terms of buildability and what do we want there and how does the code align with or building map or whatever, whatever modifications we're making, do they suit that use for that property that we're all kind of steering toward or not? Just keep it in the back of mind.

Yeah, that's a great point. Well, we have had some good discussion. I appreciate everyone coming out. Before I kind of wrap up, are there any other questions or comments that are burning in your mind?

Oh, we only stopped at seven. We've got a couple more here.

Are there any others you want to talk about? Alex, let's pick a few. Pick a few off the board. We'll go. Well, let me share one quick story of how blessed we are in Belmont to be having this conversation. I had the opportunity to go to a number of meetings with the local north carolina mayors the mayor association uh that the the elite puts on and there are a number of them that i've met that don't have these challenges that are not growing the way we are that don't have the demand that we have and that are looking at different problems so even though we're faced with these issues what tremendously great issues to be faced with in my opinion And I appreciate all of the time that you all put into this because I know that you all carry it with the respectful amount of weight. And that means a lot to me, and it means a lot to my family, being here and being a resident of Belmont, to know that people are constantly wanting to make sure that they do Belmont right. So personally, I appreciate all of your time for that, all of our volunteers, all of our boards that put time into that. So thank you so much for that. So if no one else has any questions or comments, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Motion made by Alex.

Second.

Second by Jason. All in favor? Aye. All right, we'll stand adjourned.

Thank you.