 And I, like I said, I don't see clients, and so I just do consulting. And most, if you have a PhD in psychology, you have a pretty heavy background in research. So by definition, and a lot of people do research, and a lot of people see the situation with that, and I do research. Oh yeah? You just didn't know if it was going to get here? Actually, I'm self-employed. Yeah. And this is like the last day it really could have been. Oh man. Yeah, for him to get it here and then get it installed and be ready to unveil. I got a couple calls. Good thing it's on a truck heading this way. Well that's a waste of money. Good. I almost came for the works. I remember the... I was doing alright, you? I was having a hard time watching the street. I had to laugh, I printed out an email to keep in my books. And your email address doesn't even come up with you. It's just SE Power Team. It was great. It was good. I love the holidays, but it's five, six things a time when I'm ready for holidays. Yeah, look at the clock. We're going in the wrong direction. Where's your bag? He's up with it. That's what I just said. It was good with it. He said it's five, sixteen, let's roll. But we need John. I'm going to have John. You're going to need John for roll call. John, here he comes. A pile full of paper. Good afternoon. We'd like to call to order the January 2019 City of Columbia Planning Commission meeting. Happy New Year to all. I'd like to welcome all Planning Commission members, staff and guests. At this time, we'd like to ask everyone to turn their cell phones and PDAs to the silent or vibrate mode. The administrator will now proceed with a roll call. Mr. Tupper. Here. Ms. Mendel. Here. Mr. Weitz. Here. Ms. Hartz. Here. Mr. Kohn. Here. Mr. Stigemeier. Here. Mr. Dolphin. Here. And Mr. Frost. Here. We have quorum. Thank you. I'd like to do a brief review of the meeting format. Applicants with requests before the Planning Commission are allowed at a presentation time of ten minutes. This time should include but is not limited to an overview of the project, case history and any pertinent meetings held regarding the request. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicant such as attorneys, engineers and architects. This time limit does not include any questions asked by Planning Commission or staff regarding requests. Members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concerns in intervals of two minutes. The administrator has a timer and will make presenters aware of when their time has expired. Please follow that time limit. We have a pretty good crowd tonight so that we don't go over it. The Planning Commission then reserves the right to amend these procedures on a case-by-case basis. The Consent Agenda. The Planning Commission uses the Consent Agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by a single motion and vote. Examples of such items include approval of site plans, annexations and street names. If a member of the Planning Commission or the general public would like to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda, that item is removed from the Consent Agenda and considered during the meeting. The Planning Commission then approves the remaining Consent Agenda items. The administrator will now read the Consent Agenda. Your Consent Agenda this evening consists of the approval of the December 3rd, 2018 minutes and a Comprehensive Land Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment and a pending annexation for 111 South, 105, 103, 101 South William Street, 101 Williams Street RR and 111 William Street right away and then 316 Hayward Street, William Street and then 108 South William Street. This is to both annex the parcel and then to assign the land use and the zoning for those parcels at the time of annexation. And there are a few people who've signed up on for that particular item just so you're aware. And the third item on the agenda is also on the Consent Agenda that's a zoning map amendment for 516 South Holly Street. Do any Commission members or guests wish to have items on the Consent Agenda removed and placed on the regular agenda? If not, I'd like to have a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. I move we approve the Consent Agenda. Second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Anyone oppose? Consent Agendas approved. We will now proceed with the regular agenda. Your regular agenda today consists of a text amendment for the Unified Development Ordinance. Ms. Hampton, Director of Planning Development Services is here to present the document as well as a few modifications since you saw the document. Can you hear me okay? Yes ma'am. Good evening. Thank you. I'll stay here unless I need to go up to the podium. Delighted to be with you at this point to be presenting to you the Unified Development Ordinance or the UDO for short. What is before you for your consideration is a repeal of Chapter 17 which is the Planning, Land Development and Zoning Ordinance and adopt a new Chapter 17 here now called the Unified Development Ordinance. So this evening I will be going over the background, policy foundation, key themes, overview of the Unified Development Code, those revisions that John just mentioned to the public hearing draft proposed revisions. Next steps will all entertain any questions and have public input. Okay so everyone knows we are not going to defer this tonight. This is going to be voted on but we to go to City Council but we will be open to having a planning session and if there are any inconsistencies that people have noted we will be happy to address them for final approval. The background of this ordinance you know where, why, when. The Columbia Zoning Code was last updated in the 1970s and while there's provisions that have fared well much of it no longer reflects best practices of modern planning and zoning. It proves to be a blunt tool when implementing land use and design recommendations that arise from planning initiatives. One consequence is the overuse of PUDs over the course of history and excessive variances and special exceptions to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. And further successive amendments and patches to the code have largely made it almost intelligible to the layperson and sometimes to staff. So to properly set the policy guidance for this document the City developed and adopted a new land use plan in 2015. Work on the new code began then in 2015 and with the assistance of Clarion and Associates who are our code consultants. And the work program consisted of project initiation, code assessment, draft development code in modules and what you have now which is the public hearing draft. I mentioned the policy guidance is the plan Columbia. In addition to all of the plans that have gone into that be it the West Javay Plan, the South Main Plan, the Mill District Plan, all of those plans shape the land use plan as well. You may remember the vision and guiding principles of those. We'll read them. Strong neighborhoods, connected greenways, housing choices, connected community. These were also related to the ULI reality check that I often wanted to reference because that was a very large initiative that the City worked in conjunction with ULI to develop. I went over the key themes of the project at our last meeting so I won't labor those but I do want to remind everyone to create a user friendly code to implement Plan Columbia, modernize the regulations and support infill and support and encourage sustainable and redevelopment practices. So the need of what we're going into today and I'll try to make it lively, unified development ordinances, they aren't always so. These are the articles that we now have in our new code. Nine articles, general provisions, administration, zoning districts, use regulations, development standards, land development standards, non-conformities, enforcement and definitions and rules of measurement. I want to have a disclaimer here right now that I cannot recite this whole code for you. If you ask me a question about a particular provision, I don't think we are there yet. However, if you do, we will look it up in the code. We know where it is and we can try to respond to you. But we are still in the process of learning it from memory, so small disclaimer there. General provisions, that's just your kind of catch-all, establish the effective date. What's important here that I've mentioned previously are the transitional provisions. So during the time period that this is not yet in effect or people are going through development plans, we want it to be clear that you will be able to develop under our current code, so within certain time periods if you have development approvals, those will be respected when the new code comes into place. Not indefinitely, they will expire, so this will set forth so everybody is clear about what rules apply when. That's an important part of the general provisions. The administration section has a simple but very impactful change. It consolidates and streamlines all procedures for development review in one article. Right now, if they're there in the current code, they're all over the place, so this article is intended to improve efficiency and transparency of the development review process by consolidating and standardizing the requirements. Streamlining some of the procedures and adding for flexible procedures. For instance, there's a chart, so at one glance you can see all of the different bodies who are responsible for making decisions and then what role they play in that decision. There are flowcharts that show the standard procedures for all reviews, and then there are specific ones for application-specific procedures. Article 3 goes into our zoning districts. It establishes the basic standards for the base overlay zoning districts. It includes a total of 40 districts and that includes the overlay districts, so don't get too worried there. It's greatly enhanced by the use of 2D and 3D graphics, photographs, charts that are relative specifically to those districts. They are based on residential districts. These largely stay the same. For example, we just had an annexation. The RDMV district is our residential district, is our mill village district. The university district, the neighborhood is RD. We are keeping those provisions. The others you will see they're pretty similar to RS1, RS23, and then RMs are similar to our RGs. What change you'll see is in the mixed-use activity center and corridor districts. This is where we're going to have a lot more policy guidance for the mixed-use walkable urban districts that we've been talking about for years, that we currently do not have the tools to implement except for in limited instances. You have activity corridor and activity center districts. You have mixed-use districts. What's equally as impressive with this is that they will be based on context. Instead of right now, you have a one-size-all approach. It's based on the context of whether it's a neighborhood, a community, or a regional context. Going back to that, the OI is like our C1 currently. GC is C3. MC is similar to MX, too. There are some that we have similar to what we had. There are institutional and campus districts. These are new districts that will accommodate institutional, civic, and employment in office and development. One for the fort, one for the zoo. The INUM will require a plan prior to it actually being implemented, and that's intended for large campuses such as a hospital or university. Industrial and planned unit development. Industrial is similar. You've got LA and HI, which is similar currently to our M1 and M2. We have the EC district, which was first developed with John and his team with the Rosewood plan. We now actually get to implement that. It's a pretty nifty district trying to encourage high-tech, light industrial, but also provide for the services of residential and retail next to that. Development districts. Those are our PUDs, which we currently have three. One that's a commercial, residential, and large scale. We only have one now, and it will apply to any of those districts. And our overlay districts. Most of these are currently in place. These are our design and historic overlay districts. We have two new overlay districts, however. One is the gateway district. It would be applied to facilitate the redevelopment of key gateway corridors. Before it could be applied, it would require a plan to talk about what would be needed in that gateway corridor, be it signage, plantings, design issues, so it wouldn't be applied until that plan is in place. And then there's the heightened setback district overlay that will implement the recommendations of the West Verde plan and could potentially be used in other locations as well. But there were the height setback requirements that were in there, and that will help implement that. Here are some examples of how robust the graphics and the tables are with our new district to make it a lot more clear about what is encouraged, expected in our districts. And here, where instead of you're wondering what's a front setback, what's a rear setback, these numbers actually relate to those parts of the code so you can tell what it is that's supposed to be measuring. Use regulations. Our current use table is based on what is called the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, which I've told you a number of times stopped being published in 1984. It has uses that we will never use. It is not useful as a tool for us. It's great for the federal government for allocating certain data but not for regulating land use. So we are getting rid of that. And instead we are implementing a three level classification system. It goes through, it starts out with, and this is an illustration, general use classifications broad, so residential, industrial, institutional. It goes down into the use categories and those are subgroups like group living or household living under those categories. And then finally you have a use, like a single family home. So it's a lot more logical, a lot easier to use. The definitions for these are a lot more clear. Development standards. This is where the rubber hits the road with regard to a lot of how you develop then within those learning districts regardless. So access, mobility and circulation. This is an exciting new part of the code that has new standards with how you access within developments, trying to prioritize some of the bicycle and pedestrian activities within those developments. Off street parking and bicycle parking and loading. Now we have parking requirements for bicycles within all new developments. And I'll talk about an amendment to that at the end. Landscaping expands and refines on those standards. It includes some new site landscaping standards as well as helps to clarify some of those buffer requirements that could often prove confusing. Tree protection has some new standards for tree protection and gives you actual decision standards for what needs to be done to remove what's called a protected tree. A grand tree or a tree that counts for some of your development. We have new standards for open space within developments. It's a minimum amount. However, what can count towards that are your buffer yards, your stormwater facilities if they are in amenity. And we did that so in most of our development standards, we do not have lot coverage requirements, which you often have. Instead, we included the open space requirements. Neighborhood compatibility is a new section that helps to soften what can be conflicts between residential districts and a directly adjacent commercial property. So this will look at issues such as where you're going to put your dumpster, where's your entrance. If you have a drive-through, let's not put it back by the house. Those kinds of things. Pretty basic, large-scale issues. Form and design standards are two new sets of standards. One for multifamily, one for non-residential that give guidance to where the parking is located, where the entrance is oriented. It's not a design review per se. It does not go to the Design Review Commission, but they do give guidance for those in certain districts. So our industrial districts are not applied, but our more walkable urban districts, they do apply. Fences and walls, it consolidates, so you have that all in one place. Exterior lighting, before we only had one provision about lighting that said don't shine lights in a residential house, but it gave you no guidance with regard to lighting on any other developments, be it bright or not enough for safety. So we have exterior lighting standards. Signs, it reorganizes those, gives some clarity based on some recent Supreme Court decisions about speech and signage. Green building standards has a point system that you need to get to. It's very reasonable. If you're using solar or different types of techniques, you can get to a basic point system. Along with that, we have incentives for green building practices. And you will be able to have either additional density, reduced parking for achieving a certain level of green building standards. The land development, which we used to call those as subdivision standards, generally take forward most of what we had before, except for include more of that access and mobility, making sure that things connect up where appropriate. Cluster housing development remains. And then as we've discussed, an exciting new provision that we have, which will allow for cottage developments, which kind of allow for clustering of cottages and allow you to put the parking on the periphery. And so you can have community gardens in the center. You can just have open space, however that is. But I really hope people take advantage of that provision. Non-conformities and enforcement, these are your standard provisions. However, what's great, again, is that they've been consolidated. Everything about a non-conforming use site feature structure, they're all in the same place. You can find out where they are. Additionally, enforcement. If you want to know how this is going to be enforced, you go to one place. It's at the end. It's consolidated. Finally, for the presenting ordinance geeks like we are, putting all the definition and rules of measurement in one place and making it clear is huge for us. And it's in English, plain English that you can understand. So we're hopeful that the layperson can read this and know... Oh, yeah, that's how you measure that. Obviously, we're always here to answer that. All right, proposed revisions. Since the public hearing draft was published, I believe, September, October, we have heard from some groups and have made revisions based on those comments. First is bicycle parking. And the bicycle parking, you clarify the way it was written because schools could be placed in residential districts and bike parking was not required in residential districts. And this is, we must give great thanks to our BPAC committee for assisting with these changes. We have language in there that clarifies that even if a school is in a... No matter what district, you have to put bike parking in a school. Also that the bicycle facilities and parking requirements are based on use as opposed to district just much of like which our vehicular parking standards are. So that we have bicycle parking regardless of where you are. The greenhouse use standards, our Food Policy Council recommended this. It is... We had a standard that no more than 15% of a community garden area could be taken up with structures to include greenhouses. They asked that we permit greenhouses in larger formats that allows for year-round growth. So we've increased that greenhouses to 75% of the lot for a community garden. The community character overlay standards, they currently as we stand have demolition review and new construction on newly subdivided lots. The proposal had all new construction, again only for height and setback, not design, and proposed to remove the demolition review. Based on responses and feedback, we are reinstating the demolition review provisions for the community character neighborhoods. Tree protection permit and removal permit, it clarifies there wasn't a safety valve with some of the tree protection. So it has a safety valve language in there that appears that tree protection is making use of the property impossible, essentially, that there's a safety valve, that trees may be removed if it's becoming too onerous to develop the property. And it solidates and clarifies those standards for that tree removal permit and clarifies that they apply to protected trees as defined by the code. The protected tree is one, again, that's a grand tree, or it counts for one of your standards. The next steps. We encourage everybody to view the code at the website weplannedtogether.org. The cool thing about that website is you can see everything going way back to the land use plan. All of the meetings, all of the documents are there. So we encourage people to visit that. We currently have the public caring before city council scheduled for March 19. The process for this, the next steps. Once it's adopted by city council, the code, in whatever form it takes, we will need nine to 12 months, probably airing towards the 12 months and manage your expectations before it would become effective. During that time, a lot of work is going to be done. Largely, we'll be remapping the entire city. So we will make a first draft of that map, put it out for public review and comment, take those comments back, produce another draft, have more public meetings, review and comment, revise again, and come back with what we would consider a public caring draft of the zoning map. That will have to come back to you as planning commission for your review and recommendation, and then on to city council for their review and adoption in whatever form that takes. So I say this at the end to everyone, because it has been a lot of hard work on a lot of people's parts. Planning commission, you all, thank you very much. Staff has done a tremendous job going through each draft, making comments. I can't say how much I appreciate everything they've done. The public has been great. They have come out, they have given us feedback, made it a better document, and city council and the citizens. So I say that, maybe butter you all up, because we've got a lot more work to do with the zoning map, but I didn't want it to go by without saying thank you to everybody, because this has been a huge undertaking to get to where we are. That is the overview. Well, I'd like to commend you and everyone on the commission, staff, everyone who worked on this. It's been almost two years, 643 pages. I don't know how many workshops and all of that, and terrific job. We've worked through a lot of things, all of us together. Are there any questions from the commission to Krista first? And I echo your sentiment. So it's been a wonderful experience working through this with staff. My question is regarding the proposed revisions that we've just walked through. Should the commission ultimately recommend approval with those revisions and then ultimately city council or to accept those and any others? Would they become part of the base document from an administration perspective or would they become an amendment, if you will? They would become part of the base document. Yes. We struggled as to whether to go ahead and just put them in, but with the public hearing draft having been published, we decided to keep them separate so that people were aware. Makes perfect sense. Also some of the inconsistencies that some people have mentioned. If we approve this tonight and send it to city council, could those still be added after the fact? It would, if you make significant, what you review and recommend tonight will be going to city council. If you found between now and then that you had additional items that you thought needed to come back, we can bring those back as another amendment at a subsequent meeting, hopefully prior to March. Okay. But just to clarify, the zoning map that will be coming back, that's an ongoing process, so we're approving this, but the zoning map is an ongoing process. Most certainly, yeah. The zoning map is currently a blank slate. Right. I've had numerous people ask me, what is this going to be zoned? What is that going to be zoned? Everybody's filled with those questions. We've consistently said, we don't know yet. That's why I'm trying to clarify, because I know that's an ongoing issue that people are concerned about. So the answer to that is, we don't know. That's a process. We will still get input multiple times from a variety of people, including the public. Absolutely. And there's a great many inputs that will go into that. And one certainly is plan Columbia, the land use plan. However, that's not the only one. Other plans that come into place, existing zoning, conditions that are adjacent, there are numerous considerations that will go into that. Just how will you advertise the opportunity for the public to comment on exactly that on the zoning map? I mean, is that something that you've thought about? I mean, we will contact property owners individually by mail or some sort of right to say that your property's subject to the zoning map and you're invited to attend X number of... For the first couple sets of public hearings, it will be more of a get out the word that we normally do more than likely advertisements like we did for plan Columbia in the newspaper. When we get down to... All right, this is our pretty good feeling draft. At which point, we're going to steal from what FEMA did with the floodplain maps. So contact property owners and have times when everybody can come in one-on-one. You can schedule a 15-minute session. Sit down with someone and we can say, this is what it means to you specifically. Because having just public meetings where people come in and just kind of walk around, people want to know specifically what it means to their property. So that is the way that we've identified to allow that kind of background. I think that's a great idea because I think a majority of the populations don't really understand how zoning may impact them so that's where the questions really go. Any other questions for staff? Any guests want to come forward tonight? Our opportunity. Thank you. Chairman Cohen, members of the commission, I'm Tom Gautreaux. I'm the president of the University Hill Neighborhood Association. I was delighted to hear the detailed discussion that you already have been through. And Chairman Cohen, you're suggesting that we can take a look if there are some inconsistencies and all the idea of the land use document which underlies this. Mr. Hampton, we were delighted to hear your discussion of how changes might be made, but perhaps really in the underlying document. And that's what I wanted to bring quickly to your attention. As we looked the other month at the application to rezone the property near the law school on Jervais Street, we began looking at the underlying land use document. And for University Hill Neighborhood, it shows us on the land use document as Urban Core Regional Activities Center. That really lumps us in more with the Urban Core, I think, than we ought to be. Our sister neighborhoods all east of the railroad, Waverly, Shandon, Wales Garden, are all classified UCR-1, Urban Core Residential Small Lot. Just let me make the point, and that's what I would like for us to be able to meet with you and staff on some subsequent time before March and take a look at this land use plan Columbia. Because our neighborhood is principally late 19th century, first quarter of the 20th century, homes still predominantly single family. There is rental, of course, there. But this is the definition for that, which is used for our neighbors to the east, UCR-1, which we think is where we ought to be. Urban Core Residential Small Lot neighborhoods are common just outside the Urban Center. Most were subdivided before 1950, and many continue the grid of street network from the original planning portion. Buildings are set back from the street by small, medium front yard with front doors or entrance located in the main facade. Front yard setbacks are normally the same. On the other hand, the UCAC-3 is intense mixed-use business districts within the Urban Center. That's where we are now. That's where we think we ought to move from to the other one. Thank you so much for the opportunity. We support the rewrite that we're not opposed to in any way. We'd like to get the underlying document however completed somewhat changed. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question for staff regarding his comments. Are his comments really more related to the land-use plan itself versus what we're talking about today? The two separate issues? That would be my interpretation. I just want to make sure I was clear. And not that I disagreed, per se, but I just wanted clarification. Now, certainly the land-use plan does provide policy guidance in the mapping. Right. Understood. Would anyone else like to come forward, please? Hi. I'm Catherine Fenner, University Hill Neighborhood Association Vice President. I think to continue Tom's comments, we were very concerned because we have found that staff has been recommending rezonings, including this Quinn property, the Pickens and Gervais property that you guys thankfully denied last time, has been basing them on this land-use plan, and the land-use plan underlying our neighborhood, for example, doesn't allow for single-family houses. I mean, the category that we have does not allow for single-family detached. It's not even a tertiary use. So we're way in the wrong area. I think our other concern has to do with the fact that the land-use abutting our neighborhood is allowing for much higher denser development because we are, in fact, primarily single-family. I went around yesterday and determined that we are 200 out of our properties, our single-family or duplex, and only 15 are commercial. So we're much more than you would think. But what you have are basically three stories or less, with the exception of three high-rises, three stories or less, and yet abutting us is currently forecast to be zoned for unlimited height. So that was the problem that we discovered with the Quinn property, and that's the problem, the thing that we would like to take up with a work session with both the Planning Commission and staff to address these issues in the University Hill West Gervais, whoever that, what do you call that, Central Gervais, East Gervais, across from the Clarion area, some abnormalities and inconsistencies that we are not happy with. Thank you. I want you to know, since I've been on this commission, we've been very protective of neighborhoods. So some of the things we said that even though this is going to a vote tonight, that we would be open toward further discussions. I really appreciate that, and I do want to say that I have nothing against the laundry list of topics that Krista presented sound wonderful. I think it's really great. It's the nitty-gritty nuts and bolts application because of the underlying land use plan. And while our neighborhood we've been assured is wonderfully protected, it may not ultimately be protected in the long run. So that's our concern. But we do appreciate your protection for neighborhoods very much. I think that's what makes Columbia strong. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to come forward? Mr. Chair and members of the commission, Bob Gile with the Granby neighborhood. I was here for the earlier consent item and we're supportive of the annexation that you just approved. But in listening to Krista, I just wanted to say that I know there's been a good bit of cross talk about the design conservation historic preservation overlay districts. And I'm very supportive of ours in the Mill Village. It's something that's been absolutely critical to our future. But I keep hearing this refrain that people say I didn't have noticed that there were these overlay restrictions on our property. And I'm just wondering if the staff might consider some way of integrating into the rezoning, particularly when you're doing stepwise notice of how the process works to alert people that there are overlay districts that are not reflected, as I read it anyway, in the proposed zoning classification. So in other words, people need to know that that's not the be all and end all, lot sizes setbacks, et cetera, that there are indeed varying levels of design protection from district to district. And those may be the most critical things that impact a development or land use decision for an individual property owner. So just a suggestion that there'd be some way of integrating the existing architectural conservation districts or design protection overlays into the proposed new rezoning code. Thanks. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to mention some of the work that staff has been doing to address some of the concerns that Mr. Gile mentioned in terms of people not knowing they're a historic district and doing work proceeding with work before they know it. One of the issues that we've discovered is really when someone purchases a property, they're not aware of actually what the rules and regulations are. They don't typically come to the city to find out what the zoning is or isn't. When you go to sell a piece of property, you sign a particular form. That form is given to the real estate person. And so staff, along with staff from other cities in South Carolina, worked with the Realtors Association to modify the form. So as of going into 2019, that form will actually now list not just zoning, but it will also indicate, is this in a historic district? Does it have specific regulations? So that would need to be divulged from the seller to the purchaser to move that along. So we have had that history. We're hoping that this is a tool that not only will be something just for Columbia, but it's been a concern in other communities will be something that will inform people a little bit more about what those items are that they're actually purchasing. I think that was a good question, and I hope the response answers that. I'm glad we're doing that now. Any other guests want to come forward, please? Eric Renner with the University of South Carolina, the University Architect. And first, I wanted to articulate my gratitude for Chris and her staff over the past few months working through zoning issues and many, many issues that the University and the city regularly collaborate on. And also what I'd like to respectfully ask that under the auspices of a future work session that the University could come before this commission and staff present our University master plan so that it might in some small way inform the process of translating the Columbia plan into what's going to be the ultimate zoning map that will designate the land use and the ultimate zoning code. We certainly are also grateful for this effort. I guess it's been more than 30 years in coming that we would have a rewrite to the zoning, and it's going to be a wonderful thing for Columbia. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Alberto, on behalf of the University as well. And just wanted to reiterate the great work that we've done with staff. I commend them for their two years, three years of work on this. It was 643 pages, the final version. I was one of the few people on town. I think they read all 643. They put me to sleep several nights to do it four or five times. I can't possibly imagine. You were quick. No, no, it put me to sleep that many times. But I just wanted to say, you've got our letter, so I won't belabor any of the points in the letter, but some of the changes that we recommend have to do with only the zoning map to your point, Mr. Stigamire. Some of them have to do with how the zoning map comes together, excuse me, with the land use map. Some of them have to do with how the land use map comes together with this zoning rewrite, and some of them have to just do with the zoning rewrite. Our point in all of it, though, is truly in suggesting a work session, what we realize is that our efforts over the past couple of years have been intended to deepen the relationship between the university and the city as it relates to these types of issues. What we'd like to do is take the next step and do that with y'all, because all of these plans, including our master plan, eventually may come before you under one of these zoning sections that are going to be passed tonight. So we'd like to use the work session as an opportunity to continue the great work that we've done together and then increase and deepen the work that we will do moving forward as the university and the city carry forward into the future. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Christina Gallardi, and I'm the co-chair of the Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and we don't have that opportunity to partner with you so much, but we did appreciate the opportunity to contribute our perspective to the Code Rewrite. John sent a letter on our behalf earlier today where we noted the different areas that we took a look at from our lens of biking and walking, particularly parking of different kinds, safe routes to school, walkable designs, sidewalks, drive-throughs, and construction adjacent to greenways. And again, I want to reiterate we really appreciate being able to have dialogue with the city staff and kind of come to best practice recommendations, particularly with the bicycle parking, which was coming from a safe routes to school promotion framework. One other thing that I wanted to also point out is that we really would like to encourage continuing to take a look at other supportive policies that the city has, for example, engineering standards or other tools that we don't have in our toolbox right now like impact fees to continue to support the recommendations and the best practices that are in the Code that you've rewritten. But thank you very much again for the opportunity to take a look at this and to provide feedback. Thank you. Any other guests or any other questions or before we go to a vote? Okay, I'd like to ask for a motion, please. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we recommend with the suggested revisions the repealing of Chapter 17 of the Columbia Code of Ordinance's and Title Planning, Land Development Zoning and adopting a new Chapter 17 entitled Unified Development Ordinance. Do we have a second? Second. Any further discussion? I'll in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Anyone oppose? Motion's approved. If there's no other business, I would like to ask for a motion to adjourn. I move we adjourn. I'll in favor. The meeting's adjourned.