►
Description
City of Charleston Community Development Committee 10/8/2020
A
Okay,
there
he
is
there,
he
is
okay.
I
like
to
call
I'm
sorry.
I
was
late
coming
up.
I
was
running
around
doing
some
other
things
too,
and
don't
on
the
east
side,
so
just
trying
to
get
some
things
together,
but
anyway
I
like
to
call
this
special
community
development
permitted
to
order,
and
the
time
is
now
approximately
4
33
and
I'm
gonna
access
it
with
this
bowel
head
for
a
short
implication.
A
B
D
Competition,
and
this
year's
theme
is
cobit
relief,
which
is
basically
been
providing
grant
funds
for
rental,
mortgage
rental
and
mortgage
assistance,
along
with
case
management
or
supportive
services,
and
we've
decided
to
partner
with
humanities
foundation,
one
of
our
long
time,
partners
and
also
the
metal
community
action
partnership
also
another
non-profit,
and
we
will
be
applying
for
the
full
amount
of
and
fifty
thousand
dollars
for
this
grant.
So
we
will
be
partnering
with
them.
A
E
B
C
F
Okay,
I
think
this.
This
was
added
at
my
request,
and
it
was
somewhat
in
anticipation
of
our
long
discussions
that
we've
had
about
the
smokestacks
on
the
east
side,
given
that,
if
there
was
a
possibility
for
funding
their
full
preservation,
the
only
logical
source
that
I
knew
of
was
was
this
tif
district.
F
F
To
show
you,
you
know
the
the
the
list
of
of
of
prospects
that
that
just
staff
has
come
up
with
so
far
and
it's
it
might
be
a
little
early
to
to
be
sharing
a
list.
Like
this,
because
we
really
haven't
completely
vetted
it
with
with
neighborhoods
and
would
counsel
so
this
is
just
a
very
preliminary
list
in
order
to
give
council
an
idea
of
all
the
things
that
at
least
staff
has
been
thinking
of.
So
I
think
gianna
you
had
that
that
written
list
that
you
sent
me.
F
But
in
general
terms,
council
has
allocated
about
a
fourth
of
the
initial
bond,
offering
or
a
little
over
three
million
dollars
to
various
affordable
housing
initiatives
and
efforts
that
that
came
along
some
of
them,
like
undergrounding
utilities,
some
environmental
remediation.
We
need
needed
to
do
and
so
forth.
Then.
The
next
big
item
is
drainage
and
storm
water.
F
A
good
bit
of
this
has
not
been
spent
yet
because
we,
we
are
just
having
a
ecom,
now
do
the
cooper,
river
drainage
basin
study
and
that
will
lead
to
recommendations
for
definitive
projects
that
have
to
be
engineered
and
then
priced
out,
so
that
two
million
nine,
which
is
a
good
part
of
this
allocation,
is
sitting
there
and
probably
won't
get
spent
for
for
another
year.
But
we
know
we
have
issues
and
we
know
frankly,
they're
going
to
cost
more
than
2
million
9.
F
So
these
funds
are
very
needed
for
drainage
and
storm
water.
Next
we
had
pedestrian
safety
improvements.
We
we
made
an
adjustment
to
those
recently
because
the
cost
for
the
brigade
street
bikeway
came,
came
down
significantly
and
we're
working
on
some
improvements
along
morrison
drive
along
where
sanders
clyde
is,
and
then
the
the
other
biggest
item
was
in
fact
the
st
julian
divine
revitalization.
F
We
had
put
2
million
three
to
that
and
we
got
some
other
parts
and
playgrounds
things
we're
doing.
The
total
proceeds
were
11
9
after
you
allow
for
some
costs,
so
we
do
have
310
000
not
allocated
from
all
of
that.
So
then
alan
are
you
on
the
line?
Can
you
share
that
map
those
maps?
You
showed
me
earlier
today.
F
I
just
reviewed
the
more
detailed
text
version
of
the
what
we
would
call
our
current
allocation.
This
lists
them
and
shows
them
nicely
on
the
map.
The
little
orange
areas
are
oddly
shaped,
but
that's
the
actual
tiff
district
and
I
guess
the
blue
areas
are
two
different
drainage
basins
within
that
comprise
the
district
that
we're
having
aecom.
Do
the
study
currently
to
help
define
some
projects
so
any
questions
about.
What's
on
the
table
right
now,
I
see
councilmember
jackson's
stand
up.
C
F
It
was
bonded
the
money's
in
the
bank
we've
been
spending
some
of
it
already
right
other
than
300
grand.
It's
all
been
a
sign
allocated
loosely
to
these
projects.
Now
some
of
them
may
cost
a
little
less
or
a
little
more
than
what
we
allocated,
but
there's
a
loose
allocation
of
the
funds
to
these
various
projects.
Okay,.
C
F
That's
correct,
apparently,
the
the
development
that's
already
occurred.
Just
in
the
last
two
years,
it's
been
finished
the
information
that
amy
got
from
the
county,
showing
that
the
status
of
of
the
district
indicates
that
we
could
go
ahead
next
year
and
borrow
another
10
or
12
million
on
on
this
district.
C
C
F
C
F
Was
trying
to
tell
you
there
there
there's
2.9
million
dollars
for
for
projects
that
will
come
out
of
the
aecom
recommendations,
and
it
may
include
that
dutch
dialogue
style
project
2.9
million-
won't
be
nearly
enough
to
do
it
all,
but
we're
kind
of
sit
sitting
on
it
waiting
for
the
project
to
come
forward.
If
you
will.
F
F
So
there
are
a
lot
of
needs
out
there.
I
can
guarantee
you
that
if
estimates
were
put
on
all
those
things,
it'd
be
a
heck
of
a
lot
more
than
10
or
12
million
dollars,
but
I
just
wanted
to
give
council.
You
know
a
flavor
of
what's
out
there.
I
mean
the
good
news
is
y'all
is
that
we
will
have
10
or
12
million
dollars
to
allocate
for
some
good
stuff.
F
I
mean
in
this
corona
budget
era,
where
we've
got
shortfalls
and
we're
cutting
it's
a
real
blessing
to
have
some
funds
available
to
do
some
community
work
and
I'm
I
feel
great
about
that.
But
having
said
that,
we
we
have
priorities,
we'll
have
to
make
and
and
decisions
to
make
do
we
want
to
really
focus
on
getting
the
low
line
started.
You
know
we
we
can
dedicate
some
more
money
to
affordable
housing
and
we'll
probably
need
to
once
16
and
17
come
along.
F
I
mean
that
area
of
future
development
of
those
last
parcels
that
we
have
right
next
to
the
south
carolina
state
facility
and
right
across
from
the
mlk
pool.
So
anyway,
there's
a
lot
of
great
things.
We
can
do
we.
The
good
news
is
we'll
have
some
resources,
you
know,
but
the
understanding
is
we'll
we'll
we'll
probably
never
have
all
we
all.
We
would
like.
C
Thank
you
exactly
on
the
good
news,
many
blessings
side
of
things
mayor
I
I
did
follow
up,
because
I
I
knew
that
I
harangued
you
yesterday
at
the
the
council
work
session
in
response
to
that,
the
the
information
that
the
historic
charleston
foundation
put
forward
to
us-
and
basically
it
was
coming
from
the
low
line
side
of
that
research.
I
guess
so
now.
C
I
know
that
it's
not
a
study
or
an
analysis
that
the
city
has
paid
for,
but
it
was
done
by
the
gentleman
that
we
do
use
I've
forgotten
his
name,
but
the
gentleman
who
represents
municap
that
tries
to
project
proceeds
from
tiffs
and-
and
so
I
think
you
know
what
we're
looking
at
right
now
is
the
next
year,
which
is
great,
but
I
do
feel
like
at
some
point.
The
city
should
be
agreeing,
or
at
least
confirming
with
the
municap
study.
C
So
that
we're
not
you
know
we're
not
wishful
thinking,
we're
literally
looking
at
projects
that
are
either
already
completed
or
the
last
one
is
they
broke
ground
and
they're
they're
clearing
their
site
or
whatever
they're
doing
site
demolition.
So
so
to
me
is
fabulous
news.
We
can't
really
you
know,
plan
on
it
to
the
every
last
penny,
but
certainly
to
the
extent
that
we
are
trusting
that
the
hard
and
fast
evaluations
of
smart
people
like
the
municap
advisors.
C
A
Thank
you,
yeah,
and
my
thing
is
mr
mayor.
We
I
just
always
say
we
have
to
look
at
our
priorities
and
and
our
priorities
and
what
we're
going
to
do
really
for
the
community
to
make
them
safe
and
make
them
better.
So
we
can
elevate
ourselves
onto
future
things
because
the
future
is
coming
and
we
know
it's
there.
So
we
have
to
be
sure
that
we
are
moving
toward
the
future
and
that's
all
I'm
looking.
A
You
know
trying
to
be
transparent
with
that
and
hope
that
the
community
and
the
people
will
understand
what
we're
trying
to
do
not
knocking
anyone
but
still
moving
forward,
and
so
that's
another
thing
and
we
can't.
We
know
that
we
are
projecting
these
monies
for
the
tip
they're
dejecting
money
here.
But
this
we
don't
know
what
might
happen
later
on
either.
A
I
Do
I
just
again
just
kind
of
and
light
of
what
we're
going
through
now?
Financially,
I
just
wondered.
I
mean
if
we
should
revisit
this.
I
mean
from
the
standpoint
of
just
briefly
mr
miller
when
it
comes
to
storm
water
maintenance.
You
know
we
are
really
we're
doing
a
good
job,
but
we
certainly
can
use
more
and
what
I
mean.
Maintenance
is
cleaning
up
pipes,
cleaning
out
ditches
drainages.
That
kind
of
thing
I'm
just
wondering
I
don't
I
don't
think
amy
is
on
the
is
amy
on
this
call.
J
I
I
I
this
is
the
second
time
for
mr
mill,
but
I
just
happened
to
have
my
one-on-one
today
with
the
mayor,
but
you
know
for
going
back
25
years
the
city's
done
a
great
job
and
remember
the
sea
level
wasn't
as
high
as
it
is
today,
25
years
ago
we
did
a
great
job,
building
vertical
things
that
we
all
enjoy.
You
know
riley
park,
the
gallery
down
at
waterfront
park,
etc,
etc,
and
the
infrastructure
you
know
was
falling
in
on
us
under
under
the
city.
I
I
This
is
still
right.
That's
right,
they're,
still
disturbed.
You
know
we
have
voted
as
a
council
pride
councilman
ross
prior
to
you
coming
on,
because
we
were
we
didn't
have.
We
were
at
wit's
ends
on
how
to
finish
obviously
september
clock
spring
freshman
drainage
problem.
We
actually
voted
to
commit
five
years
of
storm
water
drainage
funds
to
finish
what
is
now
basically
a
200
million
dollar
project.
I
I
So
I'm
just
kind
of
wondering:
can
we
make
some
reassessments
with
drainage
and
if
we
can
squeeze
some
maintenance
and
labor
that
would
normally
come
out
of
the
stormwater
fund?
Can
that
come
out
of
the
some
some
of
it
come
out
of
this,
these
tif
areas,
which
would
allow
more
monies
from
stormwater
to
go
to
the
remainder
of
the
city
areas
west
of
the
peninsula,
james
island,
john's
island,
west,
ashley
and
the
like?
K
K
They
can
benefit
the
public
too,
but
it
has
to
help
ensure
that
that
development
occurs.
So
you
could,
you
could
probably
use
it
for
certain
things
that
can
that
are
going
to
benefit
the
development
and
the
public
in
general.
But
my
understanding
is
you?
Couldn't
it's
more
difficult,
especially
geographically,
the
further
away
you
get?
So
if
you're
talking
about
a
project,
james
island,
certainly
that's
you
know
for
from
peninsula
funds
that
that
that
would.
I
No,
no,
no,
that's
not
what
I'm
saying
what
I'm
saying
is
normally.
If
some
of
these
stormwater
spoke,
let's
say
all
the
stormwater
folks
will
make
it
simple:
it's
paid
out
as
a
stormwater
fund.
You
know
proceeds
okay,
but
they're
doing
work,
cleaning
out
this
drainage
basin
right
here,
just
like
what
the
man's
talking
about
in
this
case
is
is
isolated.
This
200
000
is
being
paid
from
this
tif
district.
Can
that
labor
be
paid
for
out
of
that
to
funding?
I
It
was
for
that
district
because,
obviously,
if
drainage
works
more
efficient
because
the
pipes
are
clean-
or
even
I
know
when
we
do
infrastructure
put
in
larger
pipes
and
all
of
that
in
the
district
tip,
funds
can
use
for
that.
But
some
of
this
ongoing
maintenance
that's
right
now
being
paid
for
out
of
one
pocket,
some
of
it
not
all,
but
some
of
it,
I
think,
can
be
a
portion,
for
example,
how
many
tif
districts
we
have
on
the
peninsula
about
four,
that's
still
active.
I
think
we
let's
say
we
have
four
there's
still
like.
H
I
I
K
My
main
question,
and
with
specifics
I
would
almost
always
ask
charlton
because
that's
his
specialty,
but
my
my
question.
My
question
would
essentially
be
maintenance
versus
capital
improvements,
because
I
think
what
you're
describing
could
certainly
be
tied
to
benefit
the
development
of
of
properties
within
the
tif.
F
C
Just
have
a
follow
along
for
mr
mcqueen.
If
he's
going
to
be
consulting
charlton
or
the
mayor
will
be,
can
we
also
ask
him
about
that?
The
preservation
of
the
smokestacks
would
that
be
considered
public?
You
know
the
collateralization
of
improvements,
because
I've
been
wondering
that
question
as
we've
been
talking
about
it.
It's
a
it's
a
pure
preservation
use.
So
as
long
as
we're
going
to
talk
to
him,
can
we
ask
him
that.
F
I
I
would
just
also
point
out
chip
and
that
this
particular
district
doesn't
have
any
development
agreements
with
anyone.
Unfortunately,
councilman
wearing
those
of
those
five
other
districts,
you
know,
west
edge
and
magnolia
are
almost
completely
tied
up
with
development
agreements.
This
one
is
not
so
so
I
don't
think
that
we're
have
to
to
tie
our
project
to
any
specific
development
in
the
area.
If
we
choose
public
infrastructure
to
the
overall
benefit
of
this
district,
I
think
council
is
free
to
spend
the
money
like
we
want
to.
L
F
A
L
A
A
H
E
E
This
is
a
bit
of
a
passion
project.
For
me,
it's
something
that
is,
you
know
what
I
consider
to
be
some
pretty
low
hanging
fruit
in
a
orchard
of
zoning
reform,
ideas
that
I'm
interested
in
pursuing
over
the
coming
months
and
years
and
there's
certainly
I'm
not
sure,
if
jacob's
on
right
now,
but
this
is
also
something
that
you
know
our
zoning
staff
may
have
some
comments
on.
You
know
at
the
appropriate
time,
but
but
here's
here's
the
bottom
line.
E
E
Really
is
billboards
right,
given
the
tremendous
traffic
foot
traffic
that
that
you
know
we
used
to
experience
on
king
street
not
too
long
ago
before
the
tourists
you
know
were
reduced
due
to
due
to
the
pandemic,
and
when
I
see
these
vacancies
when
I
see
these
non-activated
second
third,
fourth,
sometimes
fifth,
stories
along
king
street.
I
I
ask
the
question:
why:
why
aren't
we
activating
to
its
full
capacity,
these
properties?
E
E
In
other
words,
you
you
have
to
come
forward
and
show
to
the
city
that
you
can
meet
certain
prescribed
parking
requirements
based
upon
the
type
of
use
you
have
the
size
of
the
use,
etc,
and
the
reality
of
it
is
for
these.
You
know
already
built
structures
on
king
street,
where
the
building
occupies
the
entire
lot.
There
is
no
parking
there.
E
There's
two
different
kind
of
tests
in
our
in
our
zoning
ordinance
based
upon
some
technical
requirements,
but
that
can
take
several
months
it
it
prevents
it
provides
an
opportunity
for
the
people
in
the
public
to
come
out
and
kill
it
kill
it.
You
know
by
opposing
it
saying
they
don't
want
this
open
for
x,
y
and
z.
E
My
my
philosophy-
and
it's
not
just
you-
know
my
personal
views
on
this.
Most
of
the
cities
in
the
country
with
commercial
corridors,
have
looked
at
this
issue
and
eliminated
minimum
parking
requirements.
Out
of
out
of
the
theory
that
look,
it's
a
downtown
busy
commercial
core.
There
is
no
parking
or
you
know
it's
too
expensive
for
parking.
So
essentially
the
governments
have
adopted
the
position
and
the
policy
of
allowing
the
market
to
solve
that
problem.
Right
I
mean
you
know,
there's
always
going
to
be
our
garages.
E
There's
on-street
parking,
there's
all
kinds
of
other
opportunities,
but
we
don't
make
it
a
governmental
requirement
to
do
it.
We
let
the
market
handle
this,
and
I
think
I
believe,
and
I've
talked
with
folks
at
low
country,
local
first
I've
talked
with
the
folks
at
the
central
business
improvement
district
commission.
I
want
to
mention
this
the
other
day,
and
let
me
tell
you,
I
don't
you
know.
E
We
don't
agree
on
everything
in
that
in
that
group
there
was
widespread
support
for
for
this
idea
and
again
it
just
makes
it
easier
for
businesses
to
open
up
it
makes
you
know
it
doesn't
solve
all
the
problems,
but
it
removes
an
expensive,
costly,
uncertain
step
in
the
entitlement
process.
Now
I
don't
think
or
should
or
suggest
that
we
just
you
know,
take
it
from
zero
to
100
overnight.
I
think
we
should,
if
we
were
to
remove
these
minimum
parking
requirements.
E
E
We
need
to
make
king
street
great
again.
It's
struggling
right
now
and
we
maybe
look
at
that.
We
we
don't
we
exempt
from
this
exemption,
I'm
talking
about
accommodations,
uses,
late
night
uses
and
new
construction
which,
in
speaking
with
mayor
teklenberg,
he
brought
that
idea
up.
In
other
words,
if
you
build
some
new
building,
you
gotta
park
it,
but
for
existing
buildings
that
have
been
around
you
know
since,
like
teddy
roosevelt
was
alive
right
that
doesn't
have
parking
on
the
streets.
E
Somebody
wants
to
put
some
condos
on
the
second
and
third
floor.
We
just
let
them
do
it
without
the
parking
they
got
to
meet.
All
kinds
of
other
code
requirements
we
just
let
them
do
it
and,
let's
see
what
happens,
let's
study
it.
Let's,
let's
get
in
line
with
the
other
cities
that
have
done
this.
I
think
it's
very
easy
for
us
to
put
together
an
ordinance
that
would
accomplish
this.
We've
already
got
a
section
in
our
code
that
provides
for
exceptions
for
not
for
off-street
parking.
E
We
need
to
just
add
a
subsection
to
that
ordinance
that
just
you
know,
designates
certain
commercial
corridors
for
this
exception.
We
put
language
in
there
that
you
know
makes
it
so
you
don't
do
accommodations,
uses
late
night
uses
or
new
construction
without
providing
parking,
but
we
allow
these
properties
to
be
activated,
and
I
think
you
know
it'll
be
interesting
to
see
what
happens,
and
you
know
like
every
other
ordinance
that
we
do
we
can.
We
can
evaluate
it,
we
can
study
it
and
you
know
go
from
there.
E
E
You
know
lay
the
foundation
for
an
economic
renaissance
here
in
charleston
and
a
revitalization
of
of
of
our
properties
here,
especially
along
the
commercial
corridors,
because
they're
struggling
right
now,
and
we
need
to
come
up
with
ways
to
make
it
easier
for
folks,
and
sometimes
that
means
you
know
deregulating
getting
out
of
the
way
making
making
business
less
expensive,
less
costly
and
less
unpredictable
for
small
businesses.
So
that's
much
feel
I'm
getting
off
my
soapbox
now.
E
But
if
anyone
has
any
questions
or
want
to
talk
to
talk
about
this,
some
more
I'd
love
to
talk
about
this,
but
my
hope
would
be.
We
could
maybe
get
an
ordinance
drafted
up
and
sent
through
the
proper
channels,
maybe
bring
it
back
to
cd,
then
go
through
planning.
Commission
and
you
all
know
the
rest
of
the
story.
Thanks.
Okay,.
A
So
how
are
you
going
to
balance
that?
I
don't
know?
That's
it's
a
you
know
a
good
suggestion
if
you
may
so
you
can
take
that
up
and
you
know
take
that
suggestion
up.
You
can
go
and
do
a
pilot
search
or
whatever
the
case
may
be,
but
we
got
to
be
mindful
very
mindful
of
the
people
in
the
community
also
even
with
the
businesses
there
and
I
know,
they're
struggling
and
we
have
to
do
whatever
we
can
do
to
help
them.
A
But
you
have
to
be
very
mindful
of
those
those
community
that
is
butting
those
particular
areas
and
when
people
come
and
they're
going
to
park
all
in
the
community
and
then
we're
going
to
have
a
problem.
We'll
have
another
problem
again
because
we
ran
into
that
before
a
couple
years
ago,
and
that's
why
these
audiences
and
things
were
put
in
place.
Because
of
that,
because
the
community,
the
community,
came
out
strong
and
said:
hey,
we
can't
we,
we
like
the
businesses
but
they're
parking
all
over
in
our
community.
A
We
can't
park
ourselves,
we
can't
get
in
our
area.
We
can't
get
into
this.
So
I
don't
know
how
you'll
be
able
to
balance
that.
But
that's
something
we
can
take
a
look
at
because
I'm
also
listening
to
the
community,
the
the
central
business
district.
Also,
I
listen
to
them
wholeheartedly
because
I'm
on
that
committee
also
so
that's
just
my
take
on
it
and
I
don't
know
how
we're
going
to
solve
it.
But
it's
something
need
to
be
looked
at.
A
You
can
look
at
it
and
see
how
how
it's
going
to
be
changed
if
you
may,
but
that's
just
something
I
want
to
throw
out
to
to
you
and
to
the
community
that
week,
because
we
have
to
be
mindful
of
the
community
very
mindful
of
the
community,
with
all
that's
going
on
with
the
cover
with
the
assessments
coming
up
taxes
going
to
be
raising.
So
all
this
going
to
be
coming
up
and
they're
going
to
feel
that
we
are
throwing
them
away.
So
just
got
to
look
at
it.
A
F
F
Could
could
we
narrow
this
to
just
the
vacant
properties
and
have
it
for
a
limited
period
of
time
for
like
six
months
or
a
year,
and
just
says:
what
do
you
call
it?
A
trial
balloon
or
a
pilot
thing
and
and
say
that
for
the
next
year,
if
any
of
these
40
properties
that
are
vacant
or
become
vacant,
would
would
have
this
special
pass
on
parking?
Can
you
limit
it
that
way.
K
It
might
be
tough
because
it
seems
like
that
would
put
those
folks
at
a
competitive
advantage
to
the
other
folks,
and
I
I'm
just
trying
to
think
of
a
rational
basis
for
for
doing
that.
I
mean
you
know
if
you
kind
of
wanted
to
tinker
with
it
a
little
bit
my
I
would
go
with
just
a
very
small
area
to
see
how
that
goes.
K
And
then
expand
it
from
there.
I
think
it's
hard
sort
of
within
a
specified
area,
absent
evidence
that
you
know
the
the
a
specific
property
doesn't
really
contribute
to
the
parking
or
you
know
within
that
special
area
it'd
be
hard
to
just
sort
of
lead
properties
out
to
create
sort
of
doughnut
holes
within
that
district.
All
right.
A
H
Thank
you
chairman.
Thank
you,
chairman
question
for
councilman
appel.
Would
this
just
remove
the
minimum
parking
requirements
or
somehow
tinker
with
the
calculation
or
the
formula
that
we
use
to
to
give
businesses
to
basically
require
the
parking?
For
example?
Maybe
it's
15
parking
spots,
but
we
tinker
with
that
formula
and
it's
only
five.
I
do
have
a
constituent
right
now,
that's
going
through
this
and
asking
this
specific
question.
So
I
guess
my
question
is:
is
it
a
removal
completely
or
tinkering
with
the
formula
that
we
use.
E
You
know
what
most
of
the
jurisdictions
have
done
around
the
country
in
in
you
know
busy
commercial
corridors
they've
just
removed
them
entirely,
but
but
certainly
it
you
know,
I
don't
see
any
reason
why
we
couldn't
look
at
relaxing
certain
parking
requirements
and,
and
things
of
that
nature
you
know.
The
one
thing
that
you
know
I
want
to
mention
is
that
you
know
I
would.
E
I
would
wager
the
vast
majority,
if
not
all,
of
the
buildings
on
king
street
that
we're
talking
about
here
were
built
decades,
maybe
maybe
sometimes
a
century
before
anybody
had
ever
heard
of
minimum
parking
requirements.
So
we
have
this
built
form
on
king
street
and
we're
just
like
the
existence
of
these
buildings.
To
me,
when
I
look
at
it,
when
I
look
at
a
city,
I
think
there's
no
reason
everything
shouldn't
be
able
to
be
activated
like
like
it's
it's
a
it's
a,
and
this
goes
back
pre
coven.
This
goes
back
years
before
covet.
E
I
mean
the
fact
that
we
don't
have
people
living
on
these.
Second
and
third
and
fourth
stores.
This
is
affordable
housing.
This
is
housing.
This
is
opportunities
for
people.
This
is
small
business,
I
mean
if
you've
got
a
restaurant,
that's
trying
to
open
and
it's
gonna
cost
you
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
or
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
to
secure
parking
leases
from
somebody
that
owns
a
lot
somewhere
or
you're
dealing
with
some
national
chain
who's.
Winning
that
battle
I
mean
this
is
a.
Let's
put
it
this
way.
E
The
longer
we
have
minimum
parking
requirements
in
place.
The
longer
we
have
regulatory
red
tape,
that's
killing
small
business,
it's
as
simple!
As
that
I
get.
I
get
the
negative
impacts
on
neighborhoods.
We
have
to
find
ways
to
prevent
people
from
illegally
parking
places.
I
mean
if
they
don't
have
stickers
and
and
it's
it's
not
authorized,
they
shouldn't
be
allowed
to
do
it,
but
we've
got
a
commercial
corridor
that
is
struggling
big
time
now
and
it
was
struggling
before
covet.
E
Let's,
let's
all
be
very
real
about
that-
and
you
know
when
I
go
to
court
some
places
around
the
country
or
around
the
state.
Rather,
you
drive
down
these
old
main
streets
around
the
you
know,
york,
county
and
all
these
other
places,
and
it's
it's
sad
seeing
commercial
corridors
and
I
used
to
drive
through
that
and
always
think
to
myself
man.
I
am
so
lucky
to
live
in
the
city
of
charleston,
where
we
got
so
much
going
on
and
all
this
stuff,
but
it
doesn't
happen
automatically.
E
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
would
just
like
to
offer
to
the
members
of
the
committee
some
research,
that
my
staff
have
done,
that
I
would
like
to
make
available
for
you
for
your
next
meeting.
I
did
have
my
staff.
This
is
probably
about
two
years
ago.
Look
into
this
issue.
They
did
some
amazing
research
and
what
they
turned
up
is
that
of
the
13
different
peer
communities.
G
They
looked
at
from
savannah
to
new
orleans
to
charlottesville
similar
cities
in
the
southeast,
12
of
the
13
have
completely
eliminated
all
parking
requirements
in
their
city
center.
The
fact
that
we
have
minimum
parking
requirements
in
our
downtown
is
an
antiquated
relic
of
the
1960s
and
no
other
cities.
Do
this
and
I'd
like
to
offer
to
y'all.
Do
you
all
that
research
and
I'll
make
that
available
to
all
of
you
and
we're
happy
to
send
that
all
out?
G
So
you
can
look
at
it
for
yourselves
and
draw
your
own
conclusions,
but
in
short,
our
method
of
doing
things
is
dated,
and-
and
I
think
that
you
all
will
draw
that
same
conclusion
after
you've
had
a
chance
to
look
at
the
information
yourselves.
So
I'll
make
that
available
to
you
all
at
your
at
as
you
see
fit.
C
I
just
want
to
support
I'm
I
I
think
I
do
remember
that
mr
lindsay
had
the
planning
staff
do
a
deep
dive
in
all
of
this,
and
I
I
just
want
to
say
that
you
know
I
I
I
worked
at
the
national
trust
when
they
had
the
main
street
program
and
basically
maybe
the
mayor
was
you
know,
part
of
the
economic
development
office
at
this
point,
but
they
came
to
charleston.
They
said,
there's
really
nothing.
C
We
need
to
do
on
lower
king
street
because
you
all
are
doing
it
right,
except
maybe
open
up
your
apartment
properties
to
be
livable
again
and
then
the
other
thing
that
you
just
mentioned.
You
know-
and
I
know
you're
all
tired
of
my
analogies
from
where
I
came
from,
but
where
I
came
from
in
northern
virginia
literally,
there
were
no
parking
requirements
and
the
developers
were
arguing
with
the
cities
to
to
help
them
build
parking,
because
they
were
worried
that
they
weren't
going
to
have
enough
parking
because
parking
wasn't
being
required
any
longer.
C
A
A
A
A
K
So
this
came
to
city
council
and
was
referred
to
this
committee.
I
drafted
sort
of
what
a
proposed
ordinance
would
look
like
that
would
eliminate
the
ability
to
do
cluster
developments
in
the
future.
Certainly
nothing
would
preclude
you
all
from
adopting
a
later
a
new
sort
of
cluster
development
ordinance.
K
G
K
And
this
doesn't,
this
is
just
sort
of
the
general
language
that
I
would
you
know,
I'm
not
saying
I
recommend
this
version,
but
this
would
cover
the
bases
I
would
see
it.
So
it
gives
you
all
a
starting
off
point
to
begin
the
discussion,
the
first
portion
just
sort
of
sets
a
sunset
date,
so
cluster
developments,
no
new
cluster
developments
after
whatever
date
it
is
that
can
be
the
date
of
first
reading
because
of
the
pending
orders
doctrine.
It
could
be
the
date
the
ordinance
is
adopted.
K
It
could
be
a
later
date
if
you
wanted
to
give
people
time
to
get
in
more
applications
for
cluster
developments,
which
I
don't
I
don't
think
is-
is
the
intent
of
what
we're
asking,
but
you
know
that
you
could
put
whatever
date
you
wanted
in
there
after
first
reading,
starting
at
first
reading
by
city
council-
and
I
would
probably
recommend
doing
it
at
that
point
because
you
don't
want
the
reason
you
have.
The
pending
ordinance
doctrine
is
preventing
a
run
of
non-conforming
applications
to
the
planning
department.
K
Cluster
are
currently
built
out
cluster
developments.
A
cluster
development
is
sort
of
like
a
pud,
because
it's
it's
a
site
plan
that
also
serves
as
the
zoning,
so
it's
very
hard
to
just
rescind
it
for
a
property.
That's
already
been
developed,
because
then
you
have
to
ask
for
these
now
non-conforming
uses,
or
you
know
what
do
I
still
have
to
provide
the
minimum
requirements?
K
Now
that
it,
the
the
development,
has
been
built
out,
and
I
you
know
I
just
specify
that
for
those
categories
those
developments
would
be,
the
uses
on
already
developed
to
be
conforming
or
to
be
developed
or
and
approved
would
be
conforming.
So
you
wouldn't
have
any
issue.
If
a
building
burns
down
you
can't
you
don't
rebuild
it
for
three
years,
you
can't
build
it
and
then
section
two
just
says
the
pending
ordinance
doctrine
applies,
otherwise
it
becomes
effective
upon
ratification
and
you
could
take
out
the
pending
ordinance.
L
K
I
don't
have
the
I
think,
cass
remember
jackson
had
asked
planning
to
prepare
those,
I'm
not
sure
if
they
had
time
to.
I
know
I,
you
know
all
sr1
developments.
I
can't
remember
if
it's
over
five
acres
or
ten
acres,
so
if
you've
got
properties
in
sr1
and
it's
more
than
I
think
ten
contiguous
acres
anywhere
in
the
city,
you
qualify
and
there's
also
different
other
zoning
categories.
I
think
the
answer
to
that
is
a
lot,
but
I
can't
get
any
more
exact
than
that.
K
K
I
I
mean
five
acre
properties
that
are
contiguous
and
zoned
sr1
and
whatever
the
other
zoning
categories
are,
I
would
think
there's
a
decent
amount
of
acreage
in
the
city,
especially
in
the
outer
portions
of
the
city.
You
know,
west,
ashley
and
and
hanoi
can't
always
go
into
an
agreement.
So
it's
a
little
bit
different,
but
I
would
think
there's
a
good.
G
G
You
are
correct
councilmember,
however,
I'd
like
to
point
out
a
very
important
point
here,
which
is
that
the
majority
of
developments
that
take
place,
which
are
of
any
size,
are
typically
not
just
that
one
initial
property
right
properties
are
assembled
together
to
form
a
larger
property.
So
while
we
can
map
the
number
of
five
or
ten
acre
parcels
that
may
exist
in
the
city,
a
developer
is
going
to
buy
properties
and
assemble
them
into
a
larger
tract,
thus
making
them
eligible
to
become
cluster
developments.
C
Chairman
mitchell,
I
would
like
to
add
to
mr
lindsay's
point
about
that.
I
mean
I.
I
do
think
that
when
I
looked
at
the
maps
that
miss
stuber
and
mr
morgan
created
a
month
or
more
ago,
that
is-
and
we
know
this
to
be
true-
anecdotally-
that
a
lot
of
where
we
have
seen
cluster
development
have
come
from
unincorporated
county
properties
that
were
annexed
in
and
then
had
the
opportunity
to
be
developed
as
as
cluster
subdivisions.
C
C
C
That's
where
I
am.
I.
I
know
that
dr
revis,
who
is
a
constituent
of
council
member
gregory
and
a
resident
of
the
central
park
basin.
That's
under
very
you
know,
proactive
study
now
for
flood
flooding,
control
improvements,
she's
been
talking
to
councilmember
gregory
and
to
all
the
rest
of
us
that
represent
neighborhoods
on
james
island
to
to
really
be
a
proponent
of
of
making
this
move
to
eliminate
the
cluster
opportunities
that
we
still
have
on
our
books.
So
she
sent
a
very
cogent
memo
today.
C
I
don't
know
if
councilmember
gregory
to
council,
member
gregory
and-
and
actually
I
think
she
misunderstood-
that
council
member
waring
was
the
chairman
of
this
committee,
so
she
addressed
it
so
councilmember
gregory,
I
don't
know
if
you
had
time
to
receive
it
and
and
really
see
it.
It's
it's,
it's
very
stated,
but
it's
not
anything
new
in
terms
of
her.
L
K
K
But
those
are
only
on
properties
that
are,
you
know:
you'd
have
four
units
per
acre
allowed
on
and
base
zoning
the
difference
between
the
cluster,
the
current
ordinance
and
the
conservation
ordinance.
The
biggest
difference
is
really
affordable.
Housing
number
one.
It
has
to
be
10
acres,
contiguous,
but
number
two.
It
also
has
to
provide
a
certain
number
of
affordable
housing
and
you
can
do
a
little
bit
denser
types
of
residential
uses
and
the
affordable
housing
doesn't
as
drafted.
K
A
F
A
F
G
I
I'll
just
briefly
reply
to
that,
and
then
I
can
christopher
can
add
anything
that
he
needs
to
the
mayor
and
members
of
the
committee.
Significant
amount
of
work
was
done
by
staff
as
well
as
members
of
other
departments,
including
stormwater.
They
also
engage
members
of
the
community
and
they
have
drafted
a
conservation
ordinance,
which
is
a
new
version
of
the
old
cluster
ordinance.
It
corrects
many
of
the
problems,
including
making
sure
that
it
performs
at
the
very
highest
standards
in
terms
of
storm
water
handling.
G
In
my
opinion,
the
the
conservation
ordinance
draft
does
what
the
cluster
ordinance
was
always
intended
to
do,
but
it
really
does
it
well
now,
with
that
said,
that
ordinance
is
drafted,
but
it
has
not
been
adopted,
so
it
is,
it
is
ready
to
go,
and
a
lot
of
work
has
been
put
into
that.
However,
at
the
moment
that
is,
is
currently
on
the
shelf
and
would
would
be
something
that
you
all
could
take
up
if
you
saw
fit,
but
we've,
I
think
collectively
decided
to
to
shelve
it
for
the
moment.
K
And
I
would
say
I
don't,
I
don't
think
it
makes
sense
to
re.
I
don't
think
it
makes
sense
to
just
replace
the
cluster
ordinance
with
the
conservation
ordinance
because
of
what
I
just
said
earlier
about
the
developments
that
have
already
begun
development
under
cluster
zoning
that
it
it's
not
necessarily
going
to
make
you're
going
to
have
to
translate
rights
from
one
from
a
development
that
started
under
one
set
of
rights
into
a
development
that
now
allows
a
second
set
of
rights,
and
that
doesn't
really
it
doesn't
make
sense.
K
So
it
would
make
a
lot
more
sense
to
actually
repeal
the
cluster
and
you
wouldn't
have
to
do
it
now.
You
could
wait
until
the
conservation
ordinance
gets
further
along,
but
it
makes
sense
to
repeal
it,
as
I
just
said,
and
then
and
then
adopt
the
conservation
ordinance
as
well.
They're,
not
mutually
exclusive
at
all.