Loading...
PB Minutes 20110901-Approved Page 1 of 23 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board September 1, 2011 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the Historic County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Melissa Gott, Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director Andy Heath, Vice Chairman Jane Daughtridge, Current Planning & Zoning Manager Troy Barboza Shawn Ralston, Long Range Planning Manager Richard Collier Chris Coudriet, Assistant County Manager Dan Hilla Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Anthony Prinz Absent: Tamara Murphy Chairman Melissa Gott opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Chris O’Keefe led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Gott reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of the August Planning Board Meeting Minutes Dan Hilla made a motion to approve the August Planning Board meeting minutes as drafted. Anthony Prinz seconded the the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to approve the August Planning Board meeting minutes. Item 1: Text Amendment (A-391, 06/11) -Request by Staff to amend Sections II, IV, V, and VI of the County’s Zoning Ordinance to improve classification of Industrial Uses and to create a Special Use review process for intensive industrial uses. Jane Daughtridge presented the proposed amendment and stated the presentation would focus on the changes made since the August 4, 2011 Planning Board meeting. She noted the discussion at the last meeting related to ownership of properties and staff’s fear that the worst case scenario could occur because the County was using overall classifications of uses instead of specific uses. For example, an existing chemical company could expand on their existing and could also form some type of common alliance with others and anything within that general classification of intensive use might be allowed to go on that or at least there could be an argument made for that. Staff felt that that was not the appropriate direction for the County to take because there could be any number of uses that would have differing kinds of impacts that might need to be addressed. Staff also felt the County had been generous in creating an exemption to balance those concerns. In researching other areas, staff found that most other places treat these types of situations as non-conformities. In those typical situations in most other areas, even expanding on the existing Page 2 of 23 property would require a special use permit and certainly expanding onto adjacent properties would also require a special use permit. Ms. Daughtridge reported the newest staff version of the amendment basically says if the chemical manufacturing company is the existing use, then they can expand on their current lot regardless of ownership unencumbered. If the company wanted to expand onto adjacent parcels, their ownership or successor ownership would need to be the same or consistent. Ms. Daughtridge summarized the changes from the August 4, 2011 meeting. 1. New format for Existing Industrial Uses sections to separate and explicitly clarify intent of each section. 1) Define Existing Industrial Uses The term “existing industrial uses” shall mean industries in active operation and open for business on a tax parcel zoned I-1 and developed for that particular use prior to as of the day prior to the date of adoption of this section. 2) Make explicit that Existing Industrial Uses would be considered conforming uses. Any existing industrial uses which did not require a special use permit prior to as of the day prior to the date of adoption of this section would be considered a conforming use and shall not require a special use permit in order to continue operations. (This only applies to current operations). 3) Set a qualifying date for Existing Industrial Uses as “the day prior to the date of adoption.” 4) Separate the concept of modifications or expansions on existing parcels from modifications or expansions on adjacent parcels. For modifications or expansions on the Same Parcel, references to ownership were deleted so that you can expand on the same parcel whether you were the owner on the date of adoption or whether the property has been sold to fifty different people. The same language has been carried over regarding “in active operation and open for business” for consistency. For Adjacent or Contiguous Parcels, there is an ownership qualifier so the parcel has to be held in the same ownership as on on the day prior to the date of adoption. The same language has also been carried over regarding “in active operation and open for business” for consistency. Ms. Daughtridge concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions. Chairman Gott opened the public hearing. Laura Parks spoke in favor of the proposed amendment, stating she was pleased to be able to address an issue that is not partisan or ideological in its form and is at its core about what is best for New Hanover County and the various citizens that live here. She stated ensuring that we as a citizenry are protected by adequate, current, and strong land use and zoning provisions that totally meet our needs is what the board is charged with and as a varied citizenry, out loud, vocally and in large numbers, we support that. She commented the idea of piggybacking or leapfrogging adjacent properties is one that staff addressed very well. She also felt the staff had Page 3 of 23 ensured legitimate uses of permitted businesses that meet the criteria, but believed it would be a mistake to extend rights to historical or previous uses and allow them to piggyback or hop across and add on new parcels without obtaining new permitting provisions. Dr. Elizabeth Bauereis stated she had worked for thirty years with a Fortune 100 energy company before she returned to her southeastern North Carolina roots so she is very familiar with this type of operation. She acknowledged she is very much in favor of the special use process and feels it is wonderful and very timely. In regard to the nonconformity issue, where she came from, a major expansion even if you owned the property and it had been there forever, was also required to obtain a special use permit so she thinks it is very generous to allow those existing industries in New Hanover County to be able to expand onto their existing property without any additional information required. Dr. Bauereis strongly encouraged the board to adopt the special use permit process because it will be good for the public health and safety, not to mention the environmental health of New Hanover County. Daniel English stated he has been a resident of Castle Hayne for ten years and a resident of New Hanover County for 32 years. He noted that the County needs to have the right to judge an individual project based on both the economic benefit to be gained from it and the potential harm that it could cause the community so in a very general sense, it’s mandatory. We already have that right because, for example, you can’t run a wood chipper in your yard at 2am because the County has used its right to say the harm you would be causing outweighs your right to run that wood chipper at above 50 decibels at 2am. The County needs that right when we are inviting industry to come into our community. Industry can do what it wants on its own property, but when harm leaks off that property into our communities, our water, our air and our bodies, we, as a community, have the right to determine if the economic gain from that industry is or is not worth the actual harm that the industry causes. Mr. English asked staff to clarify the meaning of the statement, “Any existing industrial uses which did not require a special use permit as of the day prior to the date of adoption of this specific section would be considered a conforming use.” Chairman Gott stated staff would address Mr. English’s question following public comment period in support of the amendment. Mr. English stated that as a resident of Castle Hayne, he was very interested in learning whether specific projects that are out there today would or would not be considered conforming. Doug Springer, a resident of Castle Hayne and a small business owner, who spent 25 years in corporate America working for two major corporations, stated a third of his career was in marketing and sales and relocating companies. He commented he was really astonished when Mr. Warwick said only two significant industries had been recruited to the area in thirty years. He commented the root cause of that is our process. When a company relocates to an area, they want to know what the rules are and what game they are playing. During their due diligence process, those companies are going to look at the area’s zoning ordinances. If those ordinances haven’t been updated in twenty years, they know what they are dealing with. He noted that a high tech company doesn’t want to come to an area like that because their citizens are going to have to move to Porters Neck or Brunswick County to find places where they don’t live under smokestacks. The second thing companies look for are loop holes written into the zoning Page 4 of 23 ordinance for existing companies and things such as that. He asked the board to make the zoning ordinance clear, strong, fair, and provide public input for the citizens of the county. Chairman Gott asked the audience to hold their applause during the public hearing. She noted there had been some unprofessional conduct at the last meeting during the public comment periods. Roger Shew, a teacher of Geology and Environmental Science at UNCW and 20-year employee of Shell Oil Company prior to that, explained he was a concerned citizen who wanted the best for New Hanover County. In that regard, he voiced firm support for the very thoughtfully crafted and needed amendments to the industrial ordinance amendments, which were overdue in his opinion. In 1970, there were 83,000 people and 418 people per square mile in the county. In 2010, there were 210,000 people and 1,018 people per square mile in the county. The area was historically very, very under populated from Castle Hayne all the way down to Kings Kings Grant, but you will see in that area which bisects a couple of our industrial areas, the population is 780 plus per square mile. In all of these areas, we have a lot of increase in population so change is needed in the ordinance and has been offered by staff. The basics are set out in the preamble to the zoning ordinance of New Hanover County, which requires that the Planning Board give reasonable consideration to the suitability of areas for particular uses and to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the County. It also says that the Planning Board should plan and design to promote the health and general welfare, which he interprets to mean the health of our citizens and our environment. He stated he believed the proposed staff changes to the industrial zoning amendments meet those criteria. Staff has blended the realities of the demographic changes with reasonable non-burdensome rules on industry. For instance, the mentioned non-binding narrative that requests a disclosure of projected external impacts of a project just makes good sense. After all, it is important that County citizens can voice their opinions about what is next door to them. For those industries already here, it is clearly spelled out that existing industrial uses will not need a special use permit to continue operations or to even modify or expand those operations as long as they meet the very reasonable criteria in Sections 56.8, 57.8 and 44 and including the ideas of conformity usage by industry. Mr. Shew thanked the board and the staff for the thoughtful amendments and stated these amendments, like the amendments to be considered in A-392 Exceptional Design Zoning District, deserve the board’s full support. He expressed hope that the Planning Board and County Commissioners would wholeheartedly endorse all of the proposed rules, which are good for the County, good for the citizens, and very fair for the industry. Tom Looney, a pro market business executive, stated the irony of his comments about making adaptations to a static zoning rule put in place since 1969 is that none of the companies he works for even existed in 1969. In fact, the firms he worked at, Apple and Microsoft, didn’t exist until the mid and late 1970s and today employ over 250,000 full-time workers. He cited several positive attribute of Apple and noted Steve Jobs comments about the need to “adapt or die”. That goes for cities and regions as much as it does for companies. The County must adapt its antiquated zoning rules. The Board’s zoning decisions have incredible influence in the allocation of the cumulatively substantial tax payer-derived allocations to economic development functions from the State to the NC Southeast Regional apparatus, and all of the local and often disjointed silo economic entities. In its current state, our zoning screams “Wilmington Pollution Page 5 of 23 Haven”. The population of the Wilmington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) more than doubled from 1990 to 2010. The tipping point came in the mid-nineties when technology conquered distance and people inspired by our quality of place, water-oriented natural assets, our weather and location, plus the university, the airport, and medical assets, moved here by the thousands because they could. This fueled massive job opportunities here from construction to entertainment to retail to services and countless other area business sectors. He knows there are fear mongers who say that our rules and regulations are anti-business despite all the other evidence to the contrary. Recently, the leading Fortune 200 CEO’s joined together to strongly support the latest EPA regulations as a competitive booster and a major job creator and to denounce the laggers within the polluter industrial complex. He noted the land values in Landfall are among the highest in New Hanover County and in the state despite their super strict homeowner and zoning rules, which many thought would be terrible and drive down property values. The same logic goes for zoning of all kinds. Done right, you attract what you want and you repel what you do not want or need. He cited the recent change in the area’s tourism branding identity campaign to “Wilmington -Historic River District and Island Beaches.” We are no longer the Cape Fear Coast. Mr. Looney stated things change and evolve and so should the County’s dated zoning rules and related economic identity. Dr. David Hill, Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, spoke as a father, physician, and co-owner and co-manager of a successful local business that employs dozens of people in the area and serves thousands. He stated he was thoroughly impressed with how generous this document remains to the businesses that are currently in the county. He explained that it reminded him of growing up in Tennessee before cable, videogames, etc. when he had a 22 caliber, single shot pump action rifle rifle that he liked to use to shoot cans off a fence post at a farm near his house. The land was private and nobody cared what he did so he could stay out there until he ran out of cans or bullets and usually it was bullets. Today, he could go back and buy that land in Shelby County, but if he put a can on that fence post and started taking shots at it, he would get arrested and rightly so because just like New Hanover County, that county has grown in population and density. That property is not a farm anymore. It’s surrounded by mothers walking their children in strollers, by schools and by daycare centers. If he pulled out a rifle there and started shooting, he might shoot someone or even kill them. Dr. Hill thanked staff for their wisdom in putting together these zoning regulations. He stated the current regulations were put together in 1969, the year after he was born, and many changes have occurred in the area since then. He stated they only wanted to make sure nobody does something that endangers children and citizens, noting there are now over 60,000 children by one estimate in the greater Wilmington area. Dr. Hill thanked board members for taking those lives into account by acting on their conscience because it will have an impact that improves people’s health and wellbeing in generations that we will not live to see. Chairman Gott opened the floor for opposition comments. Bob Warwick, Chairman of the Coalition for Economic Advancement in New Hanover County, spoke in opposition to the amendment, stating he had sent written comments regarding the revisions to the zoning ordinance. One of the issues he raised was related to what would be allowed and how it was defined because existing industrial use is a clearly defined term that is in Page 6 of 23 other places in the ordinance rather than the same particular industrial use that is not a clearly defined term. He noted he had requested that the issue be clarified. Chairman Gott explained that the particular point made by Mr. Warwick had been clarified in the latest version of the amendment by using the same definition all the way through for “existing industrial uses.” Mr. Warwick made two additional points: 1) Anything that limits the use of the land reduces the value of the land. He stated that he had been advised by commercial realtors that the proposed ordinance changes would reduce the value of every industrially zoned acre in New Hanover County. That is not a concern for the industry, but is certainly a concern for the County Commissioners. 2) The staff has always said the zoning ordinance will only apply to land use and has nothing to do with air emissions or water discharge, which is handled by NCDENR and the Corps of Engineers. In his opinion, clarifying and stating in the ordinance that it only applies to land use issues would greatly reduce the concerns of industry. Bill King, Chairman of the Wilmington Board of Industrial Development, spoke in opposition to amendment, focusing his remarks on the current proposal. He thanked staff for the modifications for existing industry and stated they were more than adequate. He focused on economic recruitment, stating the focus has been smoke stack industries, but there are other industries that could be I-2 as well. He cited the example of a recruited industry that was successful and obtained a special use permit, had invested $10 million -$100 million in land and infrastructure and then also wanted to expand. Mr. King stated as he reads this amendment, the industry would be required to obtain another special use permit to expand in their same use even on their same parcel. He felt that situation would be risky when trying to recruit new industry and would be a red flag to industries looking to come to this area. Chairman Gott explained that that Mr. King’s proposed situation would not be true as long as the industry was not a heavy industrial or intensive industrial use and stated she would have staff clarify that point. Mr. King expressed concern that obtaining another special use permit for future expansion would be very onerous from a recruiting standpoint because industry would be cautious about investing in this area if they were always going to be subject to obtaining additional special use permits to expand. Stuart Egerton, representing Progress Energy, spoke in opposition to the amendment, noting he had addressed the board twice concerning the amendment. He thanked the staff, the County Attorney’s office, and the County Manager’s liaison for allowing input on the amendment. He congratulated the county on putting together language that is good for existing industry. He also referenced an email he had sent last week. He stated that Bill King might have a good point. He commented should an intensive industry be recruited, build a facility, be a successful industry and seek to expand, it is his understanding that an intensive industry under that circumstance would be required to obtain a new special use permit to expand their business even if they are a successful clean industry and meet all the air quality and water quality permit requirements, etc. He asked what would be the difference on land use if they add on to their plant if they are Page 7 of 23 already on sufficient acreage. He suggested the County consider reviewing and tweaking the language in that regard. He noted that wasn’t a problem for Progress Energy’s Sutton plant, which has 3,400 acres. Chairman Gott stated that Mr. Egerton’s particular concern had been addressed in the recent revisions to the ordinance and she would ask staff to clarify that situation. During the rebuttal period, Traci Skrabal, a resident of New Hanover County and a scientist with the NC Coastal Federation, spoke in support of the proposed amendment. She noted the issue was intensive, heavy manufacturing industries, which by definition in the zoning rules are the industries most likely to have adverse impacts, most likely to have pollution and most likely to affect adjacent property owners and the community and that is why many people are here tonight. She stated they are not seeking to shut down industry, but they do believe that having an effective special use permit process attracts the industries that are harmonious with the community and makes it more difficult for those that will bring adverse impacts. Ms. Skrabal commented she couldn’t speak to the effects of the special use permit on the value of industrial property for the owner, but it was certainly true that heavy polluting industries that represent adverse impacts will have a negative effect on the value of adjacent property and communities and maybe even county-wide. Ms. Skrabal expressed belief there is certainly give and take there and that is the point in conducting this analysis. She disagreed wholeheartedly that it is simply a land use issue because the four criteria for approval by the current language requires the consideration of issues such as public health and safety, which would include air emissions, effects on adjacent wells and groundwater and public water supply. Ms. Skrabal stated she couldn’t see how those could be evaluated without seeking information on those very issues that affect public health so she would disagree that those those should not be a part of the individual special use permit process. The other three evaluation criteria are harmony with the community, property values, and economic impacts to adjacent property owners. Ms. Skrabal noted the board had heard from many sectors including economists, other planning board members, fortune 500 companies and citizens and applauded the board for looking at the types of compromise that have gotten the amendment to where it is tonight. She commented that she hoped the board would err on the side of public safety, public health and in protecting the property values of all of the community. She commented that it had been very difficult to evaluate comments that were submitted late in the process and urged the board to make a decision tonight in favor of the amendment. Chairman Gott asked Mr. Springer to allow the gentleman behind him to speak in favor of the amendment because the board had not heard from him and would like to give him the opportunity to speak. Josh Prindeville, a recent graduate of UNCW currently working in the film industry, addressed Mr. Warwick’s remark about decreasing the value of the land from a film industry perspective. He commented filmmakers do not want to come to an area to shoot a film with these kinds of zoning problems. If they are going to blow up a building for a film, they have to get permits for that. They also are required to get a new permit for every single line item in their film budget. He explained that is how the industry works so he is in favor of the proposed zoning text amendment. Page 8 of 23 No one spoke during opposition rebuttal. Chairman Gott asked staff to clarify that no special use permit would be required and businesses would be considered a conforming use as of the day prior to the date of adoption of the ordinance. Mr. English had expressed concern about the language and asked for clarification on the last sentence in the section. Chris O’Keefe stated the language was added to clarify the situation where existing industries are to be considered conforming uses as of the day prior to the date of adoption. The industry would have to be in operation doing their business on the day before the date that the ordinance amendment is finally adopted. Chairman Gott also asked Mr. O’Keefe to clarify “expansion” under the ordinance for Mr. King. Mr. O’Keefe stated Mr. King had a good point. If an industry does go through the special use permit process, they are treated like everyone else that obtains a special use permit and if they expand significantly, they would be required to come come in and amend the special use permit. A major amendment to a special use permit does require the public hearing process, but the special use permit process is set up so that if any industry or other use does not have impacts that are harmful to the community or that satisfy the four criteria, then the special use permit process should be fairly smooth. They would also have the benefit of their experience in the community. Mr. King’s observation is accurate that uses that come through and obtain a special use permit would be treated the same as any other use that currently would be required to get a special use permit. Chairman Gott commented that would only apply to a new use, they would not be required to obtain a special use permit for an existing use. Any existing use in business today would be able to expand or change their use without obtaining a special use permit as long as they aren’t changing to another intensive use. They can also expand and move to a lesser intensive use. Anthony Prinz stated stated that generally in zoning codes, there are provisions in the special use section that allow for administrative adjustments to an approved special use permit given certain criteria. Those are generally minor modifications that do not change the intensity or the overall intent or use for which the special use permit was granted. He asked if those provisions were included in the County’s current ordinance. Chris O’Keefe responded that the ordinance does allow staff to make an administrative approval of a special use permit change provided three conditions are met. First, it could not change the character of the project. Second, it couldn’t be a change of design for or an increase in the hazards to pedestrian or vehicular traffic circulation. Third, it couldn’t be a reduction in the originally approved setbacks from roads and/or property lines. Many site plans, especially with larger industries, may be able to satisfy those requirements because they are on large parcels and their required setbacks may be far from where their process is taking place. Mr. Prinz stated of course the adjustment would not be allowed to be administratively approved if it would bring them into noncompliance with the approved special use permit so the Page 9 of 23 adjustment would not be able to violate anything set in place by the Commissioners when they approved that permit for the original use. Chris O’Keefe confirmed Mr. Prinz’s statement was accurate. He then clarified Land Use, explaining land use compatibility is what staff is concerned about, particularly how land uses exist side by side. Staff would be looking at whether the use is compatible with the use next door or the uses in the area. The impacts of industry may be a determining factor on compatibility. Dan Hilla commented on the benefits of the long, but needed process, noting he was opposed to the original text amendment language. He felt staff had done a great job of pulling everyone in for input so he was now in favor of the ordinance as written. Richard Collier made a motion to recommend approval of Text Amendment A-391 to amend sections II, IV, V, and VII of the zoning ordinance to improve classification of industrial uses and to create a special use review process for the intensive industrial uses as amended this afternoon. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. Mr. Collier expressed appreciation for the efforts of the staff, the general public and the stakeholders in the process, commenting that he was supportive of the special use process, but had been undecided about the amendment due to concerns about protecting the interests of both the public and the existing businesses. Chairman Gott agreed with Mr. Collier’s comments, noting it had been difficult to balance the equities of the landowners and the residents of the county, but she felt they had done their best to take everyone’s interests into account. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Text Amendment A-391. Item 2: Text Amendment (A-392, 09/11) -Request by Staff to amend Section 53.6 of the County’s Zoning ordinance to clarify certain standards for establishing an Exceptional Design Zoning District (EDZD). Shawn Ralston stated staff was proposing an amendment to the existing Exceptional Design Zoning District (EDZD) EDZD) ordinance and provided a brief history of the ordinance, which was adopted in November 2009. She explained the intent of the ordinance was to create opportunities for mixed-use in high density developments that are located where existing urban features are present in order to prevent urban sprawl; prevent water quality degradation; preserve natural hydrology with low impact development techniques; and preserve habitat and biodiversity, as well as give design flexibility by providing a list of choices to the applicant. In addition, staff wanted to provide a sense of community not just for the development, but also for those outside the development and provide an area where there are well-integrated services, like bicycle and pedestrian opportunities and transit opportunities. Page 10 of 23 Ms. Ralston noted when the Exception Design Zoning District, or EDZD, was originally adopted staff had indicated they would probably be offering several amendments to the ordinance to get it right. After reviewing several applications, staff wanted to be sure they were compliant with the intent of the ordinance. Staff submitted amendments in March 2010 when it became evident the language in the procedural section of the ordinance needed to be refined. Those amendments were adopted and included in the current version of the EDZD ordinance. As two additional projects have come through, it has become evident that more refined changes are needed. Ms. Ralston stated many people have inquired about the EDZD; in fact, it is the district most inquired about by people wanting to develop projects in the county. She reported there is a project currently looking at the district so the time is right to make changes to the ordinance before an influx of projects is received. Ms. Ralston explained the original ordinance language was largely based on LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED ND), but staff only used a very small fraction of those requirements. She stated several neighborhoods in North Carolina qualify for LEED-ND and provided photos of those projects, which are located in Asheville, Kannapolis, Charlotte, and Chapel Hill. She noted staff didn’t feel they would see projects in New Hanover County that could completely qualify with all of the LEED ND standards. Ms. Ralston reviewed the proposed amendments, which are grouped into three different categories: 1) Procedural Refinements; 2) Edits to the Core Requirements; and 3) Edits to the Additional Requirements. Staff doesn’t consider any of the proposed changes to be major modifications to the EDZD. 1. Procedural Refinements: Section 53.6-3: Application Information 1. Employment centers were added to the list of requirements for the map. ii. Map showing location of existing public water and sewer lines, roadway classification, existing or planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities, schools, parks, employment centers, and shopping districts within a ½ mile radii of the outermost project boundary. 2. Currently, a full traffic impact analysis (TIA) is required for each project. After discussions with the Wilmington MPO and Mr. Prinz, it was determined that might be overkill for smaller projects that wouldn’t normally require a full TIA. The language has been changed to read: iii. An evaluation of traffic impacts prepared in accordance with a scope of work established by the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization, NCDOT and New Hanover County, and signed by a licensed traffic engineer is required for all projects (based on proposed maximum density and intensity for the acreage). Section 53.6-4: District Regulations 1) The applicant must be the owner or owners of all the property to be included in the district and must demonstrate that the property is jointly owned or be subject to a formal agreement for unified control. No development permit shall be issued until unified ownership is established. Page 11 of 23 3) A district may not extend across any major or minor arterial roadway having three or more lanes of vehicular traffic unless the district proposes multiple, unified development phases of mixed uses having safe, signalized vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities to connect the projects, such as crosswalk signals, pedestrian overpasses, refuge islands, etc. Section 53.6-7: Concept Plan 4) Connected and Open Community: In order to promote projects that have high levels of internal connectivity and are well connected to the community at large, gates may not be utilized on roads entering, exiting or within the development. 2. Edits to the Core Requirements: Core Requirement 1: Smart Location Originally six core requirements had to be met by any applicant proposing an EDZD project. One additional option has been added to create more EDZD opportunities. Option 5: If the project site is 100 acres or greater and does not meet any of the above four options, create a mixed use neighborhood center. center. The mixed use neighborhood center must include at least one use from each of the three areas within the Diversity of Uses List and be located and sized to reasonably service the entire planned community. One of the uses within the mixed use neighborhood center must be a grocery store. Staff felt this option was important because the residents of a neighborhood developed far away from the normal urban services will need groceries. This requirement was added to prevent urban sprawl and to prevent people from getting into cars to travel. Core Requirement 2: Mixed Use Neighborhood Centers In order to create certainty for a mixed use scenario, the following requirement was added: Mixed-Use Neighborhood Centers Include a residential component in the project that constitutes at least 25% of the project’s total building square footage and design or locate the project such that at least 50% of the dwelling units are within ¼ mile walk distance of at least four (4) of the diverse uses in the Diversity of Uses Uses List in Section 53.6 of this Ordinance. At least one use from two of the three diverse use categories within the diversity of uses list is required. Core Requirement 5: Wetland and Water Body Conservation/Preservation Option 2: Locate project such that pre-project jurisdictional wetlands, water bodies (including but not limited to intermittent and perennial streams), and land within 100 feet of such areas shall not experience significant destruction or lasting detrimental effects to water quality or other protected natural resources as a result of new development. Significant destruction shall include the construction, excavation, deposition, of materials in, over or on such land or any work that would affect the course, location, condition, or capacity of the receiving water body. Create a long-term management plan for on-site water bodies and wetlands and their buffers, and create a guaranteed funding source for management. This requirement can be met through a homeowners association agreement or by dedicating a conservation easement to a non-profit or a land trust. Page 12 of 23 Ms. Ralston reported that an additional twelve points must also be earned from a list of ten additional requirements. 3. Edits to the Additional Requirements: Additional Requirement 1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Design and/or locate the project to meet at least one of the following two options*: Option 1: A planned bicycle network of at least 5 continuous miles in length is within ¼ mile bicycling distance of the project boundary. For planned bicycle networks, the network must be listed in a plan adopted by the Board of Commissioners. (2 points) Option 2: An existing bicycle network of at least 5 continuous miles in length is within ¼ mile bicycling distance of the project boundary and connects to either a school, employment center or commercial center that contains at least seven (7) of the uses in the Diversity of Uses List. (4 points) (*Points will be awarded based on which option is selected, however points will not be awarded for both options.) Ms. Ralston pointed out the various plans plans that have been adopted by the County Commissioners, including the Cape Fear Commutes 2035 Transportation Plan, the Blue Clay Corridor plan, and the Market Street Corridor Study. Staff is also putting together a bike and pedestrian plan for the Middle Sound/Covil Farm community and a Greenway Plan to present to the Commissioners for adoption. Additional Requirement 3: Transit Facilities (Earns 4 Points) Locate development within ¼ mile of an existing or planned transit route. The transit agency must certify that it has an approved budget that includes specifically allocated funds sufficient to provide the planned service and that service will commence no later than occupancy of 50% of the project’s total building square footage. (This language has been reviewed and approved by WAVE). Ms. Ralston provided a map of the existing transit routes in the unincorporated county, which extend through Castle Hayne, up Gordon Road, and down Carolina Beach Road. Additional Requirement 6: On-Site Renewable Energy Sources (Earns 2 Points) 6. On-Site Renewable Energy Sources Incorporate on-site nonpolluting renewable energy generation, such as solar and geothermal energy with production capacity of at least 5% of the project’s annual electrical and thermal energy cost (exclusive of existing buildings), as established through an accepted building energy performance simulation tool. Additional Requirement 8: Native Landscapes (Earns 2 Points) 8. Native Landscapes Complete a comprehensive inventory of existing trees and vegetation on site and identify vegetation that is native, nonnative or invasive. Create a landscape plan that preserves and enhances native landscapes and eradicates or prevents the spread of nonnative and Page 13 of 23 invasive species. All noninvasive significant trees in good or excellent condition shall be maintained as part of this plan. The chart reflecting Points Available was also modified to reflect the recommended changes. A total of 26 points is available. Definitions: Existing or planned adequate transit service: At least 50% of dwelling units and business entrances within the project must be located within ½ mile walk distance of existing or planned bus transit stops. For planned transit stops, the transit agency must certify that it has an approved budged that includes specifically allocated funds for the transit stop and that the stop will be constructed no later than occupancy of 50% of the project’s total building square footage. Bicycle Network: A continuous network consisting of any combination of physically designated in-street bicycle lanes at least four (4) feet wide, off-street bicycle paths or trails at least eight (8) feet wide for a two-way path and at least five (5) feet wide for a one-way path, and/or streets with low traffic volumes designed to carry neighborhood traffic (bicycle through-streets). Affordable Housing: For rental units, affordability must be priced for households earning 80% 60% of the area median income (AMI). Rental limits are calculated annually based on the HUD Standard Income and Rent Limits table. Ms. Ralston reported staff had received a few public comments and had tried to address those comments in the revised amendment. Richard Collier asked if Core Requirement #5 had also been addressed in the definition section regarding the conservation management of habitat or wetlands. Ms. Ralston explained the Long Term Management Plan in Core Requirement #5 was previously considered an additional requirement and had simply been moved to a different section of the ordinance, but the definition was not altered in any other way. Dan Hilla asked Ms. Ralston to identify the two EDZD projects previously requested and provide the status of those two developments. Ms. Ralston reported the first project, Middle Sound Village, was approved by the Planning Board and the County Commissioners, but to date, no groundwork has actually begun. The other project, the Flournoy development, was approved by the Planning Board, but was denied by the Commissioners due to transportation questions related to the Hampstead Bypass. The Flournoy project later came back through as a high density project at another location. Chairman Gott opened the public hearing. Page 14 of 23 Roger Shew, of UNCW, spoke in support of the amendments, noting he is supportive of the spirit and modification of the language in Amendment 392 in the Exceptional Design Zoning District. He stated he really liked the idea of the point systems that are assigned and actually describe what the systems would be as well. He commented staff had done a good job of setting forth the steps and requirements for consideration of mixed-use and high-density residential projects in our already very densely populated county, including consideration of traffic, employment centers, and having a well-defined plan for the area to not only have a neighborhood feel, but actually to have a neighborhood use that is practical for these mixed-use areas. Mr. Shew noted his biggest agreements were with the amendments that include native landscapes, open space requirements, energy sources with renewables as possible, the bike network, creating a long term management plan for water and its conservation (which is a big issue in this county), preservation of the wetland areas, and stormwater management. He stated these are really forward looking and positive statements and he fully supports the amendments as presented. Tyler Newman, of Business Alliance for a Sound Economy and representing the Wilmington-Cape Fear Homebuilders Association, spoke in opposition to the ordinance, noting it is a really progressive and interesting ordinance that is unfortunately also voluntary. He stated his fear was that the changes being suggested have taken an ordinance that would be extremely challenging as it is now and made it more so. He commented only one project had actually been approved because one project was denied by the Commissioners and the project that was approved used some creativity to meet the smart location criteria by using a Bojangles as an employment center. He stated the proposed changes would add more criteria to the smart location, give an option to go into a larger part of the county if you have 100 acres and want to do an EDZD project, but you have to have a grocery store. He commented he didn’t know how realistic that would be and noted the absence of a grocery store anywhere near the dense downtown area where the Historic Courthouse is located. He stated he wasn’t sure how someone would lure in a mix of retail development in addition to the residential development, make the numbers work and hit the high marks to meet the ordinance. Mr. Newman stated concern that the County was going in the wrong direction. He explained they should be heading on the path of maybe not changing this particular ordinance anymore, but adding a mixed-use ordinance that folks can meet because not every project is going to be exceptional or able to meet these criteria. He reiterated concern that only one project had met the ordinance in two years and staff now wanted to make it more difficult to achieve. He expressed doubt there would be any more projects that would go the EDZD route and noted that was problematic for a voluntary district. No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the amendment during the rebuttal period. Chairman Gott closed the public hearing. Anthony Prinz asked staff to clarify the benefits for a project meeting the ordinance criteria. Ms. Ralston explained that by meeting these criteria, the developer benefits by gaining more density for his project than is available in the high density section of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Prinz asked for clarification on the numbers for density. Page 15 of 23 Ms. Ralston explained in the high density section, you can receive 17 units per acre in R-10 and in this EDZD, you can receive 20 units per acre, plus the mix of uses. There are no other options for mixed uses in the current ordinance. Planned Development is the closest option that comes near that. Staff is currently looking at providing more opportunities for mixed-use in the zoning ordinance and is aware it has been suggested by the board in the past. She noted the homebuilders in BASE had also spoken in support of the need for more mixed-use opportunities. Dan Hilla stated he is in favor of exceptional use design, but is opposed to anything that puts more restrictions on any type of residential development at this time especially in the current economic climate. He explained he would be more in favor of just allowing the existing exceptional use design ordinance to continue to see if more neighborhoods utilize it and if none come in, maybe making the ordinance less restrictive, but certainly not more restrictive. Richard Collier asked staff to clarify the change from requiring a full traffic impact analysis to requiring an evaluation of traffic impacts. Ms. Ralston stated the definition was opened up so that the requirement is more or less based upon what the MPO, NCDOT, and the County decide is required based on the scope of the project. An evaluation by a traffic engineer is required, which may or may not lead to a full traffic impact analysis. The requirement will be based on the scope of the project. Mr. Collier asked who would decide whether a full traffic impact analysis would be required. Mr. O’Keefe stated there would be a process. Currently, the MPO determines the scoping process and involves the DOT and Planning Staff, and sometimes the developer as well. Mr. Collier asked for clarification that it would be determined definitely at the MPO scoping meeting whether a traffic impact analysis would be required or if a one page letter stating the project doesn’t affect anything offsite would be sufficient. Mr. O’Keefe stated the requirement would be determined at the MPO scoping meeting and may be something in between a TIA and a one page letter. He noted the proposed amendment came about in direct response to the Middle Sound Village project because the MPO particularly felt that requiring a TIA for that project was excessive. Staff agreed with the MPO so it was determined they should find a way to scope the project to determine if the impacts were going to be significant, whether the road network could handle the proposed project, and whether some improvements would be required. The TIA process is the means used to require improvements. Staff thought if there was a way to reasonably evaluate those items without requiring a full blown TIA by a traffic engineer, it would be a real benefit to the smaller projects especially. Mr. Collier stated he wasn’t sure if he agreed or disagreed with Mr. O’Keefe’s comments. He then asked for clarification on Section 53.6-4, #1, which states that no development permits shall be issued until unified ownership is established. He commented he presumed that meant the County would not issue the final approval for the project to go to construction, not that the County couldn’t sign off on the plans as provided without unified ownership. Page 16 of 23 Jane Daughtridge explained the unified ownership issue arose because the proposals received were on properties under option and it wasn’t the owners’ intent to develop those properties. She commented those types of properties really need to have unified ownership and management of those proposals because there are so many requirements attached to them. Staff accepted those other proposals even though they weren’t under unified ownership at the time, but felt we should clarify that the properties need to have unified ownership before a building permit is issued so we know the proposal is moving forward in a way that is going to meet all of these requirements. Mr. Collier agreed with the building permit statement, but noted staff would find that the majority of the EDZD projects will come in with an option on the land rather than the owner of the parcel deciding they want to go through all of this to develop their property after they have held it for many years. He commented the language is fine fine as long as it means the project can go through the process and be approved by the Commissioners, but just can’t go through into construction until the property is in unified ownership. He asked Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman to provide an opinion on whether that language was clear in the proposal. Ms. Huffman stated the language was clear in the ordinance. Mr. Collier then stated concern about Section 53.6-5, the new #4 regarding the connected and open community. He said he was in agreement with open and connected communities and likes and has supported interconnection sometimes against public opinion, but he was concerned about not allowing any gates, particularly since we have allowed gates on private streets in other ordinances. He noted this would be a significant change in that policy and asked how the County would differentiate on preventing gates on streets, public or private, in this section, while gates are allowed on private streets elsewhere in the ordinance. Ms. Ralston stated that because this is a more stringent standard than in other ordinances, for example the subdivision ordinance, this requirement would supersede those standards. Chris O’Keefe stated staff is comfortable with the requirement because the intent of EDZD is for open communities and prohibiting gates would help ensure they remain open. He noted it may be that if a community is firm on having gates, they would not be able to take advantage of this particular section of the ordinance. There would be other options for those communities. Mr. Collier commented he didn’t know if he liked Option 5 of Core Requirement #1 and agreed with Mr. Newman that it would be difficult for a grocery store to come in at the onset whether it was a mom and pop store or a giant grocery chain. He stated he does like mixed use neighborhood centers going into a requirement, but he likes them better as an option or the County goes to what it really wants, a mixed use ordinance. He felt this requirement is the biggest obstacle in the ordinance ordinance and would be even more restrictive. This requirement would take both of the first two projects back to zero because neither of them could have qualified at all with this as a core requirement. Shawn Ralston stated if and when staff does bring forward language proposing other options for mixed use development it will require the same type of language. Page 17 of 23 Mr. Collier explained he doesn’t have an issue with that if it is within a mixed use ordinance. He commented someone proposing to build a mixed use project would expect that type of language, but including the language as a core requirement in an EDZD project seems to be much more restrictive. He reiterated that neither of the first two projects could meet that requirement in their proposal. Mr. Collier then took issue with the term “guaranteed” in Option 2 of Core Requirement #5 regarding creating a long term management plan with a guaranteed funding source. He noted Ms. Ralston had stated an HOA or POA could be responsible for funding the plan. Chairman Gott asked staff what had been the major hurdle for people who weren’t able to qualify for the EDZD ordinance. Ms. Ralston explained the two projects that were proposed have been approved. The second project wasn’t approved by the commissioners because it was potentially located in the right-of-way of the Hampstead Bypass. She noted she couldn’t say there had been hurdles. As far as the lack of EDZD projects over the last two years, there have only been two high density projects and four subdivision projects in the last two years so the lack of projects is simply a product of the current economy. EDZD continues to be the ordinance people inquire about. We are giving people up to twenty units of density so it does truly have to be exceptional. In the first line of the intent, it states the ordinance provides an opportunity for mixed use projects so that was always the intent of the ordinance. The two projects that came through for review just happened to not be mixed use so staff felt the language needed to be changed. Chairman Gott slightly disagreed regarding the intent because the stated intent is to provide opportunities for mixed use or high density residential projects. If we suddenly make that core requirement #2, which was originally optional and it is no longer high density residential, we will be forcing everybody to be mixed use. Ms. Ralston stated that most mixed use projects are high density type projects so it wasn’t intended to be a mixed use and/or high density; it was intended to be high density and mixed use type projects so maybe that should be clarified more in the revisions. She reiterated that mixed use, high density projects were the intent of the ordinance and are also the intent of LEED for Neighborhood Development projects as well. Chris O’Keefe stated it doesn’t require you to be a mixed use project, but you have to be within a ¼ mile walking distance from commercial or other uses. If you aren’t going to have a mix of uses, you have to be very close to those uses. He stated he thought the proposed Flournoy project at the intersection of Market Street and Military Cutoff Road would have qualified for mixed use because it had quite a number of diverse uses around it even within ¼ mile from 50% of the units. That was a pure residential project that probably would have qualified with the proposed revised language. This requirement would put a lot more weight on the location of the project so that the location is smart and able to take advantage of the efficiencies of being near the uses where people want to go. Mr. O’Keefe explained that is the crux of what staff and LEED consider to be an exceptional and sustainable project or one that is efficient in all aspects. He noted locational efficiency is probably where we can receive the most benefit today. Page 18 of 23 Chairman Gott expressed her overall concern as addressed by Mr. Collier and Mr. Hilla was that she doesn’t mind making it more expansive by giving more options, and it’s great that more options are given, but she is concerned about making it more restrictive. Her greatest concern is adding the #2 Core Requirement and making it no longer optional. She explained that was her biggest hurdle with the amendment and she didn’t feel comfortable with making it a core requirement. Mr. Collier asked in regard to Bicycle and Pedestrian Access, if a project located adjacent to the City of Wilmington’s Cross City Trail would qualify because the trail is 5 miles long. Staff affirmed Mr. Collier was correct. Anthony Prinz asked for clarification on the TIA language. With regard to larger projects, we always have the safety net of the County’s TIA ordinance. For moderate to large projects that generate more than 100 peak hour trips, a full TIA would always be required. The issue is those smaller projects like like Middle Sound Loop where DOT was planning significant improvements at the intersection of Middle Sound Loop and Market Street, as well as adding a new roundabout at the intersection of Middle Sound Loop Road and Middle Sound Loop Road. The MPO was put in a difficult position trying to determine what the TIA needed to consist of because the ordinance itself indicated the need for a very long and drawn out process involving a full traffic study that would require a lot of effort by the MPO, as well as requiring the developer to hire a traffic engineer when in the end staff already knew what the improvements needed to be. The project would generate 40-50 trips per day, which is relatively small for a residential project. Mr. Prinz explained the scale of the project didn’t make it appropriate for them to be tied down to large roadway improvements. Their impact is small so it isn’t really reasonable to require a full TIA which may determine major improvements they would have to build to be approved through the EDZD. He explained the staff’s intent is to allow the MPO, NCDOT, the County and the developer to scope the project together and determine what level of analysis they need to do to determine the impact on the roadway network. Mr. Prinz noted he thought with regard to larger projects, the County is still covered, but this change would give some flexibility for smaller projects so that undue burden isn’t placed on the developers or on staff. Chairman Gott stated that changes like that are very welcomed for this ordinance to enable more people to actually use it for smaller projects without the burden and expense of a TIA. She reiterated that she is very supportive of those types of changes, but her greatest concern is making #2 a core requirement rather than an option. Richard Collier asked staff how strongly they were held to Core Requirement #2. Chairman Gott asked staff what situation they were trying to cure with Core Requirement #2. Chris O’Keefe explained staff is trying to cure the obesity issue, traffic on the roadways, and so many other things that are traditionally tied to just diet or the type of gas a vehicle uses. People are now tying these issues to land use. The thought is if our communities were designed better, we would walk more and our roads wouldn’t be as congested. We wouldn’t be sitting in our cars running the engines more. There are a lot of compelling reasons. Staff has discussed how much Page 19 of 23 weight we want to put on this issue. There are a lot of good things in the ordinance and without Core Requirement #2, it is still a good ordinance; but it is a better and stronger ordinance and the projects are more exceptional with this language in it. He stated staff would like to see the language remain in the ordinance, but it’s a balancing act and we want people to use the ordinance as well. Shawn Ralston explained staff intentionally added this language because the two projects that came through did not fully take advantage of any mixed use components and staff is trying very hard to create opportunities for mixed use projects in the county. If we create mixed use ordinances, we will be creating more opportunities; but we would also like the EDZD, where you can earn up to 20 units per acre, to be a mixed use type development. She stated staff felt that if that language was not a requirement they would not see those types of projects. Anthony Prinz commented it had been mentioned that staff was planning to bring forward in the future some new mixed use districts for the Planning Board to review with the intent of making them a little less restrictive and more feasible for more areas of the county. He asked Ms. Ralston to give the board a preview of what those districts would entail, for example lower densities or specific areas where the County is looking to encourage mixed use. Chris O’Keefe answered that all of the options suggested by Mr. Prinz would be included in the proposals. He stated staff had already started meeting on the Market Street Corridor Ordinance language, which will include opportunities for mixed use along that corridor. That is already one of the corridors where people have looked to try to implement exceptional design zoning district projects. That ordinance language will be fairly comprehensive, with conditional district type of language where a mix of uses will be allowed and residential mixed use development will be encouraged. The Market Street Corridor Ordinance proposal should be ready for review by the Planning Board by early next year. Jane Daughtridge commented the traditional districts in the zoning ordinance are subject to the CAMA Land Classification Map so high density projects can only be done in areas that are classified as Urban or Transition on the map. One of the major advantages of EDZD is that you don’t have to adhere to that and can actually go into some of the Resource Protection Areas by doing exceptional things. Staff does think it is important to maintain the exceptional nature because we are allowing people to access potentially high densities in sensitive areas. The mixed use districts that would come into play otherwise would be like R-15 or any of the others. They are going to be subject to where they lie within that suitability that is projected through the land classification map. Chairman Gott asked County Attorney Huffman a question about voting on the ordinance amendment, noting all board members seemed to be in favor of the changes to the ordinance except for some concerns about Core Requirement #2. She asked if the board could vote on the ordinance in two votes, one vote for all the other changes in the ordinance and a second vote for the Core Requirement #2, because she didn’t want one requirement to hold up any changes to the EDZD ordinance. Page 20 of 23 Sharon Huffman suggested that it simply be made part of the motion to delete that section from the ordinance if that is the wish of the majority of the board rather than doing it in two step process. Someone could move to approve the text amendment with the deletion of that change. Richard Collier made a motion to approve text amendment A-392 amending Section 53.6 Exceptional Design Zoning District with all of the text amendments as presented except for Core Requirement #2 Mixed Use Neighborhood Centers and remove (scratch) that from this particular text amendment to be looked at later so there would remain six required items and not seven core requirements in the EDZD zoning district and adding it back in under the diversity of uses that were deleted as an option previously. Chris O’Keefe asked if there was a point number Mr. Collier would suggest be added. Chairman Gott asked if staff was trying to keep the points to a total of 26. Mr. O’Keefe stated 26 points was correct and would equate to to twenty (20) units of density so adding two more points for this would take the total to 22 total units. The option is to look at some of the other items and take away a point total there. Chairman Gott stated she wasn’t looking to increase the option of density. Mr. O’Keefe stated if they were looking for a trade-off, the Transit Alternative is four points and could be shifted to two points and then add two points for the mixed use neighborhood center. Mr. Collier stated that the items with four points include Affordable Housing, Minimum Building Energy and Transit Facilities. Chairman Gott pointed out the Minimum Building Energy had been reduced to 2 points. Mr. Collier noted that 2 or 4 points were available for Bicycle and Pedestrian Access depending on which option is used. Mr. Collier then stated his motion would be at staff’s discretion. Anthony Prinz stated that if the board was in doubt about it, he didn’t want to have any unintended consequences. He noted the board had done this over the past few meetings with the industrial amendment and is now far apart on this particular section. He then suggested the board move the rest on and talk about this next month or whenever staff is ready to present a full proposal. Richard Collier asked if Mr. Prinz was suggesting he revise his motion to remove core requirement #2 from the amendments and not add it into the diversity of uses because if we do we have to assign point values to it. At this point, leave it and let staff come back with a recommendation on how to put it in and if it’s in the diversity of uses, how the points distribute. Mr. Prinz confirmed Mr. Collier’s understanding was correct, noting he felt there are too many moving parts to that section to pluck it from one and put it into another until we figure out what the impact would be. That way we would be able to find out if it is appropriate to take points from one and put them on another or just to add more points to the whole spectrum. Page 21 of 23 Richard Collier asked if he should restate his motion. Chairman Gott stated she had a great concern about totally removing the #2 requirement and not putting it back in under the optional requirements because that would mean for 30-60 days until we get it changed with the points we don’t have that as an option in the ordinance. She commented she didn’t feel comfortable doing that and would rather staff figure it out and bring back the corrected ordinance in thirty days than pass it tonight without adding the requirement back in as an option. She explained she would much rather get the amendment right than try to piece meal it up to the commissioners. Anthony Prinz asked if there was an urgent situation where people want to use this ordinance right now. Chris O’Keefe responded there is at least one project on the horizon where staff anticipates an application submittal relatively soon, but he wasn’t sure if the proposed changes would impact that submittal. Mr. Collier asked if it was possible to exceed 26 points. Mr. O’Keefe stated it was possible to exceed 26 points, but we will be increasing the maximum density to 22 units per acre, which is more of an incentive and is providing an incentive for this mixed use component which staff feels is important and is something people would strive for. Staff likes it as a requirement. To give additional points to it is something else. He would prefer to take the points out of transit or somewhere else and add it to this requirement. Chairman Gott asked if that could be cured by requiring a minimum of 12 additional points from the criteria listed and set a maximum number of points that can be earned regardless of whether the project is eligible for more points because there may be other great ideas for options to add on to this district. She suggested that the number of points that can be earned be capped so the density can be capped because she doesn’t want unlimited density. Shawn Ralston stated that Ms. Gott’s suggestion would be a solution. Chairman Gott asked if the county was allowed to add a cap of points that a project is permitted to obtain. Ms. Huffman stated she didn’t see a problem with having a cap on the density, but it wasn’t clear to her how the density would be capped if we keep increasing the points because they are tied together. Mr. O’Keefe stated there are points for each option so you can earn a total of 26 points. You need 12 points to get your first 6 units so after that there are 14 units remaining, for a total of 20 units. If 2 more points are added, that goes up to 28 points, which equals 16 units. Sixteen units plus six units equal 22 units so language could be inserted at the end which states the minimum exceptional criteria up to a maximum of 28 units per acre or 1/10 of additional floor area ratio for each two additional points. Page 22 of 23 Ms. Huffman stated it seems like the points and the density are tied together. Mr. O’Keefe explained the points and the density are tied together, but staff could set a maximum on the number of units and that could be accomplished with the language. Ms. Huffman asked what good it would do to keep increasing your points if you capped your density. Mr. O’Keefe stated Ms. Huffman was right; it would become pointless once you reached 26 points. You wouldn’t need to earn 2 more points, but you could. Ms. Huffman commented that you could earn more points if you wanted to look really good, but you wouldn’t be helping yourself in regard to density. Mr. O’Keefe noted you wouldn’t be helping yourself with density, but you would be increasing the marketability of your community. Chairman Gott stated that since they are optional, someone may determine they want to do the mixed use component as opposed to the bicycle paths. She doesn’t mind giving more options, but she doesn’t want unlimited density to come out of those options. Ms. Huffman stated she felt the language would need to be written in such a way that it was very clear how much density could be achieved. Chairman Gott stated she felt comfortable having staff craft language to add a clarification regarding the maximum amount of density that can be earned. Andy Heath asked in regard to the minimum twelve points required how realistic it would be for a project to come before the board and be able to score 26 points in New Hanover County. Ms. Ralston explained the first two projects proposed came very close to that number of points. Richard Collier withdrew his original motion. Richard Collier then made a motion to recommend approval of A-392 amending Section 53.6 the Exceptional Design Zoning District text amendments as presented except for removing Core Requirement #2 Mixed Use Neighborhood Centers and reinserting it into the Diversity of Uses at its original four points as shown in the last draft and for staff to add a sentence somewhere in the bonus awards that caps the total maximum dwelling units per acre to be achieved through the EDZD process to a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre. Andy Heath seconded the motion. During discussion, Chris O’Keefe stated that perhaps the wise thing to do would be to review the amendment for another month because if the Mixed Use Neighborhood Centers are moved back to the other section, staff may want to change the language to read as a bonus rather than as a requirement. Page 23 of 23 Shawn Ralston explained that the language had been weakened when the item was changed to a requirement, but if Mixed Use Development is changed back to an option in the EDZD ordinance amendment and would earn four points, staff may want to strengthen the language. Chairman Gott stated it was her understanding the discussion had been to add back in the previous language for mixed use development that had been removed from the original ordinance and asked if staff was intending to tweak the diversity of uses language contained in #3 under the optional additional requirements that had been struck out in the proposal. Shawn Ralston explained that the table the language in #3 alludes to had also been removed from the ordinance in the proposed amendment so one could not be changed without the other. Chairman Gott stated there had been a suggestion by staff that the item be tabled until the October meeting. Richard Collier withdrew his second motion and with the advice of staff made a substitute motion to table the EDZD amendment to the October meeting. The motion was seconded by Anthony Prinz. Sharon Huffman advised that the board should either table the item or continue the item to a date certain and asked which staff would prefer. Chris O’Keefe stated staff was comfortable with continuing the item. Richard Collier then made a substitute motion to continue Amendment A-392 to the October Planning Board meeting. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to continue Text Amendment A-392 to the October Planning Board meeting. Technical Review Committee Report (August) The County’s Technical Review Committee did not meet during the month of August; therefore, no report was provided. Chris O’Keefe made a brief announcement regarding the Commissioners beginning a move toward digital agendas via laptops and I-pads in lieu of paper copies of agenda information. He offered the option to planning board members who would like to try the digital agendas and explained that a short training session would be made available to interested members. Chairman Gott adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.