City Council - workshop

Thank you.

Okay, it is 5 o'clock, and those who are in the room are in the room, and if you're not in the room, you may be wet. So it is very nasty outside. So good evening. This is our, I want to welcome everybody to our August 17th work session and ask that everyone please silence all electronic devices. okay we're going to start out we have a full full packet this evening and we will start out with an update on minimum housing status and i'll recognize chris marlin to share with us good evening mayor council we put together tonight a quick little presentation for you i know that there have been some questions regarding the mental housing process and kind of

Presentation with some list of addresses and such that we had done, I believe it was in July or November of 25. So just give a brief update to speak to some of that. And that's just kind of what we'll go over the status of some of our current cases that have gone through a minimum housing hearings. A brief history of those older cases that I've discussed with a couple of photos and stuff and a little quick question and answer session. So this is currently what we're working on through the minimum housing hearing process. We have three so far that have been demolished by the owner. We've got one rehabbed by the owner. Three hearings have been scheduled and or rescheduled due to time constraints and paperwork. We've got two still awaiting title opinion and two that have fresh compliance deadlines. Those are on the bottom at 402 Brooklyn and 2017 South Ashland. Basically, what that means, we're just waiting for that time to expire to effectuate the next steps in that process. 2608 Amherst Court, I know that had been brought up numerous times in the past. That was a bad house fire that happened. That one is currently, we got the leave of almost 100% completed rehab by owner. And then, of course, 1523 Maple was demolished by a new owner. Well, 445 Avon, Councilman Ward, I know you had received complaints on that last time, so we've redone that process. We were working with the owner the first time, as we had mentioned to you. He came in with a set of plans and some timelines and guidelines and stuff. He has since gone through three different contractors, two of them who stole money from him. He's located out of California, so he's not local, so it's a little hard for him to deal with some of these. But because of that timeline, what has happened, we brought him So he is currently working through that process now. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. As far as some of the older cases here, this is one of the ones that we brought back in 2025. You'll see on the left here, those are all the ones that have been demolished by the owners. We did add Dogwood Drive and Maple to that list with the new owners that bought those properties. in there so that we can take that to the next step in the process. And sometimes that takes a little bit of time to get those types of things back. But some of the ones that we had done, I know there's 408 South Ireland, that was one of contention before. And it took us a little while on the hand working with the owners. They really wanted to rebuild the house, but it got to a point where they just weren't doing anything. And then, you know, we kept getting constant pressure from the neighbors. We all know 1523 Maple. And that's gone down now. And here's Amherst Court. You can see almost completely redone with the remodel there. So neighbors were happy with that one. And this was an expensive tire. Those are just so many cases that we have worked through. But I know there was questions out there, so we just wanted to kind of throw that together for you to show you where we're at and see if we can answer some questions or concerns that you might have.

Thank you. Any questions from council members?

I really appreciate it, Chris.

Good job. I do have one question. On the Brooklyn Street one, it is Yes, sir. Is that the house that was also burned? Yes, ma'am.

We've been dealing with the owner on that. He's financially challenged at the moment. So we've gotten him in touch with a couple different agencies. But for one reason or another, a couple of those have fallen through, whether it be the agency or him. So we're still trying to work with him. that we received quite a bit of complaints about.

I received some, but I also know the homeowners who I understand have financial strain, but I have had some complaints from the residents on Brooklyn Street, so thank you for that update.

Other questions or questions?

Are most of these demolished at the owner's expense, or how many require a lien on the property?

those were all tomorrow we really work with the owner and I have my guys do that as well because from what we have seen and what we've dealt with through inspections it's cheaper for them to do it so we really push that we put that lean on there that's you do it i'd rather extend some time on our end to get it done by them so that you know it's cheaper for them thank you for that as well it's good to see somebody's getting rebuilt or redeveloped um do you see a clear roadmap on desire for those properties one step um i know recently there has been um with a lot of the single-family homes that are going up in these neighborhoods we have a copy of your list so we can see where they're at from developers and such so it's been more um i'd say within the last year or so than it has been a lot more than it has in the past so yeah i think there is more opportunity and then they're looking more at those

And one more question. Of the eight that was rehabbed by the owner, do we know how many of those homeowners actually probably used our rehab program, or if any at all?

From what I understand, I don't think any of them used it. I know we had a couple ask and get in contact with that division, but for whatever reason or not, they ended up not using that program.

Other questions? Thank you. And at this time, I'll recognize IT Director Scott Bedler to share with us about generative AI use policy and governance.

Good evening, Council. I'm presenting this evening a quick overview of the city's use of artificial intelligence The first publicly available generative AI was ChatGPT, which rolled out in November of 2022. After reviewing the technology and its use, we published the city's AI guidelines in 2023. So what is generative AI? Generative AI is a type of artificial intelligence of training data and predicting the piece of data that should come out or should come next when given a user prompt. Some examples of AI usage of chatbots and voice attendants like the animal services tool used, which is a tool that they actually named Elira. This tool by Polymorphic That's another type of information. It's a closed system. It uses this information and will provide answers to customers' questions. And right now this actually can even be done through a web chatbot or it can be done how they're primarily using it, from an audio where they're calling on the phone and then the agent actually interacts with them. This tool has greatly assisted animal services staff in providing timely responses to questions during off hours and even during periods when staff is unavailable to respond. So for IT, we leverage AI as well within applications to assist with service reported that AI is being used by nation states now to escalate hacking into targeting systems, where the average ecrime breakout is now just 29 minutes. The fastest was just 27 seconds. This was from Cybersecurity Die. That was reported in February of 26. In response to such threats, the city's IT department leverages AI tools to help combat these threats through layered security that is also infused with AI within the tools to help us identify anomalies. The police department leverages AI to address critical needs and create force multipliers. A few tools of note are Base44, a really slick tool. It's an AI app building tool that creates applications and web interfaces You basically just give it, you speak more English language to it, and it will create the code for you. No need to actually have the knowledge to actually be able to build the code. Next, they use another tool called Trulio. This is an AI case and analysis tool that is fully FBI criminal justice information systems, or CJIS. which accesses databases and works cases with detectives, helping them to connect the dots and helping to provide leads to cohort cases. And the last example is Flock, an AI video management agent. I know we've heard a lot about Flock. This is a fully CJIS-compliant tool And this was just a few of them. A survey was conducted asking staff how they currently use AI. We received responses from 195 staff, which is pretty awesome. Not that much, in fact, in quotes, noting their top uses. So they're finally using it for drafting documents, summarizing information, research, and image creation. That one right there, the image creation one, all I did, I used AI. It kind of goes with the . And then also for data analysis and reporting and coding and scripting. So while these tools have been incredibly helpful to staff in time saving and improving staff efficiency, These tools do pose some potential risk with data exposure of personal identifiable information such as names, addresses, social security numbers, confidential documents, and data leaks. In addition, AI systems have been known to provide incorrect or outright false information and credibility could be impacted, damaged. So why does this matter? If unaddressed, these risks compromise data sensitivity, increase the city's legal risk, and risk erosion of the public's trust within the city. As previously noted, our AIR policy, we implemented this first version of our policy, the city's AI usage guidelines, in 2023. We've conducted revisions of this policy over the years as technology has changed. But just to give a quick snapshot of what the policy really tries to accomplish with this is address security risk related to open AI tools. So open tools are tools that you just send it out there. It's not a subscription. And it basically is shared with the global internet. The concern with that is it's open to anyone else now as well. Sharing all content created by AI reviewed, amended, and fact-checked before final use. Staff, when using AI-created content, they should cite and maintain a record of it. Because if you get a FOIA request about, hey, was AI used? What did you get back? What was the actual results? And staff should maintain separate AI accounts between personal and city use. Staff should not provide any PII or other confidential records using publicly accessible tools. Only approved, closed, and secured tools should be used, even if they use it. They should really use discretion when providing and using that type of information. In addition to the AI use and guidance policy, an AI working group may apply policy and guide AI use within the city. The group's core goals focus on safeguarding sensitive data, approving tools based on requests and the needs of staff, ensuring the policy that staff reviews and verifies content will be to ensure staff receives ongoing training as the bottom of the pyramid. As the technology changes, the IT department is tasked with ensuring the future technology purchases adhere to the AI usage guidelines. Compliance is currently ensured through the existing technology acquisition policy where departments must go through the IT department prior to any technology purchases. Future tools will be implemented to monitor usage, ensure governance, and where needed, provide training to staff where appropriate. While the future of AI technology is unknown, the rising expectation is that agentic AI will continue to increase at a rapid pace. So agentic AI is an advanced type of artificial intelligence where resources are provided, tasks are assigned along with the working parameters, And then the agent is released to perform the tools. So that can be concerning, right? Believe it or not, the government is already starting to use, the federal government is starting to use these type of tools. These agents can respond to changes and adapt to achieve stated goals without direct intervention. Okay, so while this is just a quick and real concise review of the city's use, governance, administration, and technology, updates should be presented to council as the technology matures and becomes more ingrained within systems and applications. So we can know what's going on right now. We really don't know. They could go out to the Internet and use tools that we're unaware of. So the goal will be in October, there is a grant program, CGLCP, I believe is what the name of that grant is. It basically is a cybersecurity grant. Our plan would be to put in a tool that will apply for the Gramegan, put that tool in place.

And next on our agenda is about our backyard chicken ordinance and the survey. I recognize Morgan Lassiter, Community Engagement Manager, and Jamie Lawson, Executive Director of Planning and Development.

Good evening. So this evening, we're going to go over a little bit about the community survey that we did related to the backyard chicken ordinance. We came in front of council, what Jamie and her staff did, to talk a little bit about our 2020-2021 venture into it as well. And then heard from you guys that you wanted us to go back out into the community. So we did that. So I just want to give you a little bit of information about that. So it was held, it was open between June 2nd to July 17th. So we've had some time to look into kind of the response so that we can talk with it a little bit this weekend with you guys. So I just want to start by defining what kind of survey we did. You know, a lot of times we get pushback from the community of this doesn't really represent So we would like to clarify that there are two different ways to kind of come about doing this with a statistically significant survey versus a community input survey. There's some differences to that. With the resources that we have here at Burlington, community surveys are typically our route when we do those in house. We do have firms that we talk to and work with and can statistically significant survey that cost some dollars to get out there and do. So I like to just kind of start at a baseline so that everyone understands where we're coming from. So we did this survey in a digital format as well as printed in English and in Spanish. Chickens always get the most responses.

Did we get more responses than previously? It was just under.

We were so close. So close. So we did our forms of communication that we have here at the city to get the word out with our typical media releases, our web presence, our e-newsletter, and then we have the WhatsApp Burlington notifications, which has a robust following now to send that out. It got great traction on social media, which many of you probably saw that and all the comments that came along with it. So we spread the word that way and then of course worked with all of our media partners to get the word out. So we feel like we did a good run of kind of getting it out into the community. So with the survey results, so we had 1496 responses. About 90% of those folks reported that they lived within the city of Burlington. As you know, the last census was a little over 62,000. So that really does put us at about a 2% response rate. So I like to say that, because folks are like, you didn't get everybody. It's like, yeah, you're right. We understand that. But we did get a representation of folks that were willing to take our survey, which we're thankful when they knew that. So it looks like a clear majority of the survey respondents favor updating the ordinance that took this particular survey. And about 25% opposed that change. Sentiment was highly polarized. I'm sure this will not surprise you. Those that chose to engage with the survey either felt very strongly one way or the other. So you definitely see that in the survey results. And then with the policy insights, we found that it was really around sensible regulatory oversight rather than unregulated allowances. So we saw things like enclosure standards, prohibiting roosters, limiting flock size, Spoiler alert, the four to six Hems became the preferred limit in instituting waste management rules to mitigate neighborhood impacts. So nothing that I think really surprised a lot of us kind of around that regulatory stuff. And then this kind of breaks down back percentages, kind of that support of an ordinance revision versus not. So that gives you a little bit of insight there. And then if back dairy chickens were allowed, would you personally consider keeping them? 68% said yes, and 32% said no. And then how comfortable would you be if a neighbor near you kept your backyard chickens? So you kind of see that pie chart. It's an interesting juxtaposition of the other ones. And then, like I said, with the flock size, we kind of saw the majority of folks, that four to six hen range. And then kind of around the regulatory question, you can kind of see those mentions there with the majority of folks had no concern at all around regulation. And then 579, sanitation and odor, 429, pest and predator attraction, 348 mentions of enforcement challenges, 344 mentions of noise and nuisance, neighborhood appearance, and property values were the lowest. So you can kind of see those themes there with the regulatory information that folks provided to us, their concerns. This, again, talks a little bit about some of the regulations that folks would like to see. The coupon closure standards, ban on roosters, block size limits, sanitation and waste management standards, 299 folks that they don't think they should be allowed out, right? And then property setback minimums. And then no regulations at all was 287 folks. And then the open-ended comment section was always a fun place to go and kind of try to pick out the themes. But so we tried to kind of summarize that for you, arguments and support, arguments and opposition, and then key policy and regulatory recommendations. So there's a lot of information. I'm obviously not going to read that, but you can see kind of where it landed with that open-ended response. survey and I think for Jamie's shop their their next step is to now have that discussion with you guys and think about you know where can we go from here with this new information exactly I think we've now had the opportunity to hear the results of the survey and

Do you want to pursue an ordinance and move in that direction? How restrictive do you want to be? What types of policies do you think should be within the ordinance? Based on your feedback and what you're providing to us, we'll come back with a draft if that's what you want.

Comments from council?

I don't recall. What loans? Would you limit this to a certain loan?

Well, that's one of the questions that we would like some direction from you. Typically, we would see them limited to residential zoning districts, but there has been some feedback from business owners, too, about whether or not they could be included in the

in the provisions so that's a open-ended kind of question what about other cities that they typically just limit to residential or they allow another one as well in my opinion

they're usually tied to a residential use where it's an accessory to a principal use that's residential. We would look into more examples for non-residential. I honestly haven't seen many examples of that, but if that's what council is looking for us to research, we'll be happy to do that too.

What are the other municipalities in Alamance County that have chicken oil minces? I believe Graham, Madden, Elon, Gibsonville.

I don't think either of them, to my recollection, allows the roosters. I know I've spoken to some of the Megan leaders about the restrictions. They do have the setback requirements and I think they're, Megan in particular, I think they're limited to like four chickens. I'm interested in the regulations. For the other 400 people out of the 900 who do not want their neighbor's chickens in their yard, how do we ensure that the owner is taking care of their chicken and the chicken remains on their property and not in the neighborhood and not at their neighbor's house who does not wish to have a chicken?

There's different ways of looking at it, obviously. There are ways to look at it from a lot size perspective, that if your lot is under a certain size, that it may not be chickens allowed, or it's a sliding scale. We are concerned about will get because it will become you know if we move forward with this it would be something that would be required to be permitted and then code enforcement would most likely be involved so from staffing perspective that's another thing that we're you know need to analyze you know from setback perspective and so

maybe potentially more impact I think I would be interested in seeing the other especially now in its family you know I can go look that up myself however it would be so much easier if you provided that for us we could see what our other municipalities in the county are doing and if you know of ordinances elsewhere that you know are that you really like or that kind of stand out then I think that would also be helpful

smell is not necessarily a lock line because there are dog kennels that are right on the lock line, but it's where your people are from, your neighbors.

It's not a structure. I was just going to say, I only know of one business owner that has expressed strong interest and also aware of kind of the ecosystem that they have created there so I wouldn't want to eliminate that possibility for them so if there is something I mean if we are going to move forward that would also apply to business type of people.

Yeah, where we have to kind of weigh is when something becomes a principal use, or you've got two now new principal uses. So we can take a look at some language that would address that.

And the idea that raising poultry is never the principal use. That's not what we're trying to enable here. This is the same as keeping an animal like a pet or something.

This is enabling you to keep chickens on your property. It really is backyard chickens.

Even for business. We do have agricultural uses currently within the UDO too.

Other questions or requests that you'd like to see?

I'm curious about the question about how many chickens to limit it to. You said four to six won, but seven to ten was very close in the total. So bring some more data back on where those numbers tend to land as we look at other municipalities and does that change enforcement concerns from our staff?

And I would also be interested in property size, lot size, in relation to that too.

I don't have a question, but I'll just flag for my colleagues that I'm pretty reticent to look at community survey information where we don't know where people are answering from. It's non-scientific data. I'm not going to make decisions based on what that survey says. very unreliable data, it's a very small sample size, and it can be manipulated by people having their 25 or 30 best friends and can't answer a certain way. That really gives me pause to say that I'm gonna look at the survey data and say, well, it says this, so let's do that. And then...

I do think, I mean, I've had lots of conversations out in the community, and the conversations I've heard go along with this I haven't heard strong opposition.

I have heard some, but mostly in support. Jeff, would you like to see us go forward with getting more information and looking at the regulations and thinking about the ordinance for chickens?

I absolutely think we want to move in the direction of a draft document that has it nailed down and then we... jointly edit that to get it in a place where we're going to have a consensus vote. Yeah, I think that's the way to go for sure.

But just a non-scientific survey doesn't necessarily give the data points to you specifically, right?

That's not going to drive the data points that I want to see in that document.

Salmonella we're all going on right now so resiliency and food supply is on a lot of those lines. Thank you for your feedback. Thank you. Thank you. And next I recognize John Berman public information specialist to share with us about where we are with city advisory boards and commissions.

Hello mayor and council. At the July work session, there were two boards that you wanted to wait and get some information on before you made appointments. One was the ABC board, and you requested that I reach out to the applicants to see if they're interested in applying a veto to the Board of Adjustment. I reached out to them, and I provided those emails in the packet. I'm ready to see what you'd like the next steps to be. in that regard.

Mayor, I've got to say that Christina Benson's resume is probably one of the longest and most thorough resumes I have ever seen. So is it two applicants for

Not the six, but the six in total. But it was the two that were requested to be passed. Christina Vincent and Terry McGee-Haler. And Terry McGee-Haler was the one who sent the two people in to serve on the board of judges as an alternate seat on that board.

I did, after running some of the members of the ABC board, they mentioned with some of the rolling off members that having someone with legal expertise on the board would be hugely helpful, too.

so we only had one seat on the board of adjustment and once in the board of adjustment and one seat for the abc board i think um so we had somebody who said they're willing to fill that seat yes can we um go to that i mean like did do we have anybody else that was looking at that seat my memory was no so i think that feels like an easy step

Terry Paylor said that she would be open to switching. She applied for the ABC board, but she, John is saying that she agreed to do the DOA if needed. It was fine if she did not, if she was not approved for the ABC board. Then that means the second, the attorney, and then Bob has just added Mr. Chandler. Because those are the two that we were going to approve, the Terry or, tell me the attorney's name. Or Ms. Benson. Ms. Paylor or Ms. Benson. So we were waiting to see if either of them would rather swap. And so it sounds like only Ms. Paylor is the only one that's willing to swap for the VOA.

Yeah, I think that feels logical. And I realize we're not voting on that here tonight, but is there objection or Any discussion around that? On just the Board of Adjustment.

I'm good with that.

Okay, so that took care of that. Now we can talk about the ABC Board. John, remind us again, so we had two people that we were looking at, now, Mr. Chandler, but there were also others who had .

So there are six applicants for the Board of Adjustment. You requested that I reach out to the two, Christina Benson and Chairman Heath Baylor, to see if they would be willing to serve on the BLA.

Do we have Chandler's application? I don't have the forms in front of me. It was in the packet. for the ABC board is looking for someone with legal expertise. And so we have Ms. Benson. What does Mr. Chandler do without me having to pack in the front? What is his background? I believe he is retired.

I think there's only one seat that we're trying to get.

We have another member, Lisa Kirkpatrick, who is reappointed next year. It will be two more years before her term is up.

Thoughts, questions? So has Mr. Chamberlain been on this board in the past? He's not. Not for the longest time.

He's been on this board for at least 10 or 15 years. There have been no term limits on the ABC board by statute. So people have stayed on it for quite a long time.

And do we have the final decision? Yes.

Ms. Benson saying forward.

So we have two that have been put forward, Ms. Benson and Mr. Chandler. What do we need to do here?

I find myself throwing red flags and I apologize for that but I think that

Ms. Benson or anyone else who's a serving attorney who happens to be on the ABC board, they're not general counsel to the ABC board. And so they should not be leveraging their legal knowledge in any kind of discussion or board or commission, there's a way to go get that to have official representation to answer legal questions.

I assume that they have that.

And so I don't think that we ought to be making a final decision based on, oh, she's a lawyer, she's going to be great. I don't think that weighs into her ability to serve.

That's the whole total different. That is when you're making judgment calls and you're making legal calls and you're, you know, in the middle of the speech and you're, you know, getting that. That's why I felt that Ms. Pinson would be best So we know that they both are willing

I have communicated with all of these people, all of the ABC board members, and they're all still willing to serve on the ABC board. All the six applicants are all still working.

I wouldn't mind just going around the room. You know, either Benson or Chandler, I'll start. I'll put Chandler. Who popped up?

I do remember being very impressed with the resume. And you're right, it was very long. So I think I'm going to lean this way to this side of the room. And I would say if she were to say no, then we know. Definitely. And next up, we recognize Jane about the voluntary activities annexation request on Highway 61 South.

Okay.

Good evening again. So this item is actually tied to another item that we're going to hear about during the Planning and Zoning Commission summary. So I won't go into a lot of detail, that's just under 90 acres is off of Highway 61. It is owned by Peace Haven. They are expanding their existing actually disabled folks and you'll see in the master plan where I'll talk more from the rezoning perspective all of the different things that they're going to capture but this is this is the back story they are currently located in Guilford County they are outside of the city limits as part of their overall master plan development they are seeking to connect to our water. So as a result of the water connection, they need to seek annexation. And then we go back to if a property is annexed within the city limits, it needs to have a city zoning designation. So you'll hear more about the rezoning part, but this annexation part is really tied to the utility. We, again, I'll probably say more now and then you won't have to hear it later, but the Technical Review Committee did review their application from a rezoning perspective and that was done back in July. So this is really just, staff is recommending to city council that you set a public hearing. We have recommended September our recommendation from the rezoning perspective any questions for me i didn't realize until i saw the maps in the packet how choppy yeah it's a really interesting assemblage yes and so ultimately they'll be combining all of those lots into one but um underway with some of those components already they have already gone through guilford county from a planning board perspective and have a lot of approvals and then kind of got hitched with okay you need to enter within the city in order to connect

And next we'll recognize Mike Nunn, Director of Transportation, for a report on traffic control.

Can we turn back to the council? I just have one simple item to discuss with you tonight. I did point out on the forum, this is pending with the traffic commission. They're meeting Wednesday evening. if they want the applicants to continue writing. If it's something in their favor, the recommendation is simply you sit here first. That's good. So this is not going into commission yet. It's a simple four-way stop, two-way stop that's being converted to a four-way stop. This is Grove Park, town homes in this area. The existing stops are shown in red. So you have a stop on Minnie Street and also Grove Park. And the request is to install the four ways you see here, those outlined in yellow. There's somewhat of a curvature to the road. Obviously, there's some off and on speeding. So that's where the request is coming from road park residents and also resident on Trail 6. There are no issues found with this. Staff recommends it. This will give you three stop conditions between the two roadways and the ends of the school and the lane. So it would help the entire area. I have not had a procedure. So now the notice is a week ago. I'm not seeing any comments. So I don't anticipate any issues on this. Again, this will come to you through September 1. If you have any questions.

I'd like to say this. I live about two blocks away. And there's going to be a learning curve for those people who use that for many racetracks. Yes. And I hope and pray that there's no accidents. Because they rip up and down there.

mike i assume before i don't is it some way you can sort of do a warning before putting them in and putting all of them what we do if all the applications will do a full intersection with stop bars and stop signs will also put up the orange flags and wait to make that install and i won't speak for pd but they work with us in the early stages of education with that but we do the best we can to Notify the drivers, but we do install a full intersection at the time. It'll be new striping, bright new reflective signs, and some extra additional orange flags that you may have seen in other locations.

Are there any grand move signs? There'll be a stop ahead.

Yeah, as we normally do. There'll be a stop ahead sign on the locations on Trail 6 in our standing four-way stop.

Because I did receive some concerns when the four-way stop went on Cameron and Avon. I don't know if that's disgusting putting that there, but I had some calls about, you know, because it was new that people have, you know, generationally came through that neighborhood and just knew they could get straight. And they were saying that they would have liked to have had, you know, some preemptive measures in place so that the residents and people coming through would kind of know to stop. And they claimed that PD was stopping them and they were getting tickets. People in the neighborhood was like, we didn't know. Like, we didn't even notice it. Like, even though the stop sign was there. So I do think having those measures in place to make sure the community and try to reduce the risk of an accident, just making sure they know that now they have to stop at this area. Even if it's just a temporary signage. What about the flashers?

We do it most by signing to the markings and the orange flags. And we do send, like we went, everyone along the corridor received a notification prior of the item, but of course afterwards it could be anywhere, you know.

And we all know that, as I say, to put a sign up everywhere, but you have to obey it. We have to look at it, like don't think that, you know, because we get in that thing, we think that we know the roads, we know the neighborhood, we know where the stop signs are, and it's easy to not even... recognize something that's new is there. I think it's needed. Don't get me wrong. I definitely think it's needed to have that four-way stop. So thank you for that.

Like that related quick question, Memorial Drive. Is that going okay? I saw the signs up. It looks great. Any complaints or it seems to be working pretty well?

We have one adjustment to make for some more sight, to improve some sight. This is Memorial Drive. We've changed it one way. It answered their problems, and they all seem to be pleased with it. It used to be a two-way, and now it's just a long way. I did see that right there. That's right. Elegant solution.

I appreciate the work.

Did that go in after school was out?

It went in just before. We want to be sure, because it had been reported that there was some school traffic and parking and waiting over there, so it was all

Okay, and next we'll hear from Jamie Lawson from the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Okay, the Planning and Zoning Commission, they have three items. All of them are recommended, just so you know. And the first one, This was a rezoning request. The property is about an acre and a half at the intersection of Ross and Lower Oakdale Road. It's the property that is highlighted in teal. You can see there's two different colors that go through this property. So that means that it's split zoned. You have two different zoning designations being applied to one property, which makes it very confusing And so the applicant has requested to change the zoning from a split zone designation to just have the HDR, which is the orange color, applied to the property. It is a general rezoning request. It is not a limited use zoning request. So essentially, they could build single family, they could build multifamily, any of the uses that fall under that category. the density that would be previously allowed if it was just MDR. So I just wanted to make you aware of that. There was nobody in the audience who had any concerns and didn't receive any calls on this. The staff did. The second item, there were two plant developments, very different type of plant developments. The first one is off of Lakeside Avenue and it includes about 67 acres of property just south of Brasfield Meadows and essentially what the request is for this change to zoning from medium density residential and high density residential to a planned development application. They are seeking to get approval for roughly 240, I believe, single family homes. Included in the packet that you have received is the site plan that the technical review committee the zoning language that would run with this plan development. Technical review committee approved the plan development in July, and planning and zoning also recommended it. This is the, we call it a master plan or concept map, but this kind of illustrates what the applicant conceptually has in mind and different, I would say, proffers or items that they are offering up that go above and beyond what our ordinance requires. So as part of that plan development analysis, the applicant has to show enhanced quality design elements and those have been within this site. For example, they have committed to five, I believe it's five, open space areas. Each of them has some kind of active component that's not required. Staff had a lot of questions about connectivity through the site and providing a lot of active components since this really would be kind of its own neighborhood, its own development. And so they incorporated that to connect with the Greenway, a lot of connections through to their active parks, making them more centrally focused into each area so it's not active and recreation just in one component of the development. They set aside areas in the event that a bus route would come through this area. They set aside an area for a bus to be coming through this area. They provided additional parking. We had some concerns regarding their seeking to reduce their lot width. And so when you do something like that, parking which which is something that we had recommended as well in each recreation component there are 26 parking cells they are committing to ultimately a connection to brass fields Meadows there is an existing right-of-way here it is not a It's not approved yet, but they have committed from a fire and emergency perspective and a sound planning practice to connect to the north. streets that do abut their western property line, and then there are some stubs that come. But we have heard through different community outreach, specifically a gentleman who lives, I believe, somewhere here. He was not interested in there being a connection. You also have constraints that run through these areas that

because the way our votes span out.

I know there's quite a lot of homes there, right?

Yes. I mean, so you've got the Brasfield Meadows that abuts to the north, and then there's also an extension of that above that. A portion of it was within the city limits and a portion I think it's probably the old zoning designation. But I can provide that information to you when we have the public hearing. Because they're planning on putting 250, you said? 241.

And then I know there has to be at least. 251. At least 200 homes, I would think, in Brasfield. And they're basically going to make it one huge community. It will connect.

It will connect. The existing community that's out there already has their access points. So this would not serve as their primary access. I guess it depends on where you would live and which direction you would go.

I think they have like three entry points right now. And we're talking about on the same side or across the street where that lands, on the same side. Same side.

I'm not expecting you to read this or be able to see everything in here, but these are the terms associated with their planned development. All of these different things they have committed to in addition to what I mentioned before, they are providing double the amount of open space as part of this development. So everything that they provided on the plan is a commitment. And any time there's a deviation from that, if it's a significant deviation, they would come back to council planning and zoning commission and council for a modification. 3,400 linear feet of the major trail, so that's pretty significant. They've doubled the width of the perimeter buffers adjacent to where the residential neighborhoods are. I mentioned the bus stop.

On the bus stop, I'm curious, this would be nearest to the green route, which is going to the point-to-point service. So how viable is that bus stop? How well is it designed for

this type of higher density development that may restrict the actual green route service as it stands today and as it likely stands in the future so so right now it is just a reservation for the ability to have bus stuff um there's not an analysis that's done regarding which connection it would be for or essentially we wanted to you the staff recommended that there be some kind of set aside area because there really is no space along Lakeside. And felt like this would be, you know, a good proffer, a good addition to the development.

Okay. But it does have good flow. It would allow for that off the main road. Yes. It would allow for turning radiuses for buses.

Yeah. So this is the area right here that is currently identified. they also committed to different design standards so we have optional design standards for single-family detached homes they have committed to certain elements regarding that so staff did recommend the rezoning request And the future land use designation is the map on the right. This area is designated as rural residential ag. So staff did call this out as inconsistent with the future land use designation. But we are recommending the reserve request. And it's split zone, right? Yes.

It's just a mapping.

They are included within the rezoning request. They are individual parcels. And ultimately this applicant, not this applicant, but this project would require a utility connection so you'll see them down the road

Does it run, I know, I'm trying to think of where, the Morgantown, the new area back in there, it doesn't connect to that, does it? That new, when you go further out, that development that came through like two years ago and kind of goes back in the back, that part of that Morgantown area, it doesn't connect back over, it doesn't end or,

This section doesn't, but I believe there's another section .

That it will connect with the . Okay.

I think we're ready. All right.

Okay, and then the last item that the Planning and Designing Commission heard was tied East Mainland Master Plan. Again, it was tied to the site plan that the Technical Review Committee did review and approve. Staff does recommend this. You can see, again, the size of the site, which is not really visible from the street. It's really a large piece of property. Even on the property, you don't realize how big it is. But this map illustrates different different uses that they are proposing as part of their overall master plan. I believe this blue shade is agriculture, so a lot of their existing services are agriculturally based. They're trying to expand that. My cursor is pointing to where the existing entrance is. that's already under construction and built that is going to be tied to a new building that's the community building and arts and crafts. It's kind of a multi-use building that's recently had a kickoff and groundbreaking and that is under construction right now. Another phase would be sort of the medical component to, again, these are all And then finally, up in this area is a residential loop that would provide places for those who have intellectually or developmentally disabled. This would provide housing on site in a community-oriented area, and then there was also a respite care also planned for family members that can come and visit their family that's residing here. So it's a really comprehensive voucher plan that PeaceAid has thought through, and again, they're just seeking our utility connection, and that is all tied then back to this resorting process. Lots of words on this slide. Again, this is their commitments associated with what they're

And at this time, I will invite any council members to share from the committees that you are serving on. I can run down the list if that's helpful. I'm serving on the TRC Board of Delegates and Executive Committee, and we've recently had a cancellation of the meeting, but that is what sticks out in my mind. I think it was this week's meeting. And then part of Bob and I both are on that. We had a meeting last week that felt like getting everybody back in the room for the rest of the year and the next, but still really looking at the shared, where you can pay in one place and ride, and it'll share across the municipality. Metro mayors also has not met much over the summer. Transportation Advisory Committee, do one of them follow?

Really nothing to report now, but it will be after tomorrow. Okay. We've got a pretty important agenda, so nothing to report this evening. Okay. And we're going to take the on-time cooperation.

Elements County Transportation Authority, Ian?

I took it down for our last meeting.

And Elements County Economic Development Committee, Ian? No. Okay. And Salvation Army Advisory Board? No. Okay. Okay.

I want to support Sam. So they just, under the Transportation Committee, they just, the state just approved the scoring. Yes. for the projects in our region. And we are tomorrow's big because we're trying to get ready for the next plans, the ones that do not get approved through this cycle, which ones are important to move forward next. So that part is done. They've chosen and decided which projects And what is it called, Bob, in the area? It's not just Burlington. I think that's worth saying. It is... We've got the local division and statewide. The local division and statewide, yes. Those projects have been decided traditionally.

And we'll approve the recommendation for it to, you know, to finalize the plan for next year.

Thank you, Bob, for helping me out on that one. Thank you to the community. I know it's important. I know a lot of people are watching and want to know what's going to be the new project here in Burlington from the state level and things like that. So it has been determined. We will make the final determination tomorrow, be it consecutive or not, on tomorrow.

Okay. Thank you. Anything else on committees?

No, but I do have a question to ask. Okay. In connection with the hearing tomorrow evening, I believe all accounts for, did you get something from Brad? He had asked for the addition of five items. And Jamie, did you get a copy of it? Did you get a copy of it? I did. Can we consider this? In other words, I'm not sure .

So what's in front of you is a limited use rezoning. You, council, does not have the ability to impose conditions. I was going to take, so you would not be able to say, OK, with an increased buffer or this or that, we condition the approval. I haven't had a chance to take a look specifically on his request. But I'm planning on doing that to let you know whether or not some of those requests are consistent with our Unified Development Ordinance, whether these are things that would be imposed at the time of site plan. So that's the direction that I'm going to go. I'm anticipating the gentleman I think in the email is not available.

But that makes sense that those are design elements, and this is just the zoning hearing. And so the zoning enables many uses. We know who the applicant is. But we see many projects that never come to fruition. So imposing restrictions based on a perceived youth

That was my understanding. But when it comes up for a site plan approval, if indeed the UDO says that would be good, at that time, that could be imposed. But that's a separate process. It's not by recommendation of the landowner or anybody else who wants to speak to the public here. I just want to clarify my understanding.

Yes, sir. but you will look at it to see if any of this falls under the UDL or PTRC, is it PTRC? T-R-C, excuse me. Can we see if any of these conditions would fall under that bond review in the next phase, even though right now we're not considering it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, I'll recognize our city members

get more detailed information about the various plans that have been implemented and the challenges that we're facing followed by a discussion which i think mr hofman wants to talk a little bit about tonight about the options for council expansion followed by some some discussion discussion

It's on video, and Bill's been good enough to send that out to all of you. So if you're crunched for time to get all the way through this, don't just emphasize it. Go to his video. It's 15, 15 minutes, 17 minutes. Yeah, once again, Robert Joyce's comments on that 15, 17-minute video are the best summaries to do so.

He sent it to us already, correct? He already sent that video to us, correct?

He sent it to me. He sure did. And we're having questions when you're in the midst of your discussion, and I'll be glad to turn around and try to get those answered for you later. And I would... I would say on this form right here, this is Mr. Joyce's, Professor Joyce's, your emphasis is really on questions four, five, six, seven, and eight. One, two, and three are really probably not something that you're much interested in, whether it's called city or village or whatever. But nevertheless, the others, and number nine comments on the video when he talks about 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. And I think you'll be prepared. And as I said, I know y'all all thought about this and were willing to go with it. So we'll look forward to hearing what y'all have to say.

Thank you. So we'll be sending you a copy of the agenda and some of the discussion questions.

Anything else?

I was just curious, the striping on Edgewood has continued. I was just curious what the status of doing the bike lane study and design was.

We're waiting for some of the on-call partners to, contacts to get signed so that we can select a department that will do that study. Okay.

And we just got some of those signed and returned to us last week. Okay. Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Anything else?

Oh, one item. You did not say it faster than two.

It's more of a...