Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, good morning everyone. Welcome to the August 21, 2025 regular meeting of the Sunset Beach Planning Board. Seeing we have a quorum, call the meeting to order. Uh we can stand for the pledge of allegiance. Get out of the way. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

Okay. As usual, our first order of business is conflict of interest. Does any member have a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest with regard to any item on the agenda? And if so, please state so at this time. Kevin. Uh, nothing at this time. No. No,

I do not. That's it. Uh, first item is to amend or approve the agenda. And before we make a motion, I'm recommending that we consider making not a change to agenda, but a change to the order since we have guests here today and public to put new business which is 7 and 71 in the six and 6.1 slot and old business which is in the six and 6.1 slot down to the seven and 7.1 slot. So, we'll make the site major site plan review first and then review the parking text amended. Do we want to make a motion to amend as such? Any other changes?

Make a motion to revise the agenda. Second. All in favor? I.

Okay. Okay, the first order of business uh is reviewing our minutes from our previous meeting July 17th, 2025. And the only thing I have for you, Kimberly, is three section three like the fourth sentence down 7.1 election of chair. It was election of vice chair. So the word be between of and chair it should be vice you got it at the end in 7.1 correctly but we uh the change we made there was to elect a vice chair only any other changes for uh staff on the minutes

move for approval second all in favor I I so the minutes are approved with the one with the one change so much paper I got no place to put it. Okay. Next item is public comments on agenda items only. Uh as always find my phone. Three minutes. Uh and on item there's only two items on the agenda today. So the public's uh welcome to come up to the podium, state your name and address and then um speak accordingly. Welcome

way 7610-4 High Market Street, Sunset Beach. Um, I'm really here um to just continue to stress how important it is that we have, if this hotel does come like it is, that we have some form of barriers. And I've looked at the plants and it shows shrubbery um along that line that covers not in front of High Market Street but down behind the the hotel. Um and just want to make sure that we have um some some barriers between us and the hotel as well as making sure the dumpster area is securely fastened. We have a lot of animals. Um, we have deer, alligators, raccoons, all that that are all back in that area and I can fear that things will be in that dumpster area. So, just want to make sure that we continue to focus in on making sure that those areas look nice and um for for especially for the high market street and the privateier lane. And I know these ladies are here for the sanctuary area as well, but I'm just here um to show that I'm will support, but I want you guys to really think about the neighbors that are there and what we're having to see. So, please understand that. Thank you very much for your time. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Next. Good morning. My name is Bonnie Gable and I live at 1620 Manta Ray Way and that's in the sanctuary. Um, and I hope I can read my notes. Probably going to have to take my glasses off. Um, first, this is sort of unrelated. I would like to thank the mayor that he's not here and whoever is else is responsible for the recent um upgrades to the town park, to the benches and the swings and the platforms under the swings. That was excellent. Much appreciated. We have a great park. Um, I hope this isn't a waste of time. Um uh my concern is the decision has already been made for this property. Um and you know what from as an outsider it feels like any decisions for amendments and provisions necessary for this to be developed have already been decided. Um, in short, I've lived here, you know, just a couple of years and my observation is that um that the town administration seems to be more concerned with the revenue than the concerns and welfare of the citizenry. Um, that's just just my observation. Um, and I'm and I forgot to say in the beginning because I was taking my glasses off, I do thank you for this opportunity to speak. Um, my first concern is a clarification of exactly where that road is going to lead into the parking lot. And I think that's off

of Chandler's Lane. I don't know if Chandler's Lane has now been renamed to Manta Ray and it's actually way, not lane, not drive. Um, but I'm I have concerns about that. uh have major concern about cut through traffic into the sanctuary which as you as has been noted are private roads and we're going to be responsible for maintaining those. We already have a tremendous amount of cut through traffic. Um I live just a few houses down on Manta Ray. So, this is a huge concern of mine because it's going to be a constant flow of traffic if there's not some kind of gate, barricade, something to prevent all the people that are going and coming and the delivery trucks. They're going to go in that driveway. They're going to come back through the sanctuary. I think if that was your neighborhood, you'd probably feel the same way. Um, I also have a concern that there appears to be from the site map no plantings on the north side, which would be the north side of the parking lot and along that that road that leads in. Um, I think all of us in the sanctuary would really appreciate it if you would make that recommendation that they do plantings on the north side. Um, and I think my friend's going to cover my fourth concern, so I'll I'll leave that. I do have a concern about light pollution and whether these will be illuminated all night. Again, thank you for your time and um and your consideration to our concerns. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Laura Margie. I live at 1627 Palomar Drive in the sanctuary. Um, uh, my neighbor covered the incoming traffic. I also have a concern about the roadway and and a barrier on the along the roadway coming in because it is fairly close to the homes that are right there and having to see traffic lights from the cars going in and out. Um, is obviously not something everybody wants on their back porch. Um, the landscaping plan, viewing the cars, concerns about the traffic through the neighborhood. Um the builder is not going to do anything to the roads once he's done building. There are roads now. What stands there is what is. So any additional traffic through um like Miss Gable said is going to be on us to repair the roads as the sanctuary HOA. Um also I have a lot of concerns about water pressure cable. Um currently you know our water pressure is okay. It's not great. 109 rooms in a hotel certainly is going to put a strain on the system. Is there anything in place to help with that? Cable also we go through exper you know experience a lot of buffering early in the morning late at night when many people are watching TV. Is there any upgrades to the broadband system being done? Um, you know, these are things that affect our everyday life, water, cable. Obviously, a lot of people work from home as well and we go through issues. Um, I also want to know about the pets. Hilton Hotel. All Hilton's welcome pets and that's wonderful. I frequent Hilton hotels for that reason. I am a pet lover. I want to know a little bit more about the areas for the pets at the Hilton Hotel because if I was staying there, my idea would be to walk through the

beautiful sanctuary neighborhood that's there. Um, so is it what's being done kind of to deter and keep the hotel guests and their pets from coming through our neighborhood? We have a lot of dogs there already. Dogs and dogs don't always get along. Um, I know my dog's very reactive and additional dogs in the neighborhood, you know, are really not something that we we want. And I feel that these people may not be inclined to pick up their dog waste as well when you're not, you know, in your own neighborhood. So, that's a concern. Um, I just I feel like I'm not opposed to a hotel. I just feel like I wish Hilton has a lot of other brands, more upscale brands. Um, I feel like Sunset Beach is a small community and I feel like throwing in a roadside hotel just isn't something that fits the community. A boutique hotel with a nice restaurant, a spa, things that the community can actually use. Um, would, in my eyes, make more sense. The biggest concern is going to be also flooding. How high are you putting, you know, how high are they building up to put the hotel on? We're obviously going to be down from that. I know. So, I I don't know how to read all those plans. I saw some things about relocating ditches, things like that. So, I do have a really big concern about flooding. Um, and that's it. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Any other public comments before we Yes, sir. My name is Mike Mill. I'm also in the sanctuary 1557 Moray Loop. And my main concern with the hotel is again I looked at the plans and the entrance off a Moray loop. Um we already get a lot of cut through traffic there. Speeders um cutting through it's it's a natural way to get out to 17 if you're in the you know on that other side. Um and it's going to get worse with the hotel. Um, I walk my dog three two two or three times a day and I seen yesterday delivery trucks delivering from the food line cutting through our uh community, jumping the curbs. Um, and it's it they they don't go slow. And my wife and I walking the dogs have had already had to jump out of the way um from speeding cars coming through. They don't slow down. And if you look at the plan, that's where they're going to be coming from. Route 17. Um, if they come down to go to the hotel, they're going to be cutting through the sanctuary. They're not going to go all the way around. Uh, so that's my main concern concern is the safety. And I hope that when you take a look at the traffic, um, I'm assuming there's going to be a traffic plan. Those sanctuary needs to be not an option for that hotel to run their traffic through. Um, I know I'm pretty sure Sunset Beach doesn't allow gated communities, but that would work there and maybe you can make an exception because I don't see any other way of stopping the traffic from coming through there the way it's laid out right now. So, um, and and I do believe somebody's going to get hurt um, just with the speeders we have through there already and you're probably going to multiply that, you know, when the hotel is there and it's going to be pretty bad situation. So um hopefully hopefully that can be addressed as this

planning goes goes forward. So I appreciate your time. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. Any other public comments? Okay. Thank you. Uh as we did we uh adjusted agenda. So actually our next item is the uh what was listed as new business 7.1 major site plan sunset beach hospitality ventures Brunswick County parcel etc. So first of all we'll I guess the way we'll go through this I'll kick it over to Ron Sadderfield first to give a staff report background etc. Then I gave at that point we can hear from the applicant to say whatever they want to say and then we'll probably just move down uh the dis here from Kevin to Steuart to me on any comments or question while the applicant is there uh before we move on to a vote or not. Okay, all yours Ron.

Yep. John, John, is this better? All right. Thank you. I'm going to just provide a brief overview of what we what what you have before you and going a little bit of background, maybe talk about what the process is as well as the the mud zoning district and what's how how is this use allowed and those kind of things and kind of what's your role as planning board. and we'll let the applicant go into more detail with their site plan if that's okay with the board. Proceed.

All right. So, we do have an application from Sunset Beach Hospitality Ventures LLC. They're requesting the approval of this Hampton Hotel. Um the property is owned MUD mixed juice district um and is located there. In the south port I put in the northwest corner of high market Chandlers and Manor because to be honest with you I don't know if that section is own is is named Chandlers or or if it's own Manor Ray just to be honest with you. So that's why you saw if you read the staff before why you saw both. Um the while the subject property in question is about 5.28 acres. It's my understanding the hotel is going to be occupying about 2.4 four acres of that. And there will be a subdivision plat at some point presented to staff by the um current owner of the property that will designate 2.4 acre hotel property and then two other tracks along um one would have it at the intersection of Chandler Miner and High Market and then what I'm going to call the pump station track my understanding. So, there would be a lot between this property and the sanctuary that houses that the the pump station, but I'll let the applicant if they want to provide a little bit more detail on that if necessary. Um, so the mud zoning district allows this use under prescribed what I call permitted with use standards and those use standards are in your code. And so that is a right. This this use is allowed by right provided they can show how they comply with the standards. Um so it's not like a special use permit. It's not a reszoning. Um those kind of things which some people may you know feel like it should have to go somewhere further than just this board. Um planning board has the approval authority of major site plans in town of Sunset Beach.

Um, you can ultimately at the end of this process, you can approve the plan before you. You can deny it or you can approve with I'm going to call corrections. The code says conditions, but I don't want you guys to think that that means that you can add conditions that are outside of what the code requires. Um, this is you have basically it's administrative review. So, so everyone's clear on that. the MUD um does not have in the town's code any specific design standards that this hotel has to meet from the town's perspective. I believe there's some some PUA documents that they have to go through an so the review board with the um with the what I'm going to call our text review board. I think it's the the appropriate name uh for the mud um property owners. Uh, so there's not specific design standards that the mud will require them to comply with that

as opposed to the overlay district as opposed right overlay district. The town has control of the architecture. I'm getting I'm getting I'm getting there.

You I'm familiar with the code. We do have a gateway over we have a gateway overlay district and we have urban design standards in our code, but the mud is specifically exempt from those standards. So you have elevations in your package. The purpose of those elevations was to show compliance with height. Um they're allowed four stories and no more than 60 ft inclusive of of of the entire building. That includes um heating and air units, wall, parapit walls, etc. Um so that's why you have those elevations. The elevations the only reason why you have those elevations for height purposes. Um, nothing else. Was that any questions on that process from the planning?

The other question I guess and it comes up a lot is the buffering. The buffering Yeah. is around the mud, not inside the mud. Correct. That's I read the code. Correct. And, um, it's a good question. Um, and I I can come in a little bit of detail on that if you want. And I guess you can comment. How does that pump station track count? Is that what's the width of that? Is is so is that buffered to because that's the outside edge. It's the outside edge and they are so that has to be buffered to what is adjacent to it which I believe is the sanctuary. But they were there the pump station was there. So until that property is built on further it would not the current owner would need to not need to do anything else along that edge. Um

but the width of that will satisfy the 15t. Correct. I have not seen the actual width of it, but I don't I'd have to go back and look to see exactly what is the width of that lot and the applicant may tell exactly what the pro what that width is. So, let me go through a little bit of the staff report and then we can take some additional questions. That's okay. It's 50 feet to the road.

All right. So, the elevations provided indicate compliance with the building height requirements as I stated. um they're not subject to design standards of EO or any site for review by approval by the planning board and also any signage that you saw on the building um which have they have been removed now um from revised elevations that you guys received just today um those signs will be permitted in a separate process so that's why they've been removed all right so I mentioned earlier hotels are permitted uh with you standard The applicable use standard is that the lot size shall be minimum of 1 acre. Um building setbacks for the mud are 5 ft from all property lines and a hotel motel may be constructed to a height of 60 ft inclusive of all mechanical devices, parapits and similar pences and no more than and have a maximum four stories. parking standards. Um, for hotels, there's one parking space per sleeping room plus one for four seats in a meeting or assembly room. Uh, the minimum parking required based on their plans 116. They're showing um 113 I believe on the site and then no 11 sorry seven on the site and then 100 and then another um 13 spaces. there have a shared parking agreement with the owners of the mug or we're in the process of getting a shared parking agreement. I don't think it's been finalized, but

we have a draft though, correct?

You have a draft in your package. So, both parties agree to that. Um, landscaping, Mr. Chair, is one of your questions. There are no regulator heritage trees on the site. U market street high market is not a public street, so there are no street guard plantings required. And foundation plantings are also not a standard in the EDO. So there are no foundation plantings required. And I'll let the applicant go in more detail, but it's my understanding they intend to plant foundation plantings. Um, but they're not required to plant them to satisfy a Cobra requirement. Uh parking lot provided some parking lot land planting in your package. Some information there, but interior parking lot areas shall be landscaped equal to 8% of the gross paved area to be used for parking, loading or vehicle use. Um each island a minimum of 8 feet in width and no less than 100 square feet overall. And then uh each island shall contain at least one tree and eight one tree of eight feet in height and six shrubs 18 inches in height at planting. Executive parking spaces should incorporate landscape peninsulas no more than 15 spaces apart and contain 144 square feet of we say planting area and at least 8 ft in 8 ft in width and then all interior plantings shall be curved or block for protection. Um, the adjacent properties are zoned mud, including the pump station to the north and the town home development to the west.

And what I could see on a drawing is they comply with the internal parking lot. Yes, that's that was my conclusion. Exceeded actually if I remember right.

Yes. So the you look at the chart in the code which I have provided in your case summary as well your staff report mud adjacent to mud is not required to provide any buffering however you do see some plantings shown along I want I think it's privateier drive to the plan or plan north but to the west of of the hotel they have attempted to provide um buffer relief, if you will, between the the back of the hotel and the residential town homes to the west. Right. Development of the site is required to meet stormwater requirements of the county and the state. Um before they begin construction, we will need to see um approval from the from Brunswick County and the state. And it's my understanding they are working with both entities for for the permitting. And I'll let the applicant go to more detail where that stands. should you need that information. Traffic, we have driveways proposed from High Market and Manta Ray um Chandler. Uh both of those are privately owned maintain streets. Uh we did when the project went to TRC, we did sub um provide the NC DOT an opportunity to provide comments. I believe the applicant has made and I I'll let the applicant um provide some additional information. DOT at the time TRC was not conclusive whether or not any any improvements on seaside or sunset would be needed. Um they may they they may have um be interested in requiring attorney warrant analysis u but when I spoke to them they did not at that time they were not um at that point. Did the applicant provide NC DOT with their scoping request letter form?

We provided them with the plans and a traffic impact analysis was not required. I got that information from the DOT. I can let the applicant let just discuss what they've done with the DOT. But they got a plan when when we got the plan for TRC review. We we included Department of Transportation in the review. Email I got back was traffic impact analysis is not required. they may need a attorney warrant analysis and that's when I've asked the applicant and the DOT to work together on that. But regardless, any of those improvements would be offsite and which is not the town cannot require off-site traffic improvements per state statute. So based on my review and there was a question about lighting too. Um the lighting plans, they do have a plan, phototric plan. I believe it was prepared by Brunswick Electric. Um showing 30 foot tall lighting within the parking lot allows 40T for non-resident for non-residential and my review of it, it appears that at least the foot candles at the property lines at the street, etc. to be appear to be leakage.

I'm sorry. They're down lights and they don't exceed the candle power over the property line for leakage over their property line on over their property lines. Now, we haven't seen any lighting for that maybe on the building or the canopy, but typically we would get those at the building plan level and then we would assure compliance at that point. Are the fixtures correct? You know, what is how do they direct light and those kind of things? But I believe they're still working on some of the elevations and some of those specifics of the plan. Would they update the lighting plan? Yes. At that time? Yes. If if needed, they would update the lighting plan. Yes.

So based on my review, does it mean my reviews, you know, you ultimately you're the approval authority? I have believe that it complies. Um I did, you know, when they went through the TRC process requested that they include some landscaping. We discussed the the dumpster pad where the dumpster location and so forth. We have a detail here of the enclosure.

Yeah, there's a detail of the enclosure. It's um believe it was with elevations. Um so what I my inspection of the plan it felt is compliant with the code. Ultimately you need to make that decision. And again your role is to review this. It's administrative review. Um you're looking at a approving the plan, denying the plan or approve the code says approved with conditions. But again, the intent of those conditions would be if you found any deficiencies, you condition that those deficiencies are corrected prior to the chair signing off on the plan. Ultimately, I don't have any specific questions or and if not,

any specific questions for R before we bring the applicant up or no?

Applicants's free to present. applicants free to present if they'd like or we'll just move on with our discussion. So, I'm Gail Wallace with Clarendon Properties. We represent Sunset Beach Hospitality LLC. We are the developer. Um, the only thing I would like to add, I'm here to answer any questions that you might have, but I'd like to add really about the subdivision of the of that track of land. So, it's a little over five acres. Um through negotiations with the current owner, we are taking 2.4 acres of that portion. The remainder well it's going to be subdivided into into three portions. Um a portion will go to the uh POA which is is existing the Sunset Beach POA um or the village at Sunset Beach POA which is for the lift station. Um there's no work that will be done on that and the reason they have subdivided that and we're not absorbing that is for a couple reasons. It's being used the lift station is being used for the entire development as well as so there will be no future development. There is that buffer between our property and the sanctuary. Um the the balance of that lot will be future development retail office however however the current owner wishes to develop that property. We have no control over that. Um the access off of Manoray is so that our guests have the ability to enter both from High Market as well as off of Monterey or Chandler's Lane. Um future development will likely tie into that drive lane as well. I guess while we're on circulation, while you're up there, uh,

I guess I had a question. We have that driveway. Wait, I got too many pieces of paper now. You We have that driveway. Find my pink one off to the right hand side there that goes into uh C5. Yeah, on C5. Proposed private access drive. So, that's going through off your property line into track three. that one acre site. So that show me where you're talking. C5 this. Yeah. Okay. Mhm. How are you putting that there? That's not You said this is this track. We have an easement. There's an You have an easement to that with with the current property owner? Yes, sir. Mhm.

Existing actually. It's already existing. So you have an easement to build that there and use that for ingress and egress. That's correct.

Okay. So, sorry I jumped in. We'll start with Kevin. Any questions for the applicant? The biggest question I had and one of the uh public comments was the whole internet problem in Sunset Beach and would we have any stuff done by the hotel people as far as internet upgrades or as far as coverage because that is an issue. Are you asking if if the the owner um intends to upgrade the internet that's available to the town of Sunset Beach?

Possibly. Yeah. That certain certainly was not our intention. Okay. Nothing else right now. Um a couple of questions for you. One is um to say thanks for doing the buffer along Privateeer Loop. Um, and would it be possible to extend those plantings north to to extend them up to where it would intersect the parking lot? Um,

yeah, I had the same question. I think it the hedges you built there are quite nice. You got the uh the whole row of the wax myrtles and then you've gone to the Nelly Steven Holly which are going to be dense and tall and grow pretty fat. But likewise, I just noticed to the right of that I think that's Stuart. Is this where you're at? You have a gap. Yeah. You gap the hedge there. Uh, and I guess what we're asking, would it be would you be willing to maybe I think you need maybe five or six more probably wax myrtles there. So you got to height up height. So you go sidewalk to sidewalk. You want to look at my picture to see. No, I'm what I'm talking about.

No, no, I understand. Because you got a sidewalk to the left where the wax myrtles end. Then in the middle around the pool area, you go with the higher denser uh Nelly Holls. Mhm. which would be good. It'll provide a good hedge there. But then you kind of leave an opening and I believe behind there that's kind of the back of those houses. Mhm. So there's a you might need I guess I was kind of figure you might need another five or six wax myrtles there to complete that hedge to the sidewalk. And of course not in the parking lot just that little gap there. I don't any issue you doing that? No, our the

if you want to look at my picture before you say anything, you can you can see what I'm asking for. Our landscape plan is to meet the UDO requirements, right? Our intent is to embellish upon the the existing plan. So, we want to be good neighbors that,

you know, we're we have no intentions of of causing, you know, hardship to to the folks that are currently existing as well as any future development that that will happen here at the village. Um, we we intend to embellish the landscape plan and and we will make sure that between the hotel and the the back what we'll call the back side of of the hotel uh the pool side of the hotel and the neighbors behind us that they're comfortable with plantings that are there.

And may I pick up on that real quickly? Miss Wallace just mentioned their intent was the landscape plan to show compliance with the UDO. They could have and there was conversation should they even remove those wax myrtles and Ellie Holl's Ron that you were just mentioning on the plan because that showed because they weren't required to do that and my conversation with them I asked them to at least keep those on there they did take the foundation plings off but asked them to show that so they are proposing something between them and right and the town homes to the west now we can't enforce it but if they commit to doing it are they doing it if they commit to doing are they doing it still is not a requirement

but it is but ultimately could be your approved plan so that's kind of where it goes but they are not required to put foundation plannings they're not required to put streety yard planning and they are not required to put that buffer there um but I felt like it was important to keep those that buffer shown on your plan even though it was not a comp even though it was not required by your code right all that's technically required correct

is the internal parking lot uh plantings which I looked at and appear that they did meet all those requirements or exceed it. So anything they that hedge row which I'm requesting goes from sidewalk to sidewalk is optional other than they're stating publicly they correct intend to do it. Correct. But can't be compelled to do it. Correct. Correct.

Correct. Um had another question which was um so currently if this gets built like it is and hotel residents want to travel to pedestrian traffic want to travel to the east. Um there's no sidewalk for them to walk on to get to the restaurants or shops. How would y'all feel about extending the sidewalk along the high market so that the hotel residents would have

We We won't own that property. Um that would be something, you know, that a future development would tie into. Um I would suspect. Um is it conversation that we can have with the current owner? Um where we do it at the same time and they pay for it. I'm happy to have that conversation with Kelly. Right. Is your sidewalks currently going to the I guess would be the east property line? Yeah. Goes to the east and also in front of the parking spots that you're using. Correct. Shared. So all your shared parking spots have sidewalk in front of them. Correct. It's the extended piece there that Kelly still owns.

Controls that is again as if Richard was here. would say it's a sidewalk to nowhere because it just ends in grass which is yeah just nobody likes but you don't own the property unless the property owner there allows you to do it and then whatever financial yeah what other financial agreements between you and that property owner says yeah I eventually want a sidewalk there in the future so if we put in it now I'll pay share in the cost and that's just between you and whoever that property owner is right and they don't know how they're going to develop it at this point, right? So,

yeah. All right. Um, one last quick question. The pool in the back Mhm. is there are hours of operation for the pool. Is it cut off or is it There will be hours of operation. We are not the operators, so I can't tell you exactly what those are. Um, you know, the pool's not open all night long. Um, but I at this time cannot tell you that they'll be closing the pool at 9:00, at 8 o'clock, but it's not open all night long. Okay. And are there lights back there?

There will have to be some lighting, of course, obviously. Um, you know, and we'll work with health department uh because that is the the swimming pool is um permitted through the health department um and whatever their uh foot candle requirements are, we'll meet those. Okay. And I think on the Well, you do indicate a masonry enclosure at this time, but uh you'll obviously have to where we're on comply with state code on what the fencing and that's that's the state rag on the fencing and the enclosure. Yes. State code and as long as the town as well as the pounds code around swimming pools. But yes,

what do we what do we require? Uh it has to be at least 4 foot in height. Um, what about as far as materials and things? You don't specify materials or I'd have to I didn't find it. So, right. But we'll get that more details when it comes for the building plan. Building. Mhm. Right. As well as the any lighting associated with the pool as well. Right.

Okay. That's all my questions for the developer. One to you, Ron. Uh I guess some questions which you may or may not want to answer. I guess back to the traffic thing. So someone is your engineer or somebody's working with NC DOT. We reached out to them. They indicated with our plan that has been presented a traffic study is not required. Now, they may require an additional a traffic plan be done when Kelly presents or her her um owner presents additional development, but as far as the hotel goes, so there is no scope sent to NC DOT at this point. That's correct.

With the peak trips per in a peak trips per in a peak hour trips per day, right? Their re their review their review was that at this time a traffic analysis was not required. um future development could then trigger um a a traffic impact be done study be done. To answer your scoping question, they look at they saw 109 unit or 109 rooms proposed and then they they plug in their in their analysis the trip generation it trip generation whatever version whatever most most whatever they're using now and we don't know those numbers.

I don't have those numbers but is it 100 trips at between eight and nine and 100 trips between four and five? We don't have those numbers, but it but regardless is what does DOT require and they have told me via email that they were did not they were not requiring a traffic impact analysis because it did not meet the thresholds to to expand on what Miss Wallace just mentioned. They did indicate indicate to me that as the future development occurs, they may be requiring a traffic impact analysis for that. Mhm.

Um they were they were more interested in what is what is what is Miss um Stewart's future plans if you will for that property than than what this hotel was they continue to build they may have to submit something may have to be something to see separate to NC do see how it affects their state roads correct see if they're but and then they would be included in that as existing correct uh capac or existing uh load correct correct um the only thing related through the hotel that I heard from the DOT was maybe a turning warrant analysis would be required. I asked specifically will one be required and never got a specific answer. So that's why I've asked and I did not either

and that's why I've asked I've then tried to put Miss Wallace and the DOT together to hope to figure out what would be and even then they were saying there might be there may be some offsite improvements necessary if a turn lane had to be put in or if even just some I'm going to even say some road edging work or something and if so were there any you know any easements needed and those kind of things. Again, that was not something the town can require because it's offsite and there are DOT roads, but at least I did try to put them put the two parties together.

Okay. So, sticking to roads since they're manta ray lane way drive, whatever it's called that the connection between that and the sanctuary. I was here when we did now the sanctuary was preudo chain. So, sanctuary roads are private roads to the sanctuary and their PA. Correct. They will they are not town roads and manta ray whatever it is inside the mud is private roads too correct so they're free to control traffic the way they want right

I mean it's not up to the town so if the POA in either group because I remember I think we kind of talked about it when we did sanctuary we thought it was beneficial to connect that property to the mud so they don't have to go out on the whatever the road is there 904 to get from their homes into the shopping area but it's free for them to decide otherwise at any time we'd have to look yes I mean they they control their roads whether or not you're suggesting can they put a gate up or some type of other barrier I'd have to have to really look at our code I don't know that our code allows gated communities and and gates barriers

um but can some softening occur narrowing of right of ways some type of you know traffic calming device calming I don't want to get specific well speed humps I think that we had to work with the fire department on that maybe so but can some other type of can something but I guess traffic calic measure be inst other than restrictions that we would have to look at to see because they're both privately owned it's up to the owner of the to decide. Two owners have to work together.

Two owners have to work together to control that. Uh whether like you say they want to put a little circle there or some sort of narrowing or or sever. Uh but that's not not up to the town at all. It's up to the owners

of the roads on either side. hopefully it would come to and I will have to admit when I was here when we're doing the sanctuary we thought it was a benefit and I don't rem I would have to look back at the original sanctuary plans which I no longer have whether they had it there originally and we and I don't remember and not because we thought it would be a benefit to not make people go out onto 904 to get through and of course I'm sure they all agree that's a good idea now except they don't want anybody else to use it that I don't know but I don't believe you we we we can't do that or you also have a fire code yeah for access to

access more than I think two at least two entrances and exits are required for a division more than 100 or 100 or more residential units right so they did they need that for the fire they have another they have two others I'd have to go back and look they have two others already I think okay I so hopefully they can both sides work that out to a perfect solution. Uh the only other and the other thing on landscaping I know you sit there you're going to have to smile. Any way to get any more trees? I I uh I guess maybe you can talk to your I got to find the landscaping plan. C9.

Which one? C9. I'm glad you're keeping my index. you know, obviously you're not we don't because there was no trees there. You don't have to replace any, but I certainly again on C9 in the rear of the building along what would be line I don't know what's underneath there. E13 going across there might be a two to the left of the pool and one to the right of the pool. A spot for two more or three more live oaks. But but I real I know there was none there that you need to replace and I don't know what a live cost. couple. I'm sure it's hundreds of dollars, but uh

well, my response is that we will take a long hard look at the landscape plan and um obviously we want our property to look nice um and and be comfortable and be inviting um for our guests and and also be aesthetically pleasing to the development itself as well as our neighbors. Right. Well, that would be a suggested. It would be appreciated if you look cuz obviously the view from the residential area they would see the hedges hedge up down and then that's years ahead there could be a couple of higher trees above it. So you get that layered height look and then the building of the hotel is back there. I think it would be a beneficial more a pleasant look.

Appreciate the suggestion. So I suggest that you at least look because we love trees here. So three more live oaks would be nice. appreciate Lisa. Don't get too consternated over there. Okay, I think that's all the questions I had. Okay, just one thing wasn't discussed, but it brought it brought up a public meeting, a public comment period. Thank you. Um, someone questioned water pressure. Yeah, that's

and I just wanted to mention that the water there is provided by Brunswick County and the applicant is working with Brunswick County um for water and sewer and so forth. So, they have to comply with whatever Brunswick County requirements are. Yeah. And there'll be fire testing and things to make sure the pressure is good for, you know, put out fires and those kind of things as well.

Yeah. The chief talked to him about that having all the fire uh pressure testing for the fire. Yeah. All the well the storm water and water is the county obviously internet and cable services focused broadband which is a private company co-op or whatever and of course electric and lighting is Brunswick electric corporations control that so all we can do in some of those is guide to a good solution.

Okay. So, barring any other questions, our choices we need a motion on are well, three as he said. Let me get to the right page here if I can find it. The ABC thing. I moved it around. Sorry for the delay. somewhere here. I have to read that thing off.

What's up? You don't have a consistency statement if that's what you're looking for. Yeah, that's what I'm looking for. You don't need You don't need a consistency statement for the site plan approval or There's not one. There's not one. There's not one. No, I could tell you I can read you what the code says. Um, okay. I'm sticking out of the Okay. So, yeah. So, then we need a motion either to vote to approve, vote in an I, or vote with any required compliance changes, which at this point I don't see. So,

and do you mind if I read you what the code says? Yes. Just included the record. So, so it says I'm looking um in the in the UDO the planning board shall review the major site plan and written recommendations of UDO administrator and the TRC if applicable prior to approving, denying or conditionally approving the site plan. If the site plan submitted otherwise meets all of the standards of the ordinance, the planning board shall approve such. And so that's why I go back again and say approval denial or approval of conditions. But those conditions need to be based on deficiencies that you may have revealed may have been revealed through the conversation or through your own review of the plan. We're not talking about conditions of that are outside the code.

So right now I don't see any deficiencies. I don't we have some ask that they're seem to be willing to entertain. Right. So, I guess I'll make the motion uh to approve. Any seconds? Second. Make a roll. Uh, all in favor, Kevin. I deny. Steuart. I'm in favor. I approve. Approves. Two one.

Two to one. Yes. Okay, thanks everybody. I guess we'll take a couple minute break here to allow applicants and stuff to mosey off if they choose. You all can choose to stay. Our next topic is parking. I wouldn't have mind asking the applicant what was would have been the optimal parking space number for this property 109.

Thank you. Now that everyone has departed that hood, our next item on the agenda, which was old business 6.6 six and 6.1 is the proposed disc uh text amendment on parking. So, back to Ron again. Do we have uh to to go through his staff report on that?

Um don't have much detail to go into, but we did meet last month. Actually, we talked about a couple months. Last month, we went through a proposed draft of um removing the minimum parking standards for nonresidential developments based on the direction from this board in previous conversations. Um you guys brought up several things, several corrections, edits, as well as um some other items. So, I've hopefully included all of them in the revised draft language and I highlighted them in yellow in your um attachment A that I can just go over if you want me to go that much detail.

No, but I guess uh I guess I want to disclose to the other two me there's a couple things that Ron included that I sort of initiated. So, just want to call that out. to uh your attention. I did change a few of the numbers in the nonresidential parking uses table and he he has shown them like crossed out and then a new number in red with yellow. Wondered where that came from. That came from me because in reviewing these I thought we needed to give cuz these become a maximum or allowable, right?

That some of these uses needed a bit more headroom then so we can talk about it. What kicked it off on mine mostly was the where I started looking at it was the dry cleaner, believe it or not. even though because if you look at the it's the bottom of the table uh on page 14 of the staff report the the way it was written you get one space for 200 square ft of area used by the public and I'm thinking of a dry cleaners I don't go a lot tiny

right usually the front area is a little a little uh counter and it it's probably a 100 square so you get one spot you kind of need. So I gave them a little head more headroom in that they get a space for each hund. So if they got a little 12 by 12 area, they potentially get two spots if you do the rounding and everything. So that's how I got into changing a few of these. Let's see if I can figure out which ones I did. We did I did the Oh, eating establishments.

Yeah, I did the dry cleaning laundry from 200 to 100. I did the eating establishments from 200 to 150 because I was thinking a four topper table is usually is about 12 by 12 or 10 by 10 or so square foot covers a four topper. So to give them headroom to that and oh the health services I changed that they get one spot for 200 instead of 300 because it seemed like to me that we have a the aging community needs a lot of health services and I think you need parking spots close to health services. So, I didn't want to constrict them too much on their top end because I think if you're in need of health services, you're not going to be bicycling over there or walking, you may be inclined to use. So, there's a that spot I included I storage facility which I can from 100 to only 50 some parking spots. So, a small changes and my thought there was a little more headroom because we are this is now a cap. The table's allowable plus they're 20% extra and that's a cap. They can't. So, I didn't want to make it unusable by that and I can be had on disagreement on some of those. And the other one that Ron added that was kind of chairman uh initiated was on page 18 P. When a site is developed with a number of parking spaces of 100 square foot each, we prescribe the size less than the allowed off- streetet parking numbers in the table. 50% of that area from the undeveloped parking space shall be reserved as landscape open space that is in addition to setbacks buffer yard

screening interior parking areas required elsewhere in the serve in a code reserve landscape area so it'll be separately tabulated on a site plan and delineated with crosshatching. So my thought there is we we have the 8% already and you have to just as we seen today a developer has to take 8% of their parking areas and landscaping and it's very specific. We can't change that number because that would probably run a follow state law that would be downzoning. So, I chose this approach because I think it complies I think I'm highly confident that it complies with the not a down zone because we're asking for the area that we freed up by this upzoning that they they don't have to build as many spots and taking 50% of that as landscaped open space. the other 50% they can do as they want extra building or whatever. So that to me is still an up zone.

Yeah. Well, I'm comfortable with it not meeting the down zoning criteria. So I'm comfortable with that with the approach. I chose 50% because it was just like splitting what you got. But then I thought to myself, should it be 58%. Because if we made them put it there, they would have had done 8%. But then I'm thinking we're kind of want to entice them to build less spots, leave less open ground. And yeah,

told Ron to put it uh is 50% seemed reasonable. You know, they won't be required to build as much spot. They do that a portion of it they can use for their beneficial use and half of it we take not take half of it we get used for permeable surface and landscaped areas etc. So, it seemed like it was a good upzone tradeoff. And the la one other thing I got for Ron 3.33b, if you go back, I think we have to change the some words there because it says required and it needs to change to occurs. It's not in the parking section. It's 3.33b.

So, it's not in the session.

Yeah, it's not in this. It's in the next section. I think that has to be corrected. If we do this, that also has to be corrected. Let's see if I can find 3.33.B pedestrian facilities. Yeah, I'm currently on my page 121, but it could be different. The last sentence says redevelopment or change of use of existing non-residential or multifamily structures does not require the installation of sidewalks except where the addition of five or more parking spaces is required. I think the word is required needs to be replaced occurs. Basically what that says we're saying if you put five spots in you got to put a sidewalk in front of it.

Sure. And because we say now is required when are no longer required that if they occur they have to do it. So I think that you see where it's at. Yes sir.

Okay. So that's the changes I induced the staff to make. So any questions or comments on that or anything Kevin or Stuart whoever? And and one other let me just add on in the table we have for eating establishments and maybe one other use the the drive-throughs queuing for drive-throughs. I did add language there just to make it clear that those the queuing was not subject to the elimination of minimum parking standards. So that was my attempt to make sure that that was clear that you if you have a drive-thru you still have to have x amount of spaces for that queuing. I hope you guys saw that in your in your revised Yeah. And that that's important to have in there, too.

Yeah. Because to me, someone could certainly have read it and said, "Well, if this ordinance is approved, oh, we don't have to put in these queuing spaces now."

Right. Right. So, um, I kind of went down a rabbit hole when we started talking about all this landscape stuff. And so I did a case study of and I took a half acre lot and put a building on it and came up with how many parking spaces, made up some um businesses that would be in there and then just kind of went through current code and then what if we eliminated the parking because I was just curious what realistically what were what were we going. And so my building initially was 4,800 square ft with um I think it was 26 parking spaces and after I eliminated the parking requirement, the building went up to 6,000 square ft and the parking went down to 17. And what happened is so the building got 25% larger but the landscape requirement went down because it's related to the pavement that they build. So my my comment and I was emailing with Ron about, you know, how can we capture some of that back and then you had the language about the 50% and then I applied that to my case study and it worked. The 50% thing worked. So I felt really good that we kind of did an example of you know what are we actually doing to

so applying that language in paragraph P I think it was. Yeah, the building could not go up to that size cuz they'd have to reserve No, it it still could go up to 6,000 square ft, but the landscaped area wound up being in the back of the building. But regardless, you still got additional landscaping. You still got a additional landscaping. Um less impervious surface ultimately, I would assume. And actually the total impervious went down

even though the building got bigger because and just so you know the parking space that you're saying is 162 square ft in the industry we count half the lane also but I'm fine with just using the 162. Yeah. I just went through our definitions was a 17 by9. Right. But I guess what he's saying is you don't if you don't have the space you don't have to have the drive out to get there. That's right. So that but I think the numbers work right. We used to use 300 square feet as a a rule of thumb. You know that's for a parking space.

Would we run a file change in that size to including some of that? I don't I don't think because messier make that larger than it looks with the definitions and yeah I think we ought to just leave it because it's easily definable because that's our parking space size and how much if we had it 58% as opposed to 50 would have picked up just a few more square feet. Well, it would have it still would have worked. Um even we'd only pick up a little more. Yeah, another 8% of whatever was saved. Right. That's I went back and forth between 50% and 58%.

I think the 50s because I think we want again the concept is to encourage them to build less asphalt, right? Yeah. And they still probably wouldn't over build their building if they didn't need it. Right. Because there cost a 6,000 foot building costs more to build than a 4,800 foot building. That's right. If they don't feel they need it, say they only think they optimal is 54, that's what they would build. That's right. And there still be more left over for grass.

That's right. That's right. Um, so the only thing I had, the only question I had about that P section is it says shall be reserved as landscaped open space. So what is the landscape standard? I mean, if they have an acre open space and they plant one shrub in the middle of it, is that landscaped open space? That's not defined. I mean, I think that what is you what is what are you trying to accomplish? More trees or just or grass or I mean, I know you don't want necessarily rocks and don't want rocks. impervious materials like 57 as

can we can we tie it to when we say that tie it to another part of our code. Yeah. Like the buffer sort of like a cross reference, right? Yeah. Should be landscape like you know a subdivision buffer or something or a residential buff. I mean I mean buffers are really intense. So if you try and apply that to this whole area, right? cuz it says so basically right the way it say we do nothing to that they could just have grass that's landscape which is not bad right it is landscape it's landscape but if we would like can we have any other minimalist thing we can tie them to to say okay few bushes and a tree here would be nice but

or how about we tie it to the other parking lots requirements looking at parking facility landscaping right now um like an island has to have minimum 8 feet in width, no less than 100 square feet. Each island should contain at least one tree and six shrubs. So why don't we apply to that that they have to do at least one tree and six shrubs.

And the 8 foot width might work too that the 50% of it has to meet that standard.

I'll just reference that standard in the landscaping. What I'll tell you from experience is that I I've had a bunch of landscape architects that saw some of these rules about open space and so they created little one-ft strips all over a subdivision that met the open space, but you couldn't actually do anything in there. It just wound up being an exercise and, you know, being a, you know, a pain. Um, so I like the 8ft width, you know, that actually makes it wide enough to actually landscape. And if they want to have the other 50%, you know, as rocks or whatever, I guess they they can do that or ground cover or what whatever type of ground cover,

right? I'll either reference that section. I I just need to set I want to look at code flow, how how it flows. Or I may specifically add if it's if it's ultimately see what you guys vote on add the 8 foot minimum, one tree, eight shrubs. May I'll see which works best. Yeah. I just wonder if you know if it's a really large area. Yeah, that's what I want to look at is one tree and six shrubs. Is that really per how many square feet? Yeah. So, I'm wondering if we could do it per square how however many square feet. If you have a peninsula is 144 square feet, right? Yeah.

And it has to be at least eight feet wide and there's whatever how many trees and so however many I mean 162 square feet per would work, right? You should you don't you tie it to that size of space. But if you got 10,000 square feet of this open space and now they're going to have to plant 5,000 square foot. Well, they're not. That's unlikely because that means you got a huge lot and a little building. Well, it could happen because you could have lots that have unusable space in the back or something like that. Sometimes it depends on tree species as well, like a live oak as an example, which I think it would be preferred type tree, right?

You need a lot more growing room. for it to properly grow than you would say some other smaller story an eight foot wide strip right that might be a crepe myrtle right well like to me well it's again there's a good catch though what what is the standard I can play with that a little bit bring it back or you guys want to just give me the liberty to move it forward to council well ultimately you know you got to make a decision today on whether you whether you pro approve approved, deny or or or continue. Right.

So I guess so on this point what we're saying in paragraph P we want to make sure everybody understand what we're saying is on a per 162 foot or so square foot basis of the reserved extra area. We would like that landscaped in accordance with the internal parking lot standards essentially. Right. because we have an internal parking lot landscaping standard. Yes.

So basically based on the 8 foot those approximate dimensions we want them to add trees or shrubbery or other landscaping likewise. Is that what we're saying? So Ron has proper guidance.

Right. So talk specifics if I referenced that B the the what I read earlier. It says each island shall be it's talking about a landscape islands. So like think at the end of a parking row landscape island minimum 8 ft in width and no less than 100 square feet. So we're talking 62 square feet more in this scenario. And that said each island shall contain at least one tree and eight shrubs. It gives you know specific heights and so forth. So you should be able to plant and then so what I'm looking at is per 162 square feet divided by 50%. Right.

Right. So what I think what to achieve what I'm hearing you say is the eight one tree and eight shrubs per that 52 per that per that area based on a square foot basis. Right. So what if it's three or four or five different areas? Are they they're going to get hit with that? I think we're looking at a cumulative. So I don't know that it has to be spread out. It could be okay cumulatively I come up with 3,000 square feet or so I need to plant 1500 square feet throughout. Right.

And and this would require them to crosshatch where that area is. Right. So I don't think they have to necessar they could group it or they could disperse it. Right. All right. So if we made that clear enough that your direction is clear to me. I think I still need to do some some think about how to order it in the code. I know you don't always like to I know sometimes you want to see which ultimately what you're voting on. I try to put something together real quickly. Okay. Anything else? Evan, any thoughts, questions? Clear on this landscaping extra. I think we're good on that.

Okay. So, I guess the question is for the board. Do we feel we have given Ron enough direction to authorize this uh action a on this text amendment such that he can finalize it and bring it to the council? I think so. And I kind of like for it to move forward so that the hotel doesn't have to go into a shared parking agreement. That's just they can. They're already there. So be

I know, but it's just an extra document has to get recorded and all that other stuff. This would just cuz they're not part of this 50% thing. They're just part of us saying MUD doesn't have to to meet it. So, I'd hate for it to not move forward and might make their license. The point is again to uh spur some further especially in the overlay district I guess some further economic development. We don't want I mean the point to where we started is we don't want exorbitantly high required minimum parking to dissuade people from looking at a site in our non-residential districts.

Right. uh that now they have an opportunity to look at it and see if it fits their needs and better and then in doing so we get some more shade trees and some more pvious ground and as opposed to asphalt. Yeah. With stripes on it that stay empty all day other than get wet and heat up. Right. Right. So that's where So yes, I guess I'd like to push it to council unless we think we need to see the final version. Yeah. I don't I don't feel like I think we can trust Ron and Lisa to uh to do this. So,

motion to approve. Well, so we we need a motion to go to action A with the recommended comments to staff for corrections and additions. Do I have such a motion? A motion. Any second? Second.

Okay. Okay. So, let me read action A. The planning board hereby recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the unified unified development ordinance with the suggestions as stated today and find that it is one with that it is one with the town's I think it's compliant with the town's compre consistent with the town's comprehensive plan the two 2017 land use plan as the policy states regarding economic development velment and environments tend to generally support the idea of no parking minimums for non-residential development. And two, that is in the public interest because the amendment promotes economic development, protects the environment, and supports small business in accordance with goals of the outline in the 2017 land use plan. Uh uh votes hey, yay or nay for action a Kevin?

I yay. I I Ron is I so uh recommending an A carries 320 and I guess I would like a copy of whatever you sent. Yeah, actually just bang something out so I can read it. You already got You can send it to us. I can read it. What what I added was each landscaped open space shall be a minimum of eight feet in width and provide one tree and eight shrubs per 100 square feet. It's a little bit different, but it ties it back to the land to the to the island and it also 50% remember it's 50% of 162, right? So that's 81 square feet.

So it's 81 square feet, but 100 foot was round to me is a good better number to work with. Okay. And you're okay presenting this to council and explain without? Yes, guys. All good with that part. First step will be just trying to get it scheduled for public hearing. I guess they have public hearing then present it to council and then they would

Okay, good. Uh uh any administrative comments? I don't think we got anything else going. The only administrative comment that I have for you is just a heads up that we are finalizing the Majestic Oak Park um major site plan. We have had conversations with KMA and have received verbal approval. Um that will be coming to you hopefully in October. The tree board looked at it on Tuesday and we'll be providing the landscaping plan for the perimeter. Um there's a 10-ft perimeter for landscaping around um the landward side between houses on North Shore in the park.

We're getting nice trees or nice trees. Mhm. Well, uh the plan also includes planting an additional live oak tree that will be gated, fenced as the one is there now. Um with the other amenities we have the bathroom unit was actually scheduled for phase two and we have moved it into phase one as well. Um, so once I have the lighting plan, we were going to go with solar lighting um, in that and we are working on that plan and when the tree board they meet the 18th. I think they meet September 18th and then um, I'll have that landscaping plan. Um, and then it'll be ready to come to you all. Guess the goat. Is that the one on the island?

Yes, sir. That's uh, guess a question. Any update? Do we have a new member? Any protection of new members? We do. The town council should appoint um a new member at the September 8th meeting. So that member then would be sworn in on our September whatever date meeting, right? Oh, good. Okay, very good. Anything else, guys? You're good.

I'm good. Uh public comments. This period is public comment on anything even outside the agenda. Anyone like to speak? Same rules. Three minutes. Name, address, and go ahead. Oh, okay. Hearing no comments. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? Uh before we adjourn, we got a public We have a comment. I'm sorry about that. September 18th is I will not be here. I don't know if we can move that meeting, but I cannot be here on the 18th of September. I just want to make sure you have a think Richard Rich will be back.

Richard will be back and we should have the new member then. So, we should be okay. Okay. Assuming no matter where you're at vacation, you'll be watching us on YouTube. Yes. Good. Stuart, anything else? Nope. Motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. Second. All in favor? Thanks everybody.