Planning Board - Regular Meeting

record. Call the meeting to order. It's a little bit past 6:30 to be exact. is uh 632. And uh I do a little bit of out of order tonight uh before we get started here. We have a new member that's been appointed to the board and I'm going to let her tell everybody who she is and what her background is and

I'm Elizabeth Kirkpatrick. So I am currently the CFO at a civil construction company in Burlington. Uh I am a certified accountant in Virginia and North Carolina. Uh before I went into private industry, I was doing federal audits for the government in Washington DC where I did different things for the DEA, uh different departments of justice agencies, things of that nature. Um I have my husband and my baby who will be one in two weeks at home. Um I grew up in Burlington, went to Washington DC postgraduate school for work and then came back during COVID and never left and don't plan on it. I am really excited to be here and working with all of you. Welcome aboard. All right, take a roll call here. Mr. Huffine

here. Mr. Bes here. Chair Dean Ward's here. Mr. Woot here. Mr. Stock here. Mr. Kurt.

All right. Great. One, please stand for the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, Mr. Wooten, we're going to start with your thing here that gives the overview of the planning board. Uh this is the city of Graham's planning board and it's an advisory board to the Graham City Council. It is consider it considers and makes recommendation to the council regarding any request for changes to zoning assignments and such. City council is the final arbit arbittor of approval or disapproval. Meetings are conducted according to the written published agenda. Individuals who wish to speak concerning any of the request to be considered will be given the opportunity during the public comment period for each item. Please signify by raising your hand. Your desire to speak and the meeting moderator, typically the board chair or vice chair and the chairs absent will recognize you. Please come to the podium, state your name and address, voice your comments. The time limit for comments is three minutes, but may be extended by the moderator to allow questions from the board. Please maintain a respectful and civil demeanor with all comments and responses to questions. The meeting moderator will signal when the individual's time has expired and will call for the next commentator. If an individual does not respect the time limit, speaks out from the audience without being recognized by the moderator or disrespectful of the

board, they will be subject to removal from the meeting. Once the public comment period has been closed by the moderator, further comment for the audience will be deemed out of order and individuals not respecting this will be subject to removal. All right. Did everybody have a opportunity to read uh December 16th's meeting and the minutes there? And if so, is there any changes or any disapproval there? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Move we approve the minutes as presented. I'll second it. All in favor?

Any opposed? All right, Cameron, let's go to number 6A.

Yes, sir. Um we're back here again after last month's meeting um discussing the future land use plan. Um it was tabled by you all um for some additional review um and also to gather the previous red lines um that we had discussed. I know maybe not all of you have some of those but our newcomers have the updated copy that has the the red lines associated them with them. And if you do have um I guess your computer you'll see them as well but um I can pull those up on the screen. Um the most updated copy with the red lines. Um, so we're here to continue discussing um, until we can get to a point that we feel comfortable forwarding this on to city council and a recommendation from you all, no matter what type of recommendation that may be. So, um, I'll kind of open the floor back up if we want to pick up back off where we started or if anybody has a specific starting point, um, we can go ahead and, uh, get the ball rolling.

Yeah, I would just like to go ahead and start if you guys don't matter and we'll go back to page 32. I know we had some discussion um last month about this, but I don't think ACTA is actually a ride share service. Um and I I thought it was, but I don't actually think they they do provide riding for a fee, but I don't think they are ride share service. So, I think we probably need to look at that. Maybe delete that. I thought um it was free for a day in advance, but they do offer it for like a dollar or two if you call it that same day. I thought that was the discussion that we had and maybe that's why I provided it.

That is the discussion that we had and uh I certainly thought it was classification would be a ride share program, but when you actually go on our site and look at it, it don't talk about ride share. Sure. So, I think we might want to clean that up. What would you suggest instead of ride share? People think this take the ride share out is just a agency in Alamance County that provides services. So no transportation services not even acta just well no act also offers transportation services right. Anybody disagree with that or want to change any of that at all?

Okay provides public and specialized transit service. Yeah that even sounds better. Uber and

I do think it's ambiguous because when you say the term ride share generally speaking you're talking about an Uber or a lift service and I think that's probably Yeah. Yeah. It's a similar format from what I understood last time, but that's easily fixed. Also, in the last paragraph on 32, uh, the vision of 2006, I think that's a typo. Yeah, 2006 was not supposed to be there. Okay.

It probably was removed, but uh this uh editing Well, the red line is above it, so that's what it is. You can see like the red line is supposed to be reading out through 2006, but um and the red line or the highlight is supposed to be in 2025, but I guess with the formatting it did not work out too well. So, if you move this red line down and this one down will probably work out better, which I'm probably going to get off of this. And uh the very last sentence, is the city actually uh currently updating the pedestrian plan? right there top.

No. Um I guess that's also something that should be removed and um because the vision of the 2025 um so I guess that wasn't noted um during the last time but it taken out. So while we're on that page 32 under public transit, it also said that Link Transit is developing a 5-year plan that should be finalized in late 2024. Um if this is a 2025 plan, I feel like we should be clear on whether or not that was finalized. You need to put a asterric on that because we need to definitely need to find out that because if it was finalized, we might would like to include it.

Yes, ma'am. pick up 24 hours. Okay. Service. Okay. I I remember microtransit now. Yeah. Maybe ride share was just stuck in the back of my head.

Yes, ma'am. I guess we'll still stick with specialized transportation services if that's up to you. Next one will be on page 40. Maybe this considering that we want to add some language like um the overlay district was established to preserve the visual characterist character character of the corridors leading from I40 and 85 into Graham's historical business district signage landscaping building materials color design and overall site use should complement and not distract.

We're on page 40 of the South Street overlay. Is that correct? Page 40 labeled or 40 in the document. I think there the document I'm on page 40 same as you right there.

Okay. And reference that again. I'm sorry. um that we might want to consider adding. Uh the overlay districts were established to preserve the visual character of the corridors leading from I40 and 85 into Graham's historical business district. Signage, landscaping, building materials, colors, design, and overall site use should complement and not detract from the established historical district design standards. and that's something you have written out specifically for yourself. I'll give you a copy of it.

That'd be if y'all come to a consensus that that what you would like to revert that area to, that's fine with me. So, I know we looked at it last time. I think the only thing was the whole complimentary piece. Um, but I guess that's um

Okay. 42 page 42 3.7 considered for the length. Um in 3.7 the conditional use zoning we might want to add consideration for length of driveways distance to structure to curb. That's where we're always having these problems with the town houses and everybody parking over the sidewalks.

Yes, sir. So, let's see. Um, some things to consider are parking, access to property, flood planes, lighting, fencing, pollution, neighboring land uses, existing development, noise, landscape, buffers, trees, water runoff, dedication of common areas, recreational amenities, open space, driveways, walkways, pedestrian traffic, roadway, speed traffic studies, rightway improvements. So, essentially adding into that, I mean, property setbacks, clear cutting. Um, you want to add a couple more into that? Well, I I certainly believe that it's covered, but it's it's not it's too wide there. It said consider driveways. Well, what are we considering? Well, we if we spell it out to them and say the distance of the structure to the curb, then they know exactly what we're trying to achieve there, where driveways and sidewalks are on the same sides. Special care should be taken to ensure that cars will not block the sidewalks. pretty lengthy what I have here, but you want to I wish I could have made a copy so everybody could go see it, read it and see it at the same time. Can you can you get us some copies? Would that be too much to ask?

No, it might make it easier because it's pretty lengthy. No, it's just that this is that's my list. Everybody's gonna have a list. But would you like one too, Miss Jennifer? are still got

the subdivision that was filled in the distance from the street to the town was not long So all the sidewalks down the whole thing, everybody just parks across them. So it's like no point. I say the only reason they would do them is all the kids have to walk out the street and it just subdivision you know

one down here on Ivy Road that coming up just about all the townhouse communities has really engra recently that's been approved has that issue. Something more that we could address with changing the setbacks in this rewriting that specific Yeah. Thank you, Gamer.

All right. I'll give everybody opportunity to review number 42 3.7 there. If you agree or disagree or want to change Three. Any questions or concerns?

Yeah, Dean, where would where would this be added into the where it says driveways? I think it should start there. Driveways. There's a in the first five lines of your 42. Yep. There's a paraphrase that I'm gonna just say, okay,

try to define what your five lines say in adequate street canyon aspect ratio. So when a a land planner sees that phrase, it makes them think width of the effective canyon alley between the facades of the houses on either side of the street. So in a succinct way of saying Mr. Designer, Mrs. designer, pay attention to how far the houses are set back from the artery. You've said in a really short way, pay attention to this. The the professional should assimilate all of these smaller specifics inside of that phrase. If you tell me, pay attention to the way you're designing the streetscape, I'm gonna look at the trees and the sidewalk and the curb and the spacing out to where the pedestrians are separate from the cars and the porches are separate from the sidewalk and how big the street yard, how deep the street yard is, and then how deep the front yard is. To further simplify the wording, you put it in the terminology of the urban canyon, the suburban canyon, or the rural canyon that's created by the what you see along the road. That takes your five sentences and fixes the target on make sure you got enough room in your driveway between the garage door and the sidewalk.

I'm I'm u good with that. if you want to make an adjustment or may I say something just in response understand what you're saying I think it's right but I think the more specific that we can be simplified language tends to leave loopholes that can be exploited so specificity without wordiness would be good use all Five sentences in to be I mean you're saying the same thing. We're not writing an ordinance. We're writing guidance. Guidance. Yeah.

But I want what I want you to take the perspective of is you have a reasonably informed designer or developer that's reading this. It makes them think, hey, this technical review group, this planning board, and this city council is paying attention to what these streetscapes are going to look like. So maybe we add adequate street canyon aspect ratio in suburban, urban, and commercial areas, including depths to structures from the main arteries. anything that says to the developer and designer that says yes we speak your language we understand your perspective and this is our interpretation specifically for this community that make sense

it it does and I think to to expand on what you're saying to me the language Dean used that says somewhere would not be blocked. That's the whole that's the whole catalyst for this five lines. So, we want to add avoid interference two words in exchange for that sentence. And I think we got it. Or you just keep it as detailed as you want it to be. I agree with you. The more specifics you give us, the more it's going to be [clears throat] right the first time it comes in the door to Cameron comment. Anybody have a problem with the wording of Chad and Mr. Woots? Cameron, did Jennifer?

Hello, this is Engineer to engineer [laughter] general contractors are just because if a lot comes in a single lot comes in it doesn't go to Cameron necessarily it goes to a permit and the garage is 17 feet off the edge of the sidewalk cuz there's a 10-ft setback or something.

I know a lot of times when I mention things a light bulb goes off and other board members that say, "Oh, yeah, we need to consider that every single time." And I don't know if they necessarily think about it like that. They certainly don't speak his language in construction language. So I see it both ways. I see what Chad speak for somebody going small just talking. So I I don't know if I worry about board members that are branded not background not understanding making sure

clarity in in what in the language that we use here I think would be but don't disagree with him speaks this language

and if if I may interject honestly um you know I kind of brought this up last time as well is I think um you know you take a look at this I guess the area that we're looking at right the conditional use zoning um you kind of have a brief um I guess hit at these major things um that are listed inside this conditional zoning area, but in the policies and goals as we mentioned at the bottom is more or less something that you can reference from this section down to the bottom. Like somebody comes in for a conditional use and it mentions things about setbacks and other things inside of that area, you can pull it's like, okay, well our conditional resoning and our future land use says this. It says in policy 1.2 2.3 to have that term analogy that you said or increased setbacks or whatever it may be that we're trying to hone in on um in that section where I guess it's a lot more blatant and open of what we're actually trying to accomplish with this document um rather than trying to hide it and I wouldn't say hide it but it's a lot harder to see inside of this area I guess but that might just be my two cents like I that you are more than welcome to.

Well, I guess to your point, it depends on what the purpose of this particular document is. Is it a high level or does it need to be more granular?

I think the high level part definitely comes in at the policies of what you're, you know, hoping these people are trying to accomplish, what we're all trying to accomplish here inside the city. um is one of those pop policies to have for transportation to have a decreased amount of on street parking um by providing more than the required uh parking spaces or providing an additional area of front setback to allow for more cars to be parked in the driveway. Um, I mean those things I think are the things that are the higher level specific that are listed out in the policies and the other things that are kind of towards the ends of the document that um you're often referencing when you're talking about the um uh the u uh gosh the consistency of the plan that people are bringing up to this said document. You know, it doesn't meet policy 1.3.6 six because they only have two parking spaces and one of them is the garage and it's going to overflow the street and oh by the way you also only have a 25 26 foot wide road and that's not going to be able to hold the lack of parking that you're providing on here. So you're providing all this information and you're not honing yourself in to or I guess limiting yourself to this small 3.7 section right here for every conditional resoning that comes through. Um, that's like I said, just throwing something out there because I know it was brought up last time. Um, and I mentioned, you know, to take a good long look at some of these and think of some that you would also like to include in here because that to your point is the higher level of what these documents and plans that come through in the future are based off of their consistency to it says through the future land use plan, but a majority of time it's associated with what policies and recommendations that we can provide from said document at the end. I don't mean to muddy the water by any means because I know you are having good discussion. But

all right, Dean, can we go to the third line? Cars will not block the sidewalks. So if you follow me to ensure that cars will not block the sidewalks by providing adequate driveway lengths and yard depths. Period. Then you can take out the next two three lines with that that take to Mr. Wooten like make your driveway long enough make your yard deep enough and you can get rid of the flowery terminology and make it Yeah. So that walk me through that Chad real quick if you don't mind.

Third line. Third line on Dean's edit sheet of page 42. Sidewalks taken to ensure that cars will not block the sidewalks by providing adequate driveway lengths and yard depths. Providing adequate drive or yardway lengths. Is that what you said? Driveway length. Driveway lengths. Yard depth. Driveway. Because if it's a conditional zoning and everybody's going to drive a smart car, then the adequate word says, "Okay, here's adequate. Now, what do you do for your visitors? Is it big enough to have two of them?" And so, you're saying there period, sorry to cut you off. I

um you're we're taking out essentially we'll not block sidewalks and we pick back up at developers should be encouraged to commit established natural buffers. Right. Okay. I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything. Okay. I mean, we can keep on if you think uh encouraged to commit to keep established natural buffer. So, we're essentially are we um taking all the 3.7 out and replacing it with what is written inside of here? I don't think you're trying to do that. I think you're adding to it. Okay.

Are we keeping everything inside of 3.7 currently? I don't see any other I mean

I think you would have to edit because you mentioned clear cutting in yours and you've already got clear cutting in here same as buffer. So I think if you are going to keep this exhaustive list then we probably need to reward that section with what you have said. A line that begins some structures. Okay. with um um not duplicating there. So what are you what are you wanting to take out there to discourage clear cutting

also setbacks

and setbacks? So essentially is an important zoning tool that allows the governing body to require additional conditions that will in it opinion ensure that the proposed use and its proposed location will be harmonious with the area. Some things to consider are parking, access to property, flood planes, lighting, fencing, pollution, neighboring land uses, existing development noise, landscaping, no buffers that were or no landscaping and buffers. trees, water runoff because we're talking about clear cutting. After that, water runoff, dedication of common areas is fine. Recreational amenities, open space, I guess water runoff is also listed. about um erosion control systems. Um no driveways, walkways probably can only be left inside of there. Pedestrian traffic, roadway speeds, traffic studies, rightway improvements, storm water drainage, setbacks, clear cutting, scale of building, number of entrances, egress, emergency egresses, waterways, She's har

on the line that begins with emergency egresses. You got a reference to outdoor storage which is duplicated in Dean's verbiage five lines up from the bottom.

Thank [gasps and sighs] you. Um any waterways? No. Emergency services concerns that' be covered under Dean's verbiage to allow for fire trucks, sanitation trucks, school buses. How much the proposed use will generate additional traffic? I think that's hit on. I insert something there after additional traffic. Cool. Because we're having a problem with not only additional traffic, but additional light pollution, noise pollution, and straight up trash pollution.

Which one?

Okay. Did you hear um what Chad was talking about the light pollution? um how much proposed use will generate in additional traffic and you want to include um light pollution light and noise pollution but I don't know how you say garbage pollution without redundancy because it's straight up you say types of pollution um I think you just like literally just say um like garbage whatever other types of pollution and then put pollution at the end like so light what were the other ones light sound garbage

and noise noise light noise and garbage pollution that okay

little She would have think it's getting to a good balance of clarity, specificity, and economy of words. And so do you just want to I mean essentially where this paragraph ends right here is where you want to pick up um additional considerations are for length of driveways, distance of structure to curbs where drive we just adding it to the end. Are we mixing and matching inside of here

or emphasis should be given uh for lengths of driveway distance to structure to curb. So instead of considerations, it's emphasis should be given should be given for length of driveways. Don't want it to be too open-ended that nah just because we considered it but we don't want to do it.

Yeah, I understand. Um and like I said, I mean there's always other areas to point back to as well. So I think you can hit on it again of more like specific content down in the area as well to revert back to or it could just essentially you know one of the policies whatever could essentially say that conditional resoning should match the section 3.7 of the future land use plan something along those lines and that's all inside of here. I didn't see the u about the use of bio bofield erosion control systems inside of yours.

Yeah, I mean I see it in mine but I don't see it on the uh 3.7 conditional use zoning on 42. Yeah, I took off I mean pretty much a lot of the aspects like water runoff. I mean that's dealing with storm water. Um but we want to emphasize though we we would rather have the bio uh bof fields rather than a retention pond. Mhm. It looks just aesthetically it looks better may cost more but it looks better.

And you said use of bofield erosion control system by developers should be encouraged. I haven't typed anything else in here. I don't know if that's what you were looking for. I think that's essentially what I was going to do is I was going to add after the fact essentially all these red lines are taken off um and essentially add to the end whatever we've wrote in um I wish I had the ability to do it on the fly but it probably look like crap unfortunately change erosion to storm water yeah so change the word erosion to storm water storm water control systems use a bofield storm water control system because during the erosion control phase, there's nothing in the hole but a hole, right? True.

What we're looking at is the long-term use of a bio retention facility that's grass covered, doesn't have standing water that kids drown in and mosquitoes final stage of development. Mhm. Caught up there. I think I'm pretty much caught up. Scroll on down to 46. what it looks like.

Yeah, for sure. I'll see if I can

uh 46 strategy number five. That's page 45. Yes. Say that one more time. 40 page 45. I'm sorry. Page 45. Uh strategy number five. Yes, sir. Um, trying to gather my thoughts here while I stroke that out. 2 master the um pedestrian plan. Yeah. And that's why I have it redlined. I think it's cuz we wanted to exit out last time.

We're just going to take it all the way off then. We're just going to delete it totally. I'm leaving little bit of increments I guess inside of there because I'll essentially provide your edit document to the city council as well with the original document with the inclusion of probably some edits and wordage and things to them as well. So, but it'll be essentially emphasized that red lines were not wanted and your edits for other red lines will be

um updated essentially like the storm water all the stuff that we else just redlined will be taken out and updated to show whatever else that we discussed. So, 4.2.2 to strategy five to strategy five add more locations in histo no it's we're actually thinking out 4.2.1 2.1. Y, that was one as um last time. Okay, next one up. All right.

All right. Page page 46. Strategy five again. Uh, I think we may should consider putting something in there like um the historical commission should be consulted when any change to the historical curbing or layout of the historical district is being considered. Okay. So, you essentially wanted to say avoid disrupting the historic granite curbing at all without a permit or

I I mean this don't make them get a permit and I guarantee you if they called up here and asked someone about a permit, nobody would know anything about one. You're probably right. So, I'm just trying to address it in a situation to where we can at least have conversations somehow with them to have conversation with you or and then you direct them or they see here, hey, we better talk to the historical resource commission about taking that granite carbon out.

I think and that would probably be, you know, um I don't know if people are really looking at our future land use plan for any downtown development. Um maybe if it's coming in front of you all for um those types of developments like a conditional resoning or such um that might be something that we need to take a look at to add inside of our historical resource handbook itself to provide a permitting process for something along those lines or if it is specifically listed out. Um, I think you could probably at all without a permit from the Historical Resource Commission, um, refer to the historical resource handbook and I think you could probably leave it at that and be fine. Okay. You want to get that language?

You all right with that? Yep. that you know that whole sidewalk where they took the curb out the granite curbon. Yeah. I mean,

I think I mentioned last month that I wish I had an answer for you, but I really do not. I think you could send a letter from council to the district office [clears throat] just to advise them of the town's policy because now the town's policy is clearly stated in the in the plan. I'm sorry. send that letter to the district engineers's office so that it's on record. Nothing we can do about what they did already, but planning has to sign a driveway permit. So that catches all the private development. And if there's a standing notification from the town to the district that'll get through the construction office and then the development office, that's about all you can do. We talk to them enough each week that pay attention. We save the next one.

Yes, sir. Page 47, uh, strategy number nine, delete natural resources. The last word there in that sentence. Um, 47 number nine. Oh, yeah. Natural res. I think that was probably something that was supposed to be on that uh that area. I think it might have been mentioned last time. It just didn't get translated over. And then of course I I've got a ton of things on the back page there, but it's more just layout. And um anybody

Yes, ma'am. Some of them um 33

increase and decrease about the response times. I don't think we did talk about that. I already went ahead and exited through of it. You did? Yes, sir. It needs to be decrease instead of increase, right? I think I meant the I I knew what I was trying to say, but it didn't come out correctly. It's like what is it? the um is consistent or is inconsistent stuff like that always kind of tricks me up simp. All right, I think that's all I got to talk about right this second. So I will open it up to whoever wants to go next or Mr. Bes. Would you like to go next? Not at this time. All right, Mr. Wooten,

just a couple things that I had mentioned earlier just in in the ears of all present. Section seven. I' I'd like for some consideration further research be made of that section to uh make it more applicable or appropriate for our particular community I think think I made those. Um ideas clear earlier.

Yeah. Um, I mean, if you want to kind of bring them back up. I know we talked about them a little bit last month, I guess, of um, I think a lot of what our development has looked like, and I think Mr. Wooten mentioned is a lot of strip development essentially. Um, and how a lot of um, I don't really want to speak on behalf of you, but um, uh, essentially you're saying that a lot of this you don't feel is consistent with what the future of Graham is going to look like essentially. Is that correct? Well, basically it it sounds more like boilerplate

information than it does specific specific to our particular situation. It looks like whoever put this together, the the company that put this together took something out of their uh template and stuck it in there without a lot of thought as to its applicability to our community. That was my impression. Other people may have a different impression. So that's that's my and about that just so um because there are a couple different sections of like section seven, right? So I mean let's start I guess from 64.

Yeah. Yeah. 64. the you have I guess you're asking I guess for more research into the specificity [snorts] specificity of Graham for like the strip development versus commercial um unconnected roads versus road network called cold sacks things along those lines separation of 7.3 same thing um open space development do you have the same feeling about that as well correct okay Um, okay. I'll open it up to have you all discuss with it. I don't really have much to say. So,

well, I mentioned to Cameron earlier, I don't mean to open a can of worms that we can't get the can the lid back on the can, but just that was my impression is reading through this. It didn't seem like a whole lot of effort went into making it specific to our our community and just wonder what the research what the genesis was what the development was of this particular section. So I mean if if there was a whole lot of thought and effort put into that I would like to know what that was who they modeled it after.

Yeah. Like I said this may have even been something from the previous land use plan as well um that was potentially brought over. I really don't know if we spent too much time talking about this in the steering committee meetings.

I'm I'm inclined to say that this is a a boilerplate piece. We've tried multiple times to have divided lines, divided avenue type. I'm referring to page 64, the illustration on the right. We've tried multiple times to bring planted median islands into public rights of way and they're met with immediate obstinance. So this is just it came out of something and got in this document. So we ought to we ought to look through this section a little more carefully all of us and then look at it when we come back next month because there's a whole lot of meat in section seven.

Agree with that. I mean, do you all feel comfortable, I guess, looking at this and I guess coming up with other ideas associated with it? That's a lot of meat in there. HP.

Okay. I'd like to see it. Um, it says the recommendations that the Graham comprehensive plans incorporates the principles of commercial centers as a viable alternative to the current strip development time. After time, the steering committee and the public displayed their dislike for strip development. I don't see where we could put the medians in the road anywhere. I mean, we don't have much land left u to develop other than 54 and they're all state rightaways.

Yeah. I mean, um honestly, if it's something you talk about there being a lot of things, but um if it could even be just as simple as changing that recommendation at the bottom, right? I mean, it talks about what the two differences are. Instead of saying that the comprehensive land use plan, you want it to incorporate more of the strip development than you do the commercial corridor area aspect. I mean, if that's how you all feel that the strip aspect is more suited towards our future, then that could be the recommendation that's associated with it. That's not especially what I'm saying at this point, but look at the last p the last sentence on the bottom of 64. says, "Time after time, the steering committee and the public displayed their dislike for strip development." Where did that statement come from? We've got what, how many four members of steering committee?

Where did that statement come from? Like you said, probably just a temple they had on it or it came from one of the previous documents we've had. Did Did you guys uh get that kind of feedback? So, I'm looking is is this really a a legitimate statement or just something pulled out of thin air? It's that kind of thing that uh you look up just up the page under strip development poor design characteristics. You know, what are those characteristics? What are we talking about here? Statements like that don't give me a lot of confidence into the validity of what's presented here.

Okay. That's that's all I'm saying. Yes, sir. I'm I'm not saying strip versus commercial at this point. You know, you could make good arguments for both of them. Same thing with the other sections. I think Go ahead. I think it'd be safe to say that section 7 does need a lot of work. Um, and I think it would give each one of us a good opportunity to reflect on it more and come up with some good ideas and and to discuss for next month. Is that hear consensus?

All right. That's what I would suggest. Yeah. So let's we'll pull seven out section seven out and we'll talk about that next month and we'll move on uh to the only other comment that I had was just to get somebody to go through the document very thoroughly proofread it. Uh check for you know obvious grammatical errors or misspellings that sort of thing. Just give it a good proof reading. see how it could be cleaned up and that sort of thing. You got AI software.

No, no, it's all up here. Yes, ma'am. What? What little is left? Mhm. No, ma'am. I don't think so.

Not that I'm fully aware of. No, ma'am. think it's pretty much that same three to six devel units per acre. And like I said, I mean, I was trying to um you know, put a little bit more focus on some of these areas as well as well as the strategies of I mean, you know, I know it's been discussed a lot of times of feeling that they're putting too much on too little. Um this is the document that goes against that. I mean, if you think three to six dwelling units on a um per acre is too much, then here's the the space to put it. So, but there was no intention to change it, I guess. Um that that might change when it goes further, but it's completely up to y'all. Chad always responsible and irresponsible responsible. Let's just be honest. And um it bothers me to think developer would try if I had a home even if it was a rental property and that somebody would try to build the rental home a threetory building there's not a privacy fence in the world that would protect that resial person and I think we need to think about that when you have residential funing commercial or um you know maybe putting some sort of buffer then something that's multi storage can't be right beside something that's residential but maybe there's an office

institutional zone or something that needs to be in between it or whatever but you know it's quite concerning to think that people you know, even suggest to build something like somebody that's residential. I think that's very person

and I agree with some of that if it's commercial related, but so you own a lot or a house that's a single story and I buy the lot next to you and I want to build a four-story house on it. How are you going to uh different from that than being commercial? There's no privacy still there. Yeah, I guess just thinking the perspective of you know um you more down fine person but not in building you know he can't but because he built the lot I mean literally like that res that goes all the way down. He's looking at the back. It just aesthetically I feel like that devalued his property but no doubt in my mind owning a lot of property there and I just feel like somebody that's lived here some years I mean God in my opinion you know not a good shake and nothing against Mr. Chris for working his properties everything's done within the you know within the rules and regulations but thinking about these things like that I think can try to figure out a better situation that if you are going to put residential, then you can't build to the law if you're going to be commercial or something. I don't know.

I don't I think that's what our development ordinance currently states at the moment. I mean, I think a lot of what you're saying is not future land use plan oriented, but more or less the major, you know, what is listed inside the development ordinance of, you know, what is appropriate in this specific area. Um, buffer types that are between different types of uses. I mean, I don't know exactly where you're referencing right now, but if it was a commercial next to a residential zoned area, um, there should have been some form of a setback. Unless it was I mean, even if it's zone B1, I think there's still a little bit of a setback. I could be wrong, though. But, I mean, for your typical B2, you're always pretty much going to have a setback from residential areas. And if it's something newly being developed on the commercial property, there's going to be buffers, other things like that are going to be required by staff. um unless the existing building's there um then there's a good chance that they're not going to have to replant anything unless it increases intensity by a number of classification. But um that's just my thoughts.

I I agree with you in the commercial aspect of it. But let's talk about the project there on Hampford Road um that backs up to um the the subdivision off of uh Lacy Holt, not this old Monroe Holt. And um you know that's not a commercial project town houses or they was building two-unit town houses but originally I think they wanted to do threetory when they come before us and then ultimately I think uh some density was cut out and they was allowed to do some twostory but the topography of the land there was um so much higher to begin with. So anything they built would be towering down on the neighborhood.

Yeah. It it was always two stories. it was always so how do we how do we get around that you know aspect of it require all that to be conditional zoning would that be a good solution to that I'm not I don't want to discourage it

no I think it's still something that you listen inside the development ordinance and you call out at adjacent grade building height at adjacent grade there's not really much of any reference that inside of our development ordinance except for in industrial zones um so you know you're talking about okay you only have 35 feet of building height at um adjacent grade. Guess what? You can only build up to 10 feet tall and it might not work that way. Like I think that's really the only way. It's a simple solution to put inside of there. But um of course through that conditional aspect, you come in here and be like this is not what I want. I want to be able to build what I want. Um or they come in with a text movement request something else. But I think it's easily I mean correct me if I'm wrong. I definitely would enjoy your opinion on it, but that is the only way that I can foresee anything like that being dealt with in that fashion is having something like that.

Well, or or I mean, I'm thinking outside outside the box, maybe uh you wouldn't it wouldn't affect a single family dwelling that was going to go beside that property, but if it was something that was going to be a multif family, then we could uh maybe address that in zoning. Yeah, I think um you know when you're looking at conditional um zonings um there's two different types of classifications, right? There's your single family which is under the conditional residential which has to meet the R9 standards and then your multif family i.e. town homes, big developments like that, apartments that have to meet the RMF standards. And in those RMF standards, there have to be something in the the setback table essentially that says at adjacent grade height essentially um just for those in particular. Um or I mean even, you know, you have them listed out of town homes, but I think that would have to be something that would have to take a really deep look at. Um, on the development ordinance side, I don't know if it's anything that you can put in this document that really makes um, too much of an impact outside of um, unless there's a specific policy that you could write out inside of there that says discourage um, decre discrepancy in height from topography of uh, land uses around. So, um, you see they bring in something, but that's the hard part as well because whenever they bring a plan in front of you all, half the time you don't know what the elevation is for their property and the other property. Um, and that's difficult of as well. It's like they could easily be like, "Okay, yeah, looks good here. We got 20 building height, but you don't see that the next house below them is, you know, 30 feet below their grade." Um, and essentially you got a retaining wall and they're looking down on them. Um, you can't see that on that view. So it really just boils down to getting something in writing because it's very tough to address it without seeing anything up here.

Refresh my memory. But not the adjacent grades or the, you know, difference in topology, but didn't we have this discussion a few years ago when Jason Cox wanted to build some like three or four story maple and Yeah. But I think those are well not about the grading, right? Um, I think it was probably brought up as something that's like you don't want, it's probably the neighbor came and said, "I don't want to be looking out my house looking into a three-story apartment building." Um, and that's probably what came up. I can't I don't think I was with y'all at that time. Um, so I'm not 100% sure what that conversation held. You know what? Oh, I remember the the building there. I know which one you

market. Yes, sir. Market. Maple and Market. Um but I I like I said I think it's that um uh even it's something I mean we have something for building height maximum building height and you change okay maximum building height is 30 ft but maximum building height adjacent to for multif family adjacent to single family is or you increase the setback for building heights over x amount adjacent to single family but you're getting into some Wicked Worlds over there, but not too sure. Engineer.

So, to get us moving off of this point, I I took the citizens input and just a note to myself to find some section to add in um responsible development with respect to buffering and elevation changes between intensities. That takes the focus from the land use plan and takes the developer's mind to okay, I need to go look in the ordinance and see what the ordinance now says about buildings that are three stories or bigger and how much further they need to set back from the property, which isn't would be in the UDO. something that simply I guess is how you worded it could be added in as like a goal or policy associated with one of these sections here of you know if you don't like what is being shown over there you're not you could claim that you're not doing responsible development for adjacent land use classifications or however it was written so

call it a goal

or one of the policies inside of here um um wherever they may be located at somewhere I I think it's in section six, five all through section five and four um has different types of goals um to guide us into the future improve community. I mean probably find it under one of these 4.1.2 strategy whatever it may be if you can find a placeholder for it or I mean you add a completely new goal inside of there for 5.8. It's a new one and this is for responsible development. And that's essentially where you add in all these criteria of goals that you want to see into the future. I think that's what I was more or less kind of trying to get across last time is a lot of these things can be filtered in here of goals that we want to see these developments take shape into in the future. And you can easily grab and say you're not meeting this strategy. You're not meeting this strategy of the development that we see over here. you're also not meeting this one in section 4. It's not consistent at all. So, we're not going to approve it or we're going to recommend denial. So, you're essentially tailoring this document not to deny people, but to provide them with information how to uh build a good product according to all of us.

So, Mr. Wooten, I know we got off on a tangent there on number seven and carrying forward. You got your next got something? No, that was all. That was all. Thank you. And Mr. Hine, back to you again.

I'll try to go real quick. Page 32. Um 32. public transit section. Okay, that was um from Elizabeth page 33 top sentence. I think that was still from Elizabeth. The city is currently updating the pedestrian plan. That was to check on uh zoning map after page 38. signing map. Is it just correct?

Says incorrect. Uh just at first glance, the whole eastern side of Graham is still zoned R 9, 12, and 18 basically. So some somehow the index or the legend or something is messed up over there. Um, the eastern side of Graham, there's a 3.3 zoning map that is landing after page 38. I'm looking at it up here with you. I'm trying to figure out exactly where you're talking about. All right. That that map. Yes, sir. That map. Mhm. And the properties current zoning. They don't they don't match. So, somewhere we got to update the map. I think it's just the wrong graphic.

Okay. Look at the whole like like this just take a I don't know how it I mean it has some of the most recent conditional resonings that we've done. Um I mean areas in particular. All right. Take a take a line from Highway 85's shield on the graphic right there and you draw that straight south kind of along. Now, to the east of that, that's all the same color. And it's not all the same zoning.

Are you sure? I mean, look over to your right as well, cuz that's the zoning over there, too. And it appears all to be R18 over there.

Looking right here. I'm just right in our area. I mean, Old Fields is technically zoned R18. Um, Uhhuh. I um little triangle there. Well, below the triangle with RMF is

Are you sure it's too And I My eyes are old. I I beg to differ. I think this is pretty accurate. Um, right. Let me just proofread it. We'll move to the next We'll take a look at it as well, but from my first glance, I think it's uh it's uh pretty similar to what was on our GIS, which is the data that we gave them. Okay. Well, it's different from what we're publishing to the citizens when we walk in. Okay. So, we ought I I'll proofread it. I don't mind doing that. Take a look at as well, but uh I see three differences here on the floor from these two documents.

We'll talk about if you can show me, I'm happy. Well, we always go to the one online. Yeah, are you sure? I'm I'm interested to see. We'll we'll uh I'm I'm I'm 100% I understand that is R18. Under that hatch is R18 zoned. Okay, we can show the hatch. That's okay. I'm We're showing stiffling on the I1 west of Hall River right here. Yes, that's the challenge golf course challenge. Uhhuh.

I just want it I just want it to be consistent and as close as it can be to the current GIS public information once we publish it. Well, it's just stuck and the zoning map continues to evolve. I guess there's just not a a pud on um Yeah, there's not a pud on there. Yeah, but it has the the C MXR in the legend over there. It's just not a put [clears throat] aspect of it which can easily be added but I think pretty much a lot of the other aspects on there are relatively accurate but I'm happy to sit here whenever we finish this to look at it over with you as well so we don't get hung up on main concern very fragile area. Okay. Yes sir. Totally understand.

Page 42. Um, I think we covered the addition of additional language um that Dean proposed, but in in some part of this section, I cannot find citizen involvement, especially in the ETJ where the citizens are never asked to vote. So, we're talking about zonings and uses and things that affect ETJ residents that they're impotent when it comes to actual votes. So, how do we encourage citizen involvement in the early stages of planning unless we reference a neighborhood informationational meeting situation? I had to add another step, but somewhere we got to add it to this.

That would be something that would go inside of the development ordinance, I'd imagine. I mean, you can essentially say that uh you applicants are encouraged to hold neighborhood meetings, but in nowhere in our development ordinance does it currently state that they're required to, which is where it would need to be placed. So let's let's add in section 3.7 in the toolbox for the developer's conditional use that the one of the tools is considered a joiner in citizen involvement. You mean would you want them to

just then just stop there because they can take it or leave it. But at least we've said please consider it. If we're going to go down the road of uh consideration and respectful neighbors and and development with respectful development, we ought to at least somewhere state that so you I think myself should ask the neighbors what do they want before we go in there. So you said consider what again? Neighbor a joiner or citizen input and let the reader of the document take it for what it's worth. They because because then as the council they can the council can certainly ask well did you talk to the neighbors before they start talking to us.

Many occasions we've come in here and they've never talked to anybody in the neighborhood. I understand because it's not currently required by our development ordinance. I think that's something that ought to be mandatory. Yeah. It it eliminates a lot of questions up front. Takes the skier out of it for your neighbors sometimes. It don't always solve everything, but it it puts it out there on the table for the neighbors either to rally or come support you. It has been recommended by staff over there for people to have them. I tell them it's not required, but you know, it helps your case out. And I mean, not really helps it, but it may help it. I guess I mean you

certainly fleshes out. It does with you don't have 17 people up here and now you have five that actually have the big concerns that are brought up. And I think that's what happened with um the gym minor development. I think they had um they apparently advertised it but nobody came except for maybe those two ladies that showed up and I don't even know if they did or not. Um but I guess that's what you see sometimes is nobody responds but then they at least know that something's happening. So I think that's fine. Page 44. um reduce the proliferation of commercial strip development. We don't give them a definition of commercial strip development. It's a concept. Um

I think a lot of it is inside of that section seven, right? Which they have not read for two or three more sections. So we're kind of prohibiting a development strategy that we haven't defined for them yet. So, I want to I'll edit that, but I want to rearrange that in some way define what the planning of the of of the long range view thinks is a strip center and that goes into the boilerplate piece of seven section seven.

Yeah. I don't know um if it's um something I mean because I guess it seems that there's a stigma that we have existing um commercial strip development here right um and I don't know if you take section 7 and you completely wash this 4.1.2 too um and completely change it, right? I mean, because that might be in ends up what happening is because if you don't want commercial strip development or you want commercial strip development, then why are you recommending against it in the previous chapter? So, I got you. I don't know if that is something that we'll discuss, I guess, next time. You'll take a deeper look at it and hone in on that. Uh

page 45, section 4.2.1, strategy five. And I missed this meeting. So y'all have to help me extend the business district to Maple Street, Marshall Street. That was stricken from the So what happened on Marshall Street and Maple Street? Was there was there citizen input that said we don't want to we don't want to encourage development in that direction. Yeah, I think that reflects their that reflects their desires. There's an aspect of keeping the downtown area where it was and keeping that buffer right through there. I think there was um maybe direct citizen input. No, that was board that's the board's direct input.

Well, I think it was also discussed during our pedestrian plan aspect and was also probably discussed during our steering committee meetings as well that you want to keep that center a center. So I think that's also what was understood by the members of the board here. So it was talked about previously.

Excellent. Page 51 boundaries. Second section under 5.3 boundaries. The boundaries of the district are well these boundaries have never been fully defined in the eyes of most of the citizens in that area. They've been conceptualized over the past 15 years which has changed depending on the tide. So we need to somehow define what this actually is in a legal form. like that's my opinion the boundaries of the city of Graham when you when we

technically speak in terms of boundaries that is the most specific thing there is to Mr. Wooten's point. Well, to the ETJ citizens that are not sitting here tonight, those boundaries are as loose as the day that this land is purchased and the idea of changing that land occurs. There is no long range plan. That's all been thrown out the window over the past 10 years. Are you saying you should have like separate boundaries like boundary? You need to define what a boundary is. not necessarily our boundary is the city limits or that's what you want to see is like our boundary is the end of this city limits line and we're not including the ETJ line

and then and if and if that is a stated boundary in the boundary section of section 5.3 then everyone from the assistant planner to the mayor ought to be able to stand behind it and say this is what we decided and here are the dates it was decided so that that item is settled. Okay. And none of the neighbors for for Mr. Bes and I are here to to tell you the same thing. But that is a definite necessity and it specifically addresses an area where no one's able to respond. Mhm.

Including the land owners that need to be able to sell their land. So the input from those property owners need to be here to to have input, public input into the creation of if nothing else with those three lines of text. Okay.

Page 52 5.4. I think we should elaborate the section of background to include a little more history. We have a we have a three governors. We have an Alamance Community College. We have so much history in that area that it would be important to uh document that in a document that continues past the service of any of the board members or council members that are here now when our kids come in. Okay?

Because so much of that is lost and has been lost just during our time. Section 53, existing and emerging conditions. I think additional work is needed to notify ETJ citizens in all directions, especially to the south and east of Graham where there is growth in the county directly that this document's even been formulated. So when we talk about emerging emerging conditions, some citizens half a mile out of ground may not know there's a condition to even be talking about and then the next day there's a sign in the yard. So we fight a battle of public response to the town's notification. Hey, this is going on. Pay attention. There's only so much the town can do to advertise or to encourage I have not received a mailer from the town ever at my personal address that the long range plan, the land use plan, the sidewalk plan, the historical commission even exists.

Yet, as an ETJ resident, I am somehow bound to those. There's a there's a better job we can do. And somewhere in this plan, we need to aware make make folks aware of emerging conditions, however that's defined. How would you suggest? Because I know, but I'm going to come up with something to the board next month because I mean, you're looking at me and I'm like I'm my hands are kind of how they were. I mean, I think uh you know, when it came to a lot of this plan, um if I had a mirror, I would look at me and you. It is our responsibility. And I'm not looking at you because you and I speak the same language.

I'm not like I said, I'll look at Dean. It'll it'll take the heat off. You know, it's just like um everybody the city likes to utilize the water bills in the website. Well, Chad's on probably on a whale, so he probably don't get a water bill. So, he it wouldn't be on his water bill. And if he wasn't looking at the city's website, I agree with the the notification that we lack um the I don't say we lack the ability, we lack in notifying our ETJ people of what's going on in the city. Okay,

we need to figure out a way to better to better u handle that. And I know you're going to say, well, it costs money and you got to stuff mailers and it cost a lot of money and well, we have to get the council to fund a little more or do something different, but we do need to address the ETJ. Okay? It's easy for the people that get water bills and that are here, but if you live in the apartments on Woody Drive and the complex pays for your water and it's figured in your rent, you would never see it either. Yeah. So, I don't know what that solution may be, but it needs to we need to figure some kind of Yeah. appropriate decision.

I I don't have much to say. I mean, I can only sit here and agree with you. Um I wish that more could have been done. um in more ways than one. I mean, I I could have done better um potentially of getting a lot of this stuff advertised. Um we did exactly what we were doing and here's where we are currently. So, I cannot provide you with any more information outside of agreement. We're not we're not saying that you didn't do a good job by no means. We're saying that

I'm of it. So I take responsibility as a professional and an adult that you know we are understanding enough to have these conversations of these things and I'm also trying to do my best by not only you all as members of the city and of the ETJ but your people surrounding you right so I mean I have to hear phone calls from all parties and want to make sure that that stuff taken in consideration a lot of what this is you know was I guess this future lane use plan was driven from was from something that was brought up two three years ago from Mr. Huffine. So, you know, I totally understand. That's all I could say. I'm not going to harp on it too much. Thank you. But that was going to be my point.

Yeah. Fact residents in that area don't get any kind ofation for the most part until something happens like Trafine said in the yard that is provided down there. It comes out of Orange County. now has orange which is not rail water anyway. Y so very very little is known in that area until I something was already progressing to happen. Yes sir. Prove here. Yeah, it expands. Is

Yeah. I just um I'm trying to also envision I guess how we write this inside of here. And of course it's going to take some time to figure some of that stuff out. So I mean I think we can all come with a combined understanding. I mean it's not just the people of the ETJ. I mean how do you members of the city think uh you know ETJ members should be treated as well as yourself when you're dealing with some of these areas and aspects. So but it's difficult to put in a future land use plan. I guess it's like it should have been happening before this so they had input. Hard to have input after everything's kind of complete. So, but I mean there's always ways to after this stuff's approved. I mean, it meant just talking about having recurring steering committee meetings to make changes to these areas. Um, that doesn't mean that we can't readvertise and take another look at some of this stuff in the future. Um, this it's not bound by approval and is not available to change. Um, that's for sure. So, we make changes and it can be changed in the future, too.

Off the record, we could put signs on side of UPS primes. There you go. and transfer trucks. It work perfectly out there, would it? It work. I could take up too much of y'all's time on that, but um happy to continue along. Mr. Huffine, sorry. My apologies for raised eyebrows and heated vision. It's not directed at you. It's direction I'm looking at. I should be looking at all of because I'm so, you know, just easy to look at, right? I'm very embracing page 60 central part of that page. Appropriate density. How did we arrive at six dwellings and and.5 commercial?

Yeah, I think a lot of this is um pulled from previous plans. All of this, I think, essentially is um kind of falling back on um what was listed out. There didn't seem to be an understanding during the steering committee meetings that there was a lot of emphasis on change. Um so it was pretty much kind of left the same. uh the future land use map which is the reason we're here page 62 the map that follows exhibit 6.4 for the title is future land use. And I'm not going to belabor the point. I'll just tell you that the same amount of notification in arriving at the future land use map designations on this drawing is the same amount of input that the citizens had in the text of this document. And then section seven, we're going to check the whole thing.

I understand. I'm I'm done. chairman. Right. I'll go back down to board again and see if there was any rebuttal or anybody wants to add anything. Mr. Mr. W. Personally, I think we should just blame Jennifer and let it go with that. I'll take the brunt of it. Wake up. Wake up. Mr. Benesh. Everything that I had to bring up, we just covered. So that good. All right. Well, if it's no further comments tonight about this, um Cameron, you got anything you'd like to address?

Um no, I think um we'll just again welcome Elizabeth to uh the planning board. Um this is a a very fun time um meeting with you all. Uh we will likely have some more items coming in next month. Um, I would suggest we will likely have a reasonzoning um, and a text amendment that is coming through. Um, I don't know if it would be beneficial timingwise for us to go ahead and handle the public stuff first and address this at the end after that. That is completely up to y'all and you as the chair as well. Um, but just wanted to bring that up that we will have some additional items and if you do feel I will not rearrange it by any means, but if that's something you feel whenever we start the meeting, we could certainly do that. Um, but the text amendment is something that was brought up um at this month's council meeting for accessory dwelling units. Um, we had a property owner who wanted to build one. We currently do not permit them. Um and uh it was either subdivide or come in front of city council for a text amendment and he went in front of city council and they tasked Aaron who tked me to take a look into it. Um the general assembly is currently looking at language and has draft language that is being reviewed um for potentially requiring all municipalities to and put this into into their development ordinance. So, if anything, you may get a little bit of a head um for a time being. They may require you to change it after the fact whenever they approve it. They may not. So,

all right. Sh, if I might add a comment. Sure. I I would like to commend the board as a whole for the diligent work, the expertise that we've seen tonight and the uh the commitment, the care, the commitment to making this as best as possible. I' I'd definitely like to commend everyone here and appreciate everything that's been said, especially the uh atmosphere of unity and working together.

Thank you, Mr. Wooden. So noted. Any non-aggenda items that any of the board members want to talk about? Chairman Cameron, we talked about a board of adjustment. Uh, is it resolved yet or

It is almost resolved. They are working it out with the property owners and that's about as much as I can tell you about neighboring property owners and that's about as much as I can get into. We um keep on, hey, are you wanting to come back and forth, we've kept them in in good company of, you know, just asking the question of if it's going to happen, but I can't let you all know when we're going to meet until I actually have an understanding. So, I'm hoping that we're not um uh and of course I'll probably have to um I think we took a look at all like the updates for alternates, things along those lines, so it's not a problem. Um so, we have an understanding of who's doing what. Um but hopefully we won't have to do it. So, but we'll see. I'm still waiting on that final con confirmation.

Now, is uh Elizabeth on our board of adjustments? Yes, sir. So you I think she will serve as an alternate currently for taking um Mr. Young's position who was one of the last ones to come on here who sat as an alternate. So I think it's um it's a fivep person board I think. So if he Mr. Bailey myself and um I think Yes. So y'all two alternates and then one of them I think it's both of them actually. Oh

yeah, because that was the problem we had where we had to change it was because we could never have a full board because it stated that an alternate had to be a city member or something or it could not be an ETJ member could not be replaced by a city member or something along those lines. So now if Chad's not here, Mr. Banesha is not here, Elizabeth could fill in as a alternate for any member. So okay. And uh well thank you for tonight and if there's no uh further comments I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Like motion we