##VIDEO ID:4yKVc11sp4E## e e e e for e hello for I'm testing 1 two 3 test test for e e for all for e for e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e I can't see haven't Haven you been to Savannah like a bigger Savannah Savannah's one my I like it too so pretty it's got his charm to it good food it's a little divy on the river but I mean it's down on the river it's where everything kind of sinks anyway so with a lot of history I also like Char Charleston is a little more snobby I felt like but but yeah we just visiting it's really pretty and everything I have some cousins that live north of it's essentially a subb cool you're welcome good evening welcome to the work session of the local planning Agency for September 9th I guess we can do a roll call if we need toight we have darel Lopez David deor Lisa Ramsey Katherine hunt and absent is Brian Smith uh Bruce Kavanaugh and David poic thank you uh at this point we if we can all just make sure we have our cell phones on silent at this point at this point the agenda is the public comments any of those wishing to speak on any item that's not on tonight's agenda is now is the time to do so see that I will close that portion out order new business is uh article 11 Street and sidewalk I guess it's staff thank you um Mr chair um so this is the last piece of um of the LC that we are going to bring to um the LPA and this is the second portion of the streets and sidewalks um conversation that um we still had to go over with Public Works to be able to discuss with the boards um so the first section that we are going to discuss is table 11.1 and that's the one that um has been shown over there um we had some discussion what would be the right um width for collectors commercial and local roads and um after discussing with with um our Public Works um staff and po organ is here representing Public Works we decided to propose 24 ft as the minimum uh width for local commercial and collector roads and um with the caveat that they could be reduced in the in the case of collector to 22 ft with the approval of the city engineer and local roads 20 ft with the approval of the city engineer if it meets the criteria that no on street parking um shall be allowed so in that case uh what would happen if there is if there is parking it has to be off the 20 ft so we could have in the street a strep of landscape instead of having the um landscape we could have U on Street parallel parking but this is um what we decided and I need to know if you have questions and if you give consensus to that just to refresher I think there was um concern previously about fire truck access emergency vehicles my question so that's what this edit was to yeah take that into account that if it is that small then there wouldn't be any parking allowed in order for one of those vehicles to to clear so would the police department then enforce the no parking on the street is that the anterior there or this it potentially so if if we allow the 20 ft that would be the the compromise that it would have to have a um a notice of no pop no on street parking works for me I'm good with that that's fine good so we have consensus so the other section that we have to discuss is um 11.1 D1 and that is all the bicycle facilities so um we have uh we established I I don't remember if we discussed we have been discussing with so many people have we discussed here a little bit we we did we did touch on it briefly last time briefly so shared Lanes would be um provided where the posted speed limit is less or equal to 25 um miles per per hour so uh shared Lane is when you have you know cars and and biking share the same pavement okay area in other words not designating a bik lane not designating it's all one okay above 25 and Below 35 then it will be a bicycle Lane that has just the it's just a striping doesn't have any obstruction so it's the same level of the pavement but it's it's it's um um has the striping of the lane then Keyhole lanes and I think we showed a picture is when you have Crossings right when you have the lane in between in between the the pavement of the for cars and um um a right turn lane or some a access and then the bicycle path is um required for uh roads with the speed greater than 35 miles hour and um and that would require an obstruction of some kind so that is separated from the pavement that's where people feel safer right when would we be reiting any of the older roads for this or just this going to be all new roads just so this is a requirement for New Roads and for retrofit if you're going to do anything with the road that would be the requirement as well so like repaving and all that would qualify I don't know if I good question if know is there a percentage maybe sometimes it's like oh if we do this amount then yes that kicks in yeah I think if it's more of a reconstruction of the road right Paul yeah I would say if it's reconstruction yeah yes if it's just resurfacing which is our typical protocol we we would not do that and I think we also remov the the requirement for showing the in a shared Lane that before we had the require language saying that it would be marked on the streets on all local streets and after talking to Public Works um they all agreed that we all agreed that it would be too much of a requirement for the city to go back and and stripe all the the roads because that would be all the local roads would be shared you know I think we decided put signs up correct well we said that if it's needed or if it it's an area that you know has a lot of bikers or approaching um uh Trails then the city has the option to um to mark but it would not be a requirement in the code LDC ldcc board had this same consensus it was a unanimous consensus to remove that language okay um we also have sorry you you have it'sit those at the bike path should get LPA consensus the ldcc had consensus they wanted to require a a physical barrier for bike paths that could include trees brushes brushes shrubs not necessarily uh concrete um but some some sort of distancing implementation for bike paths and I wanted to get your El's take on that that's FD um allows that Paul do you know because we are saying that has to be you know built to the standard of fdot it there would be a minimum separation a minimum separation right there wouldn't have to necessarily be concrete I mean typically there would be a curb in between so with a curb there's a certain distance if there wasn't a curb there'd be a longer distance because you'd still be within the clear Zone but you wouldn't necessarily have to provide trees shrubs or raised like barrier per se MH it's it's more of a distance what just okay what was there reasoning for safety safety yes so so that brings I'm going to go back to my original question then about when this get rectal fitted you said if we redo the roads I mean most of our roads main arteries are all at 35 M hour and I don't see those being retrofitted at anytime soon so the question begs again is it are we going to just redo I don't think we're going to redo Mitchell hammock or Lockwood well m h is 45 right um The Well Lockwood is 35 35 well let me just point out I mean in our CIP and in the Mobility plan we do identify retrofits to both Lockwood and Mitchell hammock to at some point add in a separate wider sidewalk Andor multi-use pedestrian way it's in the plan it has to be funded but it is in the plan so if we re so we make the sidewalk wider then we'll have to implement these this this guideline correct correct okay and just to be clear the the bike path is for those roads that are greater than 35 so Lockwood would yeah I mean no 35 on yeah I I was a UCF student for a while you know these are all from the just the local roads right they're not the Department of Transportation or County Road these are all for up for the city roads just for the city yes can you I think you iton there's a switch on the back you have to switch on the back the white one to the right yes and then thank you so are you guys preferential to whatever the f do standards are for a bicycle path I'm good with that I'm fine with okay yeah gotcha and we also have in the last bullet over there that any if you upgrade any bike um facility category to another one that could be um subject to Mobility strategy so if you're not required to provide let's say a a bike lane and you provide a bike lane that is subject to a a Mobility strategy you can count as a Mobility strategy as um Paul Jurgen said mean we are we have the our Mobility plan our 10-year Mobility plan and that's something that we want to stimulate we want to simulate more people to use different modes of transportation so we want to have that encouragement in the code as well so let me head back to the next one the next one is 111d yeah two and that is establishing that the now the minimum sidewalk um width is 6 feet so we are bumping from five to six and we are also increasing the distance um from the edge of the pavement to the sidewalk from 4: to 7: so that is to provide a wider landscape strip for you know roads to be able to grow and not impact hopefully the sidewalk right can I ask you at this moment um on a 35 m per hour road are you allowed to ride your bike on the sidewalk or do you have to ride it on the street I just there's there's no preclusion to ride your bike on the sidewalk okay thank you I think you you can and if you know if you don't feel s bikers usually use the road right but U I'm just curious if you if you don't feel safe then sidewalk is your option okay we are also trying to provide different you know wider sidewalk so that there is less conflict if you have different modes of transportation the sidewalk so um sorry and and so in that same section the minimum sidewalk and the planting strip standards may be reduced with approval of the city engineer to accommodate for parallel parking and that's the situation I mentioned before so if you have if you need the parking requirement uh or have on street parking but the street is too narrow then we can reduce you know the sidewalk or the strip of landscape in one area cuz it would be some sections that will have Bays for for the parallel parking so we wanted to give that um possibility for the city engineer to deviate from the code if the design makes sense to accommodate you know all the things we want to accommodate in the street um pedestrian access this other section is talking about um if there is a need for access to um to uh sidewalk as a pedestrian access next to school and that cannot be provided in the right way um than um the developer May um Reserve you know an easement to provide a sidewalk and we have cases in the city that s loed are in private property within easement um for the city and before it was um maybe uh required and we just remove the requirement to you know may provide do we have consensus for that is there any questions or discussion on that one I'm good with it good okay the next one is one that uh we just had a resolution today it's 112 B1 c um there was a proposal to um require that streets that do not connect to other streets become automatically private so if you're proposing you know a new subdivision with one entrance and it's a called a sack and it's not connected the city would not accept as a public Road um we discussed internally and um the position from Public Works is that it should be an option for the uh the developer and their argument is that if we want to have the street U buil to City standards which is 50 ft of right away with everything that we were talking about then um they should be um they should opt it should their should be their option to be public or private so this City should not stipulate that it's automatically private because there is no connection um so we are going to uh readdress that as staff but we would like to see your opinion and if you have questions so here's my so you have a subdivision that only has one in and one you know one entry in it so that's would be considered a private road yes so that so before the idea was um or the proposal these are for new subd Visions right so does not affect existing subdivisions but we have for instance one subdivision coming at Lake J that is one access so it's a dead end Road it's a cu the saac giving access to 13 lws sorry you get the big bik I know I'm going to start singing here I'm going to start singing BOS over for you guys it's not sing but it's okay a musical snack what is that I said a musical snack yeah so um so the access to um to this subdivision if we would approve the language that is written right now it will be automatically a private road because you know does not connect um Public Works raised the argument that well we want to stimulate 50 foot you know right aways because if they are 40 feet if they do not build to the city standards then it becomes um a private road is it correct Paul yeah that's correct yeah so to be a public road it has to be built with the city standards I thought the with Gates like gated communities that that's already if a community is gated that's automatically private automatically private have to be though right CU you told me one time doesn't no it's the opposite doesn't have to it can be private road without gated okay if it's gated it's automatically private because they are they are a public road everybody can access right that's that's the idea so if you have a gate then it's for their own development and that's that's a private um but what's the difference what is the biggest it's the maintenance so public roads we maintain and we have the liability right and if it's private the homeowner association maintains or you know here's a good example of one that's private yet public is the new McDonald's is off of Lockwood all those little shopping that little shopping center all those roads are private well that there's an HOA for that area they have their own HOA we have we have a couple of of um of subdivisions that have private roads but they are the okay um I mean it seems like if it's if if it's just a CAC it seems like it should be private I don't know why it would be public they don't want us coming you know people just driving down there and turning around but you could well I don't think it's just the C sex if it's if the if there's only one Ingress and degress it considered would be considered a private room that's right yeah that's if somebody wants to live in an HOA huh that's if somebody wants to live in an HOA right the private because if it's not an HOA then then don't have money to maintain it it has to be an HOA right they they have to that would be a subdivision you know um when they create a subdivision they would have to create a homeowner association as well yeah I'm not I don't I would defer you guys I mean I don't I don't I don't have a problem with the langage myself it's fine so what language are you proposing because there is language of um up there we did not have time because this was a discussion we had Public Works today because now we are in the last stretch and we are trying to I don't have any so the road the the the language that staff is proposing now is not the one that is showing is is the one that it's optional for the developer to choose if they're going to have public or private if they build to City standards so for example the community that's over here with the new downtown where you could drive around with the town houses and whatnot right across the street that's that city streets then that um Hampton I think it's private is it private streets where the I I don't recall um it's very easy if you go to Google worth well I don't think it meets City standard I don't think the street does Private I think a lot connect Road behind no it connects but that so that one connects but I think it wasn't was proposed as private roads which one is that the Hamptons next to the the town homes between um between uh Park Place and um in central up there so that would be let let us if we can if we can um bring the person you know do you have the is it this here yeah so this this should be a public roads I can confirm I know the town homes on the other side of VI the boulevard if we go to um the other side if we go to yes next more to the north yeah these ones that's the one I thought you talking about private these one are these so actually so it's these are private roads they are not public these are private roads but they are [Music] um because they don't make the city standards correct they do not meet the city standards but it's funny that we can have the view I thought we would not be able to have the street view if it's private why don't they meet the the standards Google they are narrower narrow they propose as as narrow streets Google doesn't care no Google usually does let you in yeah there is interesting there is one Community I think it's is it this one there's there's one that I won't let you into because the drivers don't know if it's private or not what's is there is there some sort of problem if the developer chooses and has that option what's the downside to that we have if it's substandard we would not accept right right right but if the developer has it up to standards and chooses for it to be our road a public road is there a downside to that the city pays for main we main is that significant amount what that is it significant the amount if it's significant to maintain yeah I would defer to Public Works yes I mean for one for one road no what's the's the average cost per mile I I don't know the average cost I I don't know the average cost not off top of my head how can you not know because I don't know well you have to remember that that any any amounts they spend on road maintenance then that comes out then they have lesser capital capital expenditures like repair and stuff like after regular roads so so typically if it's a private road the city does want to maintain that they don't want to allocate the funds because they can use those funds elsewhere maintaining public roads so so the advantage to the developer is they have to pay they could pay less money if they don't have it up to standards yeah and sometimes geometry of the site right that um and if for instance if it just give access like you know the town homes that I the last Town Homes this is a community that does not connect the roads do not connect to any other roads you know so it would just affect those who buy their in the long run if they're maintaining it the themselves their HOA fees would be often times the don't want to dedicate the right of way that we need I don't know Paul what's the minimum now is it 50t 50 ft correct so the geometry asite might not give if they had to do 60 50ft roads they may not be able to build a many units right I'm in favor of them meeting the criteria that you want if they if they are not to take it under private care like an HOA so if the city wants that criteria met for for the city to take care of of it than it should be that in my opinion and that is already like that so the only thing now we giving the option to be public or private um you know because before we had this new requirement even if it meets City uh you know standards but it does not connect it's going to be private and public works made the arguments well but that is in a way it's also um encouraging them to go substandard right so let's still accept the 50 ft um roads if they are standard you know then it will be their choice if they want to be private they would be private but you know they could be public as well so we would not have that requirement that is written over there know I I mean I I I don't know I I think I think you know the idea that it's not connecting to another Road I mean I think this seems like a criteria that you guys have had so we have in in Mr darl caught it right so for dead end roads we have now language in the code and I think you already reviewed that that says it's prohibited in some areas of the city in the urban core of the city we are not allowing them in the other areas you have to demonstrate that you could not but they can demonstrate sometimes because if you're surrounded by development that has already a pattern and there is no way to connect to a road then you know if they demonstrate that they could have that end roads right so in we also have you know policies in the in the code to stimulate connection because that's what we want and um can we add an example of coming so we have at link jasp we have this this we discussed it's one entrance and I think they're going to meet the city standards to my recollection and it's a cuac giving access to 1 Lots so this one they will be able well the code is they already applied on 434 the new one going in that backs up to the the the downtown area that the chelonian yeah the chelonian has but has that one is has a secondary access that is multimodal it's not vehicular but they have they accessing um on the park what we had the lake jip yeah like Jess one that they couldn't put a second they could not yeah there was no room for it but I'm just saying that so that's the criteria though so if they can't do it if they can demonstrate that they cannot do it then it would be public right no it that criteria is to allow or not allow the dead end roads now okay so if you put that together with the fact that they met all the criteria for the road plus then it could be it's the dead end is okay because they they demonstrated then they've demonstrated all of our the criteria and then they should they could be public so that is the position yeah that is the position of of Public Works yes okay that seems right to me the if they if if they make it private the financial burden is on the people that live there in their HOA if it's with the city it is a possible burden to everyone uh shared Equity yeah pretty much so that's that's kind of my thought behind it in one sense you know if I was moving in there I don't want to my HOA fees to be higher because I have private roads now that I have to take care of it and most of those HOAs the their dues are much higher yeah uh so I mean I but the other one it seems like a greater number of people and we're already having all kinds of fun with uh fees and other other cost going up um I'm I would lean more towards myself to make it allowable for private road to sorry to to have the private road the private road yeah uh for less of a burden to everyone else yeah I'm I'm going to I'm just still going to hold that you know we've been trying for for we've had discussions here in the prior years that you know we want more connectivity roads to have you know subdivision to have access erress and degress in multip points in my opinion if you only have one it's a private road so we have two and two I mean I think that's basically what you're saying as well but you know if they can't if they're if there's a reason they can't connect the second way like just like any Dead End Road because there's something behind them or or something well I I gather that but there's always some way to make an extra entrance or to most of these what will happen is they'll come up with a reasoning not to do it when they can do it they may have to lose a lot perhaps to make it happen and they don't want to do that that's my that's the way I look at it yeah because everybody complains you know the traffic is bad the traffic is bad it's bad because we don't have connecting roads all over the city there a lot of the subdivisions are dead ends I feel like that's going to be a complaint from now until the end of time oh without a doubt so I mean no matter what that that's my point of view right yeah I'll go is there a tiebreaker tomor can we how do we flip a point well we we have had no consensus no consens no consensus we've had TI with them what I'm I'm alone so she's with them that's three I I want yeah I want no she's with them no I I was in agreement with what darl was saying oh okay but I took it that he was sharing that he yeah I I I would prefer the new construction to be private roads it would be new not nothing no existing dead end streets yeah yeah as far as uh May if the connectivity is a separate issue um you know I'm more for connectivity but I'm not my my only issue we actually have three issues on the table yeah three items my only my my only issue is I I would rather that burden be put on you know the the new construction local community yeah rather than spreading it out to everyone else in in this case so you two agree with this language that is proposed here for the most part is that right I allows for the Lisa proposes agrees with Public Works M and Katherine I did not understand where do you see well I was just saying that I was agreeing with what darl was making a point with I mean I guess I'm I'm fine with this language as it is I guess okay okay so consensus we still we still going to discuss tomorrow right would LC right okay so there is consensus to maintain y yeah um these are um I move to the Cross action figures so this cross action sorry how often is it that a developer does something substandard would and your what you've experienced so far substandard um no no you say it's not uncommon it's not uncommon right so it's not it has happened it has happened for different um different reasons sometimes it's because Town Homes you know they have a different you know um geometry right and in the case of the uh subdivision that we showed it's not it's a subdivision that we showed um on the other side of of Boulevard this front of the homes are accessed by a walkway and the and the roads actually are substandard but they function as alleys it's just for the cars to access they too narrow so it was a design you know that they proposed um because they wanted you know so it's more of a shortcut well it was the design it was just because they didn't know howze more of the area for living yeah right because you know obviously they can't charge for the home I mean the drive the front in some situation so we have that um subdivision what is called um thr no the the one um at Le off of uh Le nor North leag the one that the mayor's mom um subdivision Pine Avenue of pine of pine pine that had so it's a subdivision when I think 20 something lots and there is a home there is a lot already there and the lot made the street uh substandard in one portion so it I think it was 40 ft already and then they reduced to 37 ft something like that it was really substandard but it was because there was a home and the developer could not negotiate to buy you know um a strip of this private property so there are different you know scenarios why they would end up being sub if the language went more with what you all would like then it also restricts maybe a Builder building out an area potentially because of the layout of the land or whatever well so it's it's an incentive right um but usually it's given by the by the geometry of the the design of the the Lots right so I don't know if CH chelonian is is building stand to City standards because it's public so it's a town home Community the one that we were talking that connects from Central to park but it was built to um uh City standard so that one because there is only one vehicle connection there is a secondary but it's you know pedestrian could have the question if the city would accept or not to be public if with this new language I can see both arguments I understand also the Public Works argument is it 3: one two to two two to one okay moving forward okay sorry about it's okay it's it's good that you all ask questions and we clarify I told you we going to be the ambassadors for the code now so you need to understand the code so for the um um crosssections we are asking the consultant to change because some of the measurements are not adding up so this is just a comment that they these figures need to um match the measurements that they are providing so not all of them have the there is inconsistency in what they had the text in the previous sections versus the image cross-sections that they provided so we asked them to update these to match yeah the other um section so you you see changes in the final one just because they will correct those measurements um the other section is it's 11.3g and I think this was um um asking you have okay it's just that um U cross access easements between adjacent properties shall be required to minimize the number of drivers and to provide proper spacing of drivers accessing a road un last determined impracticable by the city engineer so again we want to have cross access easements un last there is a good reason right why we cannot have the cross access eement who's the city engineer who is the city engineer it's Alexa Stewart um you are the assistant city engineer correct yes so we have the city engineer and the assistant city engineer so we Alexis is not here Paul will be the one okay acting almost done and then the last one oh are we okay with that language with the cross AIS okay the other one is age3 H6 C it's number of uh driveways it's the spacing language Public Works uh as to to bring that language back to bring that language back to 75 ft the Consultants had uh stck struck through stricken through this this language yeah language basically uh to keep driveway from piling up on each other that makes sense I'm fine with that yeah yeah it's the existing code as it is today so that is not a change it's just not accepting the change in our last um point is 11.7 that I you you put it up there this was removed from uh from the code and um we we were we asking them to bring it back yeah that's again and it's a pretty small section it it's just these three points but it was just missing it was not there so we asked them to bring it back any other questions no no so let me tell you what is going to happen from now on because now you reviewed you know this first final draft uh we are preparing to go to council for a work session on September 30th and um so we are going to start tomorrow I'm going to start sending you all a drop box with the revised um um articles so after we do what we do here we send to the consultant the consultant do the changes and send it back to us so we already have two articles um uh revised and that is Article 2 and article 7 so tomorrow I'm going to send an email with the the drop box so it's not going to be the Google Drive anymore because now we have to have control over the final document so we cannot have people changing it um and um if you have any questions um let us know we can still raise during the work session we can still you know bring to the city council and city council is also going to decide when there is when we did not have consensus on some items we don't have many but we have a list of things that elders C and LPA they denounce the I toi council is going to be giving the final Direction and then of course there will be the public hearing process um that will start with you all in October and we are hoping to have the final um adoption date for the LC City Council on November 18th so from now on have a you know just ask send us questions comments whatever it's the public hearing the public comes in and actually like yes the public hearing so we have all these work sessions um public be here and then we have to advertise um and then that's September 30th September 30th is a work session it's still a work session with Council so it's it's something like it's more informal Council sits here in the middle of the of the table and the consultant is coming and you know proposing showing the the highlights of the changes but council is going to start receiving tomorrow as well the articles for their review all right November 18th okay any questions I'm good thank you so much for thank you sorry about late participating in all these work sessions Paul thank you for coming today and thank you all for your hard work yes I guess at this point we are adjourned all right thank you today was an easy one right ni