Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, good morning everyone. Let me uh seeing we have a quorum, I'll call to order the December 18th, 2025 regular meeting of the Sunset Beach Planning Board. Let's 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.

As always, 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. Richard, I do not. I do not. I do not. I do not. Okay. Next is to uh amend or approve the agenda. Do I have a a motion to approve the agenda? I've had a couple of questions on the agenda. One was the minutes go from August to November. What happened to the October?

I don't think they're done yet. Right. Right. There was a late flurry of exchanging of paper to get it. Okay. And actually, I didn't remember why we taped the August ones actually. So, I did. Okay. Um, and I don't know, do we want to think about switching 6.1 and 6.2 so Kelly Stewart could leave before we She's not here yet. Yeah. I figure she'll show. Yeah. Okay. Oh, well, let's let's just I don't think uh 6.1 or 6.1 is going to take one. Okay.

So, let's leave it as is. I'm I'm okay with you. Anybody So, anyone want to make a motion [snorts] on the agenda? I I move to adopt. Second. All in favor? I

I any nays? No nazs. The agenda is approved as published. And as uh Stuart just uh alluded to, we had two sets of minutes to approve. The first one from August 20, excuse me, August 21 of 2025, our regular planning board meeting, which was originally tabled during a meeting of like October 2nd. Is that when we tabled it? Uh, and I didn't have I only had one issue with it, which I think was the same as before. on page I guess page four. Good old Manta Ray Wei is still not spel not right. It's that top paragraph. Yeah. Page four, I guess, but it states Manta way and it's actually Manta Ray W. Hard to say just before the parenthesis or Chander Lane. I looked at the map again yesterday to make sure it's Manta Ray Wei. I wish they would have done lane instead of way on that one, but uh and I think that came up before, but anyway, that's it is just a small clarification. Other than that, I didn't see anything. Stuart,

no, they look great. Thank you, Kevin. I'm good with them. Yeah, Richard, uh having not been at the meeting, but having watched it riveted to the computer for two hours. [snorts and clears throat] Uh, yes, it looks fine. Okay. Do we have a motion to approve these minutes with the one typographical correction there on the street? I so move. Second. All in favor? I.

These minutes are approved with the one correction. Paper clip here. Next we have the minutes of the meeting of November 24th, 2025. This was a special meeting uh related to the land use plan. Uh in my looking through it, the only thing I had somewhat of a and and I'm not sure at the bottom what's showing as page six on here on this on this package. Uh it says the planning board selected a logo for the project attachment two. That's correct. And then it says it says comma agreed upon a draft community survey attachment tree uh three. I guess I mean that is true but I think that doesn't quite

describe what happened. Yeah. We spent a lot of time going I guess I'd like to have that somewhat expanded saying after we went through a question by question review. Yeah. and then settled on, you know what I'm saying? I don't know exactly how to write that. Yeah. But what really happened at the meeting is Wes stood there and we went question one, we said what we liked or didn't like. Question two and we rewrote it. It sort of looks if you read this that Wes said here it is and we said okay and that's really I guess doesn't capture reflect capture what happened. So, I guess I'd like to add some sentence saying that

it was approved, but after a question by review, comment, and correction or something like that. Somebody help me with the language because that in my mind what happened. He said, "Wes gave us the original question. We talked about each question, made changes, he agre we agreed to the so we kind of agreed to each question changes and then the final version went out. So if we can capture that, I don't want a whole paragraph on what all the discussion was, but I'd like to at least reflect that we reviewed it,

we reviewed each question, discussed it, agreed on a leaving it or changing it, and then at the end the final survey. So we can capture that in like one sentence. I'm fine with it. I just wanted to reflect that we didn't just go, "Yeah, Wes gave something, we blessed it, and we moved on." We didn't do that. Yeah. Right. Can I make a suggestion there then? So potentially reading the planning board selected logo for the project

this survey and I think it is incumbent upon us to be very detailed in terms of what decisions we made in the limited time and the limited number of questions because I think it reflects you know our care and attention to this that I don't think kind of like okay so I I would rather see a more deep question by question reiteration of what every question in there Again, that's like overkill in my mind. Leave that because I think that would be a good solution is that that attached is the original questionnaire survey and then after discussion and here's the final one. So if somebody wants to look to see

if they want to see playbyplay, they can look at the YouTube but God help them. So I guess can we do this on staff or do we need to table this and bring it back? Well, I think just a mod simple modification similar to the words wording I suggested is something you could do here if you want something more detailed or you certainly I would say continue it to your next meeting. But

well, I I think this this proposal from Ron is the original suggested u question um affirmation and that's not reflected in um affirmation and that's not reflected in the minutes. Oh, no. You mean the uh Yes, we did do a not a uh conflict of interest statement. Conflict of interest.

Yeah, we added on the fly. We did a we Well, yeah, we did do a in our normal number two spot the conflict that we asked Lisa at the time. She said we could go ahead and do it. So, we did have we did at the meeting have a conflict of interest statement that no one had a conflict of interest. That's say I don't remember that. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I just recall it. No, it was something that I insisted upon and I think the consensus was well, we're not really making any decisions here, so it's not necessary, but we went ahead and did it anyway. Oh, to the agenda. Yes. Right. It wasn't on the agenda and we Oh, yeah. Yes. That's a minor change.

Right. So the question is, do we move to approve these with these changes or do we want it tabled, let Kim work on it for their leisure and bring it back at the next meeting? I'm comfortable. What the staff think? I'm comfortable with approving it as amended and then I don't think there's anything in there that's

okay. Then I need a motion saying motion suggested. Why is it always suggested? I move that We approve the o uh November 24th minutes uh with the two amendments. Uh one the uh placement of the questionnaire original questionnaire and the revised questionnaire and secondarily the um conflict of interest affirmation. Any second? Second. All in favor? I. Any nays? No nays. The motion carries and staff will take care of those two correct well including the misspelling of attachment.

Okay. And as always, Kimberly, thank you for your attention to detail on these.

Okay. Done. Next item is a period of public comments on agenda items only. And as usual, it's three minutes per person. They can come to the podium uh state their name and address and provide their comments. Anybody want to speak? Okay, seeing none at this time, we'll move on to old business, which is chairman initiated. Uh, looking at the UDO text amendment, and we're certainly at the discussion stage only at this point at the section or article 3.3B, the gateway overlay district. We had a brief discussion on this at our don't remember which meeting [clears throat] uh

it was the October, right?

So I put together some notes and sent it to uh staff and they distributed today. One of the discussion items we had was whether to keep the overlay district or get rid of it and just merge it into the uh design standards the uh urban design standards and be in my mind I my suggestion is that we keep it in the code because it is referred to in some of the conditional zoning things and only make what I would say a few minor changes. uh to correct some ambiguity maybe and and make it a little less restrictive. Uh this sort of follows on my parking initiative. We have a central business district essentially which runs on this overlay district and obviously I don't see a inrush of major activity there. So what we did to fix the parking and this to me is like the next follow-on thing, some clarifications and improvements here to encourage additional economic development along our central business district which is kind of the overlay district. So I came up with just basically three things to do. one is outside this part of the code. In section 31 of the current UDO related to the overlay district, it it it reads that the standards governing a zoning district especially conflict with those governing an overlay zoning district. The more restrictive standard shall apply. And I got a couple problems with that is one it's vague vague as then say who decides which one is more restrictive and if you actually look at

article 3.3b1D which is in the code that Ron passed out it says in my mind essentially the opposite. It says in case of conflict with regulations of the underlying zoning district within the U these requirements the requirements of this overlay district shall govern. So my suggested is we make that in both areas. We strike that more restrictive and replace it with the standards of the overlay zoning area apply. So they're consistent and the overlay district applies. And then inside the overlay district in 3.3B 3A, it has its own set of tree tables. And my suggestion there is just get rid of those tree tables and replace them with or refer to the tree tables 35 36 and 37 in article 3.34D which then means it's consistent overlay district has the same tree list as everybody else does and maybe the most uh might be controversial is the color palette the one in 3F FI I find kind of boring and I'm suggesting we add an appendix with an additional uh Carolina Low Country Historic Charland. I I found one by Sherman Willings that fits the range of our kell pallets but adds more colors. Now, if you read some of the details on hues and stuff, it looks like whoever approves the color has flexibility because clearly if you drive down the road there, there's colors that are not in that color palette, but they could be somewhere in between, but if you look at the what do we got like seven or eight colors in there? It's

kind of a short list of colors. One of them white. Uh

yeah. So, and and the reason I put it in appendix as opposed to in this code because then design standards and the overlay just can refer to the same appendix as you might call an additional available colors. And if you look at our code, they only put the color number down. It's a description and then whatever print the printer prints when normal color palettes actually have the color number. Uh, so again, I know this is not a big deal. I like to hear what everybody thinks. And basically, it's to, I guess, make sure there's no obstacles, unnecessary, let me put it this way, unnecessary obstacles in our overlay district, which wouldn't encourage someone to do some economic development in our central business road, which is the overlay district, just like we did in parking.

Absolutely. Sorry about that. Thank you. Okay. So, first of all, these changes as I my my from my perception is they're not considered a down zone. So, it is something that should the planning board want to move forward with and town council ultimately consider it is something that you can do. Second of all, I know Ron you threw out there's one option is just to eliminate the gateway overlay and then the second option would be some tweaks considering based on what you presented.

I do believe that the intent of the town may have been at the time with urban design standards and then was to eliminate the gateway overlay requirements but it was not that did not occur when the UDO was adopted in 2023 for whatever reason. Secondly, I would add that because a gateway overlay is a zoning district, the town would need to notify every property owner within the gateway overlay and every property owner adjacent to at a minimum the gate of the gateway overlay a notice of the zoning change and so you're looking as potential costs additional mailing etc. If you eliminate it yes but these changes yes these changes be published in a normal manner.

Correct. So, but if it is a zoning map, basically you're looking at a zoning map amendment if you eliminate it. And so, we would have to follow the advertising requirement, notify every property owner within and adjacent to at a minimum of the zoning map change. So, I just want to bring that as you guys are having conversation, be aware of that. Um, the direction that you provide us to move forward with. Sure. Well, Ron, how did you feel about some of these changes? I mean, these are fairly standard. They're they're they're standard. My my review of them, I believe the tree list, as an example, u was obviously in the gateway overlay before the new UDO.

Oh, okay. The UDO um review, I believe, is trying to bring in more native species. And I believe for the most part, that's what is included in the gateway. And so it makes the makes the opportunity more expansive as well as the color palette more expansive than not. So it's not a down because it's it's a bigger list. Yes. Right. So it's probably is appropriate to update the gateway overlay district since it was probably preudo and now it needs to relate more my opinion. It's my understanding the the planning board particularly maybe others spent a lot of time with the trees for the new UDO and emphasis on making sure they were native trees for the most part.

Yes. Okay. I don't have any issue with your changes, Ron. I mean, really feel like this is just a a quick update to get it back into align with the UDO alignment and then well, make sure there's no, like I said, unnecessary obstacles that someone would say, I'm not going to buy this property or build my shop here because this, right? even though it's probably unlikely, but you know, you know, I like green and green's not on that that lid. You [laughter] know, I want my shop to be this color and they go, I'm not going to bother. I'll go someplace else. That's was my only thought. Kevin,

I like the updates. I mean, it just makes it a lot easier to understand. Richard.

Well, I'm I'm thinking through what the overlay district consists of, and you know, we just had this uh review of the 904 corridor, and that's going to have a major impact on the overlay district that's going to be governed by NC DO, but I think most of the elements of that would actually improve. And when we look at 9004 right now, almost all of it's going to be bordered by the Angel Trace development. So that setback is going to be, I assume, treed. So it'll preserve the ambient treed entrance to the town. Um, obviously we have the new residential communities on the eastern side of 904, but those are set back as well. So, I yeah, I don't Yeah, I see this as, you know, I like the idea of an overlay district because I think we want to try and preserve the ambient essence of the entrance to Sunset Beach. If you go down 179 right now, now most of that is now zone commercial. We converted uh the two parcels uh in the seat trail development from MR3 to commercial. Now nothing's been proposed there and they did make significant concessions in terms of reabatement in those parcels. So I am concerned about that corridor to make sure that there is some means to preserve what I think is a good look when somebody drives into Sunset Beach. So, I don't think there's anything in here that disrupts that. Um, as I think about all of the parcels stretching from Old Georgetown Road to the Inter Coastal

Waterway along 90479. So, yeah, I think let's So, I think well, all we have to do today is get a sense of the board to ask staff to create an actual text amendment for your review at the next meeting, which I will not be at. So that's we don't we're not voting on anything today. All we need is to the sense of the planning board to instruct staff to actually draw up a legitimate text amendment for review at the next meeting and if it's good then you can vote on it and pass it. uh which I'm okay with. But uh so is that the sense of the board is to ask staff if they can by the next meeting

provide an official text amendment for review and vote if appropriate. And this is probably premature, but in terms of the land use plan that we're going to be working on in 2026, I think one of the issues we're going to deal with is, you know, and again land use plan is strictly strategic guidance. It's not binding, but we do need to give some thought to how we phrase the intent of the community in terms of how the overlay district would be managed going forward. Okay, staff's good.

Sorry. By consensus, I'm hearing the planning board is directing staff to move forward with amendment as suggested by the chair. Correct. Yes. Correct. Great. Thank you. Okay. The next item refers to item 62 is the mend section 3.4 one sign standards for the mud mixuse district. And I'll turn that over to Ron to talk about the package his case study that he passed out.

Yes. So appreciate it and what you have before you is I took the comments from the last time you I guess it was your October meeting to make consider changes to this. It was a lot of discussion back and forth and so what you should have in your package uh beginning on page three um is the revised language being proposed. I wasn't going to go through every single line item like we did before, but just highlight what you see in red were the changes were what you already had seen before. So that was the changes to the mud signage. Look at page three of that particular um case. I'm sorry I don't have a package page. Um in highlight are the changes that I heard the planning board. So as an example, just looking at the very top 9 a uh lower or subscript I whatever one you see the word square is highlighted. So it's 140 square feet instead of 140 ft as an example.

Right? So that yellow highlighted ones were one wheel to be changed in the first change. That's how I interpreted the notes. try to make it as easy as for you to to to understand what was changed from your meeting in October to your meeting tonight or today. And did you coordinate these with the applicant? I shared with uh Miss Miss U with Kelly and she seems to be okay with them. Okay. It's been what, two, three weeks, Kelly, since we last communicated on it. But Richard, any comments, questions? [sighs]

Were you here for that first meeting? I don't remember.

Yeah, I'm I'm pretty sure I was. Um I'm and and and we may have already this may be moved at this point but the 14 ft in height we kind of went through a process with monument signs going way back where we were comfortable not as comfortable with what I would call the sea trail model which is high and wide and amended it so that the sanctuary model was lower. So, we reduced the monument sign height, I believe, to 8 ft. And I have to say, I much prefer that look, uh, as opposed to the extremely tall and kind of imposing. I mean, uh, we want the commercial district to have monument signs and some of the other mixeduse areas that I've traveled. The monument signs

I I I don't know that this requirement and the square footage. This refers to [clears throat] number 14, right? Get in that button. Sorry. So currently a commercial zoning district can have a 16 foot tall monument sign, right? So their applicant is actually okay limiting themselves to 2 ft lower than what they could do today by suggesting 14 ft. And because they're the sole owner, we don't get into any down zoning issues. Right. Okay. All right. And the existing one is 10 ft. Yes. The existing one's already shorter. Existing one is 10 ft.

Okay. And I don't I doubt they plan on rebuilding that one. They're probably just updating it. Yeah. Okay. That was my only concern. I mean, I'm on record of being a big supporter of whatever they need to encourage commercial development in the mud district as opposed to string development along 179. So, I don't, you know, if this is what they want. Um, well, in the end, both would be good as long as we have the connectability. Right. But anyway, I'm not so sure about that, but Okay, Kevin, I'm good with this so far.

I'm good with it. I I do have a question about in the package. I guess it's the the last sheet before you get into the pictures. There was a they did a summary of the UDO and existing and I had marked up a lot of things that didn't seem to correlate in there and none of that was changed. So I don't know if is it important for this to be part of the package when it goes to the council. This was provided by the applicant, right?

And so if there's changes necessary, she and I can work to modify that if it's appropriate. But I believe what she was trying to do was show what is existing out there. So that right column, right, are the existing signage counts, locations, page looking at that page. I can't find mine. It's the little um her little summary of where all the signs are and everything. Oh yeah. So your question is what you they're saying is current UDO is may not be Oh, here it is. Yeah,

there's some items in there that I mean we just had questions about them the last time and some of the stuff got updated in here, but and we discussed what was in the UDO. I just don't know if this UDO column is necessary. Maybe get rid of the whole column and just it's fine. I'll work with the applicant to modify that because I love having the existing in there but you know some of this because some of the words aren't the same like sure you know I don't know because they've got tenant directional and we have wayfinding and right you know

it just I think it was a little confusing. Okay. Intended to beformational right? Mhm. Guess it could mark it could mark it asformational only. When she and when when the applicant and I were speaking prior to applying, we felt like it would be a good idea for you to know and council to know what is out there, right? And how does that compare to the current code? Um, but if the code is amended, a lot of that's moved anyway. I guess part of that's my confusion is that is this UDO that exists or is this UDO that she's proposing? UDOS exist was the intent.

Yeah. So, and then if we Well, I don't know. I just didn't want council get confused when when it went to council. Sure. I'll work with the Apple get a revise sheet move as it moves forward. Other than that, I don't have any issues that they updated everything that we we talked about. Okay. Seeing no further discussion, the next thing to do would be I would need a motion uh to adopt either planning board action A or planning board action B. Action A, of course, would be recommending approval. B would be recommending design denial. Do we have a a motion? I move to adopt uh proposal A. Any second?

Second. Second.

Okay, let me read it and before we vote, we have a action A. The planning board hereby recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the unified development ordinance and finds that it is one consistent with the town's comprehensive plan 2017 town of Sunset Beach land use plan as the amendment to the signed standards applies to the mud mixeduse district. and two that is in the public interest because the amendment will assist in encouraging commercial development in the mixeduse district which has been identified as the primary commercial node on the mainland in accordance with the goals outlined in the 2017 land use plan. So how do we vote? Do we um uh do we the yays on action a yay

yay? Any naysay? No nays. So action A is approved with uh four or four zero against and one not here. So the motion carries and the text amendment can be brought to the council for final vote. And so the next step is we will schedule it for the January 5th meeting. That right January 12th meeting uh for them to to consider scheduling a public hearing for their February meeting. That's typical process, but just so everyone's aware. Fantastic. Good deal.

Okay, the next item is new business. It's a major site plan review. Luminina Fairways, a 72 unit multifamily development located at the terminus of the avenue of the Champions Road. The subject property comprises 5.08 acres that is defined as Brunswick County parcel 2420046. The property is zoned MR3CZ. So, this was a conditionally zoned property under the old UDO Mainline Residential Conditional Zoning. The applicant is STGR Development LLC. So, I'll turn it over to the staff for their staff report.

Sure. Thank you. So, kind of rehash what you just stated, we do have a request for a development of a 72-un multif family project known as Lumina Fairways. Uh, this property is zoned MR3 conditional zoning. Um, it was subject to uh the many of the reasonzonings occur that occurred a few years ago as part of the rip tide development or seaside from the conditional zoning changes. This site comprises about 5.08 08 acres in u on site and in size and is identified you have the Brunswick County parcel number there. Um this approval includes uh the approval from back in 2023 included a master development plan u requirements to blend for blend of residential and non-residential uses on specific tracks. This specific tract was called subject 13 of those of that conditional zoning requirement. Um, as shown on the site plan, this aluminum fairways comprises three four-story buildings, 24 units in each building. There are 132 parking spaces with 16 golf cart parking spaces being proposed. Alan, do you mind putting plan just up just so we can have it um for the public that is here who may be interested in seeing it? Thank you. Um access is from champ Avenue avenue of champions road. Uh they also are providing a um to site plan. They're also providing access to an existing pump station to the plan south. There's a network of pedestrian walkways and sidewalks. There's a pocket park proposed to the north and between buildings one and two and a future

amenities area proposed in the center of the site. You see there's an existing golf cart path that traverses the northern part of the property. On page two, we listed um the there was when the property was reszoned to conditional zoning, there were a set of general conditions that were that apply to all sites uh within the city trail resoning. And then there were uh specific conditions that start on the bottom of page uh three of this particular packet um and bleed into number four. I provided you all of the conditions, but I struck through the ones that I felt like did not apply to this development so you could focus your review and understanding and knowledge based on those that what felt like did apply. Um, bring up one here number five under the conditions required of all sites that is uh the tree standards which was different from the UDO standards when this project was reszoned in 2023. These are very consistent with the current UDO standards for trees. Basically, they brought in the tree standards that had pretty much already been um suggested and recommended by the planning board to be included in the code. So, condition five is is consistent with the current tree standards.

So, just just to be clear, so this current plan is consistent with the current UDO tree standards for tree standards. Yes. because that was a specific condition that was added through the planning board and the council process to let's let's go ahead and since the trees had been somewhat settled through that UDO process let's go ahead and incorporate them into this project. Okay, that is my memory of it as well. Thank you. Let's see uh specific conditions if I can jump to that uh for subject area 13. Well, I guess what you're saying first of all

Yes. And maybe that's later I guess the in technical review but the conditions required from all sites are being met. That's my review point. Yes. Okay. Yeah. So example uh Mr. Chairman number one is talking about parking and it says comply with the UDO requirements um or the minimum maximum street parking ratios provided um unless otherwise noted. And on this particular project 1.83 83 parking spaces per unit is what was the standard and that's what has been provided. Okay. Thank you.

Just as an example, if you compare what council approved with the NDP, the concept plan or master plan versus submitted is consistent. All right. Uh subject the specific conditions for subject 13. Uh in my estimation, there was two of those five that applied. the others applied more to um driving range. So, the height of the multif family residential structures, which we'll talk about in a in a minute or two, um shall not exceed 50 ft. And then no structure shall be located within 115 ft of lots 139 and 140 as depicted on the site plan. And you can see that um the hashed area at the top left is basically identifying that 115T boundary. You'll see that no structure located there.

You can come back with discussion and questions. Yes. Later. I'll let you finish first. Yeah. I just was trying to go just real quickly through this. Not to not to belabor the report but the applicant may also have some information to share as well. So the use is a multif family which is permitted. Uh the setbacks and staff's estimation appear to be consistent with what was approved by code or by the uh development plan or both. Now was this consistent with the underlying MR3 code or the conditional zoning?

Conditional zoning. conditional zoning. So the plan layout, the the buffers, the setbacks are consistent with the master plan as recommended by the planning board and as approved by town council. Okay. Building height, which I'll bring up here now. You guys may have questions and I believe the applicant will want to talk about that a little bit more during their presentation. Specific condition number two limits the building on the site to 50 feet. The data table provided by that by the applicant to town council when those resonings were approved in July of 23 stated that no building shall exceed 50 ft in height height measure pursuant to appendix A. Appendix A is defined for you um that's the old code def section of the old code if you will. Um, and it reads the vertical defines building height as the vertical distance from finished ground level to the highest part of the building on any structure attached to the building excluding chimneys, flag poles, antennas, church spires, any necessary mechanical devices. Then you also have a screenshot of the data table um in the report as well. So the applicant

uh maybe a a note to itself on that it in CA in case there's a later iteration of this I think it might also be useful to include the definition of finished ground level because I believe that's also a little bit in conflict at the moment. on that same page right above at the top there's a definition I can't find my sheet of what finished ground level is so both because it's in this definition it references the other one I think both should probably be shown and if I could find it I'd read it off to you but

do that at some point find it as well if need

all right so the applicant site plan includes a building elevation with four stories a measurement for train actual building height from the finished ground level to the highest part of the building. Um output was not provided but they actually did provide that planning the applicant request the planning board consider placing a condition on the approval that as follows is all proposed building architectural elevation shall comply with the maximum building height requirement at the time of the building permit application and we'll go into a little bit more on that and I would like to speak more on that before you guys have a lot of discussion um on the building height if that's okay. Um top of page four, you do have a diagram provided by the applicant on how they're measuring height and or showing the height of the building, excuse me. So parking, I mentioned earlier, I believe the parking is compliant with the standards outlined by the uh approval. Tree preservation and mitigation is my review that it appears to comply with the tree mitigation requirements. believe applicants done a good job with identifying the trees to be removed um the inches the mitigation requirements and that chart you see beside tree mitigation tree press mitigation on page six is taken from the applicant site plan so you see where they've identified the trees they're removing the total count um tree count total inches removed and count to be replanted and then the proposal for those uh landscaping and buffer ering um parking lot landscaping requirements are listed. Um my review appears to be compliant. An undisturbed 20 foot wide buffer is provided along that northern uh or the northwest property line consistent with the approved concept plan for this particular area. Uh transportation which I've grouped together pedestrian vehicular. You have

access to the site from end of avenue of Champions Road. St. plan does include a sidewalk network connecting proposed buildings to the parking lot, a parking a pocket park in the future amenity areas. Um, and then I mentioned the driveway earlier. Storm water, they'll have to ultimately comply with Brunswick County and the state requirements u for that and prior to construction, they will need to obtain their storm water approval both from from the county and from the state. One item that uh occurred to me and it maybe should have been covered under your first section of use. This this item also needed to comply with use standard section 7.06 of the old code. It's in the table of their approved conditional zoning, their big table.

I think there's a little picture of it here somewhere. This one in the right hand side it says complies with 7.06. So it needs to be determined whether it comply I think it complies with that which can turn uh open space utilities including the garbage disposal which I think they've uh come up to snuff on in some uh areas and streets and wetlands I guess seems to be but part of their use compliance needs to be this section of the old code. It's page 7.4 four. Sorry. Um I'm pulling head up now,

right? I I believe it complies, but I guess at some point we need to determine because that was part of their use standard in this.

So 7.06 is listed as dwelling multif family. The first is common areas. All multif family I won't read the entire code, but just kind of summarize it. All multif family dwellings shall contain commonly owned land equal to an area to 35% of the entire area developed under one central development plan. I'll let the applicant address that, but I believe their plan shows compliance with 35%. I forget what page it was. You're right. I didn't cut that out, but they do show 35%. Um 35% of total area shall be common open space land not covered by buildings or accessory structures. I forget what their open space was. was just about 35, wasn't it? I believe they're providing 35%.

Yeah.

And then 50% of the common opening spaces must be designed for passive use, including but not limited to walking, jogging, hiking, wildlife, parking, and similar uses, but believe that in my estimation review, they do comply with that. B for that would be public access and easements. All units uh should have adequate access to a public street which will allow adequate comp community services. They have access out to avenues of champion which is through a road connection. Ultimately they get out to public streets. Avenue Champions I believe is a private street not a public street but council has already approved the ability for them to have this multi- family development on the site using Avenue Champions utilities. um utilities, public waters, all street parking areas, and underground electrical and telephone service must be provided in the multif family project. They're going to have access to public water, public sewer, um there's no public streets, uh parking areas, and underground electrical. They are being provided for this multif family development. Says adequate provisions for the collection and disposal of garbage and refuge shall be provided. They're showing um two locations but total of three trash comp trash

receptacles collection places. Correct. One on the one on the southwest corner and the others um on the other side.

Basically my understanding is they they visited this the multif family across the street and looked to see they're using a similar ratio for buildings versus trash trash recepticles. They can clarify that if needed on the in their presentation and then 3C3 would say suitable plans for water service disposal, sanitary sewage and storm drainage shall be provided. They can go into detail about their utility plans but they are provided they are they will have access to public water and public sewer. There is a force man running behind the two buildings. Um and so they had to push the buildings up a little somewhat to get out of that force main and east and they are providing an ement for that force man.

Is that adequately run? Yep.

Those last I didn't mention it was just through the TRC review. Um they have site accesses to Brunswick County Water and Sewer and the applicant will have to comply is responsible for complying with those standards. My understanding they're in working with or in contact with Brunswick County Utilities now on their um utility service and actual plans for that. Uh they show a 20 foot wide easement on the plan for that force man and booster pump is proposed to provide available fire flow. Um fire flow was one of the comments that came up during TRC. was concerned of whether or not the there was been adequate flow and so the applicant has taken that and working towards solutions um on that one being possibility of this booster pump but again I'll let them um bring that up in their conversation or discussion and presentation so my estimation plan itself the civil side complies with the standards of the code the one area in question will be the height planning board in your review. Uh you can approve it if you deem complies with the rules. You deny it if you believe it does not. You can also conditionally approve and per per the code. And when I say conditionally approve, what that means if you found something that maybe that isn't quite addressed, then you want to condition that to for compliance. So, we use the building height as an example. If you believe the building height is not totally compliant as designed, but you want to condition that, you have the ability to. Uh, what conditional approval does not mean is well, we know you're showing a 20 foot buffer per the code, but we want you to put a 50ft buffer there. That is not that is not conditional approval. I

guess I'm not sure of that. Understand

because it that would be true in my mind if something's not a specific condition being it being met or not met. Okay. But the way I'd like to do this though, I'm not sure we can do that without running a foul of the whole conditional zoning process because it's not like a UDO item that can be handled in permitting. It's a condition of the condition of and so I'm just not sure we run a file of the entire conditional zoning process by put letting something through and then go to staff for behind closed door approval on something as opposed to the public conditions that were reviewed and then voted on etc. So that we can discuss at the very end but the way I like to do this first I guess is go to everybody to see if they have comments, questions. Stuart's done a good job of reviewing the plans. He beat me to it. So, I'll give them on everything but the height at this point because we know that's going to be the most contentious.

Do you want Do you want to do that first? You want to hear from the applicant first? Well, you want to let the applicant speak to things first? Well, I guess I'd like to get They can. Yes. I don't have a problem with applicants speaking at all, but I guess I'd like to have everything else looked at or questioned and reviewed before unless they want to do hype first. Uh so what your suggestion is here from planning board and then maybe the applicant address yeah questions they

I mean like you Stuart he published a list of some questions and things which I I view are kind of sort of minor thing. Can those be resolved? Does anybody else have any things that can be quickly resolved? That's and then of course leave the elephant to the end maybe. But uh I could be had if we're supposed to do it the other way. But that's my thought is okay

get everything if the advocate chooses not to go that way. I can go any way they want. But uh but be uh my view is my thought is to go through all those items first and get them clarified, resolved, accepted or rejected or whatever from the applicant and then just settle on the final thing being the height question and then where to go from there. So okay.

Um I think Yeah. So then if that's okay with the applicant, you could come up if you'd like to or probably uh if you're going to have to answer his question. So probably we need somebody up there to speak and introduce yourself and because I know Stuart did a kind of a item by item list of questions and comments that we maybe go through that first and then go back to the other end and get if everyone

I would kind of like to speak somewhat strategically in terms of this conditional zoning process that we went through two years ago. I'm I'm a little concerned in that this the sentiment that was expressed to us by the applicant was the urgency in terms of creating a destination golf resort that would allow them to financially thrive. And now what I'm seeing is something that I personally voted for because of its application as a destination golf resort. Oops. Sorry. Now, we're going to build multifamily housing. That's not in the additional conditional zoning request. Now,

well, the multif family was multif family was included as subject 13, right? Um the I'm looking at it right now and I don't see it, but okay. It's in the residential block, right? I mean, it is a residential block, right? So now we're we're so my my I guess my concern is so the plan on the screen was what council approved the subject. Okay. Then maybe I have a preliminary and so you'll see the top you'll see three multif family buildings. Okay. Uh 72 units 24 in each. And then bottom left hand corner is the elevation that council approved shows fourstory building.

The notes and so forth beside that are provided as well. So, I guess my drawings are the preliminary submission that did not include. Yeah. Well, this one was a little confusing because there was a 13, a 13A, and 13B or something like that as opposed to giving them separate numbers and stuff because of the driving range being right next to it and stuff, right? But no, there there was a non-residential section and a residential section. The residential was the three multifamily buildings, 72 units. Okay. Which is where that section 708 came to was in that block of their Okay. All right, I stand corre I sit corrected.

My plan would be Stuart can go through his points first and the applicant can uh answer your questions agree with you or not agree with you and then we can move on anyone else and then knowing that at the end we're going to discuss height. So please at this point we know the height is going to be an issue. Let's we'll all get a second shot at talking about height when the height comes up. Not that anyone not that anyone's got going to get a chance to speak about it. So, including the applicant. Okay, Stuart.

All right. Um, most of these comments are on the sheet C3P 3.0, which is the site plan. Um so um one item was that south let's see just south of building one there's an island um with a existing cherry tree 6-in cherry tree in it and immediately adjacent to that is a sidewalk with a handicap ramp at the end and I guess um twofold. I'm concerned about that cherry tree if they're going to count it as a heritage tree or whatever that now we have a sidewalk that's 3 ft away from it. And I think even on the tree uh on the landscape plan that sidewalk is in the I would say the root zone of that tree. So, I'm concerned about the life of that tree. And also, I'm wondering whether we even need that short piece of sidewalk at all. It seems like a little sidewalk to nowhere. Um, I'm not sure where you're going if you go down that sidewalk. So, that was just a a concern. Twofold concern. But

you don't think you're gonna get away just sitting there all me.

Good morning. And uh yeah, I'm happy to be up here to help answer as we go through. Um thanks for everybody's time and and consideration of this uh item this morning. Uh I'm Matt Hin. I'm with McKimret Engineers. Um uh representing the applicant on this project. Um and happy to go over any concerns, questions as we as we go along today. Um with that absolutely I think I think the that portion of sidewalk um would be best removed for the life success of that tree. Um we did make every attempt uh in the layout in our constraints of the layout of the site to be able to potentially maintain and and preserve some trees within landscape areas. And and that one is one that that gets a little bit close to a a proposed sidewalk that Yeah. It is not necessary. So, so we would intend to remove that.

Okay. All right. Yeah. So, that you would maintain the sidewalk to the west. Correct. The top one and just take the sidewalk off next to the tree because if you get out of your car, you can just walk up to that. Yes. Sidewalk there. And but in maintaining the sidewalk over by the dumpster. Correct. Yes. With the ramp over there. Yes.

Yep. All right. Um, next item was the, uh, dumpster over at building three, which you added, which thank you for adding that. Um, there's no sidewalk to it. Could we extend that sidewalk in that corner? And the one on the outside of the parking? Yes, absolutely. Just bend that around the corner. Yep. We can bend it around. It's about the same size as the one we just got rid of. Right. [laughter] Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. We can wrap that uh corner of that parking space and provide a ramp at that uh acute angle there um in the lot.

Even though in reality probably a lot of people are going to walk on the non-parking side of the asphalt from the other sidewalk. Yeah. But they could cross the road there and go on in front of the car. So I give them the that gives them an option to go in front of the vehicles, wrap around and throw the garbage out that way. Yes. It would be up to the person, but stay off the road. A safer option, right? Yeah. If somebody's backing up or something down there, then they've got a an option to go around. Yep. Yeah. And if majority of people do use the sidewalk, um then it'll just end up with a

a animal path through the grass, the turf area there to the dumpster. Yeah. So yeah, we can provide that sidewalk connection.

All right. And then um the pump station drive, there's no ADA ramp or anything for that drive. That's a 24 in standup curb, right? I mean, your curb detail says it's a 24 inch curb. You've got just a curb depression there. But how is that how's that work? I mean, you're just going to lower the curb there and let them drive over the sidewalk. I think what we need to do is um I'm just not sure how that's going to work.

Yeah, I think what we need to do is separate the sidewalk in that portion from the back of curb. provide the ramp the ramp apron up to um the sidewalk to where then we can get ADA slopes on the sidewalk um at a as a 5ft separation from the curb. So we're just talking about that trapezoid that's in front of the gravel road for the pump station, right? Providing an actual ramp there, right? So what

and because it's angled, it has to be ADA compliant with the bumps. Uh well, it wouldn't need to be. All we So, where the 90° angle is of the sidewalk, we would we would propose to extend that sidewalk across the entrance drive at that point. So, allowing basically at the curb, you would ramp up for the driveway entrance and then get essentially level to the sidewalk crossing location. Oh, okay. Um so, basically relocating the sidewalk, right? so that it has it's inside or let's say south of the ramp. Right.

And then we would get back to the the curb behind the curb um to the uh east side of the of the entrance. Okay. All right. That that would be good. I it just felt like the the driveway was getting priority over the sidewalk, right? Yeah. It was um actually uh the curb depression and and ramp was added later after the sidewalk and that that was kind of the order of things where right it it did ultimately being last got the priority and that yeah the sidewalk needs to be adjusted there. Okay. Appreciate that comment.

Sure. Um, we talked about this at TRC, but um, would it be possible to extend the sidewalk out to Avenue of Champions just in case avenue of Champions gets sidewalk in the future? Yes, absolutely. And it actually the on the conditional zoning plan there is a there is a sidewalk shown along Avenue of Champions and the applicant and uh us have have recently uh routed you know looked at a proposed routing for that sidewalk. So at this time I think it's appropriate to go ahead and make the connection. Um

is that on the south side of the entrance? Yeah, it would be on the south side of the entrance where we where we extend sidewalk from its proposed location now to to Avenue of Champions and then where we would uh [laughter] it's the applicant's desire to go ahead and make that sidewalk connection um along Avenue of Champions um before the non-residential parcel improvements happen. Um, so that that would probably be happening outside of this particular site plan, but uh prior to the non-residential site plan that gets proposed. Um, so we if that happens, we'll show it as existing on the next uh submission for the non-residential portion.

Refresh my memory. Is Avenue of the Champions private or town? Private. Um, and this is probably just a drafting thing, but there weren't any lane widths um called out at the entry. [laughter] Just want to make sure fire and police are are okay with the lane widths where that island is, right? Yeah, where the island is.

Yeah. Uh, yeah, they weren't dimensioned. They are. I confirm that and appreciate the comments in advance of the meeting today. We did confirm uh that they are uh both at the most narrow points facing curb to face a curb travel width is is 13 ft. So with both lanes the total of the 26 ft requirement by the fire department is met. Um and we we can add those dimensions uh with with these other modifications to the plan. Okay. Just wanted to make sure because the fire department mentioned access widths and all that. Yeah.

Um All right. The um there's a sidewalk that goes down to where the golf cart parking is. Uh there's a sidewalk along the back side of the golf cart parking on one side and then there's a little leg that goes down um I guess to the golf cart parking. But I guess I was concerned that that didn't have a handicap ramp at the end of it. So, if somebody's got a a walker or cane or whatever, they their access to the golf cart parking spaces was going to be impaired.

And you're talking about right at the corner of this sort of island peninsula here. Yeah. Because there's no way for them to get down off the curb safely. So it would just be adding a little handicap ramp at the end of that leg of sidewalk. Would that be okay? And at the end kind essentially where the stop bar close to where the stop bar is there. Right there. Yeah. Yeah. I think that would be fine to be able to incorporate that ramp there just just for that scenario, right? To uh provide someone with that safer uh access down to the drive aisle

um for those spaces. Uh yeah, but the the stop is the So you're walking in front of the stop then the the stop bar has to be moved to the Yeah, the stop bar, right? Because this is this direction here, right? Or I guess you redo the sidewalk to come out on the other side of the because the sidewalk should exit at the other side of the stop bar, right? Yeah. But that gets you to the golf cart. Yeah. Yeah. We can look at the orientation. I I think it'd be best to Maybe bring the sidewalk off of the off of the curb if you got a walker

like to to the center of that peninsula and have the stop mark and then put the stop bar um behind. They're golf carts. They should be able to see somebody there. But Right. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. I wasn't too worried about it since it's golf cart. But yeah, they should stop from a further away spot. They should stop before the walk. So yeah, we'll we'll provide the ramp more central to that island and then um and then that uh marked walk out into that opening uh in front of the stop bar.

All right. Um, do you have a excuse [clears throat] me, do you have a sign planned for the entrance?

So, at this point, there's not a firm plan as far as signage. Um, there's been discussion of potentially modifying the sign at uh the entrance to Avenue of Champions. Um, but there's been nothing solidified with that plan at this point. Um, as of right now, we show landscaping within the within the central island of the entryway. Uh, there's the potential for for a sign. Uh, but there's nothing planned right now and but that would certainly be uh submitted for permit application uh if if it is does become planned in the future. So they would have to do a separate permit for a monument sign or something and then they would have to comply with what

does it matter at this time where it's located? No, I don't think it just have to comply with the standards of the code from the previous code which could why would it have to comply with the previous code from the fire? Well, regardless I mean they can get a separate permit for signage. This typically aren't looking at signage at this early you know their site plan review. So, right, that is something they could they could apply for later and then they would just comply with the sign standards.

Now, they've had signage in front of GS Landing and I assume they'll have signage in front of Pelican Reserve and actually that signage is quite attractive. Um, I'm assuming that's something that they could apply for. that can apply for in this entrance that would be consistent with other signage within u the sea trail development. Yeah, that's correct. And those two projects that you referenced are not part of the conditional zoning, but at the same time it's the same applicant. Um and it's I guess in my mind it's the same community. Yeah. Since the sign is not addressed in it, it would it would be to current standard.

Still be current standard though. standard would allow this is this is in their site. It's not within a right of way. It's on this part of the property. So provided they can be vision clearance issues and things being really no different than landscaping. Okay.

And that and that's one I think Mr. Chair I I think you referenced earlier potential future modifications. Um there's in the general conditions for the conditional zoning number 10 the last one. Unless otherwise noted or specified on provided plans or conditions, the minimum requirements of the UDO shall be applicable to all development contained herein. It just says the UDO. Um I think it's it somewhere else maybe that they referenced the the UDO at the time of the conditional zoning, but that's something that can be cleaned up potentially in the future. But I do know that the applicant intends to for items like signage adhere to the current UDO

uniformity with this development yet or illumin right never mind. Okay, cool. It's that big writing at the bottom of the door. I know. Thank you. Thank you, [laughter] Ron. Um, now the I see the crosswalks designated here. Are they going to be painted on the asphalt so pedestrians? Yeah, the one the the crosswalks um that are um hatched are will be painted. Yes. H I think around.

All right. Um the future amenity area. Um I guess I have questions for you and for Ron. I mean, I'm not sure what you're thinking for the amenity area. And do we have to approve the amenity area as part of the site plan? If it's got a lot of impervious, does that go into your storm water calculation? I mean, it's just I'm just not sure what we're looking at. It It feels like we're approving something that you're going to do in the future that we don't we don't have any say of.

Um, so yeah, I'll take that first. So just just to hit on the imperous area and the storm water permitting first, we are accounting for in our stormwater permits to the both the county and the state. We're accounting for uh a an impervious area so many square feet um that we'll need to limit ourselves to the applicant will need to limit themselves to and not exceed if those permits are issued. They'd have to do a modification to the permits if they did want to exceed it. Um but uh usually that's not not desired. So we'll we'll limit ourselves to a certain square footage of impervious area and then adhere to that when we submit for any further uh site plan reviews or or just uh building permits.

Okay.

Um and then on that next review process, my understanding and and obviously Ron can can offer as well. My understanding is is that it it'll depend on what's being proposed. um we don't have a a schedule yet of what what's being proposed for this particular site. So to your point about multifamily within the conditional zoning, there's actually future subjects that were also approved with multifamily um residential uh parcels within the conditional zoning. And the intent of those three uh including this one site, those three sites total is that first of all they'll all be the same building um architectural building and then also they will all be within the same subassociation within Seat Trail. Um so any amenities that would be proposed on this site would also be um would would be able to be utilized by the other multif family sites um within the conditional zoning. So the comprehensive amenity package for these three sites has not yet been determined. This could be simply a playground or or other uh smaller amenities. and in and and and so it's back down to the coming back to this board for review. I think it depends on whatever whatever is being proposed and if it requires a minor site plan then yes it would come back before this board. If it's not a

that would be my answer. if it if it triggers a major site plan or major modifications to the existing conditional approval. But but but but we right now I'm I'm looking at this area as more as just like a reserved area or and so right but we don't know the impervious part of it. So but we don't know it's like almost a phase de like a phase development almost. We don't know what is going to go there and we can't require them to plan something for approval when they're not ready for that to be approved. So, I was going to say something similar to what the applicant had just stated was it depends on what those improvements are, whether or not it has to come back through this process or not. If they just come in and say we're going to put like a, you know, batonical garden or something there, right? Why would they need to come back?

If you look at their improvements, they're at 45.2 right now, right? That's limited, but that the 45% and is limited resident. So, if they add something there, they're probably below 45. You've only got 0.2 to play with. This is you know what I'm saying? Yes sir. If you look at the proposed list now percent impervious coverage is 45.2 too. The limit is 45 for residential developments, which is what this is.

And that's what I'm only concerned about is I I I don't I mean I just don't know are they going to then run a say they propose even something small like a zebo. Okay, it's probably going to drive that below 45, right? I don't know what 02 of the total area is. I just got to believe it's not a big number. I didn't do the math, but I mean it it kind of sort of indirectly affects this one. Well, it would drive it higher, right? We're already over. We're over. That's right. I'm sorry. We're two tents over already.

Yeah. But I guess that was part of my concern is that Right. So, anything they put there impervious drives them over the further. We're not into the de I'm sorry. You're right. It's two tents the wrong way already. I didn't even see that. Uh uh though that can probably be change an island a little bit. You get rid of the two tents. But uh right, anything if they decide to put a pool in there or something or a pickle ball court, they're way they're going to be way over way over the impervious. Yeah, sorry. So I don't know

the flexibility in terms of them being able to provide amenities down the road is somewhat restricted based on the pvious impervious s are we doing this right? I get

that that was my point with the future multif family sites being in the same subassociation that there's there's more optimal options for the um imperous naturatured amenities such as um pools, club houses and and those types of amenities on on the other sites on the on the future multif family sites within the conditional zoning. It's very likely this this area becomes we've even got it in our erosion sediment control plans in in the first stage to be able to maintain the trees for now in that area. And so with the lack of additional impervious area, it's very likely that that becomes a a playground with impervious surf with pvious surfaces um and um pvious walkways throughout it. um and you know provides that kind of aesthetic view central to the site but we just did not have that

right I mean at the time of this application I understand you don't know what's going there right my problem I'm trying to say how do we how do we know that whatever they proposed later doesn't really make this site plan non-conforming question sorry thought I hit it I hit once and then it's or should hit it twice is multif family residential or commercial residential

and I look at it from a building a lot of times you look at the building code but once it reached that five unit threshold it becomes a commercial from a building code perspective and so that's going to so duplex is a single family limit there are things subject to the residential building code versus and a multif family development of this magnitude typically is more commercial in nature per the co building code. So that's how I was looking at this. If NMR3 is a residential designation, not commercial,

right? But also through the condition through the U conditional zoning process, council has allowed uses in those MR3 areas that aren't always allowed in the MR3, which is a like Yeah, but those are specific to the hotel as an example. No, but that's in the mud. Uh, well, I I don't know what to do with this, I guess, because I understand the applicant doesn't know what's going to be there, but re Well, I guess we're going to I don't know how to can leave this for now, I guess, and maybe come up against Yeah.

I mean, we need maybe I didn't review what standard applies here. I'm sorry. I didn't really review what standard applies, but in my first mind, I see this as a residential development. So, so I looked at it as from the from the other side of of building code. Let's say they are over 45%. I What does it say? It says they have to provide retention and everything, right? Which they are. I mean, they're they're complying. They'll have to comply with the counties. [laughter] So,

well, I think I'm okay with it just because if they're going to assign a certain impervious amount to that and then go get all their permits, they're not going to short themselves because they don't want to go back through that storm water permitting process, right? Okay. I just was curious about what was going on and you know I realized you're up against imperous limits and you know if this was going to be a pool or whatever with a lot of impervious then it was going to drive your numbers crazy.

Yeah, we we're actually citing right now um and and laying out conceptual utilities and and other things on the next multifamily site within the traditional zoning. We've got a we've got a standard block that we're using to site uh clubhouse and pool uh and things. There's there's a lot more opportunity in those areas. And and like I said, we we made it we made it a a um uh specific uh design standard for the contractor, the future contractor in that area to maintain that whole stand of trees during the initial construction of the project. not knowing what uh what the future uh plans will be but thinking that it's very likely that it won't be a a significant uh impervious improvement.

Right. Okay. So, are we relying on the storm water process to resolve this issue and it's off of our plate? Either that or we'll see it when they bring back the whole amenity package. Okay. Can you can we refresh our memory in terms of the conditional resoning subjects that are designated as residential? I know subject one is correct. I don't have the full list with me. 16 and 17. 16 17 16 and 17 and also uh well one was already through us and planned was

the only one that's already been through is 12A um that is the other one that's been approved by this board but I we've had a preliminary plat on that 12A so that's one then the other one I believe was track uh subject one which is along the entrance road the sea trail and there were some subject one is along Angel's trace Um, I'm not sure if that is residential, but I might be wrong. It's at the southern No, I I correct. I'm talking about subject 16. Yes. Yep. And that's along um the entrance road. Yes. Correct.

And we went through a fairly significant negotiation process where those bordering on the entrance road would be reduced to three stories. Yeah. You're you're into a subject we're not there yet. Okay. Yes. All right. Correct. But we're getting there. I just want to understand that in terms of additional multifamily, you know, what did we sign up for two years ago and it's subject 16 obviously this and what was the addition? And then the one the preliminary plat that we've already approved 12A

12A which that at this point did make it through this board but um that the construction of that project had has not happened. Um and I think I think the applicant is potentially looking at alternatives there but but obviously not ready to permitted yet? No, it's not. It never went in for permits. Okay. Well, let let's uh start and then subject 17. You got a few uh just minor things. I don't you want to go one or just do they agree that these minor drafting things that Steuart lifted up easily easily fixable there's nothing there right absolutely

that's just for their information I just had one last question that there's no tree fence shown but I'm assuming that'll show up on the construction drawings yes we have a we have a section of drawings with ro sediment control and and uh tree protection fencing in it that's not in this package but yes okay all right that's all I had

uh I guess I'll go this way So I'll go next. I think just have a there is only one minor question I think related to the distance to the houses. I do recall know that you did show the 115 ft to the two parcels noted in the condition. So that does comply, but I guess for the public's sake, I drew it here someplace. It because you actually reorientated the buildings, those two those two parcels were picked because they were actually the closest to the building at the time. But somewhere here, I drew if you carry uh here, if you carry this line, I guess just for the public's sake, that 115 ft to any of these lots is true. Yes, that

I don't know if you can see my picture. Y if I just carry that line, make it parallel to the back of all the lots. There is there's actually no building in the 100 foot offsets, but not only to the two lots mentioned, which I think were 139 and 140. Yes. But 141 through 146 also enjoy that same. Yes. Um and and and again because if you looked at the original one the footprints were slight or been moved which we didn't tell you you can't do I guess but just so everybody knows

that 115 ft actually applies to 139 through 146. None of them are closer to 115 ft. Yes, that's correct. And and quite a bit exceeds that dimension. And and to further kind of back that up is um we didn't overlay it um to show that, but um this is the CZ plan that's not in color, and it's actually um the proposed buildings are actually further away from that boundary line than what what was proposed. I just want to make sure a question wouldn't come up. The guy in 141 said, "What about me?" Right? Yeah,

but it's clear from scaling the drawings and if you make the lines that all those properties are beyond the condition. Correct. Now, none of this is going to disrupt the cart path between 16 and 17. Correct. That's correct. Yes. The uh it's in that preserved area, right? Yes. The limits of uh disturbance for the project well shy of that uh honeycomb hatched uh do not disturb area. The other small thing to make your tree mitigation, you you bought a bunch of crepe mles myrtles, 10 of them or whatever it was or eight of five, whatever it was. And you bunched them all in the same island, I guess.

Yeah, I think it was was it six? Maybe there was more, but there was six in the island. Yeah. Yeah. Well, we've had like a disease problem with some of the crepe metal myrtles lately. I just wonder, you don't have to do it. I get whether you'd like maybe spread them out a little bit. I forgot. We had something where it was all falling off, right? Not a tree, the landscaping, but there was like a disease the crepe myrtles had. Uh, so bunching them together may not be the most wisest. So, I mean, I can't make you do it, but maybe your landscaper would consider put two two and two and spread them out a little bit. Yeah. and and we can we can I'm sure you just said

kind of just stuck them no our our landscape architects uh put this plan together uh but but we can consider a different tree when we I got no crepe murdles just I recall from the tree committee or tree ERC one of them had an issue where they're going around looking at all the town's crepe myrtles because they had some sort of disease last summer wasn't it some I don't I won't it was spreading with close proximity, right? So, they're right. You got them all in that one little circle here by the pocket park, which would look nice, but maybe if you would

spread them around a little bit would be just more safe for that tree, which is other than that, you do meet the tree standard, so that's excellent. So, that's good. Yeah, we'll definitely look at that. We haven't submitted for the official tree removal permit associated with this project yet. Just wanted to make it through the board today. And um but we can look at the kind of revisions to that proposal uh when we when we um finalize that tree removal permit. Okay.

This may be outside of your knowledge set, but in terms of the driving range that is now going to abut this. I mean um we were assured and I am a sea trail owner when they cannibalized the driving range to go ahead with Pelicans that they would expeditiously provide an alternative driving range while it's been two years. Uh is there any sense in the recent board meeting they kind of indicated that they were going to try and do something by next year. Is there any indication that you know of that a solution is eminent or no?

Yes. So yeah, there's been some indications and and further to kind of support that, we've put together a preliminary grading plan to account for it. Um, what I can tell you is that the proposal is at this point is not a full driving range that it's more of a technologically enhanced uh driving range that um that is, you know, real distance is shorter than your typical full driving range. But but gives you the uh the um visual aspect um technological aspect of what what

land standing they've reduced their because I can remember they were insistent on a threetory driving range and we pushed very hard and they refused to compromise on that. Is that something that they've amended or to tell? I'm not it's I think it's a little too soon to tell what I've seen. um and it's still conceptual but what I've seen is that uh the particular technology and company that proposes these um I have not seen okay three deck uh options for it no

Kevin anything on the plans other than the height no questions not at this time okay Richard any other final items no I think you know Um, okay. No, other than the height is we'll see the driving range when it comes to us. Yes. Which would be exciting to do. Okay. So, now the uh Jordan, you're done, too. Yep. I'm done.

The next item, of course, I mean item of contention is going to be the height. And of course, I think the the condition was clear in my mind. I don't know. Do we need to read it again for everybody? Probably. Uh the specific condition two the height of multifamily residential structures shall not exceed 50 ft. And of course the definition says the vertical distance from finished ground level to the highest part of the building or any extru or any structure attached to the building excluding chimneys, flag poles and antennas. And then I'm sure I printed it out, but I can't find it. The definition of ground level was the level of finished earth ground at the front of the building. If somebody wants to pull up that definition,

I'm pulling it up. So clearly from looking at the pictures, this property does not conform with that condition. I scaled it out around 56 feet uh from the ground to the peak of the roof. Some people probably got 55 just because of the paper and everything. So I don't know what the height of the building is. What is the height of the building? Which the one sheet 50? It's just under 54 54 feet. Yeah. From the ground. Not because in their picture they eliminate the 8 inch pad the 8 inch concrete which is not the way our ground level read. So you got to add the 8 inch in.

Was that sheet removed? It should be like I had it earlier earlier. So there's a there's a sheet here. [laughter] There it is. That um that is like it one more time. See advance it one more time. See if it goes to it. Okay. Give it a little bit of time. It was up a few minutes ago. Yeah. Right. It's the second to last page essentially in the in the whole set. Um it's and it's a it looks more like instead of an exterior elevation, it looks more like a cross-section. Yeah. So that that's it there. It's the last page. C18.3. C18.3.

Yeah. I didn't get one. You didn't get one. I didn't get one. You got that one. This one here. I got that one. [laughter] I didn't get that one. Okay. So, that one him that's how the your scaling was off then. Yes, because Yeah, this one has a uh dimension to it. So, right on the uh I think it's on the far right side maybe right there. And then you add the

up there. And what about the like say on your other drawings you took off that 8 inches at the bottom. So this total height includes the 8 inches or not the 8 in. And when you looked at your other crosssections or plan or elevation elevations you start your dimensions above that 8 in which is the concrete pad and we call for ground level being the dirt not the top of the pad. Right? So but whatever. So it's at least 54 ft or it could be 548. Yeah. Applying dementia. We need to sort that out. But e neither one of them are 50.

Correct. Yeah. So I think what what happened um so on the on the plan um the conditional zoning plan um there's a little yellow box next to the um it's like a more like a perspective view elevation that was presented and included in the conditional zoning plan that if um actually it one yeah So, in the down in the Oh, now that's Yeah, it's in the lower lefthand corner. Oh, they're messing with it. Yeah.

Yeah. So, in the lower leftand corner, um there's the perspective view elevations that were presented without dimensions. And then there's a little yellow box that states building height, which if you look at that sheet, it's the the number is is 47 ft 7 and 1/8 in. that corresponds to the architectural building height that follows international building code of mean roof height. Um, and so I think what happened was is during all of the specific conditions of the entire conditional zoning when it came to residential fourstory multif family residential four-story building height maximum discussion. I think the applicant and the applicant's representatives got architectural information that read 4778 and were like, "Hey, all we need is 48 ft." And and probably

I hear you. I was here, not here. I was there, right? And I'll tell you exactly what happened. The original request or planning board desire was 45 ft. these picture of these buildings came and we had a lengthy lengthy lengthy discussion where you showed the 47 and change. One of my final statements in that movie meeting was I'm okay with 48 ft. The the people sitting here at the tables which wasn't you Mhm.

said we need a little more because we don't know for sure the angle of this. would there be a pipe? Would there be that? And asked for 50. I believe at the meeting either in this session or another one, one of our chairman at the time, Mr. Larkin, read off the definition of height from our code. So it was not, as the letter stated, missed or I forget what the letter states from one of your engineers or that it was overlooked. It was not overlooked. We spent adnauseium time on these buildings and other buildings were part of to get additional height for buildings. These red other these build other ones have height specified. Everybody knew what the height definition was. It was not unknown. So I mean this it reads here and this is Mr.

P. That's me. That's him. Uh, I didn't think about it. But anyway, you know that that UIO appendix A was overlooked at the time. That was not that's not true. They were not it was not overlooked. So, I'm I'm speaking on behalf of within that letter. I know what you're saying. I'm speaking on behalf of the applicant. And what I'm saying is is that to expand on the letter is that these architectural drawings, not drawn by me, drawn by an architect, are the same architectural drawings that the applicant had at the time of the conditional zoning. What I'm saying is is that

but I don't think they would have got 55 ft. If they said in reality our buildings are 55 ft, they wouldn't have got it. And and that's fine. And that's fine. All I'm saying in the letter is that

from that point until the time that we submitted the we the civil engineer submitted the architectural drawings as part of this application that there was never a concern by the applicant until that time. And now given the time the financial implications of timing running out, we do not have a significant amount of time to be able to go back to the drawing board. We're not asking for more than 50 ft. We're simply asking for a little bit of time prior to the building application to be able to get a building that complies.

I've not heard or seen that you're looking to re-engineer this that that peak of that roof is going to be at 50 ft from the ground. I hear you're just looking for us to change the dimension of height, the definition of height. Yeah. And I I can I can tell you right now I don't have any appetite for that. Right. And the other thing too is I mean I think only the two of us were here, right? You came joined later. Yeah. I mean it was and I was not here for two of those sessions because I was out of town.

But I do recall from having reviewed them that Yeah. this was something we spent a lot of time on. I I understand that the applicant probably called the architect and said, "What's the height of your building?" And you said, "47T 7 and 1/8 in." And then they said, "We were ready to approve 48." Went from 45 to 48. And then they said, "Well, you know, we better put a little padding in there in case we're off a little bit." And we got dragged to 50. I shouldn't use drag. That's editorializing. Uh [laughter] I mean what what

and we approved fifth I I you know I know where you I know your problem. Okay. Uh but it was clear that the town the comp planning board didn't really didn't want the 50 foot agreed to it to get it done because we thought the and and everybody has to realize here this applies to if we change the definition of how you measure height to a slope roof. It's changing all these building. How many of these buildings are there? 10 or 12. 10 that are same as this. Three in this one. There's nine and another one. And then I believe three, seven, and six.

There are other commercial properties that have slope roof that have a height requirement of 35, 45, whatever we agreed to. It essentially changes those they all get taller.

Yeah. Can I say something real quickly or just before we get too much further on this? First of all, procedurally, the planning board does not have the ability to change a height definition, change a the height, etc. So that has to be done through a modification through the process which would require them to go back through MA and applicant and I have had this conversation pretty extensively. I've had a lot of conversations regarding height. So for them to they have to show compliance and I believe that's all I'm I'm reading the com the condition request as they understand that the planning board may not agree with height as shown as being compliant. They're asking for time complaint.

Yes, that may I'm I'm reading their condition request that's saying we understand there may be some issues with how between the applicants what they want to do with height and what the planning board and the council's approval of height was. Let's condition the height that when it goes through the building permit application process that staff is using the current the definition as defined appendix A for that height to verify the height is compliant or if the applicant chooses to come through the modification process which requires them to come to this board ultimately reviewed by council that

I'm not comfortable having it done in a permitting process because the public spent we had a room full of people through this whole thing and And now obviously not many came today because they didn't really but I suspect if it comes up again the rooms will fill up. The public knew knows clearly we agreed to 50. Okay. And I think our definition of the height is the basic intuitive definition of what height is. Not this angle of the roof triangle oneird up the triangle thing. I've seen them both ways for other jurisdictions. I think the public will think 50 ft means from the ground to the tippy top. Okay. So, they know we've agreed to that.

In Sunset Beach, you're 100% correct. Including their own houses have a 35 foot height limit. Height limit. And they didn't get this. I got an angled roof. So, my height's here. So, the people who build houses here didn't get this sure add-on. And I would just say that if the condition [clears throat] that if the requested condition was if you condition it based on the requested condition, approve it based on that condition and they were to submit this application this building height, we would I would say no and then they could appeal it to the board of adjustment or they can modify their plans as he's requested for time and show how they can comply or they can go through and through a mod.

Yeah. That's the other thing that we're not mentioning here. Historically within SeaTrail, there are no fourstory condominiums. We are breaking new ground here. And I think the approval for sor stories was okay, we'll let you go four stories, but you are going to have to adhere to the 50 ft regulation because that's what everybody else does. And their solution is we build three stories and now we can have a peaked roof. Not a problem. So they're getting an additional in these three buildings, they're getting an additional 18 units based on the fact that okay, you want to go four stories, you go four stories. But I feel very strongly that the conditions are yes, we'll agree to four stories, but you got to get it under 50 ft. And if that creates a problem, perhaps the solution is you go back to three stories and then you can have a gabled roof all you want.

Sure. And and just so the planning board is aware, the applicant I've had these conversations, I don't know, Matt, how many times, at least seven or eight times over the last month and a half. Yes. Um I've expressed the town's position on height. They would they've asked to move forward and bring it to the planning board. I believe some of that has to do and you'd like to get some civil work started while you're while they modified. would agree why they modified. I would say I think what we've heard here today with some small modifications the site plan is fine would have if it wasn't for this it would it would be approved

I would think I don't think anybody would argue what you've done on everything else is good would be approved but to me this is not it's not a deep permit level detail it is a condition if another option potentially maybe this will ease your mind And I'm thinking of this on the on the fly. If planning board with some of the suggested changes that the applicant has a agreed to is willing to approve the site plan itself, the civil side of it and then they can bring the building back for review and approval. Right. Knowing that we can't approve. No, you're not approving. Yeah. But we could never approve a building over 50 feet. You're not. Yes. Correct. You're not

because that is a hard fast condition with hard fast definitions. Agreed. Agree. So if they come back again saying it's 52 now they've figured something out. It's still not approved. If they want to come back again with 52 or anything above 50, right? They can petition to modify their conditions that condition and any others which he's already brought up may be the case on some clarifying some landscaping things or whatever case signage and the amenity package and so forth, right?

They could come through that process. Nothing prevents them from doing that to get a recommendation from this board and then council. And to do that they would have to go through the entire process public meeting notifying 500 within 500 ft. So it would be modifications to conditional zoning going through the same process they went through before and the applicant's aware of that. Let me go off. Can I go off on a different So I just want to throw other options if you're comfortable. Clearly the problem is the elevator jab. Well, let I'm going to diverge. You don't have to answer to what type of elevator do you plan? Is this hydraulic or a traction? I don't have that answer.

Who makes the difference on that thing on the top that that alters your slope? Yeah. If you go hydraulic, I mean, I'm a mechanical engineer, not a civil engineer. Yeah. And I'm a civil engineer, not a mechanic. So, I I don't have that answer. That broom on top varies greatly whether it's a hydraulic, which means the piston is below the pit. You're not You're showing a pit here with a sump pump, not a piston underground. Mhm. Okay. Which can go 50 ft. There are hydraulic elevators that could go 50 or just over 50 feet. Mhm. Okay. Which means you don't need the thing on top. You just need air. You need It's It's hypodermic, so you need to get air out and air in. Right.

And it's nowhere near as tall. Now, it's a traction elevator. You need access to the motors and pulley and the counterweight thing, which means you need one 6.6 foot8 door in a house that they can maintenance can access that. But that room only needs to be 72 high at the point 7'2, but don't have to be a flat roof. It could be an angled roof that matches the angle of the bigger roof. So my concern here or my I I I don't get this I think there could be engineering solutions to this that don't require uh changing our definition changing our conditions and maybe there isn't okay but I don't know now obviously everybody would like to build a building that's been pre-esigned and built. You have roof trusses that you have designed that you purchase from someone and going to a custom roof truss. It's going to add some cost probably less negative than losing a story. Uh but there see it seems to my mind that not all engineering solutions have been investigated and presented that could res resolve or nearly resolve this problem. So that's a statement that's not a question I get. So, I I don't know. I I'm uh

could I add on behalf of the the applicant just just to that statement and and and kind of the topic in general just as far as um requesting site plan approval versus building elevation approval at this time. Um which which generated the the condition request letter. Um it is the desire to uh obtain site plan approval to begin uh not immediately but upon permits begin uh site site work. While while that site work progresses [clears throat] there are the options that we've discussed here. There are engineering options for the roof. Um, there are engineering options to simply reduce the ceiling heights to 8 ft and get down below the maximum height. That's going to greatly degrade the value of these units in this building. There's the option to reduce down to three stories. In in general, all of those options outside of the option to come back to this board and request a conditional zoning change to increase the height uh maximum height allowance are financially strapped options that that greatly reduce the value of this property and this project. The further that value is reduced, the more the time constraint is of the site moving forward is impacted. So if the site plan's not approved, then that's further

reducing the the project. I was sort of sympathetic to that at a point. But what I'm concerned about is okay, we do that and the site everything gets underway. I don't want to be put in a position 3 months from now. We say, well, we've looked at them all. Best we can do is 52 feet. We got all this. I don't want to be putting a take it or leave it because you've invested million bucks or whatever and at this time we have to adhere to the 50 ft. We have to we have no choice. I mean it we could come back and say that but it but to your to your

I don't want to get myself boxed in a corner because I'm giving you some conditional approval now to where it becomes so impalable to not approve later becomes a legal fight. Stuart, you got more experience in this than I do. So, well, [clears throat] I I don't know that I've ever my 30 years of submitting site plans, I never submitted a site plan that didn't conform. So, I'm a little out of my element. I

We got some solutions, but I'm not seeing them in front of us. So I'm I guess I'm not understanding the you said there was a urgency a time limit or something. What what time limit are you talking about? Is that just urgency to get the site work done? urgency to get the site work done so that once the once we are prepared to submit for building applications that meet the condition of the maximum building height that we can we can obtain approval for the building permits and and start vertical construction.

Well, I would suggest that urgency should be borne by the applicant, not by the planning board. If it's urgent that this get done, then you should explore urgently how to fix this so you can come back with a complete plan that aderes to

I'm sympathetic to the financial problems and the point was as you said earlier was to get this done to make this a an improved area that for golf and I mean the whole reason behind in the first place I think we still well I can I still agree with. So I guess what I need to hear from the applicant is that the definition of height is our definition of height including ground level and the condition is not to exceed 50 ft and that's what they're going to do. And then if you can tell me if they say that publicly and as part of this record and then you tell me there's a way we can do this that approves the site plan from the ground level only and that anything above ground level will come back here and I can probably go ahead and entertain a motion in that way. But I need the two things. One, the applicant says the maximum height allowed is 50 ft. That the definition of height is the definition in our appendix. The definition of ground level is the definition in our appendix. And then you tell me there's a mechanism for us to prove everything from the ground level down and not above the ground level. And that it comes back within I don't know if we put a time fence on it or not, 60 days or something. uh that they show this C18 drawing showing a 50- foot building and then it be like a five minute meeting and we can approve it.

So there's two I'm asking one from the applicant and one from you.

I'll [clears throat] answer staff side first. So just looking at what your role is, you can approve, you can approve it, you can deny or you conditionally approve. That's listed in the code. And I stated earlier conditionally approvement doesn't mean adding conditions that the code doesn't already state like you can't the example I always like to use you know you can't require wider buffer than what the code would say. I do believe conditionally approved could mean conditioning as the applicant requested or we're going to condition the civil work the site work. We're not approving the building the building come back through process to show to demonstrate height compliance.

I believe that is an I believe that is an option by the way the code. What about the footprint and location? Does the footprint and location become fixed? Then say they decide to move them around a little bit for some I mean I guess it depend on the magnitude of the changes. If they shift it two feet and long as they're compliant with something else I would say no. But if they just totally reorient the site, we're going to put parking here and building over here, you know, we would I don't think that's what's going to happen. No, I don't think so. I don't think that's in my mind approving everything. I mean, but to me, the way this is conditionally approved, you have the ability to conditionally approve.

I I'm this is too convoluted for my taste. I I feel strongly if this is urgent to the applicant, put the emphasis on him to solve the problem that he's created, not on us. I think approving a site plan, we're going to find ourselves down the road facing a situation where we're going to be put in a very uncomfortable position. Uh, and I would not look forward to that. You know, this has been very clear from the beginning. it's 50 ft and the fact that um the applicant has come forward with something that doesn't address that uh you know I I agree the site plan is is is sufficient but if they want approval for this project the entire thing has to be sufficient and it's not and while I appreciate the attempt to kind of create an alternative solution uh the whole thing just makes me nervous and I I won't vote for

Kevin thoughts even though you weren't a group maybe better for to hear from you because you weren't part of the original I'm gonna pass right now just listen to you guys I think I could go with you on some part of this I just I guess I'd have to go back and read the code if we can we approve a site plan that's just civil I thought the site the architectural was architectural elevation and demonstrating height certainly as a requirement but it does say conditionally approve and that's why I'm saying you could yeah but use it or you can also on the flip side say okay we don't believe it complies

we're conditioning to approve a site plan with a conditional zoning with a condition not met you understand I know there's too many conditions in there I'm just I'm still a little leer because I'm just running through running a file of a conditional zoning. So, so you have the ability per code to approve it, deny it, conditionally approve, and I guess just through board semantics, you could also continue it to your next month for for height to be issued or addressed. Um, yeah. If you deny it, what that puts

I mean, I guess in my mind if they think they could get it to 50, I'd like to I'm open to letting them go on the earth stuff, but I I don't know if they can get to 50. I guess

I mean, if they I guess that's if the two things kind of go hand in hand. if we just need time to get to 50. But they also would like to start on the bottom if we're sure. We may have to take a little recess to make sure we're sure. Uh because if we I don't want to run a file whole conditional thing where we got to go back to the beginning. Yeah. And and I don't know that I mean you're not if you condition it based on the height you're not approving the height that they shown. So, but if you do deny it, code requires you to state the reasons why they would be notified. Obviously, they're being notified today, but we would notify them and write your decision. They have the ability to then resubmit with changes to comply with the standards. You know, point if you're pointing out these are the the deficiencies.

They could also appeal a decision to adjustment or they could modify go through the modification. Can we put a time fence? We're not allowed to put a time fence on that they have to come back with something X or it's not approved.

Your time your time frame would be the typical site plan. Say we leave today and do that and we don't hear from them again per year 9 months and that's what I mean they come back at give it the worst case scenario 50t 8 in and now everything's been done sewers in graded pads are in who knows I mean that's that's in my mind the worst case scenario material. Mhm. I don't think they have the intention to do that, but I can't go on what's I can't read mine. So, sure.

Uh I don't know.

Well, I I think it it it puts the developer in a position of there's going to be a tremendous temptation that is avoided if we just say, "Sight plan, love it. Come back to us in 30 days. fix the fix the ceiling problem. I don't think that's too much of an ask. And we're we're talk spending half an hour trying to figure out how we can bend over backwards to create a situation that's frankly unprecedented. We don't partially approve plans. Here's the plan. It's either approved or it's not. Ceiling height is clearly out of code. I listen I went through hellen back because of the hotel abatement that we made the tax amendment that we made. Trust me the community sentiment on this is pretty clear. 50 ft is 50 ft. Don't change it. All right fine. 50 ft is 50 ft. Come back to us in 30 days. I think the suggestion of the um change in the elevator format is perfectly appropriate and would probably solve this problem. So let's put the urgency and the impetus on the applicant and call it a day. So again your options you can approve conditionally approve or deny. And if you do deny please state reasons why

or continue it or continue it. And if you do deny, go ahead. If you do deny, make sure whoever makes the motion and second, make sure there are reasons stated why they'll be notified in writing and then they can decide the how they want to move forward. I guess I'd like to hear the applicant's final thought before I ask for motions.

I appreciate that. Yeah. So um first of all I'll iterate what you requested which is um this plan outside of the architectural plans component within within the submission um states the conditions clearly and that is maximum building height of 50 feet. The plan does not state um furthermore as it is in the in the tables of the conditional zoning that uh the definition of building height is um in appendix A of the UDO and that um the ground level definition is also within the uh appendix A of the UDO. Um, I do acknowledge that both of those definitions are within uh the UDO and and clear um and that the applicant does need to adhere to the 50 foot height maximum when we could have attempted to submit this plan without the architecturals um knowing that they exceeded the 50 feet. But we wanted to be fully transparent that we did not know about this definition. Um although it was discussed with applicant representatives at the time, we preparing this application did not know of the conflict until right before we were ready to submit the application. We wanted to be transparent, include them in there. Yes, there was an option. There has been an option considered to bring a request to increase the maximum building height back to the this board and then ultimately council if approved through this board. But that is not a final decision. There's been discussions of alternative uh architectural

engineering drawings uh to to adhere to the 50-foot uh maximum in a in a future to my letters point in a future building application um um package. if there's a additional uh condition of an approval for this application to to bring building elevations back to this board. Um I I think the applicant would be very happy to to accommodate that. Um and it's just been fully out of transparency. There's been nothing that we've tried to disguise or mask that we completely understand that it is a 50ft building height. uh maximum and that we're we will before any permits are issued, we will comply with the maximum building height for this project.

Well, I I mean I appreciate that, but what I'm hearing is fine. We'll fix it. So, I s I will make a motion that we deny second. We have So, we got three options. Straight out. Well, you have three options. straight out acceptance, conditional acceptance or denial. So we have four continue or continue four. So I would say we support continue table this to the next meeting. So I would guess the sense of the board is straight out approval is off the table. Correct.

So I guess going up uh either two or four. But which would I mean well straight out the Nile I was still on it. I think in terms of providing a a mutually acceptable option. I mean I don't want to sound like a hard ass here. You know perhaps tableabling this and providing the applicant 30 days to address our issues would be the most benign outcome.

Gives them 30 days to present a new architectural plan. Yep. I mean, I would even I mean, if if this is such an urgent and they can address this in a shorter period of time, call a special meeting. I you know, I'm not trying to hold things up, but that'll be hard with the holidays and all that. But our next meeting is a January. Yeah. Which I won't be for, but January 15th. But we could do a special meeting the first week of January. I won't be here. You won't be here. I'll be here. I'm I'm good with Stewart. Yeah, true. The meeting is about the meeting is about as in January is about as early as it can be. Meeting on the third Thursday. It's the earliest day it could be.

Okay. Unless they can do it in a week. 10 days, sir. Between Christmas and New Year's [laughter] gone, huh? I'll be gone, too. So, so I guess what I'm hearing is it tableabling seems to be rising to the top. I I think that's the most benign. They're not gonna be completely happy with that. But no, but it still keeps it active and keep going, you know, it's one page.

Yeah. If you know, my only concern is that I was there at TRC in October or whenever it was. I don't see any change in the plan since then. So, I'm not sure, you know, what the ultimate plan is, whether you're all going to try and change the definition or change the the zoning or revise the building. But part of your Well, I I think by tableabling it, we give them that option. I mean, if they want to come back and propose a conditional zoning change, good luck. Yeah. Okay. But I I you know, if that's the option they choose,

it's their choice, right? But we're not locking them into any particular outcome. They could come back in 30 days with an amended plan that we would happily approve. So, right. I mean, basically a sense I hear if they came back with a new C18.3 which showed a 50 ft from the ground to the top, this would be approved. Yes. There's nothing else holding this up. Holding it up. So, I I guess I need a motion. I motion that we table the consideration of this plan to our next planning board meeting and encourage the applicant to return to us having abided by the 50ft height limit. Do we have a second? Second.

Let's do a roll call vote. Richard I am in favor. I I I So all four, we're tableing this to the next meeting. And I guess I need from somebody another cop. I need a C18 a C18.3 big one. Unless Unless Kevin is going to donate his or somebody. Dude, I didn't have that in my packet. Here we go. Not sure why it wasn't. No, mine's already got notes on it. I had 18.2 as the last day. I'm not sure why I didn't I assume they all had it. Somebody resolved that. Okay.

I don't know where we're at on this process. So, I'm going to have to look at my note. I think that was the last item on the agenda today other than public where we're at public. Any Ah, yes. The next item is a discussion item on the land use plan and I believe that was a request from Stuart. Correct. So the floor is yours at this point. All right. Trying to figure out where all my

We could take it. But if if the applicant wants to leave and Kelly, you can step out if you want cuz the rest of this will be boring to you and I'm sure you got work to do. Okay. You okay, Kelly, with everything? Good. Thanks. You're welcome. Thanks, sir. Thank you. Thanks. Merry Christmas. Yeah. Okay, Stuart. Sorry. Go ahead. All right. I'm going to find my notes. Now, I guess this is where our Chief Kenneth may come involved on this a little bit. Huh.

I have I have a quick question. The survey is up right now. How long is the survey going to be up and available for the community? I I've been getting asked that question. Do we know? I don't know. Don't recall. I think I'll get that information from from Mr. Mloud and like was going to be I don't remember it was the first or the second public engagement meeting. It's going to be up a while. Yeah, it's going to be up a while.

Kimberly, could you find out and perhaps post this? I know the new council is, you know, creating a um a digital outreach to the community that people are signing up for because I'm getting a lot of questions about this on social media. Just, you know, state, hey, surveyy's up. It will be up until this state and it could be up as long as the planning board and the town wants it to be. But definitely at some point Mr. Mloud will start taking the data. Yeah. Particularly at your first public engagement period and to start, you know, to to say here's what we know so far, right? Okay. So, we don't really have a date when it's going to come down. Is that

or we don't know? I I'll confirm that with him today and we'll let you know. Yeah. I thought there was either I don't remember was like through the first public engagement or at least to that to the final public engagement meeting. Yeah. I mean I I know historically he has kept the surveys and public input open for a while. Um but he will report out at some point and say you know to date this is the information we have. Here's the XYZ things. And great. We're up over 400 responses already. Oh really? Yeah. Good. Well I did 390. You did? Yeah. [laughter] All by yourself. I'm from Cook County, Illinois. So, bot box considering stuffing the ballot box is expected.

Considering we did this in 2016, there were only nine. I mean, I thought 900 respondents in 2016 was pretty good. But 400 already, that's that's great. And it's not even on the website. True. It is out. It is now good. Looked last night. was last night. Well, I know last night I was emailing with Wes and I was like, I can't even find this on the website. Came back from her illness yesterday and got two weeks of work done in a 4hour period. She was working over the weekend, right? Okay. Go ahead.

All right. So, we had talked uh with Wes a little bit about um additional services for the land use plan and it felt like we needed to make that a little bit more urgent.

Mhm. So, I went ahead and wrote up two items that I thought might be additional services that we could talk about and see whether we move this forward and start because, you know, if we talk about it, then it's got to go to Wes and then he's got to get pricing and then we've got to go to council and so we can't wait until June to to start thinking about this. So, I wrote up two um additional service um bullet points kind of thing. Um and I'm going to stop calling them small area plans and I'm going to start calling them focus areas because they're not really small areas in in a way, but they're focus areas. So, one would be Sunset Boulevard. So, I wrote this kind of like Wes would look at um sending it to a third party for a price. So I what I wrote was lead one idea board discussion at the first public engagement meeting to identify desired streetscape character elements for Sunset Boulevard from 179 to the roundabout including typical building pl placements, parking locations, sidewalk locations, street trees, landscaping and building signage provide Two typical street conceptuals cross-sections or illustrative diagrams showing preferred design outcomes, buildings, [snorts] parking, street trees, sidewalks to be included in the comp plan, the com comprehensive plan or the land use. So that would be Sunset Boulevard. So, and I talked to

um Lorna with Bolton and Mink at the 904 corridor study,

right? and because she's the one that was part of Wes's proposal. Um, and we didn't approve the additional services at that time. And I'm not sure council would have approved them anyway, but um, I talked to her and turns out her family has a house on the island, so she knew all about Sunset Beach and had, you know, nothing but praise about what we were trying to do. and and I talked to her about whether we could, you know, correlate some of this with the 904 study and could we borrow some of the imagery that she's using for the 904 corridor study to use for this idea board and you know instead of everybody seeing different images all the time, you know, can we relate the two together somehow or another? And she was, you know, she was there with me. she was understanding what I was talking about. So that's kind of the Sunset Boulevard idea. Um the second focus area would be the island. So again, lead one idea board discussion at the first public engagement meeting to identify island character elements including uses of vacant properties along Sunset Boulevard, parking locations along Sunset Boulevard, critical sidewalk locations around the island, street trees, landscape improvements, potential parks, viewing areas, potential public art locations, and other amenities around the island. Provide one overall plan of the island to identify desired elements and one typical street conceptual cross-section or illustrative diagram of Sunset

Boulevard showing preferred design outcomes in parentheses buildings, parking, street trees, sidewalks to be included in the comprehensive plan. So the way I well we we exchanged some emails. The way I viewed what you're at is basically when we get to a the public engagement meeting, there would be the poster boards like we had at the 904 meeting, right? Showing like three different street streetscape views, one for the island, one for the mainland with sort of like asis planned and then like maybe two alternative. And what the public did, we went took our little dots, right?

You know, and then be verbally describing underneath, right? You got a picture, you got verbage, and then we all walked around with our dots and we put the dots on the one that we like to get a sense of what the public No, I think I think it's a great idea. I think it's a great idea. Like, so what I guess Well, the other thing you could do is have a sticky pads and they can write, you know, on a sidewalk here, right? You know, and put it on the on the board. So, similar I guess sim similar to the 904. I guess my question for the two staff people who are huddling at the end of the table here. Uh the question is my mind is how to do this. I think the two ideas are good. I agree. Yeah.

It's part of what we talked about originally that this Sunset Beach 2040 plan. Yeah. To be kind of 15,000 foot view looking out, but the town has contracted with Anchor Point. Is that the correct name of your company? Yes. Y to do X things for X dollars, right? That does not include that does not include these two things, right?

So, I guess what we're trying to figure out is how do we ask the town to go get the prices of these so that we can then get a budget exception or in the next budget because I believe whenever that So, that's what we wanted. I think well, I don't know what the sense is. I think these two ideas are good. Yes. And how do we get them? Yes. So, what how do we get them? Obviously, the council ain't going to approve anything without a dollar amount. That would be right.

Well, they might I could ask we could ask them and see, but I would doubt it. Uh what's the procedure? Do we one I guess do we need an RFP to do this or because I would think this is under 5,000 for these two boards? Maybe. No. No, it's over 5,000. It'll be over probably in the 20 to 25 range. No, I'm hoping in the 15 range. Mr. Mloud has provided an idea of what he he could do and it was less than 15. So then do we have but but more than five? Okay. So let's just say 15. Since we have a contract with him though, it could be add services. That would have to be a budget exception or new budget item.

You have to approve by council. So something had to be presented to council. But how do we do this? Do we go to them with a budget exception to add these two? I mean, I've never asked for money from the council before. So, how do we do it? Well, help me understand quick the agreement you have with Mr. Mloud so I can try to So, we have an agreement with Anchor Point to rewrite and update our what used to be called our land use plan, our required plan from GAMA, whatever organiz requires every beach uh seashore town to have. And

so, they they've agreed to run the survey. They've agreed to host the focus groups or community groups and they've agreed to provide the preliminary draft, if you will, under the guidance of the planning board to what will be the 2026 land use plan. That's what they that's what we paid them to do. So what we're adding is additional [clears throat] resources to create panled presentations of suggested outcomes for the 904 corridor and

179 Sunset Boulevard and the island two additional focus areas. If you look at the website, we we've always wanted the land use plan rewrite to include further if was further vision. That's why if you look at the logo, it's called Sunset Beach 2040, not just land use plan. Like the old one says 2017 land use plan, right? Okay. So we because we don't have much land left to figure out how to use and it's sort of interpreted that every seven years you update this thing even though there's no hard fast number it seems to be like they suggest. So, we're going through this X-ray. We're spending I don't remember 60,000

67,000. We're spending 67,000 to update this thing because it's sort of it's required. And we've always said, well, if we're going to spend this money, we would like to pick the view up a little bit and spread it out to get a further view. When they did the original request for quote was done just based on the land use. So this would be what we're asking for is additions to that plan and how to get that money. Then

and if I can add just a little bit. So when the request went out the town received five or six um RFPs for the service um Stuart was a member of the committee M and council member uh Posdel was as well. They chose anchor point planning to move forward with this. Now, in Anchor Point's proposal, they had a fee to do to rewrite the plan, but not going to as the the the small area plan or the focus groups, focus areas that that's being presented, but they did include an add-on to do that service and partner with

Bolton and Mink, who is also doing the 904 plans. Um, council committee didn't recommend moving forward with both. They move move forward just with the rewrite of the plan. Council approved that believe at the November meeting and October meeting. November meeting. Yeah. Yeah. Um the add-ons would have not been considered by the old by the current council. So this would be an existing or an addition to service should council want to approve it. um whether they can amend the current budget by adding more money or does it have to wait till the next budget cycle I think is what the planning board is asking.

This won't be completed until fall of 26. So we'd be into another. So regardless though, planning board is understanding that that has to be approved by town council whether it's the an addendum to the existing or if this plus we're I don't believe well we don't have we need first the either the authority or someone to request the price. I don't we've not as far as I know it's not been an official request. Mr. Mloud has provided a ballpark of what he could do with something similar to the combination of the two. the council or town administrator would have to request the price to present to council, right? I I think that would be the first step.

I don't believe we can we can request you to request, which is what we're kind of doing, right? And I think that'd be the first step to do our to get. So I guess if Stuart shares your document with the our wonderful new town administrator. Interum inter. [laughter] So he knows what to ask for then once they get the quote back. Now whether they have to send it out wide or not, it's beyond my knowledge. Or can they request it from anchor point and this other company? I think since it's just add services add on. I think they can. I I'm not going to say that. It's beyond my pay grade. So

Wes's email about, you know, a ballpark price. He said, "Now I can do it for this, but we could send it to Bolton and Mink because they were part of his original proposal and we could get a price from them, too. So in essence, we'd get two prices, but it would still be, you know, part of that original." But if we get separate, we'd have to go with them separately. And I also believe it depends on what council wants to do. So council may say it it may be legal to do an add-on, right? But council may decide, hey, we actually want to go out for bids, see what it we might be required to because of the because of the cost depending upon where the cost. Yeah. I don't know. Do we have I don't I don't know how when there's a price.

Yeah, we can find that out. So basically administration to get a price to do this and present it to the council for approval. Is that what we're asking them to do? Yeah. So, the first step would be for Stuart to formalize their request and submit it the addendum that this is going to require a budget of approximately whatever and then process Ken would take it on and either get the approved budget or not. Correct.

All right. And it would likely I mean it's it's going to be a budgetary item likely it goes in front of council. Yeah. Luckily we go over into another budget cycle so it it could be on the next we'll start talking about that in a few months. Yeah. That's why we're kind of sure pushing this early trying to get I think one of the and I don't know where was the money originally the original money was budgeted in 25 right? Yeah, I would think so. It's budgeted for the current fiscal year which won't be spent in the current year. It will not current not it there'll be some invoices submitted of course but it will not fully be spent until the product is done which is not slated until after July 1st.

Right. So really the current budget is not correct. It's going to be done as a budget amendment. Was it done as a budget amendment in November? I believe um it was included in the button. It was included. Okay. The button I didn't know. I believe it was included. I believe it was requested in the current budget and it was adopted. Okay. Um but it's going to it's not going to be spent in its entirety in fiscal year 25 because the project is going to be pushed. Okay. You remember um council how do they it had already been approved initially but then council decided to go out for an RFP. So we got a delay starting. So how did they do that? Say the total 66 and 33 is spent in 25

and 33 get immediately pushed to the next. Basically a rollover process. They'd have to reallocate it to that fund without changing the number. In other words, say the total was 66 was budgeted at 25. We spent 33 which mean I'm making up numbers. The other 33 automatically rolls to the next budget. It has to be it'll be requested. Has to be requested. So request another 66, but make the mention that there's 33 left over from the previous. So at that point, you could say 33 left over, an additional 15 or 48 is the new budget request, right?

Is how it would work. I'm just getting in my mind how just so when I read these minutes and look at the meeting on you, I know what you guys are doing. So, the council and the and the public have the understanding that we carried over in essence $33,000 hypothetically and we're asking for a total number that's going to be a new number, a new re new allocation or appropriation, but um it considers the unspent funds from the previous fiscal year. Okay. Okay. Very good. Sounds like plan. All right. You all okay with the wording and what I got included? Yes.

And I think you know my sense the public reaction to the 904 uh event and the NC do event that they did which kind of is an example of what you're suggesting was pretty spectacular. So I think this is an opportunity to provide the same kind of experience. Stay with us, Kim. For for our constituents, the council is also considering um a parking study on the island, which could entail some of the the we can roll that in there and get it.

I don't know that it's going to accomplish everything you're looking for. Okay, very good. That's what we'll do. Uh any other administrative comments? Our next meeting is scheduled for January what? 15. 15. And again, I will not be here. So Mike will not be here either in January. Yes. Showed up with us last week. Yeah. So Stuart will conduct a meeting. You two guys coming on it? Yes. God willing. So there'll be a quorum and somebody else drops out and the only items we have will be the gateway consideration and then the revisiting the building height. building height,

which if it comes in at 50. So, you're familiar with both items? What I'm saying? Okay. Nothing new coming in. No, there's a couple code cleanups we might need to do for consistency with uh some legislation that was approved. I mention I had mentioned to the chair a couple weeks ago. U I've not been that urgent on it just because we have to do it anyway. And one of them though is an example of the site plan. If I may just real quickly, had you denied it? If you're if the code had a waiting period before they could resubmit, state law has changed now there is no waiting period for any denied plans, any denied resonings, etc. So that's we have to eliminate at some point any waiting periods we may have in our code for a denied case, okay,

or denied item, but it's not I'm not seeing it as an urgency because we have to do it anyway. And maybe it's a point we want to do though, so council's aware of it. So, I guess if any any of your other three something comes up, hopefully nothing unfortunate, make sure that you share that that you can't make the meeting, you know, that you let Ron know right away because if it's less than three, he'll have to cancel the meeting. Reschedule it and try to find another date. And I'm out I'm out the following week, by the way, the week of the 19th, just so everyone knows. Okay. Is Mike planning to attend a planning board meeting? Yes. Um he had something scheduled pre he told us of a meeting that or some whatever he's doing it was was it was already scheduled before

yeah before he before he became plan board member is what I wasn't aware but it was it was scheduled before he ever came appointing board okay the next item of course is public comments on anything seeing that we wore the public down and they left I believe we have no public comments that's how to do it all I Need next item is adjournment. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? Before we adjourn, I just like to welcome Ken. Yeah, welcome Ken. Did you have fun in your first planning board meeting? [laughter] We can adjourn first. It was a blast. Thank you. Okay. [laughter] Motion to adjurnn. I so move. Any second?

Second. All in favor? I. No, we Thanks everybody.