Planning Board - Regular Meeting

computer. I didn't know if you brought a computer. Yeah, I did. Okay. Awesome. Hey, good evening everyone. calling the meeting to order at 6:30. And uh just want to let everyone know tonight we appreciate you coming and if you have cell phones on if you'd please cut them off and put them in the silent mode so we don't hear hear them ring during the meeting. Right. I'm going to take a quorum of the board. Mr. Hai

here. Mr. Banesh here. Chair Dean Wards here. Mr. Wooten here. Mr. Docker here. and Miss Keratrick here.

Thank you. If everyone would 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. Thank you. Hey guys. Um, we're the Graham Planning and Zoning Board and we're just an advisory board to the Graham City Council. It consider we consider and make recommendations to the G council regarding any request for changes to zoning assignment. As such, city council and the final arbitrator is the final arbitrator or disapproval. Meetings are conducted according to the written published agenda. Individuals who wish to speak concerning any of the request any request to be considered will be given opportunity during the public comment period for each item. Please signify by raising your hand your desire to speak and the meeting moderator typically myself the chair or the vice chair will call upon you will recognize you. Please come to the podium state your name and address and voice your comment. The time limit for comments is 3 minutes, but may be extended by the moderator to allow for questions from the board. Please maintain a respectful and civil demeanor with all comments and responses to questions. The meeting moderator will signal when an 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 from the audience will be deemed out of order and individuals not respecting this will be subject to removal. And thank you for your cooperation in that. Cameron, I want to change uh the agenda just a little bit. I want to start with the accessory buildings tonight. Item number B. That's where I'm going to start. But while you're getting to there, uh did everyone have a chance to review the minutes from last month? And if so, did anyone see any changes or any additions that needs to be made?

Uh yes, I made one comment to Cameron under 7A, future land use plan discussion. I had him correct my name spelling. Okay. Any other corrections? All right. I'll entertain a motion. Make a motion to approve the minutes. Second. All in favor? Uh any opposed? Thank you. Okay, Cameron, let's move forward.

Yes, sir. Um so, back again with the accessory dwelling. Um text amendment that we discussed last month um at the what was it? February or maybe January city council meeting. um a citizen um attended and requested that the city explore the idea of adding in language addressing accessory dwelling units. Um and uh language was drafted by staff based on previous discussions um associated with accessory dwelling units. Um we looked at this last month. Um no real changes were made on my end um from what was provided. I know we had a couple things we wanted to change um but wanted to table it to get some more insight from you all on what you all would like to see inside of this document. Um I didn't really receive much of anything on this front. So I figured we'd talk about it tonight. Um I know there's some um lingering things from last time such as the water sewer connections, things along those lines which we can edit and change tonight. Um but I think there's also some larger scale items of discussion that y'all want to talk about. So I pretty much just left it as is and we can pick back up where we were.

Thank you. Mr. Kirk, would you like to start? I will pass to the next person right now. Mr. Wood pass on this for the moment.

Well, the comment I would like to make is the fact that there was a statement made that by someone from the audience that North Carolina did not allow um for an AUD to have uh or be have a an address of the same and by adding or not adding a letter or a number to the end of it which would separate it. But by North Carolina uh law and the regulations of North Carolina which I have here, they do allow it. Almans County um doesn't have a stipulation whether or not as long as it is approved by the local authorities such as uh your emergency services and post post office so they can deliver the mail. They can be assigned uh for instance 1,000 uh A and 1000B, but would but be two separate units on the same lot to clarify that. So that needs to be included if we're going to address that as um being allowed an AUD in our city Graham agree with that too. I know we may have talked about it last time as well, but that is is that even something that um I mean I guess what does it say inside of here that anyone seeking uh shall coordinate with the Alamance County GIS addressing an emergency service to endor any address to be assigned will work for all agencies. So it doesn't necessarily say inside of there that they're I guess

subject to a certain stipulation. It's just that they need to get approval. It's almost like it almost needs to be redacted in a sense where it just doesn't need to be in there because you're already having to do it. I think that was something we talked about last time of if that is the case for the statutory requirements or whatever the county has, then they'll have to abide by that anyways. It doesn't need to be included.

The county doesn't have a stipulation. If you'll go back to the uh there is a book ADU regulations in North Carolina, the complete guide that North Carolina puts out. It addresses all the counties that recognize and have approved AUDs uh alphabetical alphabetically. Uh Alamance County has not adopted any particular uh plan. So they leave it up to the uh cities inside the county.

Did we did we ever come up with the stipulation or agree between the board members here? not if we do choose to proceed forward in allowing this is not to require uh extra power meters and extra water meters to allow that. I mean that was one of the things I think that uh city was wanting but you know some properties are served with a big enough water meter that would run two houses and I don't see that need to uh pass that expense on of a new tap fee when it's already existing. Uh, and same for the power. If their power service is big enough to run an accessory dwelling unit, you know, some people may have a 400 amp service and may have 150 or 200 amps left that they could run a accessory dwell. And I just don't want to see that cost passed on to uh the homeowner or property owner. Uh, if we choose to recommend approval,

I think the term that was used was capacity, right? like if there's sufficient capacity for the existing line out there to serve it, then it can be used off of that. But if it does not have the capacity to store or to serve that accessory dwelling unit, then yeah, it's something that they'd have to address probably making another tap connection. And it's also my understanding is that um there wasn't a restriction size for an accessory dwelling unit. We talked about certain things, but there wasn't one. City wasn't asking for a restriction size.

Do you not think it would be appropriate to potentially consider a size? Would you want an accessory dwelling overpowering the main dwelling of the property?

I think um you know, it might even be fair to state if you don't want to have a specific number in mind. Um I know areas like Raleigh and other places have it just can't be bigger than the primary structure. Um, you know, if you got a 5,000, that's probably a lot. A 2,000 foot structure, the accessory could be,999 square feet. Um, and that essentially would meet a requirement and not have a harsh stipulation on anybody, I guess, for, you know, if they did want to have a bigger one and their house is larger, they could still make it work or lot coverage in the back. So if an accessory dwelling was approved and built and it attaches to the main dwelling,

that going to conflict give you a you know a certain problem with addressing. I think it really just boils come like I think we had this discussion as well of you know the connection and everything else and I think it has to be a purposeful um you know connection and separation of the two. You know, we talked about what if we want to just build an extra bedroom on top of our building outside of here. That's not really an intentional ADU per se, but when you close it off with a wall and a locked door from the other side and its own individual access, that's when it acts as the ADU. And we need to meet those size requirements essentially. And then, like I said, it boils down to whatever the county states for addressing. I don't think the city really has any requirements. It really all boils down to what they say. I think a lot of those addressing requirements are stipulation by the post office as to how they deliver the mail, how they set up their mail.

A lot of the post offices really don't deliver to they tried to move away from um individual mailboxes, at least in the new larger subdivisions at least. Um but it may even be something that they'll allow it. Um but needs to get that approval from and the county and the uh postal service work hand in hand when they were doing this addressing stuff as well. Also, uh I would like to see if it was something that we was leaning towards app or proving that it must be behind. It can't be uh anywhere else on the property. Has to be behind the dwelling.

I think how I had it written in here was that it can it is limited to the rear and sides um where it cannot go past the front of the existing structure on there because you have to take into consideration the unless you want to differentiate between the two of a detached and attached, right? I mean, it's hard for an attach to be fully like separate and in the back. I guess you could put it on the side if you wanted to. Um, but I think that's at least how I have it written right now is it can be put in the side. Um, but it's going to be difficult to put them in the sides due to the setback constraints because most of the homes now aren't really meeting or right there on them as well. So, um, I think really what's written inside of here is just not going to protrude past the existing one. But if that's something you are thinking about of limiting it limiting limiting it to only the rear yard, all you have to do is take out that side piece um that's written inside of here. You know, if I may uh add to that, require detached ADUs to maintain a minimum separation from the primary structure, uh 6 to 10 ft, for example, to prevent it from functioning as an extension of the house and restrict the ADU to the rear of the property or rear of the building line, the primary structure to maintain a single family appearance and street. Would that be uh acceptable?

Um I think it's completely up to you all um as how you would like to kind of move forth with your understanding of how you would like to see these things passed. Um you know uh there is a requirement for building code alone of separation between structures. Like if you don't want in the side that's perfectly fine. We can just leave out the side portion of this and say it's strictly to the rear property. But we could also I guess keep it for rear and side for the attached. It really depends on how y'all want to kind of flip-flop around that. So, or we could uh it does it could exceed building code requirements like if you want to have them attach or detach have 20 ft of separation and that's something that y'all could write inside of here if you absolutely want to. I hope that answered your question.

It did. Thank you.

Item number K on the list. Um, I'm just concerned about, you know, we've got the language in here about bed and breakfast and boarding houses and uh short-term rentals. How are we going to enforce that? I think um, you know, it's the same way we enforce it currently is uh, case by case basis. Um, all these things are required to get um, zoning permits here. Um, like I said, I think this was just really put in here the same with the um the water and sewer aspect of just enforcing or not enforcing it, but putting it as strict as you possibly can inside of here to limit it to just one specific type of use. It's either individual living or long-term rental. Um, but as for enforcement, I mean, we're going back to the same discussion with, you know, the whole aspect of it previously is um there has to be evidence associated with it. Um and that is determined by you know what's going on around there. Um neighboring property owners uh collaboration with um emergency services i.e. police force um us inside of the zoning department as well code enforcement. Um so I think without the um appearance of a zoning permit classifying these things as such then they are deemed to be in violation. Um and we'd have to of course provide that evidence associated with it. So, Cameron, what would staff's u position be on if this was approved? U as far as materials used, does it does it need to blend with what's there? uh if it's brick there, does it have to be brick or can it be this stucco or could it be vinyl siding or

So general statute doesn't allow for any governing body to regulate any type of materials being used on homes. Um so we couldn't say this has to be similar to the existing structure because we'd be breaking statutes. Um if it were in an overlay district, um that'd be completely different, but since it's just in a residential, we don't have the regulation to be able to do that.

Okay. Anybody have anything? Feel free to chime in anytime. Going through some things I had on my mind.

Like to go back to the subject of the amount of square footage allowed. The accessory dwell dwelling unit shall not exceed 50% of the hoodie gross floor area. I think that would be appropriate in smaller lots, but if we get into lots that are like 2 acres like bigger, that really doesn't uh is not such a factor. I would I would suggest that we remove that maximum air of 1600 square feet and say shall not extend exceed say 75%. Are you going to no max? I guess just no more than 75% of the existing dwelling. Correct.

Okay. Just throwing it out there.

That one's on you all as well. I mean, if that's what you all envision or something you like to pass forward, um, that's on y'all as the board. So, um, like I said, I think it it goes in line with some areas essentially. It's either percentage of the existing dwelling or just say it can't be larger. So, if you want to put a percentage cap on it, that's certainly fine, too. I'm sure there's probably other ones that are more restrictive um than even what we have written down here now. But I think it's fair to um you know bring that point up because um the gentleman that was here the last meeting, he was one of the instances where he has probably a larger home on a larger piece of land that maybe not meet his requirements for what he's exactly want to do based off this. But then again, like I said, it's it's case byase basis. It's, you know, in one area, you have to understand that that's also what's going to happen in the other part of town in more dense areas, too. Um so it's hard to kind of I guess pick and choose. So, it's finding that comfortable medium.

I know we had this uh conversation last uh month about it also. Uh this is a one-time deal for each partial. Is that correct? If you do it one time, if I sell it and someone else buys the property, can they have their one-time shot, too? No, sir. Um so, well, I guess you're correct. They cannot um essentially state what it says inside of here. Um let's see. suppose something item C.

Yeah, properties. No, wrong one. Yeah, one accessory dwelling unit is permitted per lot. So it if it goes with the land essentially, not the land owner that's outside of there. So if you build it, somebody else couldn't go out there and say, "Oh, this is my new lot. I'm allowed to build another one on there. It just doesn't work like that." So I think since it runs with the land, it's just that one single one. But now, how does that affect people with acreage inside the city that's all platted at one plat right now? So, I own six acres here in Graham and uh I go to subdivide my property and I've got an accessory dwelling. Are you going to tell me I can't have one on my new lots that I've cut off?

No, I think you can because it's a new piece of land. um whenever it's a lot of record, I think is probably the best way to put it is, you know, it's a brand new lot of record. So long as the existing accessory dwelling unit being subdivided meets all of our requirements and there's a new lot created that meets all of our zoning regulations, you can build your house and then you can build your accessory dwelling unit, but the primary house is going to have to be built first essentially.

What is our thought process about the density in a in a small confined area? Well, I think it still boils back down to, you know, what zoning district are they in currently? Um, if they're in an R18 zoning district, they're going to have to meet the 18,000 minimum square foot lot area. And of course, they can exceed that. Um, and then you go to your R sevens, it's going to be difficult for, you know, R seven together, all that land to be able to put six or eight units on one lot and subdivide it off. Um, as well as meeting the setbacks. So, um I think it's still in line with what the uh the zoning districts lay out um for, you know, that density and where it's being expected inside of these different districts. And like I said, I think a lot of it's just based off of the square footage that you're going to need to have a lot out there because there aren't many, I guess, I understand where you're coming from as well, but um you know, in the R9 or R seven, there aren't many two acre pieces of land left essentially where you can kind of, you know, build eight lots on, you know, two acres of land essentially. But it's certainly possible if somebody were to buy a big cluster. Well, it was I was reminded me of the property down here in Wilton that come before us a few months ago where they wanted to do duplexes.

Yes, sir. And the duplexes were shut down. U but they could go in there and do houses and do accessory dwellings and achieve the same thing. I don't want us to circumvent our zoning to opening up a loophole.

I think that's something to take into consideration. I mean, I think that's um I don't want to say the risk you run whenever you're approveing accessory dwelling unit, but I mean, it essentially is. I mean, it opens up the door for additional density um here inside the city of Graham. Um somebody could argue that it's good affordable living for some people and other could argue that we don't want more houses here inside the city of Graham um alone. So, like I said, it's a you flip a coin and figure out which side you want to land on. So, um it's definitely possible. Um, I think a lot of it boils down to these smaller lots, the setbacks of them as well. It's going to be really difficult for some of these to be able to build these types of duplexes, really going to be a smaller type of accessory dwelling unit, maybe a smaller garage conversion, things along those lines. Um, I mean, if you really want to try and safeguard yourself, you can increase the setbacks if you absolutely wanted to. Um, that's definitely a thought. Um, but I think what we have inside of there currently kind of keeps things um in a condensed little area on said lot, but it can't really be compared whenever you're talking about a smaller lot and a smaller zoning district and a larger lot in a larger zoning district.

Thank you.

Just going back to what you said earlier about the water and sewer. I think it should be a case- by case basis. If there's adequate electric supply or adequate water supply depending on the size of the house, the needs, the situation already there. I think there should be a flexibility there instead of mandating that it has to be a separate one.

It right. I just I didn't want it required at all to and if they need it, they can get it. They can apply for the city. But when you say on a case by case, it's one property owner, one property, one property owner is putting in a century dwelling and if he thinks his water meter is big enough, are we going to require him to have a a se separate meter? How do you judge? That's more of a problem. I mean, what what I'm if it's not a problem the way that I'm talking about, so maybe I'm not following you. If you don't require it to be done, then it may be something that they run into in the aftermath and they have to come down the city and pay a tap fee and get a new tap put in a new water line.

I'm basically agreeing with you. I didn't sound that way. Okay. We're letting the homeowner bear the burden of determining whether or not it's Yes. Yes. And I think there might be like an aspect of insurance that comes into play as well of providing the flow that's going to this new building because you're going to have to provide some type of documentation on top of your existing mortgage or new mortgage that's going onto that building or you know they're going to have to pull a building permit. Um and if it really is a large question um not case by case, but we have staff on hand to determine what the flow is that's going out there. Um and if they really do need another meter out there. Um but I think what you said.

Okay. Anyone from the audience want to speak about this topic tonight that we're talking about? Mr. Chrisman, come on up. Glad you could join us tonight. Eric Chrisman 208 Albright Avenue in Graham. I'm late to this conversation, but if it's a casebyase decision on each lot, why not just have a special use permit on it? the special zoning request. Just a question.

You do you think that's necessary, Cameron, for each one to have to apply for a special use permit?

Um, I mean, it really depends on how um, like I said, it boils down to how you all look at it, right? Um, it can definitely work in that aspect. talking about a case by case, but at the same time I think you have to understand um there are a lot of factors that come into approving a special use permit. Um and those six criteria I think that come into play like hard not hardships but um uh what is essentially that it's not devaluing other people's property things along those lines. So, you're definitely adding in additional layers for them to get to that point, but I don't think the aspects of, you know, water meter size, things along those lines or size of it is uh going to come too much into play for the special use, but it's an extra layer to for you all to take a look at for each new special or accessory dwelling unit that comes along. Um, I don't think that I have too much of an opinion on it. Um, that boils down to how you all feel. if you think that these need an additional look from a governing board in order to get approved and that's the only thing that I can really relate to that honestly. Um I I don't think it's um cost factor for a special use permit versus coming up to the city and just being able to walk in the door and apply for an accessory drilling

site plan engineered drawings showing it's not as as as like a conditional reszoning for a large scale scale development. Um, it's almost just like a plot plan showing where it's going to be located. Do you have your necessary parking? Are you meeting your necessary setbacks? A surveyor could probably do it. Um, but you're still talking3 $4,000 um on top of a fee from the city of Graham for a special use permit and an additional two to three months um in order for the um dwelling unit to be potentially approved. Um, and I think that's, you know, it's burden on the developer who's wanting to do it. that they have to understand that if they apply for this, there's a chance they could get denied. Um, I think with the special use permits, um, it shall meet all six criteria and if it does meet all six criteria, it shall be approved. Um, and it is on them and anybody else to provide information otherwise and for, you know, city council to determine whether or not those six are being met. Um, so you definitely open yourself relatively vulnerable for some of these decisions, especially if it's something that's going to be steadfast here inside the city and you're going to have special use permits, three special use permits on a docket every month. But that's not a reason to take away from it for the time that it's going to take to review it on the city council side, but just, you know, a thought to throw out there.

Thank Thank you. Come on up.

Please state your name and address, please. Good evening. I'm Molly Whitlatch and my address is 531 North Main Street and I had just a couple questions on the special use permit. Would that process allow neighbors or adjacent property owners to have input into the application?

So, it really is specific to you if you are directly their neighbor. Yes, potentially, but it is all based off binding of facts and evidence. Um, the council will not be able to take in any bits of opinion. um if you do have um anything that you would like to provide, it needs to be backed up with some type of evidence. Um there's a swearing in aspect and I think that's really um where it boils down to and we have to determine if you even have standing in this discussion. If you're a block down the road, there's a good chance you don't have standing to even bring your comments forward. Um unless you're an expert in subject field of um uh what's the word I'm looking for? Um appraisals like this is going to harm my neighbor's appraisal value for building another home out here. then you could be implemented as an expert witness. But there's a lot more um legal requirements for these special use permit hearings because they're quote like quasi judicial, right? It's a court proceeding essentially.

Yes, I understand the quasi judicial aspect of it. I guess my point is would if if it wasn't a special use permit, then adjacent property owners wouldn't have notice or any opportunity to have input that's correct into what was happening. Okay. Um, and then my second question is I when I read the proposed statute or ordinance, I don't see anything that addresses joint driveways. So, for instance, I have a large lot. My neighbor has a large lot. I think they would meet the criteria to have ADUs, but we share a driveway. And that would be quite an imposition on the properties if two additional houses were placed on those lots.

Yeah. And from what I read, there only needed to be sufficient parking for two spaces for the primary unit and then one for each bedroom of the ADU. But that would again, if there was no process for neighboring properties, property owners to have the opportunity to have input on the application if there wasn't a special use permit process, then that could be an imposition. So just excuse me, ask the board to consider that. Yeah, I think with the cross access stuff, it's again it runs with the land um between two property owners and a contractor or deed aspect between, you know, those two lot lines. Um and it's really hard unless it's something that is specifically written inside of said, you know, easement between the two property owners that this shall only be utilized for one single family dwelling on the lot. Um, I mean, I think that it is definitely possible to throw something inside of here that states, you know, they have to have their own single driveway. Um, but of course that's up to whether the board wants to implement that or not. Um, you know, I think shared access is, um, listed a lot throughout of our development ordinance to limit the amount of entrances onto city roads um, and additional curb cuts, they're required. Um, but like I said, I think it really just boils down to if that's something that they deem appropriate or not.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Another follow up. Absolutely. Albbright, you're going to consider each of these additional dwelling units on a case-byase basis. What criteria are you looking for on a case-by case basis?

Whether it can meet the setbacks on the property. I mean, I'm against the the water meters, the sheer driveways. I didn't think of that and I appreciate her standing up and asking about that. That's something to consider, but it's all over Graham right now. The accessory dwellings are going on all over Graham right now. And you're you're aware of it and we're trying to either decide whether it's something that should be permitted or not be permitted in size and quantity, but staff um would ultimately have that say. Yeah. We talked about it in the past about about mother-in-law houses. That's right. Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, I think like when you talk about case by case basis, um it really depends on what type of process it's going through. Um and it's really not a case by case basis. Whenever there is specific language inside of the development ordinance that states this is shall this shall be what happens or that sounds bad. This is what happens essentially when you're wanting to build an accessory dwelling unit. So there's not really a case- by case basis anymore outside of maybe on the owner side of things if they need to get a secondary water meter or not because their current water line does not support the other area of the home being. So unless and even with a special use permit, it's not case by case anymore because they're still having to meet those criteria inside of it. There's not we're going to give you a reduced setback here because your lot's a little bit smaller. Um it's all going to be to whatever it states inside the development ordinance if that makes sense. that there are a lot of unknowns and and we have shells. Um then it becomes arbitrary capricious on who to decide. Uh well we didn't we didn't think about the combined driveway. So um oops bad on us. So how many other contingencies haven't we thought about yet before we get into into making

I think sorry there's some instances out of here talking about the lot shall have legal access to public or private street. So, um, legal access being an easement deed through a shared driveway. Um, of course, it just wasn't specifically out there that you're not allowed to use a shared driveway. Um, like I said, those things run with the land. And how much do we really want to get into governing um you know what how how accessible then are these access these dwelling places if even if it's a shared driveway and you got a log driveway going back into the woods and then you got a house beyond that it's hooked into your water line and or it's got a well and hooked into your electrical panel. How accessible is that to rescue vehicles and fire department?

That is again it's born on the developer whoever's wanting to do it. Um, I think there's a lot of landlock lots here inside the city of Graham that don't necessarily have direct access to the right of way where fire trucks can get down. I can think of a couple that are down East Harden Street and we've had these discussions before as well as, you know, it comes to if the road is not accessible via the fire department, then we're going to try our best to get back down there um if possible. Um, as the house is a blaze, we're gonna try our best.

Yeah, what I've heard. So, I mean, we have our appendix D, I think, hasn't been adopted, which requires each lot to have frontage on a 20 foot ride, at least a 20 foot wide road here inside the city of Graham. Um, and that hasn't been adopted due to the fact that we have all of these older roads that are landlocked, easement, deed throughout, they're rock, gravel, dirt, anything else. And it's really just it's your understanding as the person who's doing this of the risk that comes with it. The same with your water line. If you want to try and connect to it and you don't have enough capacity to do it, um you're going to have to come back and get a new meter connection. I heard you I heard you not to vote on this. Thank you, Mr.

I'm a drone drone bias 205 Albright. Uh, in your specifications, I notice you're saying something about under about properties located within historic district, historic preservation district. Are we specifying whether that's a local historic district or national historic district?

Properties designated as a national historic landmark by the United States Department of Interior and properties located within a historic preservation district. So, I think it spans across all are all areas of historic districts. like I think you know some areas along Albbright fall into the um state category um that they're identified as such um and then have to get approval from them to do a lot of things. So I think it falls into that category of you have more things that you have to do in order to get it done inside of those district areas. Same with like downtown. If there's somebody wants to do it inside of our historic resource district, um they're going to have to come through the um historic resource commission in order to get it approved. My house is in a national is a national contri contributing structure to the national historic district.

Yes, sir. There are no restrictions on my property. Okay. I think and that's why I was pointing out if it was a local historic district such as downtown center square, there are restrictions. Whereas if it's a national historic district, there's nothing. And you're not making a clarity between the two. So I was just wondering that.

Thank you. anyone else. All right. Any further discussion? Got it started. I don't really want to see us have a bunch of duplex lots around town. And I think that's what we're creating is we're creating the issue with um allowing multiple dwellings on one property which is ultimately creating that loophole for duplexes as we talked about on Wilton. So I think there's a way to do something here, but I don't think that uh that we have it all in front of us right now. I'm certainly against I think it ought to be a square footage um maximum square footage for an accessory dwelling versus 50% or 75% or 25%. I think it ought to be a square footage if we're going to allow it. Um and I think we ought to consider making sure that you have your driveway that's with that property. You can't use an accessory driveway from someone else, your neighbor's driveway as long as it's a deed easement or driveway. I think that needs to be considered.

Yeah, I think everything that you're mentioning, you know, can be incorporated into this tonight if you so do choose. You know, I think it's a discussion between you all as to, you know, Chair Ward's discussion topics of is this something that can be included inside of here or is this something that you just all aren't comfortable with and want to deny it outright? because I think there's avenues to get what you want inside of here. Um, but it just has to be discussed essentially and find out what that exactly looks like. If it's we don't want shared access driveways between two property owners to be used to accessory dwelling units, that can be put inside here. You want to have a maximum size requirement for accessory dwelling units, you can put that in here. um any the water tap that can be put inside of here tonight. Um so if you know that's topic points essentially it can be incorporated but if it really just the idea of we really just don't want accessory dwelling units we don't like this at all then we could just move to deny it and move it along.

Mr. I'm concerned on a couple of issues, several issues. As as a matter of fact, first of all, I think the I would tend to agree with you on the maximum size of the ADUs. But then again, uh a percentage of the primary dwelling or primary residence on lot, I think it's going to be a function of the size of the lot. Typically, smaller lots are going to have smaller dwellings and they're going to be restricted if it's 50% or said whatever the percentage might be. It's going to be a function of whatever the size of the lot and the primary residence is. So, I I don't see that as as much of a problem. Although, I really don't see a problem with maximum area actually specifying a maximum area. So, I'm I'm I'm flexible enough on that. Uh I do agree with you. I am concerned that we are opening a door for duplex type dwellings. Um I understand the need for an ADU ordinance where we we're trying to cover a lot of bases with this particular ordinance, cover a lot of area. I I'm not sure that we're quite there yet with it. Um, I'm also concerned about the uh the stipulation that it shouldn't be used for rentals, bed and breakfast. The enforcement issue, just like we've talked about before numerous times, that still is a concern to me. Um, but I do understand what our citizen petition has petitioned and understand his situation and and we do want to accommodate the citizen at this point. And frankly, there is going to be a need in the upcoming years for smaller units, smaller dwelling units. And this may be

um one part of the solution. So, I I'm not comfortable with where this is at this point, and I'm open to, you know, how how do we deal with it? I'm open to whatever uh you guys want to discuss, but I don't I don't want I don't like it like it is right now. Mr. Doctor,

yes, Mr. Chairman, I am okay with not requiring the water and sewer tabs unless required. I am actually okay with the 50% or the 1,600 square ft as written. I do have concerns about the shared driveway that we probably need to work out. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. K.

I would agree with all of that. I do think that we need to consider the historic districts and make sure that we have clarified whether we're talking national, local, or both. I do think that's a concern. If you look at, we had previously talked about that this had been brought to the state of North Carolina to be voted on. Um, they do impose setback minimums and I think that's something that we need to talk about as well when we start to worry about density um and just lot sizes. they had provided setbacks and if that's something that we would like to include I think it would be worth mentioning um and I am also okay with the 50% uh size and the maximum of 1600 square feet. think if you look at other locals um places that are similar to us in size like I've looked at Lexington's I've looked at Durham they all do have requirements of maximum square footage and I think that helps with u the concern of duplexes appearing that are meant to be ADUs but now look like duplexes um I think when you just provide no maximum or you don't provide them an actual maximum square footage I think Cameron had brought this up in the previous meeting then they just say okay well if your house is 1,700 square f feet. Our ADU is 1,699. Um, and I think that's a concern that I would like to make sure we address.

And I think speaking to um the general statute that's been brought up, um, everything that was written inside of the applicability aspect was listed inside of there. The same with the historical districts. Um, it was pretty much just taken from that inside of there. Um, so that's drafted straight from their document essentially. Um but I guess gaining an understanding of exactly what they mean. I think it's more um pertinent that um and maybe I guess for areas that do have um jurisdiction over what they can do on their historic land is probably more or less what is leaning towards of you know if you do have to go through an extra step like a COA application for your downtown historic district in Raleigh or Durham or something like that that you can't just come to your planning department and get it. You have to go through those channels. So, if there's not an appropriate channel for the jurisdiction to say you have to go back through the, you know, interior office in order to get your thing approved, then you're just essentially meeting all the criteria inside of here. Um, but like I said, I think a lot of that was pulled from the statute that has yet to be approved. Um, I tried to take what I could out of there that made sense. Um, and I mean, she mentioned setback minimums as well. Um, I don't know exactly what they were. Um but I think it was even probably less than what our current ordinance states. I think it mentioned something about at least like 10 ft from all side property lines whereas currently it talks about um you meeting our initial zoning category setbacks being like 20 ft um 10 ft from the sides. But if there is something that you all would like to incorporate um that's possible as well if you want to have your own kind of aspects

and I would be opposed to going the special permit route. Mr. Besh. Oh, I didn't hear quite what you said, sir. I would be opposed to going the special permit route.

What I had written was uh something for you guys to consider. uh limit the ADU to a maximum percentage of the primary dwelling gross floor area to 50% of the size of the main building. Square footage of the main dwelling with a maximum square footage of 800 square foot to ensure that it remains a secondary dwelling. So, you're saying 800 square foot is a max.

You can change that. But, I mean, that's what I'm thinking. You know, if you got a 1,600 square foot home or you got a,000 square foot home, well, you got 50% of that. But if you had a house that had 2,000 square ft, you're not going to go allowing something that's going to have,999 square ft. put put 800 as a a max on it so it remains a secondary unit.

I will say the 800 square foot is um what the statute said as well that Cameron had just referred to. That is what statute. Yes. And I think the 1600 came from previous discussion we talked about. Like I said, I pretty much, you know, tried to provide as strict as you possibly could and work down from that because it's a lot easier, I believe. And one other thing, uh, I want to make sure that we include that ADUs are only permitted on lots with a single family dwelling, are not allowed on lots that already contain a duplex or a multif family unit.

Yes, sir. And I believe we have that listed inside of there um already as well under a Okay. I wanted to be clear on that. Yep. For sure. I would like to talk about the minimum lot size to allow an ADU. um minimum lot size

to have a minimum lot size that to be able to be considered to have an ADU whether that be a quarter acre acre half acre thoughts I would suggest at least a half an acre. That's where I was thinking myself, Mr. Wooden. Any other thoughts about the acreage or lot size or potential setbacks that someone would like to see? I think just off, you know, not necessarily principle, but just the general discussion what it came from, the gentleman that was here. Um, and of course, I told him this before of like this development ordinance has a potential to change based off what you currently are looking to do outside of there. So, um, based on what you're describing, it would not allow him to build an accessory dwelling unit out there because I think he's got two, three acres essentially on land of land outside of there. Um, so that would essentially limit him not able to do it, which he was aware of prior to these meetings. So, just throwing that out there.

No, we're talking about a minimum lot size. So, if he's got three acres, okay, not max, he would not max, just minimum.

Okay. And I mean, honestly, even if it was a thought process of well, I guess in that case, you're talking about a half acre, you're only limited limit. Well, no, never mind. I'll take that back because there are larger square footage size in smaller zoning districts essentially. I see where you're coming from. Disregard me. Any other setbacks? Anybody would like to talk about any further discussion? Well, I'll entertain a motion if someone would like to make one. Uh whether we approve or not approve and if we do, please state what your restrictions are going to be. Motion,

I think it'd be beneficial as well um you know, if it is a general consensus among you as a board or if somebody does want to go ahead and list some stuff out of, you know, what exactly are we looking to change inside of here just so it's you know, clear and concise of what the board are looking to do. Um, I mean, I can of course assist, you know, a little bit of just trying to recollect of what we've talked about. Um, you know, one is the, um, no shared driveways, right? Um, and it needs to be accessed off a single or no shared driveway access to it. Um, that would be one. Um, are we keeping we're dropping the lot size down to 800 square feet? Is that correct? With still the maximum of 50%. Um, you talked about the water and sewer connections. If the capacity handles it, they can use private that they already have out there. If not, they are to do um you their own tap if they need to. Um, and then finally, I think the last one was um the acreage or the minimum lot size required for these being a half an acre. Um, I don't know if you want to round it up to be like 18,000 square feet, um, just to keep it or if we wanted to say just a halfacre. I don't know exactly what a halfacre is off the top of my head square footage wise.

43 560 divided by two 1,780. How much? 21,780 ft. You want just make 22 22,000 or 21,000? this 20,000 20,000 just make it easy 20,000

so I mean based on the discussion we're having if there are anything else that we have um that I just brought up that y'all feel are still important I know we also talked about the limiting to the rear yard and sideyard is that something that you all would like to potentially change inside of here I just want to make sure that we're catching all the bases and not kind of going through it um what is the minimum what is our setback backs on sideyard for a half acre. Well, it would really Yeah,

it's subject to the zoning district. So, I mean, I think it goes from, you know, five to 20 um spanning across, you know, the R seven to the R18. So, it really depends on what zoning district you're side you're inside of. I mean, I think if you're talking about this size lot, you're probably getting more into like the R12s, R15, R18s, and that's pushing like 10 to 20 feet side step setback. I think your rear pretty much stays the same and your front you don't really have to worry about because you're not going past the front of the building anyways unless you would just want to set a overall standard for they have to be 20 feet from the rear and 10 feet from the side or 20 feet from the rear 10 20 ft from the side whatever you all would like to determine. Um I'd say just make it appropriate for the particular zoning okay category.

I just want to throw it out there. I also like to to comment got two over here that say 1,600 one that says 800. I'm flexible. I would offer a compromise say 1,200 square ft max size the difference. I would be okay with that. I believe that would also the gentleman that had come I believe that his home was over 800 square ft but it was definitely below 1,200. So I think that you would you know he's the one person that has come to actually state that this was important to him. So yeah but again like I was I guess trying to

I mean he knows that it's liable to change but from what we have heard he is the one that we have heard from that has come with a plan and an idea. Okay with 1200 can I get clarification on what we are discussing regarding driveways? Are we saying that even if there is a recorded easement shared driveway that they are now having to have a different driveway for an ADU? Is that if it's recorded? I think it ought to be able to be used as a legal right to accessing.

Oh, I guess then that's the case of like you can't put like any driveway inferences inside of here. Like if there's a shared driveway on two lots that's essentially running with the land and they're able to use it however they please, there's not going to be anything else added in here. Well, it's it if there's a shared driveway, most likely there's an easement recorded. It has to be recorded if it's not recorded and they just been doing it for years by right. Yeah. And then it becomes a private property thing where you build a fence across of it. And I think that's another area where we really don't need to get too involved. Oh, I think it has to be recorded. Yes, sir. Should we require uh an additional parking spot? Um I think what on that property for the additional car,

what do we have? Requires one space per bedroom in the ADU. Yes. As written right now. So as written. Yeah. Okay. Point back on the setback that you mentioned a while ago. Should we require that uh the ADU be set back from the primary residence so it doesn't or to pre to prevent it from uh functioning as an extension of the main? I think um if you're going to have a separation, it just has to be specific for the detached um because there's

six feet or 10 feet away from the primary. I'm trying to think of what the um building code states of 20 ft. I think it's less than that. I think it's like eight or maybe even less than that. 10. Is it 10? Okay. Yeah. So, building code requires you to be 10 feet from another another dwelling unit. That's what I had down, but I wanted to clarify.

Okay. Who wants to make this motion? Oh, he's a hard look at me. I'm looking down the line here. We're going to help you. We're going to help because we're going to put in and if it's Let Let me make a Let me If you tell me, I'll type it and then you can bring it. So, it will be with all the conditions that are listed in addition to see if I can make an attempt on this one here.

Hold on. And I'd like to make a motion that we approve the proposed amendment which is updating the language to allow for the use of accessory dwelling units inside the city of Graham as per the conditions listed in the proposal with the addition or revision of uh 10.5 5.2.3 uh section G the maximum area would be 1,200 square ft that any shared driveways should be recorded easements and all right help me with the rest of it guys. I will um inter I hate to interject, but I just want to make sure because you know you're talking about just a specific section for the 12,000 square feet. I think it needs to be included with the other section for

and 10.2.4. Yeah. Section F as well. 12,200 square f feet. Not requiring extra power meters and water meters. That extra power and extra water meters will not be required. Must be behind the existing sorry must be behind the existing dwelling. Yes, that's already in there I believe. Are we revising it to remove? What was that? Minimum lot size 20,000. Yep. Yes. What? Let's let's clarify the uh the location first. Do is Cameron is that location behind and

so um where is that listed? So I I think um you know I know we have a motion out there but this is why I guess I kind of threw it out um to make sure that it's all kind of in a organized manner essentially. So um it currently reads that detached are allowed to be and attached are allowed to be in the rear and side yard. It just cannot go in front of the existing structure that's out there. So again, that's up to you all to determine if you would rather it only be limited to the rear yard and no sideyard. Um, it's completely

I don't have I don't have a preference there whether it's limited or not limited to the sideyard. As long as it's behind, I I would say side and rear options because that's going to depend somewhat on the size and shape of the lot. Okay. So long as it doesn't and that's part of the Yeah, you don't have to mention anything about that. Okay.

So, currently we have the 12,000 square feet um for both attached and detached revision and the shared when and again I don't know if we the shared access needs to be listed inside of there because it if it's recorded as a deed it's there. If it's not then it's a private property concern um that we really I don't know how much involved we get. So I think it but the verbiage ought to say it must you must have legal right by easement or property owner to access it. Yeah. And I think we have that the lot shall have legal access to a public or private street. So I'm good. That's sufficient. Take that out. Yes sir. So now we just have 12,000 square foot currently or 1,200

and the u Oh and the Yeah. Utilities water meters and power meters. electric meters maybe utility meters is probably good meters. Yes, sir. If capacity is there,

you got that right. Okay. And then what uh what verbiage do we need for the historical aspect of it? I think um it's taken care of inside of there essentially as I was talking about with um Elizabeth is that it's in place for those areas that do require extra jurisdiction through the state or local um designation aspects um but they are still I guess um if they don't require any additional review then they're meeting the criteria of our development ordinance. Everybody satisfied with that? Did did we get minimum lot size in of 20,000 square feet? Not yet. Okay. One thing at a time, boss.

So, we're good then with the Yes. historic preservation. Uh minimum lot size should be 20,000 square feet or both uh freestanding and attached. Right. Anything else, guys? Do we have to include anything? I don't think I don't think so. I don't think that's anything we should be meddling. One one note or question, Cameron, about the the addressing. It says Alamance County GIA. Should that be GIS?

No, I think they have their own GIA as um Yes, sir. All right. Anything else in this motion? Sounds good. Okay, I'm done. I'll second it. Any further discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. All right, Cameron, let's go to item number A and see what we can do with that.

Yeah, I don't know if uh this item needs much introduction on my part. Um future land use plan coming back in front of you all um asked for public comment um to be sent out. um City of Graham advertised um and other constituents of the city of Graham also advertised um asking for public comment on the document. Um some emails were received um and we also have people in the audience to discuss about this in your packet. You should also have items that came from Chair Ward um Vice Chair Mr. Wooten um Elizabeth Kurt Patrick and Chad Huffine as well um noting some things inside of different sections inside of here for you all to review. Um, I will just kind of open the floor for you all to continue discuss. I have the document in front of me with the capability to edit in real time. Um, so that if we feel the need to uh essentially do this here, um, we can make the edits appropriate inside of here um, to satisfy you all's needs. And I think that's all I have. And if I need to, I can pull up stuff from the board members on the big screen as well. Ward, let me take just just a moment here.

I made Cameron aware of uh several small grammatical errors just to make you guys aware of them, too. Uh so Cameron, if you want to pull these up, we can. Yes, sir. I um sorry to um jump ahead but I did you mentioned them. They have been altered of I think it was more like car or no never mind. There was one about the um the uh future land use map. Yeah, that uh listing was not not in the I think we're me missing one inside of here the sections right the organization different section. So, I think we're missing the future lane.

Land use map should be section six. Section seven is comparison of development patterns. Gotcha. Here's the hard part that I battle with of actually being able to maneuver things around inside of here. But continue. I'll keep on working through this. There were just a couple of other little misspelling errors that I made him aware of. So that's that's all I had at the moment. Okay,

Elizabeth, I know you sent some stuff in. You want to start?

Sure, be glad to. Um, so there is a packet with you all. Uh, it's the one with the two pictures on the front. Um, so I just went through this. This is section seven for anyone that is looking. Um, this I know has been a big topic of conversation for us. section 7 that we were fairly disappointed and just that we felt like uh it was a negative connotation on a lot of things about Graham that we do love that were in here. So I took what Chair Ward had said uh during our last meeting and updated the section um and rather than kind of making it say that we prefer prefer one over the other. Um I was looking at it and stating that we do have these strip developments um and I believe Mr. had mentioned that there are these strip developments that we love about Graham. Some of those are what makes Graham Graham. Um so if you'll go down the section that I mostly changed was the recommendation portion and saying that there is a revitalization of strip development that we could do to encourage the growth of Graham that we were talking about and changing the facades that you had mentioned chair ward. Um so I have those in here and I had sent to Cameron um a link. So, there had been a study done for the EPA on the revitalization of strip developments that I thought would be I obviously this is 70 pages, so we're not going to read this right now. Um, but that worth looking into because I know that there is a concern about the development of strip malls. Um, and that this document that you all have read and seen stated in there that we no longer essentially we no longer want to have them. Um, and I don't necessarily think that's an option for the city of Graham because we do have them, uh, and they're not really going anywhere at this time. But I do think we have the opportunity to revitalize them and make them more of what we would hope to see somewhere with the facades, with different with greenery, with parking, uh, with outdoor seating and things of that nature. So, I

would really encourage everyone to look at that link. I think it's something that we could take to heart. Um, but I'm not going to read this to you, but this is in here. this has his changes and I just continued on took some of the same similar pictures that Dean Ward had changed and then I went into the road network. So, as you all know and that's mentioned inside of section 7 um talking about how at this time we have un what we call unconnected roads. So, many roads that end in culde-sacs. That's kind of just what your normal subdivision looks like. Uh and this document says that we want to create road networks. So kind of a grid. Uh that's not necessarily what everyone loves, right? Things that we love about where we live, those culde-sacs, is there's a sense of community. You are close to your individuals. There are not cars driving all of the time down the street. Um and I think it was mentioned here that we don't want to just get rid of these subdivisions because that's something that we love. Um but I do think that connected road networks are something that are important. um they have quicker drive times generally speaking that you have easier access for pedestrians, you have ability to have bus systems. Um and so same thing talking about what we did last meeting, I put that in here, but there are ways that we can keep these unconnected roads but make them more similar to a road network like having T's at the end which allow for more connections. You can have um different ways to slow down drivers. You can have more sidewalks, things of that nature. But I just went through and really changed the core of this instead of saying we I think we I was just concerned that we had such a negative connotation on all the things that we do have in Graham at this time. Um and so I made it more of this is one versus the other and we have both and what can we do to use what we have and make it better. Um and I think I would hope that I got that point across. Um, and I took

everything that Dean Ward that you said, I hope, and put it all in here. Um, but I'm open to questions about it. Obviously, you have to read it. Um, and I know that you all don't have that, and I'm sorry. Have you got that you can put up? Yes, sir. had my email from everybody and it may be difficult to see but it'll at least be up there. also a word document. So if you open it, it might go crazy

probably. That's okay. probably easier. So, is there any particular that um you like for me to point out? I can kind of scroll through it at a slower pace if need be.

I just I want you to give the audience a chance to see it. Uh if they have any questions and they want to be heard, I want to give them the opportunity to see this and talk about it.

Yeah. Um, I know as to um you know roadway connectivity as we're kind of talking about about connections to roads um inside of our development ordinance really the only thing that it mentions um is you know the connectivity aspect only requires developers of these larger scale subdivisions to provide at least like um one point of access to um a nearby landlock a lot. Um, and that's only if it's landlocked. Um, so even being that connectivity aspect is not necessarily required by our development

ordinance. If say you got frontage on one street over here with this big lot, frontage on this street over here with this one big lot, that connectivity aspect is not necessarily required by our development ordinance. Um, I think, you know, in our eyes, it's uh something that you would want to see, especially from a fire standpoint, because they're always hitting on access things along those lines. Um, so I think it definitely benefits their side of things, but you can get multiple points of access off the single road to just how it relates to our development ordinance. That's the only thing I wanted to say. one had a chance to review what presented here any discussion anybody want to talk about that with change look at that and compare it to I mean this would go hand in half I I remember uh during the steering committee that Um, the public didn't display their dislike for strip developments. Uh, and I see that in there on page 64 at the bottom of 64. Uh, I do think that strip developments is a core aspect of the city of Graham. Uh, and I just like to see it if we if we address it is that we change the facades, the looks, the heights, and it can still be the strip center, but it's just going to give us a different curve

appeal.

Yeah. And I think even inside of this document, um, you know, it's kind of like a recommendation for how these strip centers should be developed if a strip center were to come in front of you all and city council for approval ultimately. Um, but in order in regards to design standards, things along those lines, a lot of it boils down to, you know, these things often time, well, majority of them will probably likely come through here. So, it's good to have, you know, what your recommended type of style of these should look like. It's not just a straight line of buildings that have no, you know, decoration or anything that helps stand them out. Um, so like I said, I think it's a good thing to try and incorporate um, some type of language in here about what, you know, the city views as appropriate for these types of things.

Sure. If I might go ahead, we can throw in my stuff here or just if we could focus on 7.1 for just a moment and mix up what we've what I have. Okay. Cameron, can you pull up my document? Working on it right now, sir. Sir. Yep. Got too many. John, if you would take a look at that type just the uh typewritten sheet front and back for just a moment while he's pulling that up.

Yeah, it's got it right here. just to focus on section 70.1 for a moment. Strip development versus commercial. I' I'd like to go ahead and and be tedious and read some of this to you just to comment along the way. The comprehensive plan provides a vision for the development of a city and surrounding area. The vision includes several types of development patterns. The section provides a general explanation of the differences between the various development approaches and their applications. Um, this is one of the comments I had last period is that I think a more even-handed uh approach uh not particularly favoring one over the other would be a better approach in this particular uh section and uh in that I would agree with you on that. So, I went ahead and rewrote the uh the verbiage, the bullet points and such and tried to provide, like I said, a more even-handed approach and observations. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Currently, most of Graham's commercial development has occurred in linear strips along major thorough affairs. Many are a mix of a larger anchor establishment such as a grocery store, restaurant, and smaller retail shops. Common characteristics include commercial use orientation, automobile friendly, ample parking lots, large setback from the street, unattractive building design, less restrictive access to roads, flexible bay size, lower rents, rapid construction times, lower startup costs, site flexibility, short business movein times, and they're highly customizable. This makes them very attractive for a lot of people. It's it's very beneficial for uh business owners who don't have high uh

space needs. Their budgets are small. Very nice. Very, very applicable in those kinds of situations. Looking at the commercial center concept is based on applying the attributes of a traditional downtown to a new site that is smaller in scale. Common characteristics include mixed use uh pedestrian automobile friendly shared parking buildings close to road, attractive architectural design, more restrictive access to roads, less flexibility and bay size, higher rents, more lengthy construction times, higher startup startup cost, site restraints, longer startup for businesses, but highly customizable. The thing that brought uh that came to my mind immediately when looking at this was uh the image of Mount Ary in its downtown strip. That's exactly what they were talking about here in terms of a commercial center. So uh both of these development types these development paradigms I think are very they they both have their advantages. I think they're both desirable and I think we both need to use them and we need to have that flexibility in uh in this land use plan. In that regard, the recommendation rewrite revision that I had. The Graham comprehensive land use plan seeks to encourage the development of both strip centers and commercial centers were most appropriate while incorporating the more positive characteristics of each. Strip centers should have varying facads height facade heights which break up the individual units and should vary in color and material types bricks stucco stone etc. Strip development should include green space such as landscaping and trees and parking areas. Outside seating is also

welcomed. Interconnectivity between uses, shared parkings, fewer curb cuts, clustering of m multiple uses and pedestrian bike friendly accommodations are encouraged. So, I was trying to incorporate what Chair Ward had uh commented on last week, and I I think this covers to a great degree what Miss Kurt Patrick has has included in hers. I just didn't have the pretty pictures. So, I I'd throw it open to questions just in that regard for 7.1. Yeah, I think it's um you know finding a balance for you all amongst all of the documents that have been presented. Um I know it's really impossible to just pick one, but I mean take the goods of all three of them and incorporate them into one single one that you all are comfortable with essentially. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to talk about 7.1 only 7.1? I'm going to let you talk about 7.2, 7.3 as we get to them, but we're going to try to do them in order. Is there anyone here like to talk about 7.1?

Can you define 7.1? Uh so it's um essentially uh how city of Graham stance on strip development versus commercial centers i.e. like shopping centers um versus I guess commercial nodes of I guess more streets through and through. Let me get see if I can get a better picture pulled up on the So yeah, essentially kind of things along these lines of how Graham orients both of these inside of uh inside of our area. Yeah, come on up and state your name and your address, please, sir. Thank you.

My name's Jeff Bennis and I live at 1407 East Gilbert Street, right across the freeway there. Um th this planning board has has got a uh um significant responsibility and an awesome task of of protecting what I've heard Miss Kirkpatrick say and I've heard on the city council as well the the small town charm. All right. And once once that gets ruined, you ain't getting it back. All right. Um, you know, I mean, I moved to Graham 36 years ago because of small town charm. You know, the Graham Theater, you know, the barber shop, which is right next door to it. Uh, you know, all these little little shops and things like that. I could have stayed in California and and and gotten, you know, high density housing and strip malls and stuff like that. Um, yeah, I I I don't have the answer for you, but you know, we we trust you guys to protect us. from growth. You know, the popular saying at the federal government is drill baby drill. You know, here it could be build build baby build build, you know, and and and on the one hand, on the extreme, you know, growth, growth, growth, you know, well, let's just put a buck on each uh freeway exit, right? That that would bring in a heck of a lot of money and growth and all sorts of stuff. Is that what you want? No, we don't want that. All right. I don't even want the one in Mebban. Um, so you you you you've got a you've got a significant responsibility and we I I just want you to know the community has to count on you guys to make make the right decisions and balance it out, right? Um, we're not talking about some specific thing, right? Like a cookout or something. We're talking in you're talking in generalities and I'm talking in generalities. But but but the

community needs you guys to to be responsible and balance that out because like I said, once you ruin it, you can't put that back in the bottle, right? Okay. I just realized you're on the council here. I stopped by your house one day. I thought we were related with our Mr. Bennis. Yeah. I just want to let you know we've been working on this for about four months now and two to three hours every meeting. So, the planning board is not taking it lightly and we're we certainly hear you and we're trying to do best we can do before we send it to council. And it it's attractive to to just let the builders run free. Right. Right.

And I see some things there's I just noticed the other day going on 54 there's some it looks like a strip thing there going in. I'm going that doesn't fit. Doesn't look like Graham, you know. Um, you know, we I I made a presentation on something. We put in an ivy there, which I was very very much opposed to it. We put in 29 town homes on six acres of land, right? Huge mistake for a whole bunch of reasons. Um, with this growth and which applied there too, you put in a big subdivision, you need to put in sidewalks because right now there's people that walk down those streets because there's no sidewalks. people wearing their Taco Bell uniforms and their Kentucky Fried Chicken uniforms because they don't have a car, right? And all the kids, all the kids standing on the road waiting for their school buses. All this growth brings a lot more traffic. And one of these days, one of those kids is going to get run over. And uh I I I almost said it one time, I'll say it now. Instead of bringing the Bible to the funeral, you can bring the the planning book and say, "Well, it met spec." You know,

I I recommend that you come to the council and let the council hear what you have. I've started. Thank you. Thank you for In fact, I'm in the last newspaper. Thank you for your time. Sir, just how do you just I'm sorry. No, it was me. I was just How do you spell your last name? Just for the record. Well, it's almost like his except with the ch letter. So, just be e- ne. Perfect. Thank you, sir. That's why I thought we were related. I got you, Mr. Bennis. Yes, sorry.

The the this land use plan begins 1.1. The purpose the purpose of a plan is to chart a course for the future. So that's that's what we're about. We we look at Graham that was we look at Graham that is and we look at what Graham is going to be. So that's that's what this is contained in this document. It's it's a guide. It's a chart. It's it's a map. It's it's not specifics, right? But it's it's kind of a moral compass as it were. I'm I'm glad you're doing that. You know, to your to your point, we we are very definitely Yeah. looking at that and and holding that in high esteem.

Yeah. Because Graham is a pretty cool place to live and and and and I wanna I want to stay here till the end, you know. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. There anyone else in the audience that would like to talk about 7.1? If you would be specific in 7.1 only. Hello again. Molly Whitlatch, 531 North Main Street. And I just want to echo what Mr. Bennett Bennis said about

about the importance of the small town charm. And that was really the thread that I saw that ran throughout this entire document was the desire to maintain that. And I understand that we have some existing strip malls and I appreciate the recommendations in the ways that we could improve the aesthetics of that and make it flow better with the entire town, but I think it's a mistake to encourage strip development at the same level that we're encouraging commercial centers. The other advantage of commercial centers is that it would allow for residential units above those storefronts. It would create a neighborhood and a a community. And there's nobody, you know, the strip mall doesn't have a community feel. It doesn't contribute to the small town feel of Graham. So, I don't think that they're the same. I think there's a place for both of those. I understand that there's certainly a place for some strip developments, but to say that they're equal, I think is a mistake. Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I'm just trying to give some Jennifer Tally 808 Side View Street Graham. Just trying to give some perspective. I was in some of those meetings with the feedback. Um, and I think what they're uh what I heard from residents were was that they don't want to see strip centers that look like one building. If you looked at it, you could tell it was all they wanted to see different colors like how when you look at Main Street um that you they look like individual buildings, but you know things like um where Harris Teter is, you know, they've been able to expand into other sections. They had that flex space. Same thing at Alamance Crossing. So I think what they wanted to see is something that you know even it shows it in the picture there that it has different facade heights and things and they do look like you know obviously when you look in downtown Main Street you see individual buildings and whether the upstairs would be um flex space for the business down below or whether it would be residential or whatever I don't I I think that you know that's what they were really trying to see. they did not like all the it was just interesting to see how this came to be in the um document because I was in the meeting and I was like well that's not anything seemed very different than what was actually said um it's kind of like the rumor mill you know when it goes through a couple of transitions by the time it gets to the end it's not doesn't seem like it's very much like what you had originally heard but they didn't like all the parking in the front what they wanted to see is more of like what you see in a downtown commercial center which is um kind of in um I think they have one at the down at uh David

Morton's they have in order to break up the parking lot they have like a um an area there that has a green space with curbing around it and tree plantings and things like that. So I think they want to see that that kind of thing. You kind of see it in this picture there on the left. Um that you have some green space and they were saying, you know, maybe the committee could consider actually saying 5 to 10% of that would be green space. Um they also wanted the part the um the entranceways going into the buildings to actually have um much wider sidewalks so that you could have um tables and chairs out front. Um just shows the activity of the of the um of the space. So basically, if you're going to put in strip development, they want it to look like the commercial center. Um, uh, I don't think that in every situation, um, that somebody necessarily putting in a commercial development can afford to do the second story. But, um, you know, obviously when you go up per square foot gets a little bit cheaper. So, it I think it's good in our development ordinance to and and in and in documents like this for planning to try to encourage that, but um to just not say that we don't like strip development. I don't think there's a um city that really says no, you can't build a strip. And the way it was worded the first time, it sounded like we don't want any kind of um strip development at all. And I I didn't hear that in the meetings. I don't know what meeting that would have been. I think I attended all of them, but um that that was my take on just

trying to give you some feedback. I liked what you said, Elizabeth, about um what you said earlier um in your rewrites and I like what Mr. Wooten had to say. Uh, I wasn't here for what Dean did, but um, you know, I think that you guys have a good perspective on on um on this particular section. And uh, I hope that we can continue to uh, encourage people to make something not the cheapest because that's what it looks like when it's all one building and you just slap signage on it. It looks very cheap. And um so I think that's that was my impression of the feedback that I got.

I was up to Thank you. If memory serves, I think we do have several projects that have actually been through approval through the council that have not been constructed that involve like retail on the bottom floor, office and residence space above. Is that correct? I know there was one that we talked about on South Main Street. Yeah. But I don't think

there's also one I think that came through um it's even off South Main Street. It's off of um Marshall Street I believe right there um where the city parking lot. I think that was one of the kind of instances of a like a commercial center like it's a smaller commercial center but it incorporates its own you know area of commercial with potential like you said flex space above or living space and also apartments inside of there. Um, I think it kind of defines that area and I think that's kind of in my eyes of what a commercial center is. It's a a large scale project like that on a multiple acre lot with roads interconnecting like I think of like a Mayfair in Wilmington of sort of like that. That's your commercial center compared to just putting a the strip thing inside of there. I know it's easy to try and compare it to just being in like a downtown area, but in reality you got multiple acres of land. You could do a whole I mean Alamance Crossing as I think it's a good comparison, too. So,

or something like if you go over to Chapel Hill. Yeah. 15501. Yes, sir. Huge developments over there like that. But we're looking at something on a much smaller scale here. Yeah. It's going to be tough. That kind of an idea.

Yeah. It's uh it's going to take a lot of investment to get something like that inside of here because you're of course going to have to um um attract a lot of tenants to go inside of there um to get something of that scale. So, I think that's maybe why you see it leaning more towards the, you know, nicer looking strip type areas because it's easier to, I guess, like you mentioned, cheaper rent, easier to get people inside of there. Before we move forward, I want to, if there's changes here that we want to incorporate in 7.1, so it makes it easy for Cameron and them to get that on the spot for us tonight. Can we make those changes before we go to 7.2, before we go to 73? Is everybody agreeable with that? I'd like to see that photograph change for strip center uh to something different or maybe put a couple different photographs or at least attach a bunch for council to see when it gets to council. Um

I think um with the varian roof heights, the varian facades. Yeah. Um I can kind of I probably take some of the ones that you have. I don't know if I'm going to be able to insert them in right at this exact moment. No,

cuz I mean even you know my thought is you know you have you know three or four different documents in front of you that you all kind of provided that have is essentially this section as a whole right. It's like you may not even need to take this whole document inside or just essentially exert it out and put your document inside. If you are wanting to piggy back off of um Elizabeth's um document that she has, we can edit that individual document and substitute it for this whole section as quote unquote planning board edits. I'd imagine if that makes sense rather than trying to um go through and uh you make a lot of these changes and then I can take some of the pictures um from yours that I think you provided and update them on there too.

Okay. And that's just a thought of mine. Um, like I said, if y'all want to do it differently, I'm perfectly fine with that, too.

Well, why don't we take my pretty verbiage and y'all's pretty pictures and put them together. Well, we your verbiage I don't have no problem with, and I don't have no problem with Elizabeth's verbiage. And basically the same thing. Yeah, there's three sets of it right here. um makes use

I think the overall you know thought process of it is you know planning board obviously sees large scale issues with what is going on inside of this whole section. So that is why we are providing essentially a whole new document. You know this is our recommendation that there needs to be extra emphasis that are put on this compared to this one and then council does with that as they see fit. you know, they could agree with you all on everything of the topic or they could just be like, "We like what's written inside of there." I guess that's the the balance that we have to to juggle.

I would say, can I There's Mr. Wooten some of his words in here that I would like to put in mind if that's what we're discussing. Can I throw it in here and read it to you? I think that might be the easiest method. I mean, even if you want to, we can because I still have yours as well because I'm looking at his and we have very similar wording, but there's some of his wording that I would like to make sure that we include. Yeah. If you want to point some out like to put it in yours, I think we could definitely work through that.

So, we have So, our introduction is the exact same if you go to strip development. Um, I would like to keep Mr. Wooten's wording. I think all of we have the exact same thing there. Um, everyone is okay with that. So, like this section as a whole that I have highlight. You could use his and take mine out. Let's see where all this is going to turn out.

Uh, I would not stick that in mine because I've got different column break everywhere. It's gonna have to be a little one of a time thing, right? Cameron, do you just want to use his docu? I mean, if you just use head. Totally up to y'all. Like I said, I have no issue. I know. I mean, like, if it's just a matter of incorporating like some of the pictures from here into Mr. Wooten's document, um,

worry about that part later. Or I mean you can essentially just I can highlight on your document what you want to move over to his and if um you all can instill trust in me to provide that. I don't know if y'all do or not but um it's definitely an option. I I have no problem with that. You can keep his we have almost the same wording for strip development versus commercial center all the way down. of that entire piece and then of course if everyone is okay with the wording that Mr. Wooten has provided. So essentially we just change the wording keeping your pictures.

Uh but no because we're going to replace the strip strip mall picture. I would use like the picture on the right in there too Cameron that you need to Yes. Get to the recommendation question. This one recommendation. Yeah. Recommendation. So looking I think his um truthfully I just did bullet points and he did a paragraph. So if we would just like to keep the paragraph and almost word for word the same thing just in a different way. That's exactly right. Yes. For formatting.

Yeah. I think I can work on the formatting side and it's just a matter of I mean even if it's um you know if we move this over to this side and then more strip development pictures, more commercial center pictures um that'll be fine. I mean, honestly, um, I don't want to take the ball out of y'all's hands by any means, um, when it comes to this, but I think, you know, the understanding of the design of it is going to come across in the context of it as well, and I'll try and do my best to portray that in the pictures as well.

Miss Witch Latch, I just do I want to say just one thing just I think to clarify what we've been talking about up here the last few months. By no means are we saying that we would prefer to see strip development throughout the entire city and choose that over commercial center. I think the concern for us here and obviously I don't want to speak for everyone u but what I heard a lot the last meeting was the document that we were provided explicitly stated that there was a overall dislike for strip development and I think the fact of the matter is we have that in Graham and those strip developments are not necessarily going to go anywhere right now or 10 years down the road. So, our hope is that those strip developments that we do have, we would like to see them better portrayed in our town with greenery, with places to sit to make them not the strip malls that Miss Tally referenced, right, where it's one building size, it's just a parking lot, you've got a minimum sidewalk. Um, so I just do want to ease that concern that by no means are we saying we don't want to see a commercial center, let's just keep adding strip developments because I don't want to see that either. Um, we just want to see them look better and really push that small town culture of Graham like Miss Tally was saying, having those different colors, those different building heights, those facades. That's where that change is coming from.

I think that's embodied in the the recommendation that I had up there. It seeks to encourage the development of both strip centers and commercial centers where most appropriate while incorporating the more positive aspects of each. I've been missing it lately. Sorry. I think you guys are pretty much covered. Um, exactly on my notes. I I go back checking over now. The only thing I see most of that is suggested. Um I think somehow another we should require building heights to step down to match scale of adjacent and smaller buildings that are in the same area as well as require the use of different building materials, color, texture and facade elements which you stated. Uh those were the only two factors I have that but I think they're based basically in inside your context there. Um it's an encouragement but I don't see a requirement.

I don't think we can make it. I don't think we can.

Yeah. So I think that more or less falls back towards the development ordinance aspect. Um, and a lot of these areas are located inside of our overlay districts on South Main Street and Harden Street. I mean, this where you're going to find probably pretty much all of these. So, in reality, if it's a requirement that you're looking for inside of there, that is where it needs to be addressed in relation to this document. So, this is the framework that we're putting forth now for maybe months down the line when we update development ordinances is okay. We put heavy emphasis on our commercial centers being the highway overlay districts. Um there's heavy emphasis on different range of building size, materials, elevations and different buildings and that's when you all kind of hit in okay in the development ordinance changes this is what is required if you want to develop inside of here.

Thank you for that clarification because I knew that once you set this plan in motion some at some point there has to be an oversight of it uh in order to require things to happen. Yes sir. Okay. Thanks for the clarification. No problem.

Uh in in the interest of being very efficient with our time in this section, can we go back to Mr. Wooten's text at the beginning where appropriate just if if you can make it just a little bit bigger. Thank you. Okay. Um just the uh which section I guess are you looking for the first page? I'm on the first page. Yes, sir. All right. Maybe it's the second page. That's no problem.

They keep going down. So, we move on to the unconnected road network. There was a there was a comma. There was two commas that were needed in the I guess the second piece of Mr. Wooten's language.

Can't remember where it was. I keep going up, Cameron. I'm sorry. You're good. Do you think it might have been one of the other ones or Sorry. I can't find it. Okay. So, I I think um if we could Can you read the the word document that I sent you? Not to complicate or to take away from what uh Mr. Wooten and and Mr. Kurpatre already have. Uh just to make sure that we didn't miss anything in the language that they have and the language that I have because I frankly don't remember what I wrote. I'm trying to make sure that I have um because this is I think what you sent over to me. Um does does this look right?

You can make it a little bit bigger. Oh yeah, I probably need to do that. So this is talking about page 53. Um we'll go down to 7.1 or page 64. Here's fix page 64.

Okay. Then those are my edits with the where appropriate with respect to acreage and surrounding infrastructure at the end of Mr. Wooten's where appropriate. Let me get it pulled back up. So that's specific to the commercial center type development. One of the things that prohibits that type of development is just the physical size of a given parcel. So a lot of times you want to do exactly that. You want to create a centered commercial area that's friendly to pedestrians and vehicles, but you're you're relegated to the size of property that you have.

So on a larger piece of property, it's a lot easier to accommodate a broader view of of pedestrian and vehicle interaction, whereas a strip center simply is a vacant piece of property that's formed or grows adjacent to a main artery that doesn't lend itself to having a individual identity or destination. sometimes. So the additional language of breaking up the facades, the roof heights, the u articulation of the building frontages is is encouraging, but in the in the recommendation, we need to say we're appropriate with respect to acreage and surrounding infrastructure that addresses both the road connectivity, interconnectivity, which we're all in favor of. And it also cues the developer that, hey, I've got a goodized piece of property. I need to look strongly at the commercial center type development. Um and that that language is in the recommendation piece.

So essentially you're just saying at the end of you know bike friendly accommodations are encouraged whereas oh it was where appropriate and Mr. Wheaten you might be able to second line. Yeah second line fourth word appropriate insert a comma where appropriate. There you go comma with and this is just my suggestion for your input. I I would agree with what you're saying. Yes. Where appropriate with respect to acreage and surrounding infrastructure. Let's say without the where appropriate just most appropriate with respect to Say that again, Chad. Acreage and surrounding infrastructure.

My brain only moves so fast. and your comma after that. I I do make comment or make a reference to that and roll up just a little bit, Cameron. Yes, sir. Under the uh commercial center, there's something side restraints. I I didn't didn't elaborate on that, but that's basically what I had in mind. Chad, everybody. So, do you say restraints or constraints? Because we always use the word constraints. Constraints will probably be the more term or restraint. Either one of them would be

the constrained the constraints come from external. The restrain is more internal.

So, let's change restraints to constraints. And then if we go to um the bullet points that Elizabeth had vers and and look specifically that we capture both Mr. Wooten's and Elizabeth's and then let me enter enter two more just for discussion. We don't we don't we don't want to miss anything. We want to make sure that we on the on the strip type development we we take out poor design cons characteristics entirely. It doesn't necessarily mean it's a poor design. It means that that's where you were hurted towards because of your site constraints. But we want to make sure that folks understand a strip type development is a little more vehicle focused and I think we put that in there. You do say you have fewer you have fewer choices. That's that's perfect. The second one captures it. Easy vehicular access. And then on the um commercial center side, I like the words we give pedestrians and vehicles equal priority. I don't think that's the right thing to say, but that's what I wanted to figure out how to say. you're more you're more pedestrian focused. I don't think in our society we're ever going to delete the vehicle. So, we want to make sure we are pedestrian friendly and pedestrian and vehicle friendly. Pedestrian and vehicle focused. We want to that that verbiage is in mind.

Yeah.

Excellent. Okay. Because I think currently at the moment what we were talking about was essentially taking what Mr. Rooten had inside of here and um I guess replacing the bullet points inside of um Elizabeth there. But if there are some that you want to keep inside of Elizabeth that we can incorporate into this document that don't overlap, I'm happy to do that, too. All right. So, I'm going to rely on you, Elizabeth, to proofread Mr. Wooten's bullets as we're going through this so we don't skip any.

And and then we want to I think we want to incorporate the remotely located parking. Um, it's difficult in practical sense to look at every single site because it's it's it's so specific. Everyone's different. But you do want to promote the theme of putting vehicles surrounding the the building or behind the building if possible, which we, you know, as a design practice, we try to do, but I don't know if we captured that like what Miss Tally was saying on the floor earlier. I don't know if we got that one in the bullet points. One of my notes was remotely located and and accessible parking was a rule of thumb. We don't want to walk more than about four minutes from where we park our car. And we're talking about the commercial centers currently.

Yeah. I just want to make sure. I think we want to promote um accessible uh we want to promote remote and accessible parking. I don't know how to say that yet. well distributed parking areas and like parking nodes. Yeah, that's a good pubs,

I guess. Cuz I mean center area like you almost want the the parking to be centralized around everywhere. That way you're not walking from one corner to the other to try and get where you want to get. So, I guess it's, you know, appropriate parking areas or parking nodes inside of these commercial centers strategically located. There you go. And one of the things you one of the things you guys brought up last meeting was not having to walk too far. So, strategically located leaves it so um precise and open-ended at the same time. I think that gives the designer what they need to to go by. True.

Okay.

So, I mean, just to because I think right now the only thing that it mentions for parking on on this side of the commercial center, at least on Mr. Wooten, is talking about shared parking. I mean, do you think that whenever we're talking about strategically located parking or just strategical parking in general, does that cover all the basis of shared location, everything along those lines? Um because not to play devil's advocate but your definition of strategical and my definition of strategical might be two separate things. Mine might be you know businessoriented or uh econ or not economy but you know profit oriented where I don't know you put the people where the good stores are at and or it could just be fun

strategically and so strategically located and interconnected. Yeah. strategically located in interconnected parking. Is that all right with everybody? I just want to make sure. I think for our downtown patrons, we're trying to I mean, you have a a vacant parking space pop up and who knows where that patron is going to end up, but we want as a as a collective group of store owners. We want to we want the customer or the the citizen to have access to all of them. Interconnecting or interconnected. It's a future tense. So you're stretching my knowledge of me too. Trust me. I think either one would be appropriate. Yes, sir. Yes. Perfect.

I'll just keep interconnecting in the Tell me what I go ahead Cameron. Yeah, I think you're good. Fourth bullet point in the in the mixeduse definition. One second. Let me So back to the actual document itself, right? Or which are we uh the main document or the one previous I it was it had four bullets and it must have been

I think that one was Elizabeth. Okay. So the definition of mixed use when we parenthetically describe what we are guiding um anecdotally we have a we have a project from about three or four years ago that you guys referenced earlier. So it it included single family, single family attached, multif family, live above, work below to relegate the parenthetical definition of mixed use just to multif family. Um I think just just res multi-f family strike that and put and residential. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. The first bullet point under my just says mixed use. Yeah. Okay. Sorry, John. I'm I just missed it. No, no sweat.

Did we Did we look at the paragraph above the heading of the 7.1 banner? There's There's four lines of text under the section seven comparison of development patterns banner and then the four lines of text. Did we edit any of that? Yeah. Yeah, we did. Look, look back to my document, Cameron. Yeah, I think instead of a four one, it's this three one right here that he That's the three lines right there. Okay.

I think Elizabeth had one in hers as well, and it pretty much reads very similar as well. Thank you. I like that pretty pretty agreeable with the mold here and the new photographs are a huge plus.

Yeah, I'll try and um gather something as well um that meets the requirements of you all. Okay, let's get on down to 7.2. Who wants to take it and run? Let's start with you.

I'll go right back where Elizabeth or where I picked up live and in person. So, one of the things we want to protect against is disconnecting neighborhoods. Uh the other thing we want to protect against is the the elimination of culde-sacs and tea turnarounds. So many of our neighboring towns have tried to go through and create a connectivity of every single neighborhood which has ended in different neighborhoods at each other's throats in county and city and alderman meetings. So we want to in the context of this particular document, we want to guide the the development in a way that practically uses both of those items. And I can't remember Elizabeth went through it specifically while I was watching in the truck how how to incorporate tea turnarounds as an alternate to culde-sacs where the that need is appropriate to give you some different sidewalk spurs. That's me adding to her. Um, interconnectivity is is fairly required, I guess, in some ways because of fire code and for um traffic congestion. So, with that philosophy in mind, we've just got to figure out a way to to say this without showing the the favoritism that the previous section was trying to do. Cameron, can you pull my document up?

Yes, sir. Indeed. That's what I tried to do with this one. I I did not go with bullet points in just paragraph instead. I think it I would agree with you, Chad, that we don't need to be trying to eliminate culde-sac neighborhoods. I think they're very desirable in a lot of different ways. So, if you want to take a look at that, let me let me just read it out loud. The current proliferation of of Cold Sack neighborhoods has resulted from the highly desirable characteristics of the subdivision category. And I say that specifically. I think there are a lot of very desirable characteristics, things that people homeowners look for in culde-sac neighborhoods, that kind of paradigm. Homeowners value the calmer and less dense traffic patterns, the propensity for neighborhood interactions, the overall community feeling engendered by the closer neighbor proximity, the ability to walk and or bicycle in the neighborhood, and the sense of separation from the hustlebustle of city activity. Anecdotally, I live at the end of a culde-sac. Uh my wife grew up in a culde-sac in Memphis. uh several of us here have that experience. We know and and are are quite familiar with these aspects of living in a culde-sac type paradigm. But I want to go on to say however there are certain disadvantages that company this type of development without adequate road width and culac radius city services and emergency services may be hampered. I know every time the garbage collection truck comes down our road, they have to stop, back up, stop, back up, and then finally make their way out.

It's not just turn and go. So there there is that to be considered. And within our current culde-sac neighborhoods, we have that same kind of condition, especially when you have parking on the street. Parking in the streets can hinder traffic as well. The lack of through traffic routes can be considered both as desirable and undesirable. Got to look at it both ways folks. Coldac development is typically done within a larger grid hype road network. So there is generally a combination of slower and traffic and faster traffic patterns for the average. Whether that's an advantage or disadvantage, a plus or a minus, I think it's going to be up to the individual. what what's your tolerance for whatever the inconvenience or the convenience however you see that. So that's that's my take on the unconnected roads. If you would go down just a little bit please.

Yes sir.

Road network. And this is where I grew up. I grew up in Memphis folks. I grew up in a a grid road network. Development based on a grid or road network type system also offers both advantages and disadvantages. It could be it could possibly aid in relieving traffic congestion found on some major thorough affairs and disperse traffic throughout the city. Now a comment about that. I don't particularly have issues with traffic here in Graham. That may or may not be your experience, but I really don't have an issue with it. I can get to where I need to go pretty quickly. Now, if I were living over in Durham, say, I would have an issue. I I worked in Durham for numerous years, and always had trouble trouble getting from one point of the city to another point. There was just no direct routes anywhere except if you got on 147, and that was pretty much it. So it may or may not provide greater capacity, more route choices, more access, shorter distances. Again, your mileage may vary. Whether or not these attributes are desirable may well be debated. Issues such as safety, city services access, emergency vehicle access, neighborhood field, etc. should be considered in choosing this development paradigm. So again like with section 7.1 contrasting strip and commercial contrasting unconnected roads uh to a connected grid network road network I think there's going to be advantages and disadvantages to both good points bad points my recommendation the verbiage is the land use plan seeks to encourage the development both in conction connected

roads and road network paradigms within the new residential and commercial areas to provide citizens with more transportation and living options. Emphasis on living options throughout the city. Each model has both positive and negative aspects which should be carefully weighed with respect to the area of the city under development consideration. Um, I like what Miss Kurt Patrick has has written in her uh in her recommendation. I I'm perfectly fine with that as well. So, I'll shut up for a minute. comments or questions. comments. Comment time. Uh, can we go back up um to the end of Mr. Wuten uh aspects. This is the second line from the bottom. Aspects which should be carefully weigh second line of the last of the recommendation sections. Aspects which should be carefully weighed with respect to the fall back on the constraints.

So somewhere in there, not just the area of the city, but the area of the the development. Is it a green field? Is it a brown field? Is it infield? Is it landlocked on three sides by a creek? Is it is it geographically or topographically constrained? of somewhere or just help me get comfortable with respect to the area of the city under consideration for development under development consideration. That sentence is telling the developer and the the planning and engineering folks to consider carefully the environment in which they're working. So it may just be fine like it is.

Just by way of background on that one one area of the city may be appropriate for uncon for a unconnected road type development where a grid might be more appropriate in another section of the city. That's that's what I was trying to think of right there. probably fine just like it is. Then let's go down to Elizabeth's four bullet points. Yes, sir.

So the the second one T or first one, sorry, T intersections. So I just want to get in your head and figure out what when you close your eyes, what is that so I know how to say it correctly. The T intersection would be a a in in a technical term a main street and we just have a stop condition at that street. And did you mean a T turnaround as opposed to a culde-sac? So the just replace the word intersection with turnaround or alternate. What you're trying to say is you don't have to use just a culde-sac. You can use the Y, you can use the T, you can use the L. We do that in design practice. What we're trying to tell everyone is there are alternatives to the culde-sac. And I think Elizabeth's saying the use of T turnarounds that cues the designer that I need to look at the fire code and pick which one works the best. So replacing the word turn There you go. Yeah, I think it also I mean it just you know me looking at it, it doesn't necessarily stop a development right there, but it does stop the development in its current state. If for something were to come in the future, there is an aspect of continuity that could go through there. Whereas if you're on a culde-sac, they're going to put houses on the back of that lot and there's no access going through there in the future. But it does stop it for the time being. Um, and I mean I think you know the aspect that she's talking about with traffic calming features is definitely um important when it comes to because like you said there's positive and negative when it comes to it and there is going to be connectivity. How do we as the city handle connectivity in this aspect to limit the amount of traffic speed things

that are going through there? So we want to be careful with uh let's just let's just go to bullet number three narrow. So with narrower widths, we are and you and I just need to kind of help guide us. We're currently a 27 backtoback as the smallest street section for public street. Um I think they can go lower, but it requires specific criteria to be approved by the technical review committee. I think we can go to a minimum of 20 with a 40 foot rightway for private street for public streets as well. Yeah, I can get it pulled up because I can get our street sections at least pulled up so we can at least take a look at it. Um,

I tell you what, that'll save us some time. If you're fairly confident about that, then we just need to change or add the word street in front of widths. Now, am I fairly confident? That's the question. Let me get a literally right here. So, it is okay. And that that's 20 feet face to face or 20 feet back to back because we got to be real careful. Yeah. 24 foot with curb and gutter, 20 foot with shoulder, 47 foot typical right ofway. Um, all right. Go go go to that first column. So,

oh, here it is right here. Yeah. Talking about the residential narrow, sidewalks required, parking on the street prohibited, 50 ft apart for driveways, intersections, um, trash cans, less than 100 total households are loaded on the roadway. So, um, that's essentially just for it and it can only be approved by permitted by the technical review committee if essentially all of these are met. So, I'll go back down. So, I maybe been a little bit wrong, but I guess we can go down to 20 ft in width, but gutter is 24 with a 47 foot right away.

All right. So, I think we're good if if we're using that 24 feet. Um, we don't necessar define it as face to face or back to back, which is just curiosity. measured from back of curb to back of curb for curb and gutter sections from the edge of pavement to edge of pavement for shorter sections. I don't know if that helps you out at all. We probably need to look at that at another time. So, um we need to go if we go back to the bullets then the narrower street widths. Yeah. Not necessarily rightway widths,

right? Because in some cases we're going to need a wider rightway to accommodate an additional side path sidewalk and over wide sidewalk that goes into a enhanced strip center. Um and then traffic calming features. So we want to be careful about the just from just from experience the the islands that occur in an effort to pinch the traffic to slow it down so that the curb is behaving as a parked car causes public works to have a lot of difficulty.

Yeah. where the other items, street trees, parking on the street, street textures, speed humps, those things are much more manageable for public works. Just from experience, the the pinch point one is tough to to deal with if public works is here. Um, I mean, could you just say like a city appropriate traffic calming measures and leave it kind of up to Well, I guess that you're really not asking the city to make the determination you're asking for a developer to look at this and try and understand. But I guess it gets them asking the question of, "Hey, Burke, what exactly do you want these traffic caling measures to be?" because he may say he doesn't even want road humps inside of there because when they got to plow the roads, it's going to tear up the truck.

Do we just take out the parent the the parenthesis? I don't want to take away street trees. is a

it's almost more beneficial to the neighborhood to have a 31 ft street and parking on one side than it is to have a trafficcoming device that necks down the flow of traffic to two 11t lanes. Um I would just personally suggest removing the parenthesis and let the technical folks determine what the traffic calming features are that are appropriate because like I think it at least gets them asking the question and incorporating it with city staff inside of here of you know what exactly does the city view as such type of traffic caling measures but that's completely up to you all I don't I'm talking

somewhere we got to get street trees back in this document in an intersection yet to be discussed, I guess. Yeah. And it may have some incorporation in it with the um the policies and strategies located in further down. Um but um at the end of the two lines under the four bullets, do we do we need to restate the encouraging of stubs for future development? We talked about I think on the Zoom I'm um having a stub. No, that was TRC. Having a stub to a landlocked piece of property.

Yeah, that was I think I mentioned that during this time. Yeah, I mean that's the only thing it required. We're required by ordinance to require acquire a developer to I think it says throughout our developments that it's kind of in the same capacity of you know it's recommended highly recommended but in no way, shape or form can we require them to do it unless it's specifically landlocked and has no other access. Yet yet here is where we are able to recommend without in requiring. Yeah. So if we took out the word and and did into new subdivisions, new commercial centers, even office parks, comma, and encouraging stubs to future undeveloped parcels.

I just want to make sure that um I'm understanding this because um like I think it's all great. I just want to make sure that we're understanding how we're going to collaborate the two of Elizabeth's document and Mr. Wooten's document together essentially of because we talked about um some of his stuff um and his recommendation. Are we just potentially going to include um some of Elizabeth's bullet points down here below um for that type of and just essentially keep his top piece or take this from hers and put it into Mr. Wooten's at the end. I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page with this.

You take those bullets just like just what exactly what you just said. Take those bullets and put them. Okay. So, you said even office parks and a well planned connected road network can be incorporated in new subdivisions, new commercial centers. Even office parks and let's say it I can't either. Encouraging stepouts to there undeveloped parcels. Parcels.

Thank you. Can I add interrupt you for just a moment and add some comments that just came to mind? Looking at the bullet points, I hadn't thought about this before, but shorter blocks means more streets may be a problem for some developers. They want to minimize the number of streets the the acreage that's used in understand what I'm saying blocks more streets and then narrower street widths. We've we've had discussions at Nauseium about how narrow our streets are and how much of a problem that is for emergency vehicles and school buses and know garbage pickup all of these things. Do we really narrower street widths? So the I hear you loud and clear. the ordinance that is that we look back at with that 24 foot dimension is uh it's got to be looked at. Um I think that probably gets handled in a different document.

Yeah. And I think there was also some reference earlier in the document about increasing front setbacks to incorporate more parking along the front side to reduce the amount of street parking to then allow for like uh narrower street widths for clear passage for these types of developments or not developments for um emergency vehicles, things along those lines. So, I think you're kind of pointing at one and back to the other, which I mean, I don't know if you really want to do, but I mean, I think that's probably what the reference was from one to this one is that's the hope is that you get enough parking inside of the lot itself, you can reduce the what's the term? Reduce the weight that is on the public works department to maintain a lot of these new streets.

Mr. We've in your neighborhood versus new neighborhoods, the the culde-sacs have gotten bigger. We design culde-sacs now that more appropriately fit both the firefighting vehicle and the bigger garbage truck. We didn't have if I if we designed your neighborhood 15 years ago, we had a much smaller culde-sac as a standard. Now we have a culde-sac that's u 96 ft across to accommodate the new garbage truck here and the bigger fire engine without having to start and stop and start and stop. The narrower street width fits in the it it just needs to be appropriate street width as opposed to narrower and maybe appropriate block length based on the scale of the project because you you have a very valid point. you all of a sudden have bottleneck where you don't need one. So maybe the words appropriate as opposed to short and narrow appropriate block length for the scale of the development. If nothing else, it gets the developers attention and makes you aware of I got to pay attention to street widths and how we'll lay out the grid network.

Think that pretty much um covers um a lot of the 7.2 unless somebody else has something to discuss. 7.2 graphically, the left graphic, we need to No one designs a neighborhood that looks like that. Yeah. Um, past fifth grade. So, we want to change the graphic to a little more realistic. I'll try and find I'll I'll draw you one and get it to you tomorrow. That way, you don't have to worry about it. But, we'll just we'll make it a little more realistic, showing the same idea and concept.

Anyone from the audience want to talk about 7.2? That's the only thing I want to talk about is 7.2. Come on, Jennifer. I waited to see if you guys were going to mention it, but um a lot of push back on this issue um on when when projects come to city council. Um it's it's less than it was, but there was a state law that was requiring two means of egress. So what you had was a development that had been developed 30 years ago like steel run. I think that was a issue gosh long time ago even when I was on the council years and years ago. And um then they had a new development that was um being developed beside that. Well, they needed a second means of egress. So they wanted to connect to Steel Run. And the people in Steel Run were like uh not our problem. why you want to that you need another means of egress. We don't want all this traffic coming through our neighborhood. We're self-sufficient. Also, the neighborhoods were not harmonious, you could say. So, I don't know how you want to address that, but I do think it's valid. I think that, you know, if you're if you're gonna um what you see now like is what off Rogers Road where or off um off where all the big developments are going um uh out towards Burlington area uh that's still in Graham. That developer, he has like four different phases. So the first phase he'll do, then the second phase he'll do, then the third phase. Well, interconnectivity can work there because he didn't have the houses sold. He didn't have, you know, complaints from

neighbors or whatever. You know, they know theoretically that the rest of the property is going to be developed at later stages. But where you do have problem is where you have established neighborhoods of 30 years and there's a new development that comes in that's completely and radically different than their existing neighborhood. Um, you know, you have to understand that even just 10 years ago, people still did R18 lots. So obviously those things aren't happening today, but um back then they were and you know those people don't want to be connected to that neighborhood period cart blanch. And they don't want to hear anything that anybody has to say about people walking. They don't want the interconnectivity. um if they had their way, they're they they'll come and they'll they'll say, "Not only do we not want the interconnectivity, we want fences up because we don't want people from that neighborhood coming in our neighborhood." I'm just I don't know how you want to address it. But, you know, when the when the state was requiring if you had so many lot, how many lots was it Cameron? That you had to have two means and then they raised it to is it 500 now?

No, I think a fire code was 100, right? 100. Okay. And now well where it was 50 and now it's 100 something like that. I think they increased it to 100.

Yeah. So so but I guess the onus they felt like those two means of egress need to be on your property. They don't need to be coming through our property from we we we don't want that. And you can understand if you lived in that established neighborhood that you wouldn't want that either. Um most likely. Um, so you know, and and when I say like they're not harmonious, I mean it was like um residential lots that were on acre lots beside an apartment complex. Those people did not want that connectivity. They did not want a bunch of people coming from an apartment complex going through their neighborhood. So, you know, that was a we ended up but then you also have emergency services that are saying if there's a fire, we need to have another means of being able to to get out. So, they what the council ended up doing was allowing the for there to be an access there and they ended up having a um a gate there that could be opened in the in the event of an emergency, but just it wasn't addressed and I and I think it is a big issue that comes up quite a bit. So, um I don't know.

I'd love to hear your thoughts, Chad. Did we capture it in the streets dub? So if we if we encourage future stubs on the new development is limited to non-developed parals. That's right. Then that if there's no one there in an undeveloped parial and we're establishing a stub to that undeveloped parcel, whoever buys that parcel, it's a given there's going to be connectivity to that parcel. Well, but you're not trying to connect you're not trying to connect it to um an existing established neighborhood because we're not able to address that.

We're addressing things that are occurring in the future. The other big issue is that you know you have what happened to say Joey Parson's development that road coming in there was no no curb gutter just and when cars park on both side of the road you cannot get two cars to pass each other. You have to basically go through the development and do this around the cars that are parked in the road. Now you built a thousand houses behind his development and now that road that was just a residential road that was built to be just a residential road is now a thoroughare for 4,000 cars every day to come through. So what do you do in that situation? So when it exceeds the 3,000 trips per day, this there'll be a TIA study that the developer should have improved the street and the connect street.

What's upsetting about that development is that there were other alternatives. It was just going to cost the new developer money to connect to another street, but you're making all this money on this new all these new homes. You should have spent the money to have that other connectivity. And that's that's the thing that the existing residents get mad about. They're like, "It seems like we're being inconvenience when new development comes in and they're trying to basically put a highway through our residential neighborhood to accommodate hundreds and hundreds of homes back here and they need to find their own means of egress and not through our neighborhood." And and I I understand that. I I'm I'm very sympathetic with somebody that was not ex they bought their home. it was their largest investment and they weren't expecting hundreds and hundreds of cars to pass by their house and now some big developers come and bought all this land in the back which they have a right to do and they have a right to develop it. I don't think they're fighting that but they're like you need to find your own highway to get to to get all these people out of your development and it doesn't need to come by my house.

Thank you. I noticed in in the past that this problem right here that we're talking about has been passed down by numerous councils uh of not enforcing it. And um I can think of several subdivisions where the stubs are there, the developments went in, and then there was something allowed to be different than our ordinance. Um Nenina Drive is one of them down here off of Hampford Road. That last uh subdivision just got put in. I think um it was recommended that the Nina Drive people turned out they didn't want the traffic coming through their development and so it was waved and wasn't made to make those access.

Yeah. I think it was part of a the conditional reasonzoning right um where there was because there was existing rightway that's right in between that development like in between two houses and that was I guess proposed to eventually connect to Daryl Drive over there. Y

and during the conditional reasonzoning, they initially showed it, but then they wanted it to be gone and I think they were fine with it. Um I I I can only go by what, you know, the ordinance says inside of um you know, the book of what, you know, connectivity says at least and I think that's where maybe some of the things come, you know, you have something that specifically says inside the development ordinance that a developer is required to provide a street stub out to an undeveloped piece of land or a landlocked piece of land. I think that's where a lot of these southern portions of, you know, development has come to create this interconnectivity of maybe streets that aren't the same to new streets from changing development requirements of what our streets actually are. Um, and I guess that's where a lot of this connectivity comes from. Um, is just constant trickle down of the southern more south you go. But if we're not going to if we're recommending that be considered and we're not going to enforce it, then why don't we recommend two points of egress on the partial that you buy?

So, I think inside the development ordinance, it requires two points of um access points for anything over 25. Um, and I think the city standard can trump the fire code, I believe, um, in that retrospect. Uh, I could be wrong, but I know we've pretty much held people to that standard essentially. I mean, I think that in that Nina Drive example, they had two points of entry and they also had another point of entry on Daryl Drive. Um, but they just had another secondary point of entrance on Daryl Drive for some reason. Um, I mean, I can get the plan pulled up if we absolutely want to take a look at What about the new development right here on Hampford Road? It just uh Oh, that need I'm thinking of another one that don't have that's got more than 20. It's got 25, I think, units or more. And it only has one point of

egress. Well, they tried to provide two. Panford Landing. They tried to provide two, but it got shot down um because the folks in the neighboring development came through. That That's the one I'm talking about.

Yeah. And didn't want cars traveling through there. So, the secondary point of access really is just for emergency services. Um, I think it's heavily incentivized that those two point of accesses are there so that fire can get there just in case half of Hampford is blocked off. How are we going to get to the back of it if you know there's something blocking the front? And that's through that Nina Drive area where they're going to have to open the gate. Um whereas if it wasn't a part of that condition then um like I said I think they provided it on their initial set of plans to meet our ordinance requirements but due to public um comment it was stated that we're going to provide the connection but it's only going to be used for emergency services not even trash.

So that's so that last sentence I'm sorry Mr. Wooten go ahead. How how is this is all of this discussion going to be incorporated into what into this document? I think the last two lines of of of where we are just just read it and and in the context of this is a future land use plan with respect to both uh Mr. Venice and Miss Tally. And uh this is a future this is a document guiding the future plan. A wellplanned connected road network and be incorporated into new subdivisions, new commercial centers, even office parks and encouraging stubouts to undeveloped parcels. I mean,

it doesn't say that we're going into an old neighborhood. didn't register doesn't say that we're going into an old neighborhood or that we're requiring a connection beyond what the fire code requires. It encourage interconnectivity which is a gen as a general rule is good for the public works, the firefighters, the cops. Um at the same time that sentence keeps Graham Graham because it doesn't say it promotes connectivity to established neighborhoods. It's it's really tough. And we have a we have a we have a traffic count study requirement.

No, sir. In in respect to DOT streets where if we exceed 3,000 trips per day, then we're going to do a traffic study to identify problems. Um congestion being one of them. I think it's just difficult because a lot is right here. A lot of the older developments are adhering to the ordinance requirement of what this is saying is providing that stub out to an undeveloped piece of property. You I don't know if you could even go as far as trying to line it up with what our ordinance states of maybe not just undeveloped but landlocked pieces of property. Undeveloped landlocked pieces of property. I don't know if that really makes any difference or not, but that's essentially what the ordinance says.

Let's put and and undeveloped and landlocked. Yeah. Come on up there. Jeff Bennis and I haven't moved since the last time I come up here and talk. So, okay. A long meeting.

Um, I offer this as a constructive comment and and um and something that I I I think that you need to keep in mind either now or you're going to have to address it down the road. The sooner you address it, the better. And it it pertains to 7.2. It pertains to 7.1. It pertains to just about everything you do and planning for the future. Okay. What I see in happening in Graham is uncontrolled growth. All right. Everybody likes growth. More stuff, more money, more revenue. Bigger, bigger, bigger is better. Well, now you got problems, right? You're trying you're trying to put out the campfire at the top of the fire instead of down at the bottom. I I in my career, I always looked at root cause. What's the root cause of what we're talking about here? More people, uncontrolled growth. I drove down Graham here at five o'clock in the afternoon last Friday. I thought I was back in Chicago on 22nd Street. It was It was hopping, right? And people spinning through around traffic and things like that. It was busy. It wasn't small town Graham anymore. This was like a freeway going through there. All right. You you really need to talk about controlling your growth. Every I'm sure everyone remembers about Quarry Hills, the golf course. Everybody remember that? I had to go over there the other day on some business. There must be a thousand homes there, right? Thousand more cars on the road, a thousand more everything, a thousand more problems. You fix, you know, rarely do you have a silver bullet that fixes everything. That's a silver bullet is controlling the growth. Now, that's not popular, right? Because people want to get bigger and bigger and better and we want to be bigger than Burlington and Bebon and all this stuff. Well, you got problems doing that. Control your growth and and you

won't have to worry about this stuff. I hope on I hope that's not negative, but Just a comment. I I don't disagree. In fact, I agree with what Jennifer said and what what we've said about the egress and all that. But that's I think to me that's more appropriate in a discussion over the UDO. I I like what we have here. It's it fits the spirit of this document. I think it fits it just fine. Says what it need it says what it needs to say without, you know, being really specific and getting down too much in the weeds. So, as of right now, I essentially have um up on the screen Elizabeth's uh I guess recommendations for this section. and what's highlighted is going to be placed at the end of Mr. Wooten's recommendation. Um, if that is okay with you all, um, I'll again leave it up to you all if we would like to kind of continue in that manner.

So, we are we satisfied with 72.

So, let's move on to 7.3. Who wants to start that?

You got any changes on 73? Trying to find it. Cameron, would you pull up mine? Yeah, I think um yeah, right here. Page 66. And this is page 66. Typical urban zoning and zoning ordinances. I think I must have sent you something on 7.3. Maybe it's in front of you.

I'll just read it. I guess I'll just read it out loud. Typical urban zoning and zoning ordinance create situations in which uses are segregated from one another. The use of urban zoning has unintentionally resulted in the loss of pedestrian connectivity and neighborhood centered life which typically included the centralized retail in a mixture of uses. That's the left side of that page. Oh, you're good. While picking up with the left side of the page,

we're good. Picking up with the left side of the page. After that word uses, we would begin reading from the text of the document in front of us already. While some uses need to be separated from one another through that entire section until we get to the last three lines, the last line uh the last two words of line four. The diagram, you with me?

Yeah. The diagram highlights the separation of uses comma and the vehicle hyphen focused network period. And all that well hold on is listed inside of here. Right. Hold on. That first paragraph, typical urban through of uses, copies and pastes to the section on the left side of page 66 under the left side 7.3 from the word the in the first line to the word communities period in the seventh line. Got it.

Then we pick up with while some uses uninterrupted until you get to the third line from the bottom. Highlights the and then strike through current problem with. So the diagram highlights the

separation of uses and the vehicle hyphen focused network. So vehicle focused network. What we're doing is the same thing we did in 7.1. We're not trying to say one is less desirable than the other. We're stating the facts. And we're still keeping after the diagram. The diagram highlights the separation of uses and the vehicle focused network period.

And then keeping current problem with separation of uses. All traffic must go onto the main road and go anywhere. or we take we struck out current problem with we struck out all traffic must get out on the main road to go anywhere. So it just ends right there. It just sound uh just forgive me. It just sounded a little un inappropriate. Remember the top line too. The typical urban zoning and azoning. The typical urban zoning ordinances create situations in which uses are segregated from one another.

That's correct.

Yes. on the right hand side of the page, you can go back to the the word document text and let's read that. So then mixed use I I just went through that whole section. Mixed zoning typically predates urban zoning and occurs in a more organic and synergistic fashion where pedestrian focused needs and the absence of vehicle transportation cause commercial, retail, and residential uses to be located more closely together. The historic part of Graham has many examples of commercial, multif family, and single family uses in close proximity to one another. Mixed development encourages pedestrian connectivity, decreases vehicle traffic, and allows people the opportunity to choose whether to drive or walk to their home, local store, place of employment. The central business district in Graham is an excellent example of a traditional mixture of uses where office, retail uses, residential destinations, and other attractive establishments meet multiple needs of the citizens with or without vehicle transportation. I just took that whole right hand side out and put that in its place for discussion.

We're taking all this right hand side out and replacing it with what you have written essentially. That's my suggestion open for discussion. Yeah, I mean because I made the change on that left hand side as well and like it's um you know completely up to you all as well. Um, I have to admit the fact that what was there was very generic whereas this is more city specific for the city of Graham. So yes sir,

I highly encourage the replacement. you write anything on that one? I did, but I I like what you wrote. Will you read yours, too? Oh, Lord. Yes. Uh, I'd be probably better. Okay.

Okay. The standard zoning and I some of this I think also that I got from Chair Ward, some of his updates. So, it's a mix of both. Uh, the standard zoning ordinance has created a situation in which all uses must be segregated from one another. This has reduced the occurrence of live lively neighborhoods that include a neighborhood store as well as the removal of residences from the central business district in many communities. While some uses need to be separated from one another, many would work well together if designed properly. For example, the construction of five three-story multif family apartment buildings in the middle of a single family residential district would not be appropriate. However, a multif family townhouse development that is designed to complement the surrounding neighborhood may fit in. The separation of uses has resulted in the creation of quote pods of development. The separation of uses is compounded with unconnected road networks requiring all traffic use a main road to travel. It is to be noted, however, that the separation of uses assists in manage managing infrastructure demands and may reduce nuisances caused by mixeduse environments. It also allows for more efficient infrastructure planning such as road design and industrial zones.

Was good.

Does that does that strike does that strike the whole left side? Right. Good. Oh, thank you. Does that strike the whole left side and replace it? Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm easy. So, I like it all right here. We all on the same page or whatever. We're emphasizing it's all clicking together, whether it's whichever version. Mr. Huffine, you're a little more technical, so some of your wording should probably replace mine. Yes. Hard. I think I think it makes it better. I mean with the engineers understand that hard and edgy. I say I do civil construction not road design. I had no problem

construction. So that's with that at all. Had no problem with that at all. So Chad has no problem with it. Would you be okay with So we want to put all of that complet Elizabeth in there. 104. Oh, okay. Okay, that makes it a whole lot easier. That is a real I don't The columns messed up on that. So, this is that mixed use goes to the right side. Okay. I was about to say, "Oh, man. I gotta find a way to put all this stuff in there." But copy and paste. Yep. Well, I thought it was going to take up because like it's hard for me to go like like that. Yeah.

So, that's the only hard part that I have to to deal with. Um font reduce. Andy, put a side note out there and then you can move it.

Let's do this. I do not want to do that. God, imagine that would be. How's that? It's in there. Okay. Yeah. Let's do the do the next one, too. Mixed use.

Mixed use. The concept of mixed use began before zoning was required and many uses could be found within a singular neighborhood. When pre-planned, mixed use provides a great concept to encourage lively neighborhoods that intertwine to serve a multitude of needs. The central business district is an excellent example of mixed use as there are office and retail establishments with residences on the upper floor. Elizabeth, will we slow down and go go back? Yep. You want me to start all the way at the beginning? Yes, ma'am.

Okay. The concept of mixed use began before zoning was required and many uses could be found within a singular neighborhood. When pre-planned, mixed use provides a great concept to encourage lively neighborhoods that intertwine to serve a multitude of needs. The central business district is an excellent example of mixed use as there are office and retail establishments with residences on the upper floor. Problems occur and opposition may arise when a multitude of uses are added after an established use has defined the area. Careful consideration must be given to transitions between uses. Not all commercial uses are compatible with residential uses and vice versa. Factors such as use intensity, building height, privacy, noise, lighting, traffic, landscaping, fencing, and setbacks should be thoroughly evaluated when introducing a new use adjacent to an established one. Equal attention should be given to which use existed first and whether the proposed adjoining use will function harmoniously with the existing development. Transitional uses such as office and institutional uses can serve as effective buffers between commercial development and residential neighborhoods. Neighborhood markets and convenience stores in particular can either enhance or negative negatively impact nearby areas depending on their location, design, and operations, including the presence of sidewalks, operating hours, lighting, and ongoing maintenance. Go to go to the word great. Just bear

with me. Oh, you're okay. Can you read again until I stop? Say stop. I do. That was hard for me to keep up, but I got a a few of them. line down. Okay, you're on it. So, great. Change that to efficient. Efficient concept. Is that where we're Yeah. provides and and I would suggest the use of effective, not efficient. Effective.

Thank you. the central business district. We're making that Graham. So, the Graham central business district or the central business district in Graham, whichever way is better. It's implied because it's in our minds that that's where we're referring. But if Mr. Venice was still sitting here. He may take himself back mentally to somewhere in Chicago. If we're going to do that, I would like to make sure we add that to the separation abuses side as well.

Well, I don't know why I'm Yeah, thank you. Let me go back over here real quick. Actually, trying to read that while you type. I don't think you need to do that there. I'm the central business. That's a I think it's a broad reference. Right. Right. Because this it's just telling difference. Sorry, Cameron. No problem. No problem. Right. Not we're good there.

Okay. The next one was Give me a minute. Look over on the right side. You still have in Graham. We want that one there because that is a specific reference to grammar on the left side. There you go. Sorry, that this one's already over there. I meant the Yeah, what you just did. That's exactly what you are. We got to find the residential or residences on the right hand side. Retail establishment with residences on the upper floor. Is that where we're at? uh dwelling units.

Not all commercial usage of There it was. Not all commercial uses. Yeah, keep on coming down. Not all commercial uses Oh, yeah. There we go. are compatible with residential and in institutional resid and institutional. Yeah, resolutional is the newest category. So, sorry,

we had the we had the discussion of school proximity to vape shop. We're covering that residential part, but we're not covering the the church or the school was the institutional part. Residutional. Resitutional. We going to put that on our next drawing that we send to you. It's going to be the coolest Disney shaped building. Then the last one here first. The last one was after lighting to add soundwhere in there.

Voice. privacy. Oh, sorry. I didn't hear noise. I just missed it because we're getting the backup beeper all the time. The the alarm from the backup.

Good. I'm good. All right. Go back up for just a minute. just one nit really nitpicky thing where it says the central business district in Graham is an excellent example. Um I'm looking at that and thinking in Graham is representative of mixed use simplifies and take out the two

simplified would be a good word or is representative either one I think would be excellent example is is a little overused it it becomes trit So the central business district and Graham exemplifies mixed use as there are office and retail establishments with residences on the upper floor. I think that reads better. Here's the hard part. Is everybody content? Represents represents is a reference exemplifies to me is hey this is Graham. It's bigger. It's it is an excellent example in one word. better word.

Sorry, Cameron. It's okay. We'll figure it out. There's that exemp exemptional something weird. All right. So, we're going to have to drop the font of this like all of them. Oh, that's too little. T It's getting dark outside. I trust me I am too. So it's rough

someone for our lone ranger back there. Break on the board. You want to ask him what section he wants to talk about? Well, actually technically all of the voting maps, the land use maps. The last stuff we get to Yeah. Sorry. We I'm trying to keep it in order so we're not bouncing. I'm learning a lot about I got to know what kind of hands I'm going into because she I think I talked with Mr. Timothy, correct? Yeah,

I spoke with him on the phone. I believe yesterday. Um he lives down on Swepsonville Road outside of our city limits just to give a brief overview. We have to stick on to it. But I guess our future lane use map extends our suburban residential area outside of there. Um so there's a thought of potential annexation. Um which I learned today that the city cannot forcefully annex anymore. Um it has to deal with um lowincome driven aspects for us to be able to take over and annex anything. So, unless uh there is an income driven where there's problems with your water and sewer uh or I don't know what the terminology is for it, but we can't just forcibly annex people anymore, but that's all that I'll get into at the moment. People think that you want the city to you don't want the city to annex you, but it's actually cheaper for the resident because the res paying double rate on everything. I mean, you can run the numbers yourself, but trust me, it's cheaper to be in the city and to pay annual taxes than be out and pay down the

Oh, there. Sorry about that. There is no question I have, you know, I've got basically 10 acres that is sitting in a reasonably expandable location and it has increased in value by I don't know about 500% since I purchased it and I do know that the develop is coming that way. I know it's going to happen. Um, but I want to make sure it's, you know, I want to know and the reality is it's weird that I've got be a well subject that I have to maintain when the backyard is growing water treatment center. There's literally my backyard.

All right, let's get back to order here so we can get this wrapped up so we can get to you to see everything as your concerns are at that point. We got a lot more to talk about. So, what else do we have here on this particular item? We got 73. Ready to go to 73. So, 74. Um, Elizabeth, you want to talk about 74?

I'll read. Conventional development. Conventional development maximizes the number of lots or retail space that could be created out of any piece of land. This method pays little attention to environmental factors, neighborhood design, or open space. However, it provides for initial lower costs of land and resident privacy. The goal of development is to place as many houses or businesses on the site as allowed under the current zoning ordinance. As a result, land that should be preserved due to environmental conditions or topography gets turned into a backyard or graded for parking. In addition, this type of development places a greater burden on the city because it often does not provide recreational space for the residents and results in overcrowding at parks and other recreational facilities. The conventional business development is often aesthetically unpleasing, causes increased runoff to other properties and increases traffic.

I'm going back to reference myself, but I think this was almost similar to what was in the original one. I just changed some Yeah, it's very close. Simple English language. Yeah. Yeah. Anybody satisfied with that or any changes or deletions? I don't want to complicate it too much. Pays less attention to as opposed to little attention to. Let's read it that way. Pays less attention to go. And near the near the beginning. Um fourth line. Fourth line. Yeah. Peace. Thank you. Pays just literally.

Then at the end of attention, there's no s. So you want to take pays less attention to environmental factors, neighborhood design, cuz that's facts. That that philosophy takes a net area, divides it by a zoning density. That's what you get.

Okay. where the periphery the unusable land is significantly less receives less emphasis mathematically. So you're you're saying there's a hierarchy of attention being paid to and that saying less is is true. There's a significant amount of attention paid to um streams, buffers, wetlands regardless of the development philosophy. But to say it's less means it's not the priority. And I think that's what we're trying to say in that paragraph. Okay, I'm good with that.

I'm good with that. I I would change a couple of words in in the next sentence. The goal of development says goal of development is to place as many houses or business. I would go with the goal of development is to maximize the number of houses or businesses. Anything else? Move on to open space.

The city of Graham has recently adopted an open space provision for R12, R15, and R18 zoning districts. These provisions seek to encourage the development of compact neighborhoods and rural compounds that set aside significant natural vistas and landscape features for permanent conservation. Open space is defined as any area that is not divided into private or civic building lots, streets, rights of way, parking, or easements established for purposes other than conservation. The land is to be permanently protected from development and can be used by the developed neighborhood as a recreational amenity. The developer can build the same number of units but on smaller lots resulting in substantially less infrastructure to be installed as a result of the clustered development. By encouraging open space development, recreational opportunities for citizens is increased. Travel time to recreational opportunities is decreased. The amount of infrastructure to be maintained is decreased and the attractiveness of the community is increased. Keeping it simple. Can we we need to validate where it is defined? There is and then I want to complicate it a little bit about the 10th line down. Open space is def is defined as any area that is not divided. Where is that defined? And can we read the definition? because we're gonna say that. We want to make sure that it wasn't the previous author that said that uh without a definition because I'm not so sure that we covered everything.

That should be cited somewhere in the UDO. Yeah. Because it's often a a point of contention in different municipalities, different counties, different cities where what does the storm water control measure count as? What does the seesaw count towards? What does the floodway count towards? So, if we're going to reference a definition, we better be right on that one. And that's no no fault on this group. Just a technicality. I I would say you'd need to either cite that in the UDO or take out defined and say something like open space is viewed.

Yeah. because I don't know if there's a specific oneline definition for open space inside the development ordinance. There's something for usable open space that we incorporated recently, but I don't think that covers what exactly we're looking for. We don't have a definition for open space. The definition is incorporated into the contents of what is required inside of open space. I guess if that makes sense of there's not like open space is defined as this. It's more or less you must provide open space in your development. Open space is classified as this blank blank blank blank blank kind of this is what is required open space inside out of different developments.

Yes. So we got to get out of that. We got to get out of the business of defining in this document. That was from I I would suggest using words like open space is typically considered or is viewed so that it's vague enough and broad enough suggestive enough. If Amanda was here, she'd just destroy us on this these four lines. Can Can we pause and read my suggestion for this one? Yeah, sure. Not I don't want to complicate it. I just want to see what we what I said and let's look at it. Would you like for me to read it?

Yes, sir. Or I can I got it right here. So I think this is open space type development recently adopted within the city of Grahams or 1215 and 180 or or R

or sorry city of Grahams R1 125 and 18 zoning districts seek to encourage the development of compact cluster type neighborhoods setting aside perimeter areas maintaining natural v vistas and naturally challenging areas for recreational and conservation uses. But please excuse the talk to dictation. And then I don't know if that's that's enough verbiage. Maybe maybe we strike those four lines defining open space and and and try to incorporate what We're just a we're just treading on thin ice there. You're going to have to redo that that whole sentence

to an extent is for the rest of the but not where like it's Maybe I just didn't go down far enough. Open space ordinance. We ain't just right. Rewrite it. We rewrote a portion of it. Um the Oh, maybe this is where we're at. Um Oh, go down. There it is. Open space is Oh my god, I'm an idiot. Yeah. So it's literally open space is defined as an area that is not divided into private or civic building lot streets rights of way parking or easements established for the purpose of other than open space conservation

per the UDO according to the UDO for the UDO either There you

think we're in good shape with her now. And that's a defined that's a defined that's that's a defined entry in the definition section of the DUDA or in the appropriate section. Yes sir. So it talks about open space provisions for R12, R15, R18. And then open space is defined as any area that is not divided into private or civic building lot, streets, rights of way, parking or easements established for the purpose other than open space conservation. And did that's verbatim from the UDO. That's cool. I think

the reason we rewrote that is because 20 years ago, the intent of this was for good. But uh as you well know lawyers, developers who are not necessarily sometimes the most responsible and do have the philosophy to put as to maximize as many houses as they can on a piece of property. They were basically taking anything that was unusable buildable space and just saying, "Oh, that's my open space." And you know, that wasn't the intent. And I just wanted to make that clear that the intent of the open space was to have open recreational space throughout your development. Um, one of the things that the council really tried to encourage with some of the rewrites is um like the uh bio um there's been a couple Yeah. the bio sales, the the recent developments that have come up. And when you go into that development, there was going to be a, you know, a pond, an erosion pond, very visible. And um through encouragement with that developer, we were able to get him to do a B. Now, it doesn't work on every plot of land, of course, but he's able to do that. And that's going to be a beautiful green space. I mean, really central to the development. And that was more of what the council was trying to encourage with this open space. So, but the wording means everything and the because the wording wasn't done in a way it allowed a lot a big loophole and de development was not being developed in the way it was intended with this open space provision.

So, and it was hurting people, I think, um because people would come to the meetings and they'd say, "Okay, well, they're asking for a reasonzoning in addition to using the open space and lots that were supposed to go from R18 down to like R12. They're thinking they're getting 12,000 square foot lots, but by the time you use the open space provision, it's like nine and 10,000 square foot lots. And they're like, "Well, we didn't agree to that. We'd agreed to R12, but by the time you use the open space provision, in other words, they're double dipping if you if you get it." So, it was not a lot of residents felt misled by this by this. I just want you to know the the real um impact of this. This is a very important section and one that had ends up having a lot of um distrust in the community. It was done years ago for good intention and when you read it you think it is good intention is to preserve green space. Um, but unfortunately some very unscrupulous developers didn't use it for that reason. They didn't use it the way it was intended and it caused a lot of kind of So, if you guys can help in reversing that, I just wanted you to know that that's kind of how it happened and how it came about, but it was for good.

Thank you. Anybody satisfied with the last addition? So that takes care of all of uh section seven. That is correct. Yes, sir. So let's go back and he's here to talk about the land zones. What's that? Six, five, five or six.

Yeah, it's 64. So it's right here above. I mean, it's the last little piece of it of um I mean, it's kind of all tied into, you know, section six is talking about what exactly is the the future land use um map and what the areas themselves incorporate. Um but I guess I I'll um open it up for you all, I guess. So, really have much to say outside. I think there's a couple things that Mr. Huffine might also have on this map. So I think it's a good segue into to the next topic of discussion.

All right. I want to come on up, sir. So you've been here a long time. I want give you opportunity to talk about this section before we get started in it. Uh Timothy Scott 2255 2255A 2255B 2259 Sweptsonville Road.

Thank you, sir. Um the main thing um I I I'm absolutely blessed to have been here because I I know that you guys are very serious about what you do and you're doing a very good job. Um author by committee is not an easy task, but you guys are doing a wonderful job and I know I'm in good hands as this development happens. But I understand yes that this isn't this is by no means a a a um welcome to the city of Graham. This is a city of Graham is going to tell you what you can can and cannot do. That is what the map adjustment is. It puts me into the unincorporated development zone and I understand that

not necess Oh, sorry.

Look, which it's zoning right now. I'm currently unzoned. I've got three businesses on my property. I've got a uh nut farm. I grow pecan trees. Um, I've got an automotive shop. I work on cars. And I've got a uh giant mo, which is jack of all trades, master of one, which is part in part a recycling business, a scrapper. Um, as this gets developed into suburban residential, that's my concern. Um, what am I going to be facing when it comes to the point where city council and I know this is city council really I came to basically get myself formatted for the city council meeting because I know the city council is the one that approves things and I understand that. Um, but I'm very comfortable with how you guys are approaching growth. I'm very I'm very comfortable with that. I just need to know how I need to be prepared on in my world. I mean, I know I'm grandfathered into what I've got on the property right now, but it does limit the use of my property in the future for different things that, you know, could come up and do. Right now, I'm currently taking care of my dying father and my mother-in-law, and I've got a lot on my plate that I've and and I need I can't address a lot of what I planned because I've got other things that are taking higher priority. Not a wealthy guy. I'm not your super businessman by any means. I'm just the average guy trying to get by and I want to know that um that your plans on developing and the zoning changes that are going to happen um what is the effect it's going to have on me. So that was basically it and know by the way you all do are doing a great job. So I feel comfortable that I'm in good hands.

Kevin, you want to address that? Yeah. Um so I guess you feel free to stand up. I think you're you're here. So, um, you don't have you could stand wherever you like. Of course, I'm here to listen to the city. Yes, sir. So, I mean, essentially, you know, we're talking about this map and you mentioned that, you know, when this map's approved, that's your zoning. It's inside the city of Graham. Is that your understanding of essentially what's going on? Well, my understanding what you mean in the uh the uh what the uh UTI or you uh ETJ. So, yes, sir. Extra extra basically extra territorial jurisdiction. Yes sir. So

no sir that is not 100% the case at the moment. It's not the case at all. That's the definition on the internet. Yes sir. So but we're not extending our ETJ based on this map. Okay.

Okay. So this only thing this is our future land use. So this is essentially showing that if the city of Graham were to develop in this area in the future where our city limits could possibly extend, this is the way we want the development to be to be drawn as that's that suburban residential type. In no way, shape or form based on the approval of this document or we one bringing you into the city of Graham via annex or bringing you into the city of Graham's ETJ where we have zoning jurisdiction over the top of you. The only thing that's going over you right now is this blank canvas that if for some reason a developer purchases your piece of land and every other piece of land around it, they have to develop it. They have to come to the city of Graham, request an annexation if they want water and sewer um and develop it to the standards of the suburban residential plan. Um and until that happens, you're not inside the city of Graham. You're not inside the city of Graham's ETJ. you're pretty much protected to do everything you want based on county zoning currently. Um I think I don't know if you're in this I don't think you're in the Swepsonville limits. It's probably all in the county. So there's nothing changing for you. Yes, sir. So there's nothing changing for you based on this map in its current state. This map is pretty much the exact same in this area as it was approved in 2015. So there's no zoning changes for you whatsoever. All of that would have to come down from city council and it would take a heavy investment from a developer for us to even think about moving a a line or something down here and it would all be cost on the developer. And the only way we would force annex is if it was a deprived area that um I think there's like a cash value that's associated with it where the city has to extend water and sewer to that area in order to force annex. And I don't think the city's in a position right now to even want to explore that option down Swepville Road at the moment. So, but I'm not I'm speaking on behalf of myself as staff,

but city council probably could elaborate on that a little bit more. But you are in no way, shape, or form if this document is approved in line for any of our zoning authority at all. Um, unless, like I said, city council makes a decision to bring in ETJ further out. But that requires these different types of uh statutory requirements like extending water and sewer on behalf of the city of Grant. So So ETJ also with water. No sir. So that's the other thing is like we're not going to extend our ETJ line until um that city limits line. They need to hear too. So I fig come back to the mic. Yeah. Is I'll let uh Chad I mean you're bursting this as well. Can we can we look at your location on the map? Yeah. Let's let's

zoom in on it. Um, if you go to either Cooper Road diagonally across Cooper Road, I've got I'll go to the GIS. It's actually two of them. Oh, you can pull it up in GIS. Clicked on the wrong thing. Elements County GIS. Actually go on the city one here because you can Are you going to be able to pull me up on the city one? Yes, sir. Okay. Go ahead and log in. You're good like that. I try. I did figure out who the computer guy was. All right. So,

there I am. Right there. There it is. I see. Y 172. Keep going down, Cameron. there.

So, this essentially this whole area right through here. Yeah. Uh there has been they haven't put it in there yet because it's on feed. It's not been processed uh through the GIS yet, but um my neighbor and I swapped some land. Gotcha. And I now own the whole creek. But nice. So ETJ line is currently right here. Yes, sir. So nothing past this line has any zoning authority over it. The layer I have on top of here is our current future land use map, which is merely a zoning recommendation map. It has not. If development were come this way in the future, right? Yes, sir. So we're not doing anything to you right now.

That makes me a whole lot more comfortable. But on the same token, that also gives me a because I I am I'm I hate and I certainly don't want to

put myself in a position where uh I can't remember his name out on high house roadblocks. That's not cool. I want to work with the community. I don't want to work against it. So the only way it sounds like this property is going to be annexed is if you yourself voluntarily want it to make connections to our water and sewer where it would need to get zoned or a developer purchases this land and maybe some other land around it to create some type of development in the future and connect our water and sewer. But that's going to require them to extend probably I think our water stops. got hydrants about a quarter mile well less than a quarter mile from my driveway both up Cooper and I don't even know if I can do that right but

y'all close you in the neighborhood so so just for my own clarity Mr. Scott is inside the ETJ or is outside outside of the ETJ.

When I saw the map and I saw the zoning on the map that implied to me after reading the document because if you read the document, it doesn't say it isn't a planned change. That's why I made the phone call. That's why I made came to the meeting and actually that's why I'm now actually quite comfortable with how you guys control growth. So, and how much concern you take towards your community. Oh, and by the way, the easiest way to handle the pictures is is yeah, go ahead and use the one from south of the highway and the one from north of the highway as far as the um development goes. It's a perfect example.

South Graham versus North versus uh old Graham. Thank you very much. Thank you. I'll let you all get back to your business. Thank you for waiting. Thank you for sticking around and thanks for being patient to hear me out. Yes, sir. If you got any questions or anything, just feel free to give me a call. You got my number. All right. Okay. I will. Thank you. As things change in the house, like I said, I don't want to be in a position where I have alienated the possibility of Yes, sir. Hey, Chad. Thank you. Thank you. Want to start this? This is all these your plans you sent in. Yeah.

Okay, let's get back to it. So, I guess on along the same lines since um Mayor Dickiy's uh Facebook post, um I've received a lot of messages in the past couple of days to sure that this section of the land use uh plan is looked at carefully. Um can go north of Graham to the intersection of Washington Providence. Mhm. Trying to do this for me. Me too. Right there. Right there in the curve.

We're gonna do this the other way because I'm not going to find it like this. I know where you're at though. in case you got a cross parker. Yep. It's right here. Right there.

And so the land use map currently calls for downtown residential in this area. What the concern was while that area redevelops, the land use designation did not specifically call for mixed use, called for downtown residential.

Mhm. And given the the group of folks in that area that own that land, um that somewhat limits their option when they come to be consistent with the future land use plan as part of the consistency statement. If there was a desire for mixed use, which we've been pushing for the past three hours, um we've relegated them only to downtown residential use. So, what what are our options for reflecting the the current ownership's desire for their future 10 to 20 year plan for parcels they own? I just want to get pulled up kind of what it states in here about downtown residential where this area is kind of located. And this of course talking about principal uses and supporting uses just so we all have an understanding of principal uses in this area. Predominantly detached, single family homes in neighborhoods may include duplexes, supporting uses, places of worship, daycarees, park facilities, schools, civic spaces, designated neighborhood centers may include neighborhood oriented commercial, small professional offices, live work units, and home occupations provided they do not generate excessive traffic and parking. Um, and that's essentially what downtown residential views as, you know, principal and supporting uses for things inside of that area. Um, is the intention, I guess, to try and change it to something different for these two, I guess. Which area are we looking at to change

that entire intersection is owned by several different development groups or or, you know, land owners that that own to lease or own to rent. And it appears to me now after hearing you read the definition of downtown residential that it includes enough of the retail, commercial, and institutional components that they're not specifically relegated to just replacing that home for home. Yeah, there's currently stores and live works and and workshops or what do you call it? work space areas in that um co-working areas that I think the ownership in that area wants to cultivate.

Yeah. And I think there's um I mean if this is like a little um this the same that we discussed with um the folks last month with Peach Street because they're on Washington as well kind of in this other little corridor um where they're in the B3 zoning district whereas you know it's still a neighborhood oriented commercial type use um where you can have these live work offices type things inside of there. Um, but I guess what you don't want to do is make it into like this mixeduse commercial thing where you can now have retail orient of like convenience stores like large scale. Well, I guess you can have convenience stores inside the B3 to begin with, but you see where I'm going. I guess um I guess they're more oriented currently. If they were to want to come and do a resoning for something, you could limit it based upon the understanding that okay, you're in the downtown residential district. We do allow for some type of retail or commercial uses. Let's try and keep them in line with the houses that are surrounding there so it's not damaging anything associated with that.

That intersection there on the on the right is a convenience store. Yes, sir. And across used to be a service station uh that's in the curve across the road from there used to be an old motorcycle shop beside the house. Move it on down up excuse me right there. And it's now a barber shop and a couple other things in there. I think it's like a little small business development area. What the fear was is that that is the definition of this mixeduse town center. It is. And we don't want to that's a residential house.

Squelch that by calling it a downtown residential if that use is so strict that it removes some of the mixed use components that are there or would be expanded. I think it's got to the benefit of it right now of its zoning classification is that of like a neighborhood business commercial use. Okay. Um the next one would be the um this is from memory uh Parker Street at the end of Marshall where all the fires are. Oh, the big meal. Yes.

So the future land use designation in that area is Where am I at? Okay, it says industrial on it says industrial on this existing land use. Let's see here where we got. So I think that was one that may have been discussed and no it's still this one on the future lane use map right now matches up with what we have now but mixeduse commercial um

does mixeduse commercial support multif family um mixed with commercial in retail and in light industrial

let's see mixeduse commercial um talks about desired patterns um currently include with many strip and other lowdensity commercial developments. These should be redeveloped over time into pedestrianoriented nodal centers of activity. New buildings in the mixeduse commercial area should be located no further than 15 ft from the front line. Um front lot line and should include transparent windows at least 50 ft of the first floor facade. Multiple stories and a mix of uses is desirable. Um include commercial and office developments and is primary located at major intersection. These areas provide a mix of retail, commercial, office, multif family, residential, and institutional uses. Buildings are multiple stories with architectural details, surface textures, and modulation of light and shade, and should be built at a human scale. So, it doesn't really have any aspects of industrial.

You think industrial is that an area where you're looking to incorporate industrial potentially? It's an area of concern from multiple multiple people in multiple segments of of interest. Mhm. that do not want to see the future land use map squelch the potential for this to actually change and improve in any way.

Whether it's city employees, whether it's private land developers, whether it's homeowners that are in that area, whether it's property owners that are in close proximity to that area, they're all saying the same thing. that area needs to be as open as possible so that there can be some kind of solution if if someone comes in to develop that property just to get it from its current state just to rescue it.

I think the only issue that you have is like there's no in between between mixeduse commercial and industrial. It's essentially it's like a hard stop. It's like if there's no and maybe that's what you include inside of like this language right here of the desired pattern of what is inside of your mixeduse commercial. Um you know provide a mix of retail, commercial, office, multif family, residential, institutional uses and I don't know exactly what you could reference in there regards to industrial because you say industrial then it's like how hard scale industrial are you talking about? You could say light industrial, but light industrial could probably be relatively heavy in that area depending upon, you know, what's going on.

What is the what is the uh public works yard there? What's it zoned? I one and so is this property, too. So, it's currently zoned industrial. So, the zoning plus the intention of the future land use map pretty much includes it encompasses anything. it they they we could be if if we had to hear a case where a development wanted any industrial use, it's currently zoned and that would be inconsistent with the future land use plan. But if it wanted to change any other to any other zoning, that would almost be consistent with the land use plan. So, we'd have a good basis to keep it moving. Yeah, I think um likely for industrial, they wouldn't come in front of y'all anyways.

That's correct. We wouldn't need to wouldn't need to worry about it. Okay. Then there was there's another one. Uh Dean, you have the I know you have one on Baldwin Road. Okay. Baldwin Road. So there's some acreage down at the end of Baldwin Road. Old prison camp and Eastway Lane. It's adjacent to Prison Camp. It's um I think it's currently slated for residential use, which mixeduse residential. Yes, sir. So that that is not the current or the next 10-year um intent of the ownership in that area.

That's what I understand. So do we address that in the map or do you have it as an inconsistency when trying to

I think it's totally up to you all of regardless of potential ownership in this area. What exactly do you all as a planning board envision this area looking like? Um, are you comfortable with changing this to something industrial or commercial based upon the surrounding residential aspects? Um, there's mixed use commercial that's surrounding it, but then again, it's up to you all to determine if we want to defer from the mixeduse residential currently to something else. Would you cater it towards one specific developer or is this just how we view the whole land use as a whole? I don't want to beat just from the past few years experience in that area is in it's leaning industrial.

I think it's currently and we're running out of industrial. It's zoned industrial. So I mean it's zoned industrial.

Yes sir. So that's another thing that you kind of have going on is it's zone industrial. So is some of this area along East Interstate Service Road. Um and that falls into the same mixed what is it? The mixeduse commercial category. Um, same with kind of what was going on there with the old mill. But again, like if you change the mixeduse commercial, there's no um inference of a mix or industrial and a development like this would depending upon what they want to do could potentially come in front of you all actually. May well maybe not. I mean, with what we the approved recently with the um the amendment for multiple occupancies of industrial on a single lot um would kind of keep it out of the realm of that business development type aspect as before. I'll put the ball in y'all's court in this one. I mean, it's zone industrial. I don't know how to ask the question from the from the from the interviews with land owners in that area and potential buyers in that area from pretty much everything west of the um parcel 144861 and parcel 144860. So basically the entirety of Baldwin Road once you get to the turn. Yeah. all of those big pieces. The the consensus from all of these folks that are asking me to speak to this is that that is a desire to be industrial. So, how do we as this group of uh citizens who are either own currently or or have an intent to develop industrial uses there? How do we edit the land use map? They bring that to me. So I'm bringing it to us.

Is industrial so we wouldn't have to add it to would we? It's industrial already. The long range is zoned. Correct. It's industrial zone but the land use plan calls it for residential. Change that industrial if I was it's the designation of the land use plan. Right. We need to change the designation heading there. How

I don't have much industrial land left period in much less changing that to something different. I mean, I think really the only thing is is we take a snapshot kind of like I mean, essentially what you provided is you highlight the area in which you know on this map right here or anywhere and shows like this area in particular currently viewed as mixeduse residential planning board recommends that this area is reclassified to industrial on the future land use map. That's what the folks are asking me to tell us as a group. Oh, I'm okay with that. If the board's consensus is I'm okay with that. That's the current zoning, right? Yes, sir. Current zoning. And And

I want to make sure cuz I'll get y'all to take a look at because you see where the future land use is currently up here, right? Like this is all kind of inside the mixeduse residential. There's these apartment buildings over here, but Chad's references these like essentially because there's some existing homes right here, but it's essentially all of this through here of which they're looking at. Are we going to incorporate these small Baldwin Road properties inside of there, too? That's that's currently being looked at. Okay. With with a 10 10 year horizon. So, what what is the what is the outlook of this document? 10 to 15 years.

Yes, sir. So, it's it's consistent with what the intent is currently or interest is in that area. If that's all right with y'all, I have can easily make that change and provide it to them. Uh, so they're zoned RG for general residential, which is pretty much, you know, the most lenient residential inside of here. They're mobile homes essentially that are outside of here. and they predated the ordinance so they got the RG designation.

But you can see I mean all of this is residential or not residential but industrial through here along this service road and a little bit all this is NC DOT over here. Um I think all this back no this is something else but no that's also dot but the only thing is I guess there's the separation between here in the residential but like I said if um you all are privy to that I'm more than happy to make that change for you. Uh this one right here is Essex Drive. Is that what you're referencing or right here? This is Baldwin. This is Gilbreth right here. This is Crescent.

It's behind the prison camp and Waste Industries. Waste Industries. Are we satisfied with that? Let's move on. I think we're going to Cherry Lane next. Is that right?

Yes, sir. The next one was Cherry Lane at the intersection of or near the intersection of Governor Scott Farm Road. So, east of that intersection. So, consistent with that slide, the the neighbors in that area have either expressed to me in some some way or another their um desire for residential or conservation, agricultural type uses. and the industrial overlay or industrial um designation does not reflect that accurately with some of the larger ovals being in permanent conservation which I'm sure the city's just not aware of

permanent convers conser or in I guess what aspect I guess like

so so there's a there's a a program for agricultural uses that that um a farmer can can request a conservation type easement, restriction, however you want to word it, such that they pledge to hold in perpetuity the current condition of the property. That it will be used for um agricultural uses or conservation uses with no increase in the impervious surface, the barns, the size of the homestead, the the the whole nine yards. In exchange for that commitment, the farmer or land owner or or rancher receives a present value payment.

Um, and then that runs with the property from now on. And so what the the town's map is not aware of is that case occurring. Um, and the symptom of that is that the map does not reflect that. So, if I were taking a 30,000 foot view of Cherry Lane and did not have the knowledge that a 50 acre piece is is permanently in conservation, uh it'd be quite misleading. Yeah. I think the only com because there are some green areas in here that are quote unquote conservation, but I think these are more or less along the lines of streams. And you're mis misunderstanding.

No, I know I know what you're talking about. I I'm just like I'm calling it out as what is essentially listed on here as conservation. Like if there was a case where they wanted to change or you all wanted to change it to identify these areas as these green conservation areas um whether it be for streams or for um wetlands or for agricultural purposes. Um

I don't think that's quite what I'm trying to say. the the light blue and blue uh patching for example shown over the green string buffer indicates to us that that's a that's a blue and light blue area. What I'm saying is the actual parcel in its entirety is fixed as an conservation parcel designation. Yeah. designated as it's in its current state from now on. Okay. No, I Yeah. So that if I wanted to build anything on that property, I I wouldn't.

Okay. If if the current owner wanted to build anything in in perpetu or tomorrow on that property that that owner couldn't. So we want to reflect accurately what's happening on those parcels. So do you have a specific partial you can point out that's in the contribution?

Yes. So if you go back to those ovals, the two big ovals opposing each other um just past Mr. Pedaly's house. So go north and east. North and east. There you go. There's one. And the other one is south of that. Those are Dixon and Eley. Eley. That's Eley where you're on there.

So those two big ovals are um going to remain farms. The uh the little ovals, the little oval to the north is Miss Whitfield. and we'll be Miss Whitfield for the next however long she's living, you know, with an intention of residential and agricultural use there. The three homes clustered together inside the oval uh to the west of the Eley family

to to the right right there. Those three are the pedalty family. Um, and they're currently residential uses. Um, and their intent is to hold that until which time they're ready to sell to someone in to include the farm parcel, which is still light blue to the to the south. Go that one. So those three parcels would likely go with that blue parcel, but in the short term they remain residential. The little oval to the west of your arrow. That one that one is uh a residential use with absolutely well absolutely if he was here, he'd he would be celebrating that he owns a home and intends to stay there. Um and then the further further west the circle to to expand their potential use to a mixture of uses not just in in a um what is that industrial use but that was more of a mixeduse intent to finish the core area south of Oldfields at the intersection of Governor Scott Farm Road and Cherry Lane. So to to address their future land use, we would want to expand that to commercial, residential, and industrial.

Well, I think it's Let's take a step and look at what exactly the because this is called the employment district. Um, it's not specific into industrial itself. I just want to make sure that there's an understanding at least on my end as well of exactly what this kind of encapsulates. Um the employment district extends beyond the Commerce Park border and currently contains several uses including farms, large lot, single family homes, natural ground cover, distribution and warehousing. As resoning occurs to employment district, it can be incorporated into the Levia. Um the employment district shall accommodate a range of employers and provide office space, industrial space, commercial space, institutional space and residential housing. This should be planned to limit environmental impacts, preserve open space and riperian corridors and develop highquality adaptable buildings for a variety of companies. Um, so I mean

that accurately represents the intent of the circle and the the penalties. I think it would represent them if they were sitting here. They would they would agree with that. It leaves them a lot of options um when they're ready to sell. Okay. to include the Eley and the Dixon in that area is misleading to the user of the map. I can understand that. And essentially what we could probably do is just take those two properties and shade them out in its own. And yeah, they need to be their own conservation area because they're

and that's more or less what like we have like I understand the the conserv like it's not just like we shade it all green like this is conservation area whether it be like I said the con conservation area currently is you know zone like classified on this map as just you know wetlands things other along those lines but why can't it be conservation for farmland as well of area that is not to be disturbed unless it is or it could be just another color as a I mean, I think there's options to identify those as you're kind of describing it. Um, it's just a different color on the map and a different definition inside of here to define exactly what that is. Um, I think there's very few of those in the county because there only a few awarded every year, maybe one every year, but I do know that we have another one of these out in the county north of um, Western High School, Western Alamance High School. So I however we want to handle it, it just needs to be obvious to the user of the map that if you're trying to assemble a large group of parcels that you're you got to skip a couple.

I think yeah, I have no issue with like putting those on a pedestal essentially and providing that to city council on behalf of you all. If that's what you want to do, you have to show them the different you have to differentiate that and then let the property owners come speak to council. Um it'll be open. Yeah, but the map as it stands is misleading and it is the desire of the owners for those two properties for those to be corrected. So essentially we highlight this area and identify as agricultural conservation area. Is that a good way to describe it?

I think for layman's terms that's accurate. Yes. Is that a good one to incorporate into lany's mouth or is there a better one that might or do we already have a category that there's just that conservation overlay? Yeah, that's the the streams and everything. Yeah, that's that would be misleading. I mean, even I don't think rural residential would do it either. Um I think it really needs to have its own kind of con. Yeah, I agree. And I think that's possible. And unfortunately, it's big enough but and in such an important area that it it needs to be brought to the attention of the user of the map.

Yeah, I agree. Don't want to waste money and time trying to develop plans on something that can't happen. I have no problem with that. I just want to know what I should define it as. What should we I would define it an old county guy as a conservation district is what we used to call him. and and they're just locked in. I mean, they're just locked in. They are now at this Yeah. I don't want any because we have the conservation overlay currently and I don't want there to be, I guess, confusion between the two, but I guess if we define whatever the conservation district is, it it can work out. So, if that's fine with y'all, I'm cool with it. Does a conservation district have to be agricultural?

No, it Well, it's open space essentially. It's it just it just never changes. It's there. All right. And the proper it is now is perpetual. It won't it won't it will not change. It will not develop. There will be no activity on it. It's just it's it's like and the proper name is conservation district. What we used to call them and that's what they kind of have here already is you know the conservation overlay essentially. Same thing. But saying it's it's it's wet things that are never going to be developed. Wetlands these things. Because the riperian buffer is that's not true because we could go in wetland areas and and as we did on Harden Street and

well maybe wetland is an improper word I should say floodways riperian buffers things along those lines. We yes in in perpetuity

and so that it can never be developed. That's correct. We did it on the park. That's correct. It's it's I think the the vocabulary words we're we're learning is conservation district and that needs to be added to the legend of the map. There is nothing wrong with the conservation overlay because that is in fact correct. They could be called conservation areas or environmentally never changed. No, they once they receive the conservation district designation that's it. yellow.

Sort of sort of without the um Native American intervention. Yeah, we'll label it as conservation district and we'll give it a bright bright purple and Miss Miss Eley in the northern part of the county has um property that it's unzoned. It's in the county that's done the same way. Yeah. It's an exchange of development rights for present value money, I think, is what it amounts to. I won't actually make it purple. I don't know. I probably won't give it a color. I'll just let the map owner decide.

But I mean, back to your point of the remainder of the area that you have highlighted. Um, I mean, is the employment district something that we need to change or is it fine in its current state? I think it's accurately representing the intent of Mr. Westman, the Scots, the penalties. Um, Mr. Cruser, I I think it represents their intent accurately. However, Dixon and Eley are are out of it. We can make that happen. And then, um, for Eduardo and myself, you know, we're going to live there. Um, it doesn't matter to me what the land use map says. do want the the property line reflected correctly on the GIS so that it is not

it hasn't been updated yet. That's crazy. I mean, you saw they literally updated the zoning for the Washington Street thing. I don't that because that one's on the tax side of things, I guess, for you know, whenever that gets translated over from the tax office. I don't know. I can reach out to because that we all stem from the Alamance County GIS that trickles down to ours. So, it's not even update on the Alamance County side. I don't know what it is. Did while I was at city hall in Burlington, did did you all go over sections four and sections? I don't think so.

You got some changes. Let's go. Can we go to 4.1.2? Let me see if I can find it. Yes. reduce the proliferation of commercial strip development occurring along Graham's major thorough affairs.

I have in my notes to look at sidewalk trails. Is that somewhere written in there? Encourage internal connectivity between commercial plazas with sidewalk trail and driveway connection. Does there need to be a comma there? Yes, thank you. Sidewalk trails and driveway. There we go. 4.4.2.

Say that one again. 4.4.2. In my notes is brick step sidewalk crossing. Brick strategy three require brick stamped concrete for crosswalks downtown and encouraged in other areas with high pedestrian traffic. Though in the interest of public works, we want to make sure we distinguish the difference between brick pavers and brick stamps. My understanding is brick stamp is concrete that looks like bricks.

That is the preferred message. As long as that's clear, then we can move on to the next section. Uh page 53. I don't know what that is. Oh, that go too far right there. It should be right on 53. I'm right on it.

And then do you have my notes from my submitt earlier? Let us see. Probably they're probably right here. I apologize for not having it all memorized yet. 53. The city of Graham's extr territorial planning jurisdiction has properties contained within it properties contained within it that are adjacent to the NC Commerce Park Planning District. This location provides an area for economic growth. This once historical and agricultural area has developed over the past 20 years with large mixeduse neighborhoods such as Oldfields and Cherry Creek as large tracks adjacent to the NC Commerce Park area. Initial construction of both LLE and Walmart within the district opened the doors for additional industrial warehouse uses in the area. The 1100 acre park loosely includes the portions of Graham Meban and uninccorporated Alamance County areas through a combination of annexation, reszoning and municipal water and sewer extensions as well as collaboration between local governments. This area can offer a multitude of development opportunities and that's for I guess the NC commerce park. Um or yeah 5.4 probably right here.

J I wanted to add I think I wanted to add the the information in there about how here's where we were. Here's where we're going. In order to get where we're going, you need to be aware that you're going to extend water and sewer in that area and do improvements because right now we don't have water and sewer in some of those areas and we have un uh inadequate to some opinion um street network. So, if a developer is working in that area, they need to be aware that yes, it's consistent with the land use plan, but you're going to have to spend some money to get the rest of the city sewer up there, abandon the Bat Creek pump station, um extend some water man, and build some highways. And I think my intent there was to suggest the replacement of the existing paragraph with that one after we scrutinize And I I hope Elizabeth wrote one too, but I b it maybe just take a minute to what do you call it? Um edit by committee.

Yep. When we send this language forward, the new council members need to be aware of the things that they're not aware of. The need for water and sewer in that area and that it will be extended by the developer. It is not the trunk line that was extended through the columns part so far has not been looked at that way. Yeah, most all the water out there is orange alamance. Uh, which is not even see city of ground water and the rest are on septic tanks.

I have a problem with is there maybe a better way to I kind of got choked up at this end piece and it could just be me not being able to read right. The Grahams Ectoral Planet jurisdiction has properties contained within it. Maybe that's right. That seems fine. I think it's fine. substitute that language or not?

No, I think it's fine. I think I was just reading it too fast.

Incorporate that into that. What is that? I don't know why it's looking like this currently. Has not done this yet.

Yeah, I'll probably have to end up just typing it. Um, but I have an understanding of what y'all are wanting to do at least. I apologize. I wish I could have figured that one out while we were here. 5.4.2. I guess that follows a few pages later. Yeah, I think it was um one of the policies encourage rural residential and conservation residential development to preserve a portion of the rural character of the district and to protect environmental sensitive and floodprone areas. And your change was encourage residential, rural residential and conservation type residential development along with sensitive industrial development with large vegetative buffers and preservation of sensitive visual and historical components environmental and floodprone areas. There's already there's already momentum in that area to develop with an industrial and a commercial nature and we omitted that in the language without without that change. is omitted from that. You follow me? Anybody have a problem with that?

I'm not even going to try and buffers are huge. Right. right in here. It's just going to change this language right here. Essentially, just to add the additional buffers, right, to kind of have that stuff incorporated inside of here. You read it carefully. What's that? You read it carefully because it's it's a different paragraph.

Yeah. No, I totally understand. I'm just because I haven't changed it. um rural residential and conservation type along with sensitive industrial developments with large vegetative buffered and preservation of sensitive visual and historical components environment and floodprone areas. I think current ownership of the historical home place and the barn there um intend to use the barn and the home place um more

at least for the next foreseeable future. At least that's what they those folks are telling me with the Horton and with Mr. Bishop. So, oh no. Okay, I'll have to do that tomorrow. That's not going to work out. Is everybody okay with that?

Uh Cameron, will you go back to my notes? I think it's this 5.5. You said fix map fix or fix 5.5 illustration. I guess that's consistent with the changes we made already. I don't know. Is that is that the map on Is that the map I'm saying? Fix the illustration.

Yes, sir. And it must be the um boundaries because there's nothing there's nothing to fix. So it must have been the boundaries to incorporate the lines that would show the Dixon and the Eley piece. I think that's the only that must be what I was thinking of. And I don't Well, I mean, yeah, I guess we could throw that inside of there as well, but I think more of the emphasis is probably going to be taking a look at when it comes to um the future land use map as a whole. Um but if we want to highlight these areas, it's just not a a um well if 10% of a district is it needs to be highlighted there as a as a

I will make a note of it. Conservation district. Yes sir. I think we trickled back down to paid fix page 62, fix page 64 and page 66 that I believe we've hit on, but I can go back and look at 62 and 64. That must have been 71, 72, and 73.

Says conservation overlay. the other ones we did have. But okay, then that's where we're getting into the definition that we've already gotten an education on, I think. So, is there anything in that section that we've got to clarify or further define? I don't I don't think so. I think we're just adding in a definition for conservation district inside of there. Yeah. And the other term that the internet uses is conservation easement. So I don't know that there's six of one has another but both of them meet the same definition. So voice of wording good district.

Okay. Okay. All right. Can we go back to my notes? Yes, sir. I'm a hint of my red lines. Um that we done that. We did that. All right. So, I owe your illustration on the culde-sac neighborhood just for for time. It's easier for us to draw it than for you to have to draw it. I got to see if I can find something online, too. Up to you. I got it. Okay, Jordan. Sweet.

Something that um when we were um looking I know this but it's like things change and Cameron correct me if I'm the right document for this but you know when this document was created there weren't Airbnb and um you know when you look at other communities across America I don't necessarily think that right now they're a huge problem but um I have Airbnb me and my residential home and I'm entrepreneurship people using you know I I have no like complaint because um I try to be a very good neighbor this person in another state but he rents this out and I can actually see other neighbors being frustrated you know there's sometimes been at this Airbnb in a residential neighborhood. Why am I not in my driveway? You know, that's just me. Um, but I can definitely see that cause concern and I've heard from people street. I've heard from people on Main Street. Um, they'll rent the Airbnb out on Main Street and its use of the property and you're basically taking a residential use and a residential neighborhood and using it for commercial purposes. And um you know again it comes back to people being responsible and people being not responsible and um so you know how do we address

that? It's not previously been in our um in our man's plan. Um but I think adequacy of parking and um you know limitations on we have ordinances now boarding houses like that. on Main Street that it was being used for nefarious reasons to do drug deals and things like that, but there was no um there's no stove, there's no refrigerator, but they're renting it out as an Airbnb. Um things are um and so those kind of things are concerning to some residents and I think they need to be addressed if not document somewhere. The second thing was um can we identify in this document or is it appropriate to identify this document areas like um all the apartments that were built there on 54 um when it flood I mean those residents are 15% trash um it's happened multiple times and my being here and um if more development goes there, it's concerning that you sometimes have to go almost 24 hours not being able to get out and not being able to get in um because that um only access point and not like not like you can drive a truck over. I mean, they close the road, it's so dangerous.

Um the I think it's called Town Branch. I think it's these up here off of Woody over here. Right. Water course. Talking about water course off of 54 behind the liquor store and behind the PP. Yeah. So that's I think that is called Town Branch. Town Branch is over by Graham High School. Oh, you're talking about the creek. The creek itself. That's why I needed Yes. All right. So people trapped

during the time couldn't access but I mean that's a parking lot there that gas station down there when people can't get in and they closed the road flooding and the whole river flood and I mean I honestly say that we saw flood this past time I didn't think I'd ever see it. And maybe I won't ever see it again in my lifetime. 100 year or 200 year flood. I guess some people said it, but tractor trailers. I mean, there was like 20 tractor trailers that were floating around um because of that river flooding.

Whose responsibility is that? concerning about land use when it comes to flooding areas that are known for. Um, so you know, how do you address Airbnb and is it in this document and how do we address land use over development in areas that we already know have loading issues and access issues? I think, you know, if there was another way out, the flooding wouldn't matter if that road was closed. That's our only way. So, what do you do if somebody has medical emergency and how to get them out and and just more and more apartments have been built in there? Just I mean, you know, much more than just water. Um, and maybe more in the future. So, how do you address Cameron? That's one thing. Well, I just I feel like they need to be addressed.

I mean, the only thing that I could really speak to is the Airbnb part of it. Um, being that we've adopted ordinance associated with Airbnbs inside of the development ordinance. What you're thinking about is actual requirements of things that are happening associated with Airbnbs. I don't think this document may be the most appropriate place to put something like that. that have to be readressed inside the development ordinance with probably another text amendment to bolster up whatever that may be. But I think it really boils back down to the fact of how exactly does our development ordinance enforce something that's happening outside of ours. Um it really probably falls back on the police making sure that you know if there is parking requirements that they're being met or if they're parking on other people's property that it's private property aspects at that point. Um conservation and flooding. I'll segue over to you, Mr. Huffine. Um, the only thing I can think about is storm water requirements whenever these things are developed in pre and post flows that are going around there um and grading. But that's about my only thoughts. So, so I think to point number one and to from Jennifer, the they're both outside of the land use map, but number one, um I think we should ask the the question, do we look at the table of permitted uses to see where Airbnb is? And is there a need to to look at it further in a it's in it's in a table of permitted uses? That's correct.

Realm and a ordinance realm as opposed to the land use map. And it could be I mean like we adopted this stuff long after people were doing Airbnbs as well. There's probably a handful um that we have on our list that were grandfathered in prior to the adoption of this. Um like I mean you're talking about many of people that were operating Airbnbs because we didn't have any associate or ordinance language associated with it. People were just pretty much doing as they were and those properties are grandfathered in based on the list that we have and if there's new ones then they're in violation. But, um, what's it called? Short-term rentals. Chairman, as a as a board, could we look at that at another meeting pretty soon and just make sure that we're

looking at the table of permitted uses. Where does the Airbnb or short-term rentals fall in? What's the definition of and because we kind of got into that with the ADUs? But in I guess to address the citizens question, I don't have a problem with that. and then we can get that scheduled for next month.

And then to point number two, the floodplane area is specific to what I'm referring to as the physical town branch. that that stream um that stream has been subject to several studies and covert improvements, but it it is a in my opinion it is something that the town could look at through a a regional flood study effort of that area because the town the town planning jurisdiction surrounds the state maintained roads that have the culverts contained. within them and it is not likely that DOT takes the initiative to improve those culverts without a basis from the city and as a collective the the areas around it. Individual storm water controls at this point aren't aren't going to solve the 500year flood we had. But a bigger culvert or double culvert would probably have made the roads passable with a four-wheel drive as opposed to impassible period. And the other side of the property is bound by the river. So you're just not going to get out that way. And that sounds like it's something like a council action to tell staff to

to do a flood study and make some recommendations to do because otherwise there's there's no in there's no motivation to make those improvements. And an individual developer that builds another 10 acres or 30 acre apartment complex isn't going to be asked to improve that cover through a downstream flood study analysis. They're going to be asked to do on-site storm water control and attenuate their post-development flow to the pre-development flow. Well, we know the problems already exist.

Even if you think if there's a flood study that's done, that wouldn't be something that we could incorporate onto them of like if you want to develop here, we have a flood study here that says new development needs to have this based on this area. I don't know if it's appropriate. I mean, we've been studying that branch for 25 years. It flooded when I was a young engineer and um there's just more people to cry about it now and it's it's always been a problem. We there's pro there's parcels that are inaccessible because you can't get across the creek to to develop them that's been sitting there 30 years. Understand

prime real estate. So if the town could take if the staff could take our suggestion to go study that branch, figure out what the new culverts need to be and then present that to do. That's probably the most efficient way to answer that question because otherwise it's not going to get fixed through private development unless it's a big area that includes that culbert. Yes, sir. Well, I appreciate the insight. and then ask Josh if he thinks that what I just said is right. I think it's the case. We would have to initiate too. I think it has to trickle down from somebody to him essentially to pay him to do that.

So, anything further on the development ordinance 2035 plan? Do we need to have a second uh special meeting the end of this month u for anything else to review before it goes to council before it goes to council? Just throwing that out there. I'll be glad to another meeting and might be good to review just do a final on check with all of you. Can we get

that you make? we get a U meeting in in advertisement in time for a special meeting before the end of the month. Um maybe let's see when does council meet again? The 14th the second first second Tuesday of uh April April 14th. So I have to I mean ain't selected a day yet. I mean, I have cancel meeting. What are you talking yet? Essentially, I said cancel this meeting. Yeah, cancel.

Yeah. Um, public notice has to be sent to the Alamance News the 2nd and the 9th of April. Um, we have a special called meeting next Tuesday for the Historic Resource Commission. Um, I would probably need to have something done prior to this week so we have something to send over. Um, agenda items are due at the end of this week as well. Um, so I need to have something done before probably it needs to be next week to be quite honest with you. Next week

or Monday the 30th. Cameron, can we uh recess and reconvene as opposed to adjourning and then having to announce a special meeting? I don't think so. Um it's an old trick. That is an old trick. But when exactly are we y'all want I guess is how long exactly are we recessing for? I think that's more or less is what it is. Like if we're recessing for

you have to give them a date. I think you can recess for weeks but you got to give them a date where recess and reconvene. That one's a little bit over my head right now where I could make a decision on to be quite honest with you. Um it special meeting is 48 hour notice. Um I mean I think it's relatively easy to make. We just have to talk about what we're deciding on. Um I don't think it makes a difference if we recess or not. I mean the public notice just goes out to the sunshine list essentially saying that we're meeting again and there's 48 hour notice. Um, I mean, we could get that on Thursday of next week if we want to do it on that Monday the 30th. Um, I just need to know what date works best for you all. I think that is the last date that we could possibly do it. So, between that date and Tuesday the 24th, it's off. If y'all want to do it, between any of those dates, um, I'll be here. So, I'll turn the lights on.

Can you uh have the uh edits done and to us by this weekend? I mean, I can probably have the edits done to you by tomorrow. I mean, they're pretty much already finished. I literally just have to add the what Chad the ones that didn't want to copy and paste over and y'all stuff that we're switching back and forth. I mean, I think I could take care of that relatively quickly. Okay. And also, um, I would prefer you not to schedule anything else on the special meeting day. Well, I don't plan on it. Thank you. We will have probably something. Well, we'll get into that later, but okay. Any u non-aggenda items anybody wants to talk about?

If we just so we're formalitywise, if you want to table this till the next planning board meeting, table the future land use discussion to the next planning board meeting and we'll get it scheduled. I think that'll be But if we say we're going to table it to the next planning board, do we have to say next call special called meeting? The next planning board meeting I think is perfectly fine. Okay. the next or the next Yeah, the next planning board meeting is very vague enough that way it makes sense. So So I'll make a motion that we table this to the next planning board meeting. Second. All in favor? I Any opposed? Now you'll let us know when the special meeting is datewise.

That is up for you all to decide. I mean I have my We're setting it right now is what I was trying to get to. We're we're trying to set that right now. My apology, sir. I do apologize. I gave you the two dates that I cannot do. That is the 24th or the the two dates that it need. The 24th is no good and the 31st is no good. It needs to be between the 30th and tomorrow. What day is good for everybody? I'm gone next Wednesday through Friday. Okay. I'm gone next Wednesday. So the 30th. Monday the 30th of March. Is that good for everybody? 30th. Got it. Monday the 30th. Monday the 30th. Sir,

if y'all would like to formally motion second to make a motion that we have a special uh special called planning board meeting on Monday, March the 30th at 6:30 p.m. No move. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Cameron, this will still get us on the agenda for April for Yes, sir. County Commissioner. All right. Like I said, that is the last date that I would be able to do it. And if it doesn't give y'all much of leeway, if it doesn't come out that night, um it's going out to the It'll come out that night. It should be just proof reading and in and out. One final review. That's all it takes.

I do appreciate the diligence that was put into this um by you all. I know it's late. Um, matted respect to everybody up on the board that has uh participated and provide insight, which is all of you all. Um, I was just hanging out here tonight, so I'm glad I could um help you all out if I did at all. So, yeah, man. Anything else? No, like I was just going to say, I think we have a couple things that may be coming in next monthwise. Um so we will meet the next meeting and in our regularly scheduled meeting in um April. Look forward to it.

I'll make a motion we adjourn. I know we didn't even have to go to the bathroom. stand.