Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, good morning everyone. Let me call to order the regular planning board meeting of July 17, 2025. Seeing that we have a quorum, call order and stand for the pledge of allegiance. 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. Amen.

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? If so, please state so at this time. Richard. Nope. Kevin. Uh, no. I do not. I do not.

Okay. None. Uh, the first order of business is to amend or approve the agenda. I guess I'll start off. I want to make a motion to add two subcategories to the agenda to section seven on administrative comments. Uh move to add a 7.1 which is the election of vice chair since we have all people available today to vote and item 7.2 to get an update from staff on the land use plan plan. Since from seeing uh a recent council action, we may have some changes in direction on that or so kind of bring those who I don't know if everybody watched the meeting or not. So you kind of know, but just kind of a little summary where we're at, where we're going. So I move that we add those two items. Anybody second on that?

Second. All in favor? I. Anybody? No. No. No. Any other changes to the agenda? Uh, do we get can we get an up I I don't know in the last month Ron you shared with us that we thought we were going to have the hotel plat. Is that can we get an update on that or is that we get moot just add it to the end of the agenda or 7.3. Yeah. Yeah, we could add that as 7.3 an update on upcoming plants in general. Let's do it that way. Yeah, that would be good. Okay. All in fa uh anybody second that I second. All in favor? I I no nays.

So we can uh I guess in general approve the agenda as amended. I move. Second. All in favor? I I Okay. The first item of business on here is approval of the draft minutes from our 619 uh 25 meeting. Any comment or suggested changes from everyone or a motion to approve?

I I I just want to make one comment in the in the tail end of this and I feel perhaps that um I've been remiss. you know, it asked for us to come here with ideas and written comments about the land use plan. Um, I mean, I'd happily submit those, but did not see that requirement as part of the minutes. I'm sure they're part of the minutes. I just want to want to state that. Yeah, it's at that last paragraph.

La last paragraph. Um I mean I think given the update in terms of the land use plan and uh what we learned from the meeting yesterday that'll be part of the discussion at the administrative comments but um we will and would happily submit uh some of some of my comments that are embedded in these minutes. I might be mood at this point, but the I think the point I was trying to make is is write the things down and be Yes. specific I guess. Yeah. Which I'll happily in the next area which I think is captured in the minutes properly. Yes, it is.

Any other comments or changes? Anybody want to make the motion to adopt as published? I so move. Second. Second. All in favor adopting these minutes as published. I I

no nays. Okay, the minutes are adopted. Thanks, Kim. Excellent job as usual. Okay, any uh public comments concerning items on the agenda, I guess, including items that we've modified the agenda. Any public comments? None at this time. There'll be a second period later. New business for today. is the UIO text amendment concerning section 3.32 parking standards. I will have first Ron give us a summary of his staff report, but I guess I want to like establish some ground rules for today. The way I want to go through this, we'll first have Ron give his review. I'm sure we've all read this stuff, but I kind of want to break up our thought process or discussion into three things. First, we have the concept of what we're trying to do uh that Ron will review. In our previous meetings, we discussed the framework of how we're doing it. And then lastly, the numbers. We need to in my mind first agree on the concept because if we don't then the rest becomes moot and then the framework. I basically saying I don't want to get into lengthy discussion before we approve the concept and framework on the numbers argue over about how many spaces per square foot of x use until we get to the point of yes we're good on the concept we're good on the framework in the end we'll have to look at some numbers but I guess I just don't want to get bogged down on arguing over a number for use until we get to the point that that's the last thing to do which we will have to do. I'm not saying we're not.

Would it be preferable to have a motion embedding that structure? Yeah. I think we all agree. No. Okay. Right. Well, that's it. I mean, because in my mind, we the numbers become not relevant unless we agree on the concept of what we're trying to do. Yeah. First of all, I agree.

And then we agree on the basic framework that Ron has presented here. And if that's good, then we may need to have a discussion on a numbers or in my thought if it gets to be too wide, we may have to have a little subcommittee set up between now and the next meeting to work on the numbers. But we'll see where we go on at the end. So Ron, two you kick us off on uh what we're trying to do and how we're trying to do it.

Sure. I'm glad to. And this is coming this what I've got before you is how I interpreted our conversation for the last two meetings, two or three meetings, however, however many talked about it. Um, as we left at last, as I recall, is there was interest in amending the code to not require parking minimums specifically for commercial developments. And so that was the that was you I'm summarizing the conversation. It was lengthy conversation. I'm just kind of summarizing that. That was the the the the to use your word concept of framework Ron that I was trying to to capture in this ordinance. I'm not saying that it's exactly right, but it is what I what I thought the conversation was going towards. All right. So, just a little bit of overview has been this has come in a result of conversation planning board and basically you guys have asked staff to come forward with an amendment to eliminate parking minimums. Um as you know, town of Sunset Beach has had parking minimums and maximums like most communities. um in in the southeast region of North Carolina as well as in the state as well as local government across the country. I will say that a lot of there are there is a movement among the planning profession to eliminate parking minimums throughout the country. Um so you know so it is it is gaining ground. You a lot of times people would um have parking places because they felt like they had to have x amount of spaces for the day after Thanksgiving and the Black Friday. Well, shopping has changed with online shopping and stores open 24 hours, you know, in some instances, you know, so it's not as that's not as prevalent. You you can go black on Black Friday, that day after Thanksgiving, and go to your large scale retail centers across the country and take pictures of vacant parking lots. You know, they're not as full as they used to be. So, um, so what we've done here is tried to provide some some standards or some reasons why to eliminate minimum parking

standards. Certainly could help improve the tax space because it makes more property available for economic development if you don't have to have your code doesn't require one parking space for every 200 square feet of retail area as an example. Um, land is finite. It's not we're not going to create we're not g gain any additional land. A lot of times parking is not the highest and best use of property. It it puts a financial burden on businesses and residential as well um because they have to buy more property to put in more parking spaces. They have to put in more infrastructure. They have to pave the parking spaces. They have to put in more storm water and other features to to to treat that that asphalt. Um it can hamper redevelopment in small businesses. Uh, and what I mean by that is sometimes we'll have a you somebody said, "Hey, I would like to open up a business in this that building there. Let's say that building only has six parking spaces, but the use by the chart says they have to have 12 parking spaces." We can't allow them to go there. But then this then we have a building that sits derelict and not used and so forth. So that's what that's what that purpose of that is. Certainly it could impact the cost of housing even though we're not touching housing in this proposal. Um, parking spaces do require money to be built and so if you're if you're in a situation where we needed more affordable housing. Um, so it adds to those costs. Um, acquiring parking can encourage town tear downs of buildings and businesses which result in cost on desired building and site design and impacts the the environment. see it a lot of times in an urban area where and some this doesn't necessarily apply to Sunset Beach, but I'm talking more in general downtown somebody wants to build a business and if the town was or the city is requiring um additional parking, well, the only way for that is tear down the the house next door, the building next door so they can put in parking space. Um we need to be planning for people and not for cars.

Um, and this is an older figure 20 dating about 2018, but in the United States there are about two billion parking spaces for about 250 million cars. I'm sure that's increased a little bit since then. Um, less impervious surface which can certainly have environmental impacts better you know improve environmental impacts heat from the heat perspective from a opportunities for green space and tree protection etc. So that's the concept of reasons why we should even be thinking about this. So amendment what I tried to do was um go through the entire section 3.32. apologize if I missed something. And Ron, I don't know if if you just want to kind of go through each one of these changes that I'm that's been identified or or how you want to do that, but um

well, first I guess why don't we

let me let me let me summarize it real quick and we can then if you guys want to go line by line, we can do that. So what I tried to do was come anywhere I felt like it was parking again with a goal to based on this direct direction from this board to to eliminate minimum parking standards for commercial. Um I tried to address what I felt like were points in the current code that would help achieve that. Um so you'll see in some instances full sections or paragraphs eliminated section D. Um we have you know following tables and we have broken out the table instead of one table there's I think three tables now um the first table is 3.4 I've labeled 3.4A 4 a minimum all park off all street parking spaces required. You'll see I've eliminated three of those colleges. I felt like majority of those if not all of those standards were for commercial related to businesses or non-residential uses. If I missed that, please let me know during our conversation. Uh table 3.4B uh preserves the residential minimum required parking and then table 3.4 4C is entitled um it's for our non-residential uses and it will say allowed all street parking schedule for non-residential uses instead of saying maximum parking would just say these are this is what allow is allowed and it was intended to you'll see it's kind of hard to read in the shading here but there's a little asterk beside the word parking on that column on page 12 and at the bottom of the table.

Yeah, it occurs. It actually occurs just before section E. It popped to the top of the next page on print out.

Yep. Sorry. We'll head over see section 3.3 32D2 for maximum allowed parking space. So the intent there was instead of going through each one of this uses in the column and try to determine what the maximum parking space is. This is identified to say okay this this is not minimums but your maximums is going to be this times the the 20%. That's the intent of all that. And the reason why I've done it that way is one um in conversations with the chair as a site designer is working on it. We don't if if we say the minimum the maximum is going to be one for every 160 square feet or 100 then that's what they're going to plan for. Um and two I didn't go through change these because I wanted to make sure we're not downzoning anything by the definition of downzoning. So we have to at least allow the same amount of maximum parking spaces we do today at then when we get through this until that definition of down zoning is changed. It has not changed legislatively yet if that makes sense.

Yeah. So, so the intent was not to change the maximum parking spaces that anyone can do today and there then but then then also is to to make it somewhat obvious that they're not required to put in any space. That's why instead of saying required parking, it says allowed parking. Okay. So, we're basically without changing the numbers, we're flipping the mandate from minimum to maximum. Yes, sir. So, again, that was the goal. That's the goal. So again, reviewing the concept the way I see it and Ron correct me if I'm wrong. What we're basically doing one is no change to the residential minimum parking requirement. Right?

So on the residential side, our attempt here is to change nothing on it. The state may override us in some future time and we'll deal a little bit at that point. Uh, one, I think our residential parking minimums have worked fairly well. And again, as we said before, we are a visitor area and visitors have to drive here. So certainly if they rent an apartment or a condo, they need a place to park their car. So right, basic concept number one is we're not touching or trying not to touch residential. Residential. Got it.

For non-residential only, you are correct. We're basically deleting the minimums and flipping it to allowable and a maximum. An allowable being in the table, right? And on the table, they do get to go 20% over the table to hit the maximum. And what Ron was trying to allude to him, we had we went back and forth on it. Do we remove the whole 20% business and just adjust the table, right?

Which is a way to do it. But then if you look at the math it becomes the square foot becomes you know odd ball numbers right. So we decided to leave the table as allowable which would be basic guidance for the designer they would look at the table first right and if the business owner and designer says that works for me we're done. We're done. if they feel like, you know, the table allows me 10 spots, but I really need 12 for my business, they still can they can then hit the 20% and you know and get the two extra spots that way, right?

So that's why we kind of left it that way. Again, this is part of the framework we may want to discuss to do it the other way, but it became oddball numbers on how to figure it out. So that's what he's talking about there is that the planning the designer would look at the table and go my business is a I don't know whatever one you want to pick here whatever do the math and go yep that the owner business say yeah that works I think that's the right number of spots for me or they say hey I need one more and then they say well you could go over so if we add the one more spot we're still within the 20 we're good so we thought that framework would work would work So,

Ron, thank you for bringing up a point that I meant to mention. I did not. Um, is there is legislation out there um that's right now the they're not in session, but I think it could be picked up whenever they come back. Um, that would basically eliminate not not allow any city or county in the state to regulate parking. And in fact, the legislative language actually reads um the zoning or other development regulations shall not do any of the following. Require or otherwise specify the size, the configuration, allocation or number of parking spaces greater than those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. So if that in my understanding has been, let me just verify this real quickly. It's been approved by the Senate in three readings. It's in the House uh with two readings been approved and it's been referred to a committee as of middle June.

Does that only impact ADA spots? No. No. The whole anything but ADA everything. If ADA says you have to have five spaces, then you have to have five spaces. Otherwise, the community is not going to if this bill if this legislation is approved is not going to be able to go against the ADA because that's a federal law. So, right. So, just putting that out there. I did mention in the staff because it has not been passed. Okay. But it has made it through the Senate and it has made it um two votes in in the House instead of committee and if they make changes to it, you know, then I think it ultimately has to revert back to the Senate.

And I guess some would ask and we can decide on that. Should we not bother at all with any of this because it may become move but it may not. But my position on starting this in the first place way back is to me the proof's in the pudding. We don't have much economic development along our economic development corridor. And I was here for the last time we touched this. We touched it before by making it uh lower minimums was to spur development in those areas. And and other than a few spots, it hasn't in my mind hasn't worked. And I just don't think if we want businesses to come, we're getting obviously a lot of people in the area through residents. If we want businesses to serve them, to me the risk should be with the business owner to figure out how many park spots they need.

And I want to set a top end again because of our rain area is to make sure we have we preserve our permeable surfaces, trees, landscaping, etc. Uh not that I don't want to, you know, turn paradise into a parking lot. Right.

Okay. Well, I think, you know, in in Ron's summary, the the the point we're trying to make is we're trying to stop serving cars and stop and start serving people. And where I get a little concerned is, you know, one of the ways that we're going to have to do that going forward in the next five years is to try and push development towards the mud district and away from string development along 179 and 904. So, and parking gets a little because now in a village concept, it's not so much one business has one parking lot. You have a bunch of businesses that are relying on a concentric parking lot to serve them all.

Yeah, that's covered under shared parking. Correct. We had a section on that and that's one of the things here that's because that was a little unclear to me. It's not clear in the code what the parking requirements are for the mud. Right. So, and we've had that conversation with the hotel and the mud owner is or representative is here as well to listen conversation today. But um if this amendment is approved ultimately that concern goes away of course um right and it it makes it real clear that you know we're not looking at each individual parcel has to have x amount of parking space but unfortunately the code I agree the intent of it probably is is they kind of intermingled and so forth but it's not clear in the code.

Okay. Well, and and and also further on that, I think our push over the next period so that the mud district is inter walkable, interconnectability between these areas, right?

I mean, be nice to fill up the mud and have to have businesses go across the street to our side over here as long as there's a safe and easy way to park a car and walk to the other businesses, right? either walk around mud itself, which I think they do all the time, uh, but make sure that it does connect someplace to cross the street to come to this side and all these roads are connected through the sidewalk or multi-use path. I mean, I think that's our long-term goal, not that you have to go to point A, park your car, get out, do something, get back in your car, drive quarter mile to point B,

do it there, get out of your car, get back in your car, go to point. I mean, we'd like to be able to get to a point, and maybe it's not possible. I don't know. We'll see when they look at the plan that they could park a car at the mud or somebody close by and visit a number of the businesses. Yeah. around there and then get back to their car and go back to their condo. Right.

Well, I think you know we look at you know the likelihood of anything being done along 904 which is slim and none and slim is breathing hard. We have to find alternative ways that the inevitable commercial development that's going to happen in Sunset Beach because that's just a fact of life. How do we shape that commercial development to minimize traffic? And the mud district is one way to do that. So, anything that we can do in the parking rags to shape that and push us in that direction, I would support. And I guess what we're saying now is in terms of the shared parking, we kind of have a concept, but we don't really have specific regs for the mud district. Is that fair?

We have shared parking requirements in the current code. Okay. What the current code does not do in my opinion is say specifically in the mud, we're not counting parking spaces per property. Got it. So, okay. property A has to have, you know, so that's what I think the current code fails to do. Okay. If this is amended this way, then that would be a shared then that would be something we would have to address next. Well, no, it would be it would be addressed here with shared parking is updated in paragraph E on page 14. Yeah. And and I looked at that I meant to Ron I was going to pick pick up on that too. So, okay, I did

some respect. Initial thought might have been, okay, if we don't have minimum parking standards for commercial, then do we need a shared parking or an off-site parking standard? But as I was reading it, it doesn't specifically say this is for commercial. There's some implied language in there maybe, but I do believe if someone someone want to put in residential currently and they could show how they could apply with the shared parking or the off-site parking standards, then the town would have to consider that as so that's why that's why I did not callull it out total in this proposal. Okay, if that makes sense.

So, I guess what we're saying is we'll jump off that bridge when we get to it. I mean, I did look at it and say, should we eliminate it or not? But as as I was reading and interpreting the code, I didn't say, "Okay, well, if somebody builds an apartment, they might could potentially use the standards provided they can check all the boxes." Well, my concern is we could find ourselves in terms of peacemeal development in that area that once done would almost prohibit or make difficult a plan that would increase walkability, create a more concentric village concept. So I guess I get a little worried if we don't have the necessary elements in place prior we may end up in a situation where based on submissions that you know we are almost forced to approve we'll we will have lost the opportunity to create that concentric kind of parking that supports a concentric village. pitch format is that it's a long way around the barn. Do you I think I expressed it.

If you specifically come about the mud itself is that you mean I I don't I don't want to find ourselves in a situation where because we've done peacemail things within the mud, we're now unable to do the things that would be necessary to create shared parking and a concentric village concept. Well, I think you're talking about in the mud itself or in the mud, right? Already doing that. Pardon? They're already doing that. Yeah. So, trying to do that. Okay. Yeah. First of all, this ordinance, if it's amended and adopted by council, it would apply to all the commercial districts. Okay.

But the MUD is certainly one of those currently. Um I believe regardless the mud representatives are going to want to make sure that they have they're amply amply part when they're recruiting businesses they have to assure the businesses they're going to have some parking for them and I don't want to speak for them but that's my understanding how things work and businesses want to know okay you're going to have enough parking spaces for us or not they recognize that this is going to be you know somewhat of a tourist area residents too you know but they cars want to come here. Can you adequately park? So, the business owners have they know those numbers when they're recruiting someone. They know those numbers. They're not most of most my experience most time they're not going to put themselves in a situation where they can't provide the parking that want of the businesses that want to come into their complex.

Yeah. Well, and and and I and I understand what you're saying and but it still doesn't address my concern that we could be fortunate enough to have a single business come and want to build in the muds district and say based upon these parking rugs, I need this much parking and now that prevents us or discourages other businesses from joining that first business because now the parking is set in such a way that it really can't now become a concentric village. So if you just drop a restaurant in the middle of the mud district and give them the maximum parking that they're allowed, it may we may be in a situation where now we can't. So I think what we look at is the mud as a district.

Yeah. And as they have businesses that come in, we're looking at a totality. Are they going to ultimately exceed the standard? Because essentially all their non-residential parking is shared, right? Yeah. So a business to say that odd case. I don't know why they would do it, but they would say put your standalone restaurant in the middle of an open space, right?

And they calculate their maximum allow allowable using the shared parking. They already have it or maybe near it already. They wouldn't have to create much of their they probably would want some of their close want to create some close-end parking, but the shared parking is enough. Okay, Kevin, thoughts. I think I mean the bottom line is we're trying to increase development and how do you do that? You don't want to have any parking requirements stopping that development. That's what we're coming down to. So, I'm all in agreement with this right now. Stuart,

I have lots of comments, but just I know we can we can go over the touch. Let's talk the concept first of all. Overall concept, I'm totally for it. Me too, by the way. No,

my big picture comment though is that I'm concerned that if we're just eliminating parking um or reducing the parking requirements, then a developer outside of the mud district may just increase its building size. And so that impervious surface hasn't necessarily changed because we haven't built in any standard for increased landscape requirement. Yes, I agree. I have some notes I have some notes leading to the same thing. So that's

we recently ch we're back another historical I feel like final cabin uh like the five foot setback that we have on here. There used to be a greenway requirement that we took out. [Music]

Uh which I sort of say argued to guess, but I wasn't sure why we did that at but uh so again, yes, I guess I agree. I I would like to well, I would like to trade some of the saved land. A little bigger building might be ex I want to make sure that some of the saved land that would have been asphalt we get more

per surface trees landscaped area and I'm I don't know how to do it here maybe I I made some notes or some notes in that I've had and so obviously this is a lot of my concept so I like the concept obviously pride of authorship first of all so I'm not not going to disclose that but I was concerned are thinking about how we can go to make sure we we are trading. What we really want is most of the required asphalt that we really didn't need goes to either just permeable ground, trees, landscape and maybe slightly bigger building which would increase the tax base and

right more activity. So I'm with you on that is I'm well we we have so it might be someplace else. It might be in our setbacks. It might be in our landscaping requirements. So we may have to open up a whether we do this or not. And I hope we do. We may have to open up another section that you like I say if I remember correctly maybe Lisa remembered when we changed the setback I think to 5t right that what used to be like a setback in a greenway or something and I didn't think about looking up I don't have my notes on this because this was two or three years ago not required

yeah the greenway was taken away because we wanted to lower the setbacks and allow but that was also allowing their based on their existing parking requirements. But maybe we can do we need to re go back and look at that the setback or add the some maybe some part of the greenway back or I got two two things to say about that. First of all, we got to be concerned with project scope creep. Yeah, true.

Second of all, if we do anything that could be considered a downzoning with the current way down zone is defined like increasing landscaping could be interpreted as as downzoning a piece of property think down the way but that that definition is loosely defined now right and is part of that definition any balance is part I'm sure they're part of definition no you got you got no minimum parking requirement because the balance is is they're not weighing right the balance is

you don't say you didn't downzone on balance because you freed up having the pave spots. You freed up on storm water requirements and all we're saying to pay for that is a little more trees and grass. I understand. But as I would and I'd have to go back and look at the definition of down zoning, right? I would to me there would be some some problems with with increasing a standard here because you've reduced a standard there. To me, that that that was to me that would not fit into that down zoning definition. But I I know there's some movement to as again I'm saying as the definition is currently written, right? What we're saying is that well does it allow a balancing act? You know that

and I Yes, we we wanted more plants but we gave you less asphalt and less storm water. So in the end you didn't get down zones, you got zone redirected. I don't know what you call it. Zone qualified or whatever. Yeah. Well, and I would disagree with you if we write it correctly because like one of my ideas was trading if you have allowed parking and they say they have 10 less spaces and for those 10 less spaces they have to plant a tree. I mean that's not really they'd have to look at the definition

and and I'm not against you know pushing up the boundaries of what down zoning is defined. I mean if somebody Yeah. you know I mean if somebody challenges it so be it. But I think in a lot of cases I think just it you know we may be overthinking this. Well, and and our and our our goal here is not the down zone, right? It's actually the other way. That's right. Our goal, this is going to be part of the record. Our goal here is not the down zone, but the up zone to give the developer of a non residential to use his property to a highest and best use. Yeah.

Maybe, you know, but maybe a few more trees and grass. And and Ron, maybe you can give us an update. My understanding was there was a legislative initiative to repeal this down zone. There's a bunch of legislative initiatives to repeal, but none of them have been voted. Okay. And you had the specific legislative number on it. I know it was I had it in my NCR Rep 85 at one point, but I don't know if that's still current. There's several out there and there's a lot of bills have been combined and some pushed a little bit. Yeah. like a shell game

to let you all know. The tree board um has now formed and started meeting and yesterday they met with the forestry service um regarding uh public tree ordinances and they will be putting forth tree ordinances to the town council that will not they won't go in the UDO because they'll be public tree um and public ordinances for our areas our public areas but that could piggyback on some of what you're doing as well include state road right away, right? Only

can it can but we just have to do an encroachment agreement with NC DOT and plant their spec, you know, to their specifications and and locations, but I'm looking into that for them right now. So, just to make you aware that the tree board has been formed and is working and will be putting forth ordinances for the town council. Um our push is to get the Tree City designation by the first of the year. So those ordinances are a requirement of that Tree City USA. So they would specify the type size of freeze that would be Mhm. permitted or used in public areas. Okay.

Very good. Okay. Anything else before we get into the nitty-gritty of text? So we've approved we've approved concept now we got to talk about framework. Well I guess our consensus is the board is favorable to the concept and moving forward and I guess how do we do it the structure I didn't hear a lot of I'm actually fine with structure we're okay. Yeah. So now I guess we'll go to opposite we'll start with Steuart and we can talk about maybe text first and then numbers last. Okay. All right. On things you would like in the text maybe different or chain we can discuss.

Well, one thing in the um Can can I just jump in before you go because I I got a real quicky at the bottom of page 12 eating establishments. Uh we talk about queuing spaces for drive-ins. I thought our commercial UDO prohibited drive-ins. No, not in all. No, there are there's allowed in some in some districts. Yeah, in some commercial areas. Yeah, you'd have to look at the zoning table.

All right, I'm done. All right. So, um, in on page 11, right before the tables, um, the new item number two that Ron wrote in there, which is the item that's referred back to, um, for the maximum calculation, um, it it says y minimum 20% over the minimum, and that should say allowed. Actually, I think he needs both because the residential table also.

So, I think there should be two sentences in there. One for residential and one for commercial, right? Or non-residential. We could and what I just did. Yeah, I agree. I think every time we say it should be minimum and or allowable, 20% over the minimum or 20% over the allowable, right? So the two words should always there's a few other places I thought they needed to be put together because the one table is minimum the other table is allowable. So I think either we can write it as over the minimum or allowable right right

off street there's a there was one other space I found the same thing where you got to put minimum or allowable together all the time right. Yep. Good catch. And right below that in number three, we say off- streetet parking ratio requirements. And I guess we could just say standards. Standards or specifications or standards. Everyone good with standards? Yep. Yeah.

All right. I didn't have any real trouble with the tables. I was just wondering if you know because we can't it just feels like um we want to say you know there's no parking required in mud and I'm I guess it's just confusing to me you know what's residential and what's non-residential in a mixeduse district and are we complicating the things by trying to tell the developer you got count so many for residential, but you don't have to count for commercial and could we just have a table 3.4D that says something about in mixeduse districts there's no requirement, you know, residential requirement is shared or and non non-residential is non-existent or

or we could have number four above. I'm just trying to figure out a way that we could be more specific to the mud district because we're implying a lot of things but we're and in in some ways we're making it more complicated. So what if we had because I can't understand it. So so going with your thought instead of having a fourth table what if we created a number four above the tables? Yeah. that says in the mud or any mud zoning district or any mixed use zoning district. Be careful on that. It's a ZZ I considered a mixeduse. Yeah.

So I'm okay with the mud any but I'm worried about a conditional zoning. Is that considered a mixed use? Conditional zoning could be considered a mixed use, but the issue there is you get to review it, offer conditions accepted by that. I just don't want to like and move forward somehow back in accidentally backing into a condition we already have agreed to and now undoing something. Right. Right. with the mud for a a specific mud district or any future mud district, right, to have this apply to but not just stumble into something on a conditional zoning that we not intended to do. Yeah. So, can you repeat kind of what your thoughts were on that?

Well, I'm just thinking for the mud district that there's no parking requirement at all. Um, and just leave that totally to them. There's no allow or maximum, no allowable. There's no No minimum, right? Minimum, no maximum. Just let them figure out how they're going to do the shared and how they're going to park it and Right. So, basically exempt the mud district from any of this. Maybe that's the better way of doing. No, I think that's a great point because this is something we're probably going to have to figure out as we go. Yeah,

I guess let me get on the other side. On the residential side, when they put residential housing in mud, that means they uh they wouldn't do it. But on the extreme, then they put residential in with no parking. Well, they they'll put parking in. It's just a matter of how they're going to want to park it because they know that people have to park there. But if they have garages, then you know, maybe there's a garage and then there's a parking space in front of it and that satisfies all that and there's no parking lot at all. It's just a driveway. So there's extreme

Well, same for a house. I mean, we only count on a single family. It's your it's your garage and your driveway, right? I mean, currently in the in the mud district, most many of the homes have shared parking in the front and then a dedicated off of a private street garage in the back, right? And I drive through there all the time and those shared parking spaces are never anywhere close to being full. I mean, it's just wasted space, right? that frankly could be used because some of those town homes you walk out your door, boom, you're you're on pavement right away.

And it would be nice if any future, you know, there was a little more appropriate green space as amount to, you know, four shared parking spaces per town home when he's got a garage in the back, right? Um, so I don't know how we manage that or how we encode that, but that's certainly something, yeah, we need to address.

And for them is, you know, as a planner, I know that they're going to look at locations. You know, where is it located near, you know, if it's located near a commercial business that's got overflow parking, you know, then if they have guests at the townhouse or condo or whatever, then they've got overflow parking there. But they'll look at how that's arranged. If you got a whole section that's just residential, they'll right they'll tighten that up. Okay. Because I mean some of the areas they don't want to pay for the parking space either. Yeah. That's the other thing. You know, every parking space is expensive. And you know we I mean there are for instance areas in that district where you have a commercial layer and then a residential on top,

right? Uh and that's something I would want to encourage. I think that's a great format. Um, and then there's a couple of spots that are ground level commercial, um, but embedded in the town home concept. And that's, you know, that's kind of what I think we would wish to see in the field that now constitutes our village center. Okay. So, we can take a look at That's why I think I and I guess a final thought here, whatever we come with today, I doubt I have not really expecting a final vote on this. I just want to give enough direction to Ryan that maybe next month we come back with final text and I realize

there should be enough changes in discussion here that yeah, was going to require some more work is that maybe next month we come back with a the same stuff finalized. we all read it and go other than maybe few tweaks here, tweaks here or there that it becomes then votable. So yeah, we're trying to get to the point that we can incorporate these changes into a final package. So maybe the our discussion about the mud district would be pulled out and well, it could be created a a separate text amendment specific to the mud district and we don't deal with this. I think we can get this in there. I think we can probably deal with it. I think we can get it in here. Okay, that'd be great. Right. Um,

can I just have a show of hand? I know I am not going to be here in August. Are we going to have a quorum in August? I'll be here. I'll be here. I'll be here.

Okay, great. Um, and then once we get past the table and all that, the shared parking and off-site parking and overflow parking, I'm just having some heartburn over. I mean, we basically removed shared parking from the commercial stuff, but I'm just curious, you know, if there's a business, you know, this is outside the mud district, but if there's a business that wants to develop a lot and the lot next door to him is already got o extra parking and they want to use that as shared parking or off-site parking, I mean, we basically now have said, you know, they don't have to have any kind of legal agreement. And

doesn't the code allow stand parking lots in some zoning districts? What's the Well, yeah, but I feel like Well, you're talking about right going about that they're separate legal parcels, right? Right. So then it would say you have two adjacent par parcels and the existing one has parking adjacent to the unde without so you're saying what the way it might be written out is the person can develop that undeveloped parcel and basically blam on to some of the other person's parking without their approval. Right.

Yeah. I'm just in other words that well we're really talking about the gateway district overlay district here where all individual parcels right yeah you I mean it could be redevelopment too I mean somebody could redevelop you know something and then not put any parking in and all their people just park next door and walk over without an agreement. I feel like we ought to say that something about yeah, you can have off-site parking, but needs to be a legal agreement and you know that kind of thing.

I I guess I'm thinking that a lot of the shared and offsite and overflow parking could just keep Yeah. I and so and I've never in my 30 some odd years of experience I've never seen residential have shared or offsite. I have in Wilmington, but that was you know tighter lots and things. Yeah, that's it can happen. But yeah, and I this was I was going to earlier I think if you read in here probably was implied this was primarily intended for commercial, right? But it didn't explicitly say that, right? Right. So, if something came up for residential, Ron and I had that conversation a week or two ago and we were talking about some of the framework and stuff on this.

Yeah. Um I'm fine with keeping it like it is. I will say though, if someone just wants to build a parking lot, um it is permitted uh with I guess a special use PS. Is that what PS is? Um in your MB1, MB2, BB1 R I1 in the mud district. Okay. So that brings me up to another issue was permitted with standards, new standards.

So the town's was on the parking committee. We're looking at a parking lot on the island that's just seven lots and it would just be a parking lot, which the parking lot's allowed, but now it was we were calling it um because there was no maximum before. We were calling it we were looking at it as additional parking. But now if we put a maximum on that, can the town put in a parking lot with 130 spaces? How do you calculate the maximum and the minimum are allowed for a for a parking

for parking lot? Yeah. About the size. I mean there's no cap on that. I mean, how the town put the one that's down there now. Well, but parking lot use is you can use it one space per employee otherwise none required. Sure. I mean we have a use for a parking lot. So again in the table we can fix that. Okay. In the table, right? Yeah. That's what I just want to make sure that we're not to but parking lot is a use, right? So obviously a parking lot can be that's designed to meet the standards of the code, right? That's where I would look to do it. Okay. Is in the table itself.

Just need to make sure that there's, you know, not a maximum amount that we're going to get hung with. Right. Just And this is for the barrier. Yeah. Right. Okay. Just want to make sure that we don't we don't cut ourselves off, right? Put our foot in a bear trap without thinking about Yeah. I think we parking lot would be But if it's just a parking lot, how do you calculate the allowable and the maximum? Well, is there really that much land inventory that something like that could become an issue?

Well, I'm just thinking about that one spot. I mean, seven lots, it's 130 parking spaces. Yeah, it's way over the, you know, maximum if you if you want to look at it that way. But right now, you're right. But, but if we could exempt it somehow. Yeah. You know, parking lot. You could just go parking lot just go exempt from table whatever. Yeah. Stand alone. Yeah. Minimum maximum or Right. I think that's where we would fix again. We got to get into the table at some point. But yeah. Uh but there I guess I need to write the note here on this to take a look at that one.

So going back to your all the shared parking and all street parking. I've just made a note to myself. Do we want to change it or we want to keep it? Do we want to change it as proposed or with some tweaking or do we want to just keep it as is? Don't touch it. Well, that's kind of what I heard. So shared I guess I can be head on. I'm not sure about paragraph three there. staying in minimum shared parking off shared parking shall be 35. But but if it's separate parcels, I would certainly see where you would need some sort of written agreement.

Yeah, I I like the terminology in here about written agreement among all owners of record and you know that kind of thing, right? I I think that's important for us to be pushing that. So, I'll keep it for now except for maybe I'm talking about shared parking, right? Revert it back to the old language except for the number three. I don't believe I don't know the number three needed. No, probably not. E3 is what I'm referring to. Yeah. And then we can have further discussion at the next meeting. Okay. Um, and what about overflow parking? I mean, you Sorry, it's 15. It's just the end of

agree up there. Yeah. Overflow parking is typically the parking that's in excess of the minimum, right?

Yeah. I guess I'm I'm wondering about overflow parking. If if you you're a special use or, you know, once a year you need overflow parking, you know, I don't want to eliminate that from, you know, the language that somebody could could have overflow bargaining. And the code does not define overflow parking. I've seen some codes that do, some do not. Um, so the only three places the word overflow mentioned are two times in this one particular section. And then there's something flood plane

or definition of flood or flooding. Oh, overflow. Yeah, because I guess in my mind overflow parking relates to special events. Yep. Um, things like that. And we have lots of special events on the island. We've got special events, you know, could have special events in the mud district and they may need overflow parking. And well, is that something that we do something there that overflow parking is only allowed for temporary uses. And when we do, you would need a temporary use for that, right? When we do an event, I mean, isn't there a permit process in place, Lisa? So,

so we should overflow parking could be attached to that permit that would be then be probably approved or um designated by staff with events. It's temporary parking. Okay. Not overflow. Not overflow. It's temporary. It's temporary. Since we don't define overflow parking, then what is it? What is it typically? Overflow means Well, then is overflow parking just redundant? I mean that seems like temporary and overflow are the same thing. Yeah. To me the second sentence in number three there defines that's about what it is. It's it's only permitted when the minimum standards are met.

Yeah. I mean, I could see when a when perhaps I guess my question is perhaps a commercial just strike the first sentence and leave the second sentence or just strike the whole thing like or strike the whole thing like we've done. Yeah. I mean, I could see that in a temporary parking, right? If we have temporary parking temporary use by permit, then maybe either stay where we're at here is just strike the whole thing or or just Yeah, we probably my my review. I didn't believe we needed it. It says we're not regulating minimums, right? Yeah. So, I think we keep this strike it here

proposed anyway. Or refer it to temporary use permitting. Yeah. Now, does this for instance a store or retail establishment may have a special sale? Now, they're not that's not an event that they're going to come to the town for a permit, but they may require overflow parking because of a specific sale or thing that they are doing. Now, I don't see that happening because right now, most of the retail establishments have more parking than they can handle. But what is that over where is that overflow parking? They're not going to allow them just parked anywhere. You can't park on the roadway. You can't park on

and my guess is they're going to work with a neighboring business. That's what I would think. Or church or office or whatever may be shuttle business, whatever. Right now, I'm leaning towards getting rid of it unless we think we need to make some reference to temporary use permitting only or something. I think we could just get rid of it.

I mean, I can't think of an application where overflow parking I mean, that's the one, but I think what you suggested is the solution is probably how it would work. All right. the um see the only other thing I was going to bring up is that I looked up the um landscape code or parking facility landscaping and the only thing they talk about in here is that interior landscaping shall be provided equal to 8% of the gross paved area to be used for parking, loading, or vehicular use. So,

what section you looking at? This is section I'm on page 3-66. What section? I am. Yeah, the page numbers, right? Um, so if we're reducing the gross paved area now, we've also decreased the landscape, you know, amount. And I'm just wondering if that's where I came back to, you know, do we change that 8% number or do we,

you know, say you reduced it, you're below the allowed a certain amount, you know, plant us a tree, you know, in return. And and that wouldn't be a swap. That wouldn't be a one for one. It would be, you know, you eliminate eight or 10 parking spaces, which is a big area, and you plant one tree. I mean, but I don't want to I I feel like we're giving up landscape space. I agree. I had some of the same concerns there. I didn't find that didn't look one or the other.

Well, from a code construction perspective, the title of this is parking facility landscaping. So that's where it's based based on the number of parking spaces the square foot of your parking facility, right? So otherwise otherwise you need to go look at a a B, you know, take it out of the parking facility standard and put it somewhere where where we talk about number of trees per impervious surface and that's where I want to look at the definition of the down zoning and see if that creeps into that impact. I guess to me uh that that described what's inside the parking lot. Maybe I read that. I understand that wrong. Parking facility.

Exactly. Right. The little islands and the that 8% of your parking lot paved there should have the little islands with bushes and trees in there. And like we looked at recently. Uh I guess I'm more concerned about figuring out how to get the freed up area preserved or landscaped, right, that are around the edges of the property edge of the parking lot, right? without getting into a foul of the great state of North Carolina.

Well, had we I mean for or in the process someone that foregoes their allowable parking? I mean, is there a way to embed in code a requirement that what they forego they must now landscape? I don't think you want to do that. Yeah. I don't think you want to restrict. It's not a restriction. The the developer said, "I don't need all that parking. I'm I'm allowed to have all this parking. I don't need all of it. I want this much." Well, it's how to get them to

think about it this way. You have an ex say there's a lot out there. That's nothing but s flat. Nothing now. Right. Okay. They put a building on it. They figure out the parking. They're not there's stuff there's empty space around it. What to do with it? Can we encourage or code that you can't afford that should be well one left impermanable which some probably would be and then somehow encourage additional landscaping or trees. You know what I'm saying? You got the building and you got the now whatever they determine is their parking, right? And there's parcel around it, right?

How to get that landscape, treed, bush, whatever enhanced environmentally, not just okay, we're just going to like mow it flat and that's the end of it. Yeah. Because I don't know how to do that without running a foul. The most desirable outcome in this because part of the problem is when you go to a facility and you in the summer and you park You look for shade. Yeah. Okay. I My wife every time we go to Lowe's or anywhere, she didn't want to be close to the store. Where is a tree so I can park under that tree and be sh so I'm right there. Is there is there a way to embed that code so that

So you Ron's thinking and maybe he just needs to come back to that 8% number on there. If we try to change that up, you think that's going to run a file of the downzoning requirement even though we required them to have less parking area. But I understand what you're saying, but but it's I I need to look at the definition of downzoning and the the slide presentation, if you will, that the school government did following that and what they put out there as likely things that communities would want to do that could be likely considered down.

Like if you take that and make the 8 to 12 8 to 12%, you get 50% more. Well, you don't really you're you're forcing 50% more, but the spot that is calculated on got smaller. Right. Right. That's right. So, in the end, you may not have changed. You may not have gotten anything. Right. But but at least you didn't get less. That's right. So, we need to figure that out, I guess, because I was think I was worried on the same thing. I'll go over some of my other text notes, but making sure we keep at least permeable ground and and grass is fine, I guess, to a certain extent, but try to preserve more trees or plant more trees. And

but if you do pvious material or imper if you base on impervious surface, somebody lives in a parking lot that's full of pvious materials, then then in theory till they go half the landscape. Wouldn't wouldn't the approach want them to wouldn't the approach be better because I get it if we try and go from 8 to 12% I think that does raise a downzoning issue

but if we if we somehow because this approach in terms of okay you're we're going to we're going to ask you or require you if you do not build out to what you're allowed to build. That's we're not downzoning anymore. the developer has decided, I don't I'm I'm I'm allowed 20 spaces. I'm only going to build 12. Now, we got that square footage. Don't we have the right to tell that developer, you need to provide landscaping of a certain quality in that area other than just it being left dusty, sandy, nothing. Well, the tricky part in this again from a planner standpoint is if a developer comes in and he says, "Well, on that acre I want to put a 20,000 square foot building." Right.

Right. Because I need, you know, the code says I have to have 30 parking spaces. Right. Well, now he says, "Well, Sunset Beach took away my my parking requirement. So, I actually only need 10 parking spaces. So, now I'm going to make my building 30,000 square feet instead." So, when he comes to us, he says, "Well, I have 30,000 square feet. I have my 10 parking spaces. How do we calculate?" Yeah, but I think the area that he didn't, you know, that he needs to landscape. I'm not as concerned if as long but if he up his building size he need more parking spaces. Yeah. Right. But he

in his mind he he's going to do more commerce. Yeah. He's going to need more. So yeah, but we don't know that he in in terms of how that equation impacts as long as the roof ceiling requirements are the same. I don't think that's a huge loss. I mean, the building's bigger, yes, but I think the the the experience of the person driving by it is, well, it's the same height as all the buildings around here, and it aderes to Sunset Beach's ethic. Right.

So, okay, if they say, "All right, I don't have to have that much parking. I'll add 5,000 square feet." Okay, I I don't see that as a huge loss. But if they stick, no, I only need 20,000, and now I've got this extra area that I don't have to pave. Can we say okay if you don't pave it these are the requirements in terms of landscape and my response is going to be I need I've heard the convers I need to do that research I'm not I think we know what we'd like to get to look into it hopefully figure out a way to well I'll go through mine now but if we put more requirements on the developer they might look elsewhere

right which we're trying not to do we're trying not to do with the concept of I would I would suspect landscaping and some trees are cheaper than Oh, yeah. building a parking lot. If that's a deal breaker for a developer, right, let them build in Calabash. Well, yeah. I would think and you would think that if the developer is going to have space that is not paved or built upon. Yeah. They're going to landscape it. Yeah. They're not going to sit it. I mean, they're going to they're going to do something with it to entice customers to come to their business. Exactly. So, you may not need to do anything.

We may do anything. Well, I got some ideas. I'm think of putting in here a couple things, but we maybe can just do it through encouragement as opposed to uh and then let the best. Any other things? I'm taking the notes. Yeah, you're taking notes. I'm trying to take notes. I look forward to seeing what what you come back. So, if Stuart's done, let me just make some of the not to double up on the comments, but some of the same things. So, on page nine, are you done? Yep, I'm done. He said last thing before, so I'm kind of holding him to it. He said last thing, but I know sometimes it doesn't work that way. Thank you for taking on the first section here. U we're on 3.32A.

Okay. Item E, I find completely ridiculous. I don't know. I don't know what that means though and I would like that struck but I was thinking there again is a place to replace E or maybe an F where we add part of the purpose is to maximize permeable surfaces and to preserve treat. I think in our purpose there, we can add some of these comments or to it that may not be law or code, but encouragement on E makes no sense to I don't know what that is.

I kind of I'm not going to say myth that I didn't have the same provides shade is fine. And I'm not sure why the parking lot provides shade except we want to do something interior parking standards, right? that we may want to, you know, expand on that. Provides shade by planting additional trees in, you know, unused space. Maybe working on D an E or an F. That kind of gets to some of these things we're talking about if we can't get there because we don't want to run a foul law, right? We can do it through this purpose as an encouragement only. You know what I'm saying?

Yeah. I mean, to me, that's better suited in your landscaping provisions as a purpose statement in landscaping. Right. Right. But doing it here is where when the designer is designing the parking lot, I think he's going to be looking at this section. Whether they read every line of it or knows, but if they go through that, they can see what we're trying to achieve is not paving over paradise uh and then uh keeping it landscaped and trees. So that was one area I thought we could if we can't do it by code, we can do it by encouragement by by laying out what we're trying to achieve on that page. Here's one that I struggled with a little bit. On page 10, new paragraph six, fractional space requirement shall be rounded up to the next host space. And the way we're doing this, this allows two roundup. Is that what we want? Or do we want to say you can only round up once? Here's my thinking. The person, the designer is going to look at the table, calculate a number, say he comes to 12.1.

Mhm. Or 12. That means he gets 13. And then he says, well, I can get 20% more. So 20% of 13 is 2.6. 6. That's 15. I get 16. So, I'm just wondering if we should change that. That should be rounded up once. In other words, the way because we got the table and the allowance we're allowing or do we care and just want to give them that extra roundup? Well, in my mind, I don't I'm not dis I can't I follow your logic,

right? So, I'm not discounting it, but in my mind, if I'm reviewing the plan and ultimately presenting to you guys, I would say, okay, the maximum amount of parking spaces came out to 50.3. They're allowed 51 spaces, not so you're rounding up the first number from the table. Well, for commercial, I'm just looking at the maximums, not the minimums. So, I understand what you're saying. Yeah, but the minimum I understand what you're saying. So all right again say you calculate it out and they add a table they get 50.5 they that's 51 51 and then they don't

and then they could apply the 20% to the 51 which would be 10.2 [Music] so now they get 61.2 two or 62. That's rounding up twice. They round up the table and then they round up. That's all I'm saying. It may end up being one additional space in some calculations. Do we care? Just let them round up twice. It gives them a little more flexibility on the upside. And in the big scheme of things though, that's how the code will be interpreted today. I'm just saying I mean

so I I I didn't care. I sort of didn't care either way. But I mean, you are going to someone has to decide in practice how is this done. Do we want to specify how it's done? You only get one round up or just let them round up twice. But potentially it is a downzoning because it would be a less intense requirement. So if we currently would allow them to round up twice, better just leave then leave it alone. Okay. So we're going to let it be. Let it be. I mean the only that's only going to potentially add a single parking space probably. Can I just and just for discuss

allow for clarity purpose for anyone who may be listening and we got two folks here in the office and in the attendance today when I'm talking about the down zoning I'm talking about the definition that the state of North Carolina uses for down zoning not that the community not the town does. And this is a recent piece of legislation. Thank god we rewrite rewrote our UDO before it was in place. Okay. And it and next restricts what we can do. So that paragraph D name is the other place I thought it should say minimum or allowed. Where's that wrong? The heading of the name of D. Minimum or again that's the place where minimum or allowed should be together all the time. What we talked about earlier minimum or allowable I think was the term we allowable. Yeah.

Yeah. Allowable Wall Street parking ratio. Thank you. parking lot. We have to talk about the So, just clarifying I guess what we're saying is on page 15 GH each parking area shall meet the applicable landscaping screening and buffing requirements. We don't refer them anywhere there, should we? or it seemed like something on page 366 is the referral.

Well, I don't know that we need a referral. We don't need if you guys feel comfortable. If y'all would prefer a code cross reference, we could do that, but I don't think it's needed. Okay. But Stuart just brought something to my attention in G above. Um just typo just typo. Uh it says in with the right of I think it should be within the right of way and then districts um in G on page 15. Oh, can we go? We we we've stormed ahead to page 15. No, we'll come back to just showing him a typo if we fix.

Oh, I see it. That should be within the rightway. And then districts at the end of that plural. Yeah. So we'll just fix that. Okay. Okay. And again, my only other general comment is the uh again try to do something on the landscaping. Yeah. So if we can go back to page 12, Bob, Kevin first and then you can go back. Thank you. I think you guys covered a bunch already. Uh I really don't have any after what you guys talked about anything. So Richard, it's your turn now.

Oh, thank you. Um, on him on on page 12, bottle shop, bars, micro brewery, or micro distillery, we distinguish between micro distillery space per 500 square ft. Where are you at on what page? And we're on page 12. Page 12. About middle of the page. Bottle shop, wine bar, micro brewery, or micro distillery. We make a distinction whereas a micro brewery or a micro distillery has much uh higher uh square footage, fewer spaces required.

Yeah, I can think of they're not in Sunset Beach, but they are in the general area. Mai Brewery and the brewery and the distillery over in Calabash. They technically are breweries and distilleries, but they have consumers that come and partake of their product on. So, they're not much different than a wine bar or wine shop. So, I'm wondering if that because I think we're kind of thinking of those well, they're industrial, so they don't need as much parking, but the ones that I've seen in this area are consumerf facing.

Don't disagree with you. I will say bottle shop and wine bar are come al also more like a retail use right it can be retail but if we change the micro brewery and distillery to same that's a down zoning because we would be requiring more space no we're upzoning we're saying you can have more parking no but so we're upzoning we're saying right now we're restricting you to 500 a parking space per 500 ft of area. Now we're we're taking it down because we're not requiring maximum minimums. 200. Yeah. So now we're saying no, you can have more parking that reflects the fact that you are consumerf facing, not industrial.

So you want that just to be one space per 200 for that whole group. Correct. And strike the four theory that would be probably okay because it would be a So we're into the numbers now. I see. So we got to the last part of this. Oh, sorry. We're into the numbers. I'm jumping ahead. They're so unlike me. So, bottle shop, wine bar, micro brew. You just want to have for the whole group one space per 200 square foot. Yeah. Yeah. Because I I don't know. I don't know how we got to this. Yeah. I guess we were maybe the thought was that the micro brewery lot of the space is devoted to the production area. Yeah. Right. And not the everyone that I've known and I

shame on me. I've frequented many of them. Uh well at least we have an expertise on which I gladly contribute pro bono to the planning board. Uh every one of them is consumerf facing even though they are they are industrial in nature. They're and again because this is now a maximum I don't think they'll overpark because they're they're only going to park they're not going to base their parking on how much floorace they're using for their brewery equipment. They're going to based on how many little seats are coming in. So yeah, I guess we could strike that from four to storage area. I'm comfortable that would not be a down signing and just give them a little bit give them one per 200 square feet for the whole group in use, right? Okay. Thank you.

Any other numbers? And well, whatever. But we had talked about Mai coming. Yeah. Well, Mai has, you know, there have been rumors that they were going to relocate into Sunset Beach and wouldn't wouldn't suck. Mean you'd have to drive less. I could walk and that would be a major improvement. Any other changes text and each other changes quick butcher in here too. That would be great. But uh yeah, they're actually opening a shop in Southport. So, anything else? And no, that's it. Ron, do you have enough information to define our Yes,

I don't think we want to vote on it today. Right. No, no. I think what we'd like to do is let Ron do his further research uh and come up with I guess what would be a proposed final version of the changes uh and then have a final discussion next time and then a uh a vote at that point. But I think we're okay on the concept. It's basically okay on the structure other than trees, grass, and landscaping to see if we can do anything there. Uh, yeah, most of the most of your comments were pretty straightforward, right?

And just, you know, change this word to this word or this phrase to this, that phrase. Well, yeah. Like say you need to do I want certainly want you to do your research. We don't want to have the whole thing run a file state law and get tossed out or whatever. And our tent is not the down zone. And our intent is to upzone upzone increase through and or or maintain or maintain and figure out if we can get a few more trees and bushes or whatever. Yeah. Hey, in the table if it uses the word required, I think we need to look and see if because we're not requiring parking. So specific

allowed. Um I was looking at marina parking's required for other uses and I was just look scanning through just looking for the word required and see if we need either take that word out or switch it with allowed. Yeah, something like that. Could do a find and replace. Yeah, I didn't. The only other one I saw was in the bottle shop thing, but we already eliminated. Well, it's in park. It's in parking lot, too. So, but parking lot, I think we're going to exempt. Just exempt straight away. Right. Right. I'll take a look at it. Yeah.

Yeah. And and I think overall, I mean, this is the right direction. I think Ron has captured it pretty well. Okay. I have one last question for Ron. Which Ron? Uh Ron too. Okay. So, handicap space requirements, they have a chart, right? There's through the ADA. Yes. Yeah. So, if you have 100 spaces, you have to have so many handicap spaces, right? And so many van accessessible, right?

Yeah. There's a chart. It goes up. So if we don't have parking requirements, I'm just wondering how they're going to calculate. Mine is the number of parking spaces provided provided. So if we don't have requirements and they put any spaces on there, they have to have at least one that's going to be handicapped accessessible. So what if they don't have one? They have none. I'm saying they have to have one. Okay. All right. Or be able to show how they can comply otherwise. Right. Right. Just want to make sure we're not

like in downtown Wilmington. Obviously, building is not going to have a parking space, but there's handicapped designated spaces or someone who is has an ADA compliant license can park for free in front of a business. Okay. All right. All right. Just wanted to make sure. They have to show how they comply with that requirement. Okay. Okay. Do we do we do we ever exceed ADA requirements in what we do? You could add more. Yeah, you can add more. We can't require them to exceed, but they I'm sure somebody like a doctor's off or something is probably over all the time, right?

Well, I'm thinking about some of the parking that we added in uh on the barrier island. So, we haven't gone we we we haven't we're compliant exceeded. We haven't gone over. I can tell you that. Okay. It's uh Ron, you're good to go, right? Yes, sir. Thanks for the feedback. And I didn't anticipate us to vote you guys to vote on it today. So, it's great.

Okay. The administrative comment section or actions. Uh we added a 7.1 election of a vice chair since our previous vice chair has moved on to bigger and greater responsibilities. We need a new vice chair in case the chair is not available. So I am going to make a motion that we nominate Stuart for that position. Any second? I'll second that one. Concedes. All in favor? If if elected, unless he wants to say if elected, I will not serve. I Any nays? No. So Stuart, welcome. Thank you. You took the right seat. Uh so Stuart is our new uh

always wanted advice. Vice chair. You're at Miami Vice. Okay. And the next item we added was the land use plan. Uh

I had noticed for the meeting the other day for county council meeting. I see they had uh Lisa had on the list that they were going to vote on approving or disapproving the professional approve a professional service agreement with anchor point planning etc etc and I got the listening to the video yesterday and I see my understanding you can wrong it was kind of like tabled and now redirected to RFQ so Lisa it's yours to explain what the situation is at the moment on that uh I'm going to be redising that contract with the council. So, we're just not we don't have a signed we don't have a signed contract at this point.

Okay. So, are we possibly discussing not utilizing them as a consultant or looking for other resources to do this? The direction was to go out for an RFP for planners, but we are far past that point. um to the point that it is unfair to the contract that we were looking to approve because that figure is now known. Oh, that's true. So, it is unfair to this planner to now at this point go out for an RFP, right?

So, I'm going to be requesting the council to reconsider the decision to go out for an RFP and to approve this contract. Okay. So this is just a little bump in the road, correct? Okay. So a surprising bump in the road. We didn't see it coming. I don't know. So that will be then further worked on at on the next council meeting. So at this point be here next month to talk about schedule. No. Uh Wes and I had talked about coming in September because we are hoping to have the planning board vacancy filled. Okay. In August. Okay. Okay. So, probably we would get Well,

so if the council if the council agrees to go ahead with this one, then we would actually have the initial kickoff would be September. Correct. All right. And I guess has everyone Well, I can't tell you to do it since it's not official, but it was published out there. Certainly, I would think the planning board should become familiar with the terms of this so that when whoever present comes in that they here's a case where written comments may be good that we can move quickly through the introduction because you're all familiar with the contract. So even though this is not the contract at the moment, it was out there to be looked it could be it's part of the public. It could be looked at. Okay.

And I guess any any questions on that? I think we're good, right? I guess maybe the other thing is an update. Uh, so we are looking still looking I didn't see there was no candidates at the meeting. Lisa, is there anything we can do to perhaps persuade the council members to move along? Let her handle it. Okay. We actually do have 10 or so applications that the council will be interviewing for planning board and board of adjustment. Okay. Have you closed the planning board closed taking applications?

Well, in the past it's been so hard to get people to sign up at all that we've never put a deadline. We've just accepted anybody who would come forth. That's how you are all pleasantly shocked. Hey, not me. So, we are all pleasantly shocked that we have so many people. Um, so yeah, I mean, we're still accepting applications. Is there any logic or precedent to planning board members sitting in on the interviews or the new planning board? It hasn't been done in the past because you don't have a say, right?

It's uh normally just the town council and they interview um two at a time so to prevent open meeting law violations and then they come together and appoint. Okay. Okay, good. So, hopefully we'll get that filled by September meeting. Good. Okay. Anything else, Lisa? We should know. Anything else, Ron? We should know, I guess. Oh, we're going to talk about upcoming plat.

Upcoming plat. The TRC met with the developer of the hotel and they did receive the feedback from um staff from the department heads. Their plan is to submit to Ron by the 1st of August and to be on your August agenda. And this is for the hotel. Hotel. Okay. In the mud.

I have a couple of questions and maybe this is something we can chat about. Um, if this is still as was originally discussed, which is Hampton in Suites, four stories, are we looking at um how they would adhere to the architectural um requirements of the mud district? That's not our perview. We don't we requested elevations for to determine height to make sure that the height is

so I I I I I will distribute this to you. For instance, in Williamsburg, Hampton and Suites built a believe a fivestory unit that adhered to colonial architectural frontage. Okay. And one of the things that we're hearing from people that are in the mud district right now is they would like to see something that would adhere to the architectural frontage that has been fairly consistent across the entire mud district. So I would put that in front of staff in terms of how we review this. I will happily provide an image to you in the next day or two.

The developer controls the architectural not the town. Why does we have mud district requirements in terms of architectural frontage? No, doesn't apply to mud. That we don't have anything to do with that. That's completely up to them. But I can guarantee you that that developer will have that hotel adhere to their standards

to their standards. But I I've looked at hundreds of Hampton in suites and their standards are fairly consistent. Concrete frontage, very attractive in a lot of places. But I I'm worried that we're going to create an architectural exception for what happens in that area that has been consistently brick formatted. And you're welcome to talk to the developer to find out about their architectural all right standards. But the town's not going to lift a finger to do anything about it. Can't can't do it. Why not? It's not in the call. It's against the law. Okay. We've granted mud debt.

You can't. any other upcoming plat flats? Um, not nothing official at this time. I've had some conversations with um, you know, developer here or there about what they can do with their property and and so forth, but nothing has been submitted for review at this time. Okay. Anything that would come to this board? Okay, good.

Because I mean the two concerns that I have is obviously the architectural issue, but then also egress in and out of that area during the construction period. in terms of how they get they're and obviously they're going to have huge construction requirements. How do they get in and out of that area with least impact on the existing businesses and the existing homeowners? Sure. That is not something the town can can control.

Private streets as well. Um, we do have a resoning that's been submitted that um looks like it's going to be going through your August meeting. It's for the uh Seaside United Methodist Church up there on still going through their application determine exactly what they're requesting and what you kind of what the intent is, but they have requested. This was on the land they acquired in the recent. This is the section, the front half that was in the ETJ and not the piece that was annexed into the town. Me, too. That was I have a question. Is the sanctuary still in the ETJ? Yes, sir. The Angel's Trace is now officially in the town limits, though. Yes, I understood that.

Okay. Last item is public comments. We have some public here. We're hoping some public comments if we haven't scared them off uh recently. Any public comments on anything? Okay. I do have one comment though that I need to bring up if you don't mind. Sure. U talking to some town members and you guys might have addressed this before I became a member here, but the coffee shop fiasco, I'll call it, that's been going on for 5 years and now it's become a dumping station. Is there anything the town can do with that? Uh, and what people have been asking me, I said, I don't know. I'll ask a question.

Oh, you found on a corner? Yeah, on the corner. But that would be code enforcement. We code enforcement is very aware of that and anytime that there is a violation, they are noticed. Um, building permit wise, as long as their building permit is active, which if I'm not mistaken, Ron, you may know for sure, is one um they have to request one inspection in a 12-month period. Correct. And that building permit stays active. So, they're doing that. And you know, we are still looking at all of the right

the the aesthetics, but as far as going in there and saying you have to have this done by tomorrow. Yeah. They just do one permit every 12 months. But now one inspection a year, then that building permit remains active. Yeah. Because it seems like every time I go to the park and come out of the park, they've added some more trash back there somewhere, you know. So code enforcement is code enforcement's on it. I figured they were and just I also seen I guess I don't know it might not be recent but the restaurant that started construction and then oh L casino uh it looks like there's a for sale sign. So obviously they've moved on and there is now a for sale.

How is that going to work if there's a new buyer? They have to start from scratch with us right? Yep. Yes. Those plans plan review is expired. Right. they had to come back through this process and meet the newer standards if any if if there were any changes. So if if there was a choir, they would have to come with a whole new plan, start from scratch and and go from there. And back to that question about the coffee house. So if I do that, they can keep doing that for years on every inspection. There's no time limit. Unfortunately, there is not. Unfortunately, I know. And that's state law. state requirement. That's state, not local requirement.

Okay. I'll pass it on to those people who ask. If it was in an HOA area or a POA area, then those they would have if it was in an HOA or a POA Yeah. area, then there would be um the private community rules would be able we can't go any stricter than we are. So the code that you just uh shared with us is that state county state building code state building code. Okay. Good. Okay. All right. Anything else? Anyone like to move for adjournment? So moved. So second. All in favor? I

I hereby adjourn. Thanks everybody. Okay.