Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Mr. Chairman, we are ready to go. All right. Good afternoon. My name is Jason Grubs. I'm the chair of the city county planning board. Welcome to the January 8th meeting of the planning board. This time, will you please stand and join us in the pledge of

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. All right. Today's meeting is being broadcast live by Winston Salem TV digital media and will be rebroadcast at 10:00 a.m. Friday morning and again at 4:00 Sunday afternoon. Additionally, an on demand recording will be available on the city of Winston Salem's YouTube channel. Our first order of business today will be the consent agenda containing items for which the petitioner is requesting withdrawal or continuence or items which the planning board staff has or planning staff has recommended approval and no one signed up to speak in opposition. for our public hearings today. Each side will have a total of 12 minutes. There is no rebuttal period. Once the public hearing is closed and the board goes into work session, no one is permitted to speak unless the planning board ask them a question. The items under section B of our agenda will require final action by the elected body, either the Winston Salem City Council or the Scythe County Board of Commissioners. As such, votes taken today are recommendations which are considered by the elected body during their review of the requests. For general use reszoning requests, planning board must consider the full range of uses allowed in the zoning district being requested. Petitioner may not refer to a spec specific intended use of the property. For special use district zoning requests, the petitioner must identify the intended use or uses of the site and give specific details on how the site will be developed. If you're addressing the board today before you begin your comments, please give us your name, address, and zip code for the record. First item on the consent agenda is the approval of the minutes of the December 11th meeting. Is there a motion?

Move approval. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb. Second by Mr. Tinho. Any discussion? All those in favor? Sign I. I.

Any opposed? That's unanimous. All right. I'm now going to call on Mr. Mark to lead us through the consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, first up, we have an automatic continuance for item B1 and item C1, F1663 and PBR 2025-21, respectively. They are automatically continued to the February 12th, 2020 2016 meeting. So, the first item up for discussion is item B2. This is case W3200. This is the U appropriate holdings LLC. Also, the project's known as Hillsdale Dental. This is a final development plan of 1.13 acres at Northwest intersection of Country Club Road and Brookberry Park Avenue. And the the request is for offices in a highway business special use two-phase zoning district. You can see that it's surrounded by the rest of the highway business special use two-phase district. And across the street is RS9. You see from the aerial this is a vacant lot. It is graded for development. Um, it is internally connected to the Walmart Neighborhood Market Shopping Center and it's also internally connected to the Brookberry Park apartment. So, you can see to the north here is the stormwater device that treats the water for this development. And across here, you see another vacant lot. There is a condition, a phase one condition limits the combined building square footage for both out parcel D, which is this one, and out partial E, which is this one, to 13,000 square feet. The west suburban area plan update recommends commercial for this site and the site plan shows one new 614 square foot office building with associated parking. The plan shows all required street yards and sidewalk connections. And again with a 6,000 square foot when we uh do get a new

development come here they'll be limited to uh close to 7,000 square ft. The proposed building elevations comply with the phase one re phase one conditions of resoning case W3200 by utilizing exterior building materials that are consistent with the existing building within the development. The site plan complies with the impervious surface limits established by the development storm water permit and meets all other UDO requirements and staff recommends approval. Any questions? Any questions for staff? No one signed up to speak in opposition to this item. Is anyone here opposed to this recommendation? Seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed. Was the pleasure of the board.

Mr. Chairman, I move the planning board find that the request is consistent with the comp comprehensive plan. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Patino. Any further discussion? All in favor sign of I. I. Any opposed? That's unanimous. Mr. Chairman, I further move the planning board approve W3200. Second motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Tin. Any further discussion? All in favor sign of I. I. Any opposed? That's also unanimous. Next is item C2. Mr. Chairman, I only need to recuse myself for this one. All right. Is Mr. Pit needs to recuse himself. Is there a motion to approve? So moved.

All right. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb. Second by Mr. Tino. Any further discussion? All in favor? Sign of I. I. All right. Any opposed? Okay, give him a second. Sit down. Tom out here.

All right, so this is item C2. This is cases PBR 2026-01. The project owns Windmill Acres. It's 185 lot PRD and RS9 65.13 acres on the east side of Old Salsbury Road. North and south of Jasper Lane. You can see to the north here is mostly RS9. To the east of RM12S, to the south is the South Fork Muddy Creek, and to the west is um it's a neighborhood church in IP. So, this is the overall development you see here. There is two existing streets. Um Old Salsbury Street acts as a western boundary and Jasper Lane is the other existing street, which divides the development into a north section into a south section. Uh the proposal does have 10 proposed public streets with a total linear footage of 7,58. It is again bordered by the South Fork Muddy Creek and the um has five storm water developments um treating the water runoff. This specific is the south side. So what you see here is um on the this is proper screening between the storm water device and old Salsbury Street and the rest of the development meets the PRD buffer yards between um Jasper Lane and the single family residential that you have with a PRD. There is uh for this portion there is seven new public streets, three active open spaces including one that ex um that exist around a existing cell tower. And this portion in particular has four of the five storm water devices. And as you see here again, you have the uh type one 20 foot buffer yard that you have with um the normal PRDS, but there is a 50 foot thoroughfare open space that acts as a buffer between the backyards of these western lots you see here and also the lot that you see on this side. If you go a little bit further north, you'll see a private lift station that has a type one buffer yard

separating it and the most northwestern lot, residential lot. This one does have only it has one storm water device here. It does have three active open spaces. The act active open spaces for each development phase shall be completed in a manner consistent submitted with the Williams development group overview of residential community space. We did leave two here that you can see as examples. We are asking for removal of a condition that you did have with your agenda. So, um, there is a the what we're asking for is a removal of the condition requiring installation of a sidewalk along Jasper Lane prior to the issuance of residential infrastructure permits. Jasper Lane is an existing ribbon pace street with no curb and gutter improvements. Therefore, no sidewalk will be required on Jasper Lane. The site plan does meet UDA requirements. We staff is asking for a recommendation of approval with the removal of this condition.

No one we don't we're not here. Okay. Sorry. Uh Mr. Chairman, I move that the planning board approve PBR 2026-01 and remove the condition. Second motion by Mr. Lamb. Second by Mr. Pinho. Any further discussion? All in favor sign of I. I. Any opposed? All right,

Tiffany, can you go get Dixon? Thank you. Mr. chairman board. Uh we'll now go to the uh one public hearing that we that we will have and that'll be uh UDO CC32 and we'll hear from uh Dan Roberts on that.

All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. So I'm going to to discuss uh UDOCC 32 which is to modify chapter 8 of the United Development Ordinance to remove section 8.4.6B titled graded slopes mechanically stabilized slopes and fills and the petitioner is planning and development services staff. For a little bit of background, planning and development services staff received a request from the assistant city manager's office for uh for public works to review the current approval process for mechanically stabilized slopes uh aka retaining walls. Current regulations allow walls or wall sections of up to 10 ft in height to be approved by erosion control staff and walls exceeding 10 feet in height are subject to an alternative compliance process. And so uh although the requirements for mechanically stabilized slopes are contained in the UDO, planning staff are not responsible for the review or approval. In the city of Winston Salem, retaining walls are reviewed by engineering and erosion control staff. And in unincorporated for side county uh NC do um they review the retaining walls that are adjacent to state rideways and the erosion control staff review the retaining walls outside of the state rideways. So most of Winston Salem's uh peer communities do not include height limits or other technical details related to retaining walls in their UDO. Um and so um it's it's you know handled by the erosion control staff currently except for the alternative compliance staff believes that our standards for retaining walls should not include specific height limits and uh should rather allow project engineers the flexibility based on the project specifics. Public works staff will be developing new infrastructure development standard regulations for retaining walls based on this direction. So based on discussions with public

works for this proposal, mechanically stabilized slopes would be moved from the UDO to the IDS uh which already contains tech uh technical specifications for similar infrastructure and staff believes that the proposed changes provide a more streamlined process in which design elements will be reviewed by an interdep departmental team of public works staff that have the engineering and technical expertise and therefore uh staff recommends approval. All right. Any questions for staff? My project engineer is the developers engineer. Is that right? Yeah. Okay. Yes, sir.

Any other questions for staff? No one signed up to speak in opposition to this item. Is anyone here opposed to this recommendation? Seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed. Was the pleasure of the board. Mr. Chairman, I move the planning board find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb. Second by Mr. Patino. Any further discussion? All in favor sign of I. I. Any opposed? Mr. Chairman, I further move the planning board recommend approval of UDO CC32. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb. Second by Mr. Pino. Any further discussion? All in favor? Sign of I. I. Any opposed? That's unanimous. I would just like to say thank you for streamline and for expertise. Absolutely. That's what we're all about.

Good. Good work. I did not. Thank you. All right. I'm writing myself a note. While while you're doing that, Mr. Murphy, um, like to recognize council member Joiner who snuck in on me behind the podium there. Got a mirror up there or something. Thank you for being here. Uh, I'm sorry. I'm just writing my note, myself a note to remember to send UDOCC32 to committee for February because that deadline will be coming up soon. Um, under staff report, I'll first turn to uh Kirk, who will give you a preview of your work session coming up in two weeks from today.

All right. Thank you, Chris. And, uh, good evening, board members. Good afternoon, I should say. Uh, as as we've had a two-month break from work session, we are back at it again. I think we've got a couple interesting items for you all coming up. The first is we're going to have Dr. Russ Smith from Winston Salem State come and talk to you about his mapping prejudice project. You may have heard uh about this previously. It's been going on for a couple years, but it basically looks at properties that potentially have deed restrictions based on limiting the race of who could occupy a dwelling. Unfortunately, properties in the the South and other parts of the country did have those deed restrictions sometimes up until uh the late 1960s, early 1970s when they became illegal. And even though those uh those restrictions are no longer in effect, they're no longer legal, there's a project uh out of University of Minnesota in uh Minneapolis where they studied that community and ultimately kind of came up with a grassroots efforts to remove some of these restrictions from the deeds by working with their register of deeds office just as a way of kind of showing that the existing owners of those properties did not support those. So, that's something that Russ and the the faculty at Winston Salem State are working on. Uh there's a steering committee that's been working for the last year and a half or so on that project. Our staff is part of that steering committee, but again, this is ultimately their project, but we feel that it's moved along enough that it's probably uh probably an interesting time to share with the planning board. So, Dr. Smith will uh present on that. The second item is we're going to give you all an initial uh conversation on a text amendment related to needle exchanges. And what needle exchanges are is facilities for users of uh injectable drugs that

basically try to reduce the harm for those individuals that come from sharing needles and things of that nature. And while that's a laudable goal, sometimes these facilities can have negative uh unintended consequences on neighboring properties. So, we've been asked by the city manager's office to kind of look and see if there's a way to come up with some use standards for these uses and see if there's a way we can kind of minimize that. So, this is not an item that's scheduled for a public hearing at this point, but we do want to have an initial conversation with the board. And uh with that, I'll turn it back over to Chris.

All right. Thank you. The last thing I had under staff report is actually on the screen in front of you. The first uh area plan meeting, the northeast suburban area plan. Uh initial meeting will be on the 28th at 5:30 and the location is the precise tech uh transportation campus up off uh North Patterson Avenue close to uh the Cooks Flea Market. So uh we look forward to beginning that process. Uh this is the initial step on a multi-year process to revise all of our uh parcel specific land use recommendations uh in light of forward 2045. So, uh, this is the first step of a long journey. And with that, I stand ready to answer any questions.

Any questions? All right. Anything for the good of the order? We'll just have a motion to adjourn. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you everyone. I think we may have just broken Chris Leak's record.