Loading...
2018-08 August 2 2018 PBM Page 1 of 21 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board August 2, 2018 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Ernest Olds, Chairman Wayne Clark, Planning & Land Use Director Jordy Rawl, Vice Chairman Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Paul Boney Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Jeffrey Petroff Brad Schuler, Current Planner Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Absent: Donna Girardot Allen Pope Edward “Ted” Shipley, III Chairman Ernest Olds opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing. Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Ernest Olds reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Chairman Ernest Olds welcomed new Planning Board member, Jeffrey Petroff. Approval of Planning Board Meeting Minutes Approval of the July 12, 2018 Planning Board meeting minutes was postponed to the September Planning Board meeting due to the lack of a quorum of planning board members who were also present at the July planning board meeting. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z18-11) – Request by Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner, Hoosier Daddy, LLC, to rezone approximately 79.93 acres of land located near the 5800 block of Carolina Beach Road, north of Manassas Drive, from R-15, Residential District, to (CZD) R-7, Conditional Residential District, in order to construct a performance residential development. Page 2 of 21 Current Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Schuler presented the following staff report. Planner Schuler stated this rezoning request is an application to establish a conditional zoning district for an expansion of the Tarin Woods development which consists of multiple housing types. The subject property is currently zoned R-15 and is located near Monkey Junction, which is a large commercial node in the county located north of the subject property. You will continue to find commercial development along Carolina Beach Road as you head south, including directly east of the subject property. The site is also located next to a few other residential subdivisions. The Battle Park, Covington, and Sentry Oaks subdivisions are all interconnected with the Tarin Woods development, which allows the residents to access Carolina Beach Road via Manassas Drive. Congleton Farms is also an approved subdivision that has not been constructed yet. That proposed development will consist of the approximately 170 lots and will connect to and extend Lt. Congleton Road to the Myrtle Grove Road. Planner Schuler stated the subject site is part of the Tarin Woods d evelopment, which is a subdivision consisting of multiple phases. He presented a slide reflecting the overall development, noting to the south is the original Tarin Woods subdivision, which consists of about 120 lots and was platted approximately five years ago. Since then, Tarin Woods has expanded to the North. He pointed out the first phase of Tarin Woods II, noting that this phase consists of 51 lots and was platted last year. Planner Schuler explained the property being considered this evening includes two phases of the project. He noted there is also a potential future phase, which is not included within this rezoning application, and there have been no development applications submitted to the county at this time for the that portion of the property. Planner Schuler reported that the property itself consists of approximately 80 acres and is partially wooded. A portion of the Tarin Woods expansion is currently being constructed on the property; this construction was approved under the current R-15 zoning of the site. The preliminary plat for that portion totals 188 lots, which includes the 51 lots that have already been platted in the first phase of Tarin Woods II. Planner Schuler stated the proposed conceptual site plan included with this rezoning application proposes to develop 145 single-family dwellings, 143 townhomes, and 192 apartment units. The attached and multi-family units are located on the western portion of the property, closer to the areas zoned for commercial use. The development will also make three connections to the adjacent subdivisions, however, only Manassas Drive provides a direct connection to Carolina Beach Road, which is a signalized intersection. Planner Schuler presented a slide showing the differences between the current zoning district and what is being proposed. He noted the current R-15 district would allow up to 200 dwelling units on the property under the performance residential standards, which is a density of 2.5 du/ac. Under the proposed Conditional R-7 district the property would be permitted a maximum of 480 dwelling units at a density of 6 du/ac. Page 3 of 21 Planner Schuler stated in regard to traffic, a Traffic Impact Analysis has been completed for the proposed development and it is currently being reviewed by NCDOT and the WMPO. He noted the improvements that the analysis recommends be made to the area’s transportation network in order to mitigate the impacts generated by the development. Specifically, it recommends that a new shared left and U-turn lane be installed at the intersection of Sanders Road and Carolina Beach Road; and that a second right turn lane be installed on Manassas Drive at its intersection with Carolina Beach Road. The TIA also recommends signal modifications at both intersections, which means changing the timing of the lights to allow more time for motorists to enter and exit the site. The TIA indicates that the improvements proposed at these intersections will mitigate the impact of the development and allow the intersections to operate at an acceptable LOS. Again, a LOS from A to D is considered to be an acceptable level. Planner Schuler noted that the applicant’s traffic engineer was present to answer any questions regarding the TIA. Planner Schuler reported that six other traffic analyses have been approved in the area within the last five years. Information regarding these projects and their required improvements are provided in the staff report. Planner Schuler added that there is also one project within the area that is included within the State Transportation Improvement Program. Project U-5790 will widen an adjacent portion of Carolina Beach Road and construct a flyover at the intersection of College Road and Carolina Beach Road. Construction of that project is expected to begin in 2024. Current construction activities are occurring on the site in the single family portion of the project. Planner Schuler stated the Comprehensive Plan classifies the subject property as both General Residential and Urban Mixed Use. The Urban Mixed Use Classification is located on a small portion of the property here on the western side. This place type promotes a mixture of residential and commercial uses at higher densities. The rest of the property is classified as General Residential. This place type promotes single-family and low-density multi-family residential. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the ideal density for this place type being up to 6 dwelling units per acre, which is the overall proposed density for this project and the maximum density allowed in the R-7 district. Further, the design of the development has the attached and multi-family housing located closer to the Urban Mixed Use areas that promote higher density development and it transitions to single-family housing as you move farther east into the General Residential Place Type. This type of development pattern provides an appropriate transition in density between the commercial areas along Carolina Beach Road and existing single-family residential areas; it also aligns with the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of providing for a range of housing types. Therefore, the application is generally CONSISTENT with the comprehensive plan. Staff recommends approval of the application with the following condition: Condition: 1. An approved final driveway access permit from NCDOT and completion of all applicable permit conditions is required prior to approval of a final plat or any required final zoning approval for the townhome or apartment units . Planner Schuler concluded his presentation, noting the applicant’s team was present, including the traffic and civil engineers to answer any questions from the board. Page 4 of 21 Hearing no questions for staff from planning board members, Chairman Olds opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Cindy Wolf of Design Solutions stated she represents Hoosier Daddy, LLC, the owner of the property. She said the Tarin Woods community that is there has been very successful like a lot of single family residential developments going on around the county right now, and it is the developer's desire to expand on that success and provide more homes in this particular area. She explained that, prior to the new land use plan and to set the stage over the years, the CAMA plan of 2006 was the guiding document. The lands included in this petition were already identified as appropriate for Transition development. That classification was intended to provide for future intensive urban growth when urban services were available. She said Planner Schuler pointed out on the current comprehensive plan that the tract is in the Urban Mixed Use and General Residential place types, and the first tier of that mixed use is generally a sensible transition location for higher densities of residential development. The staff summary shows where the commercial development is along Carolina Beach Road and where our proposed tract is. Ms. Wolf noted as Planner Schuler also pointed out, there is a lot of interconnectivity to the south of this proposal. You've got situations where some of those older developments to the east were not stubbed as they probably should have been, but regardless, our particular project has several locations for interconnectivity and means of getting to both Carolina Beach Road and to Myrtle Grove Road. Myrtle Grove Road will then get you up to Masonboro Loop Road or down to Myrtle Grove and Carolina Beach and avoid the busier traffic intersections of Sanders Road or Monkey Junction. Ms. Wolf reported that the plan we have is a combination of housing types. As our population grows, housing types and housing preferences are certainly va riable. We did orient the townhomes further to the west adjacent to the commercial and tucked the multi-family up into the corner so it is the most removed from all of the single family, but it is also oriented for the possible future development and extension to the north that could potentially get up to the Monkey Junction intersection and services and commercial centers without having to go onto Carolina Beach Road at all. Ms. Wolf stated that Manassas Drive right now is the primary access point in and out other than over to Myrtle Grove Road. The Harris T eeter service station improvements there have finally been completed so there is a signalized intersection for the left- over turn movements. She noted the traffic impact analysis has been very dynamic during this process. The applicants have been working with the NC Department of Transportation for a year or so and things have changed based on the alternatives. Ms. Wolf noted one of the things we anticipate being discussed tonight is the traffic coming to Manassas Drive. We tried to introduce another access during one of our alternatives up in another location and the NCDOT didn't want it there. It was an additional conflict point along Carolina Beach Road and was not as palatable to NCDOT even with improvements that would have been included in it. The NCDOT’s determination as Planner Schuler showed on the traffic service levels, is that with the improvements that would be required on Manassas Drive and at Sanders Road, based on this amount of traffic, the roads are adequate to handle those service levels. She noted the future Page 5 of 21 phase, if it comes up in here, would require that secondary access to the north, but right now we have good interconnectivity both to Carolina Beach Road and to Myrtle Grove Road. Ms. Wolf stated that because the traffic impact analysis is currently in review and it is a large project, there are a lot of concerns about traffic and the applicants want to make sure that everyone has had the opportunity to review those issues and those solutions; therefore, it is the applicants’ intention tonight to request of the planning board, and also because it is an abbreviated board, to continue this rezoning request to a future meeting when that traffic impact analysis has been more thoroughly reviewed and if not, actually signed, sealed, and stamped. Ms. Wolf said in the interest of everyone here and making this presentation, the applicants appreciate the opportunity to open the public hearing and hear what people have to say. She stated we can take notes and can perhaps respond to and solve some of those issues this evening, but the applicants would certainly be prepared to address anything that can’t be resolved tonight at a future meeting. Ms. Wolf concluded her presentation, noting the applicant team was available to answer questions. Chairman Olds asked if board members had any questions for the applicant. Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl asked for a clarification on the traffic counts from 2017 referenced on page 5 in the staff report. He commented it looks like the traffic count was taken on Carolina Beach Road at Manassas Drive and appears to be a volume of 41,542 and a capacity of 40,900. He asked if that takes into account these future developments in the area , noting the volume is over-capacity for that area. Current Planner Schuler replied that is an actual count that was taken on April 4, 2017, so it would not take into account any future development or the trips that are generated by those developments. At the request of Chairman Olds, Ms. Wolf pointed out on the map the part of the site that is already platted, noting it is the first 51 units that were part of the preliminary plat. Generally speaking, the preliminary plat was based upon the R-15 existing zoning so it maximized the performance residential development of that portion of it. Since that time, more land is involved and more due diligence has been done with the environmental studies, and with the sewer. Ms. Wolf stated one of the reasons this particular tract hasn't been developed in the past is that there was a capacity issue with lift stations in the area. That lift station has now been improved and the capacity is there for the infill we're looking for . She pointed out the lots included in the preliminary plat they have been working towards, noting that the R-7 zoning would start to transition with the rest of the development. Chairman Olds commented that he was trying to understand staff’s photo showing additional land clearing underway, noting obviously there’s the developer’s commitment to execute the plan and that may be what is reflected in the photographs. Ms. Wolf replied there are erosion control permits and grading permits and everything is permitted to be improving these areas for development. Ms. Wolf explained the roads are in the Page 6 of 21 same places; what might make a difference is the type of product that ge ts put in those places upon approval of this petition. Board Member Paul Boney asked Ms. Wolf to clarify on the map what areas are permitted and under construction and where the developer is currently selling lots. Ms. Wolf replied that only this area is permitted with lots being sold at this point. She also noted the other lots are not recorded so they can’t be sold yet. At Board Member Boney’s request, Ms. Wolf then confirmed the location of the portion of property that is the subject of the current rezo ning request. Ms. Wolf explained that it’s known as Tarin Woods II, but this is 1-A and that is 1-B and then we start moving off. Board Member Boney suggested that maybe the applicant could rethink the phasing to make it simpler. Ms. Wolf acknowledged it is a little complicated, but it all has to do with the traffic analysis and the improvements that are required as you move forward. Board Member Jeffrey Petroff inquired when the subdivision plan was approved for this area. Current Planner Schuler replied that the current preliminary plat was approved in 2017. Vice Chair Jordy Rawl inquired about the delineation of wetlands, noting the map shows there are some Class IV soils that looked like they would be impacted. He asked if a full wetlands delineation and map of the property had been signed off on by the Corps of Engineers. Ms. Wolf explained that has been done in phases, noting there is one adjacent to this first platted phase already and we are already reviewing some of these other areas with the Corps of Engineers, but we are confident what we have allotted and set aside as green areas, etc. are valid. Granted, anything that isn't totally signed off on or delineated at this point is still subject to the TRC review during preliminary platting of this revised plan if the rezoning is successful. Vice Chair Rawl asked Ms. Wolf to clarify if wetlands did come up during that delineation, if that could have an impact on the final unit count in the subdivision. Ms. Wolf agreed that it could have an impact, otherwise, we could vary housing types perhaps, but in performance density, if you aren’t impacting those wetlands if they happen to be identified, then you can still yield the density from them. Vice Chair Rawl then noted the properties to the north look to be in a similar physical state as the property the applicant has brought forward and asked if there had been any conversations with that property owner, noting they are looking for a stub extension back to the north on that property. Ms. Wolf explained that property has the same property owner. Part of it is, other than Rosa Parks Lane, which is an unimproved, never dedicated road or all the way up to the Monkey Junction Kings Highway are still in flux as far as identified opportunities for interconnection. She commented that the Fire Services of the county can only allow up to 100 parcels or living units not having more than one access to them, therefore, at this point, if we took that any further, we would be allowed to have a hundred units, but we felt this was a reasonable designation line because now we have interconnectivity and multiple ways out of everything in this development. Page 7 of 21 Vice Chair Rawl commented that interconnectivity through Rosa Parks Lane would tend to shift traffic away from that pinch point intersection at Sanders Road that would give these property owners an opportunity to get away from that bottleneck intersection there. He noted there are a lot of people that come from River Road and Beau Rivage on Sanders Road. Ms. Wolf agreed that is certainly a possibility and noted there are some other parcels along Carolina Beach Road, but you have different situations along them. Chairman Olds said Ms. Wolf had mentioned looking at the other stub and NCDOT said they weren’t going to do that. He inquired if it was too close to the intersection and asked her to address some of the parameters NCDOT has conveyed regarding what they plan to do in terms of improvements and access points, and explain what the conditions are that are limiting your options here. Ms. Wolf explained that the scoping of the project was expanded all the way to the north with this future phase so we are looking at different variables. The south access is Manassas Drive and now that there is a signal there at that left-over, it is her understanding that NCDOT has said that it would satisfy this project the way this is laid out with the improvements if it is maximized in the density. As it goes along, we can get up to 240 units until those improvements at Manassas Drive and Sanders Road have to occur. She said after that, those improvements have to occur to get the rest of the density. Ms. Wolf said if there is a third phase, everybody knows that we really need another access to the north so what has been reviewed is the Kings Highway connection. In response to Chairman Olds’ inquiry regarding if that connection is their idea or the NCDOT’s idea, Ms. Wolf confirmed that is everyone’s idea and noted there are services there that would really benefit. She also agreed with the chairman that that is a fairly significant distance from this parcel at approximately 1,500 feet. Chairman Olds asked Ms. Wolf to clarify what traffic improvements are being done at Manassas Drive and explain the directions that are now allowable at that location and what the next required improvement will be. Ms. Wolf explained that currently, it is a left-over situation where traffic going southbound on Carolina Beach Road can make a left onto Manassas Drive. There was formerly not a traffic signal there so traffic had to wait until the light further down gave you that time slot to get across. Now that the signal is there, it's more controlled so that people coming out of Manassas Drive have the opportunity to get out and into the Carolina Beach Road traffic going northbound while the people are turning into Manassas Drive. She explained that traffic from Manassas Drive can’t take a left out; they have to go up to Sanders Road to the U-turn to go southbound. She confirmed that has been the case since the left-over limitation was put there. The required traffic improvement would create two lanes turning right, allowing in theory, twice as many cars to get out and into the flow of traffic on Carolina Beach Road from Manassas Drive when that light is on. In response to Chairman Olds’ inquiry regarding whether Manassas Drive would be improved, Ms. Wolf explained that was discussed with the local engineer. The NCDOT infrastructure is assessed on a two-year basis. Road sections are given a road condition ratio of 1 to 100 and this information is taken into consideration when developing a 5-year resurfacing plan Page 8 of 21 for funding purposes. She stated she obtained this information in the spring when she held the community meeting. Once she spoke with the district engineer, she indicated she would be on alert and may potentially move this up in her review. The district engineer said she wasn't aware of everything going on back behind there. Manassas Drive was previously scheduled for resurfacing in 2022. With the development going on, if this were approved, build=out would probably be back into those dates. We would look at the traffic analysis to see what they used for buildout, but characteristics such as average daily traffic and road type are a lso included in the review. All the recent development has been a boon to the interconnectivity and the travel options not only for new communities, but certainly those that have already been using Manassas Drive to get across from Myrtle Grove Road through Century Oaks and those types of places. Ms. Wolf stated that being said, the district engineer believed it would probably be given a higher prioritization over the smaller surrounding roads in the area and they would be reviewing it. Ms. Wolf noted that it is her understanding is that its capacity is satisfactory for what the department has it assigned for, and we'd be making the improvements at the intersection. Ms. Wolf added that an additional northbound left-turn lane would also be added at the U-turn so that more U-turn traffic can go southbound if they are coming out of this development. Board Member Paul Boney asked Ms. Wolf to clarify the Manassas Drive cross-section is one lane on either side. Ms. Wolf confirmed that Manassas Drive is currently one lane on either side. Board Member Boney noted the traffic report says and NCDOT says that Manassas Drive will remain one lane, and the resurfacing Ms. Wolf is talking about is just to resurface the roadway, not to make it wider or add a lane. Ms. Wolf stated she would defer to a traffic engineer, but her understanding is that it’s at that point where they determine does that resurfacing wide n out a little, improve the shoulders a little better. Ms. Wolf confirmed Board Member Boney was also correct that the resurfacing would not add a lane clarifying for the public that they would not end up with a four-lane section on Manassas Drive. Board Member Jeffrey Petroff commented that the staff report indicates that the property drains to Everetts Creek, which is an SA HQW. He stated he doesn’t know where that falls on the applicant’s property, but his experience has been there's a lot of density restrictions and ways to handle stormwater and buffers. Board Member Petroff inquired if the land plan took into account the property that drains to that SA HQW waters. Ms. Wolf said she would ask the project engineer to address the question. Howard Resnik of CSD Engineering, a member of the applicant team, confirmed the property does drain to SA waters, Everetts Creek. He said they did a determination with DEQ several years ago as to where the half mile line lies and it does lie south of the property so everything on the site did not have to be designed to meet the SA requirements. He added that it’s actually a tributary to Everetts Creek where they measure from and the delineation line of the half mile fell pretty much to the south of the property line between Tarin Woods I and Tarin Woods II. Mr. Resnik confirmed that draining to outside of the half mile does not put the project under those restraints. Chairman Olds opened the opposition portion of the public hearing. Page 9 of 21 OPPOSITION COMMENTS Robert Tregembo stated his family has owned the zoo at 5811 Carolina Beach Road since 1952 and the proposed project is going to be basically on three sides of the zoo property. He stated that according to the information sent to them, they are going to put townhouses within ten (10) feet of the property line. Mr. Tregembo stated he feels there should be a buffer between animals and people, not only for people's safety, but for animal safety. If they come in there and tear all those trees out with big equipment, animals just don't deal with that. Mr. Tregembo said on the original plan in February they had actually left some buffer around the back of the zoo property, but not on the new plan; the townhomes are up to ten feet from the property line. Chairman Olds asked how close the zoo animals are to the zoo property line. Mr. Tregembo replied that some of the animals are located right up to the property line and noted they have an 8-foot fence around the property and that’s the back of some of the animals’ enclosures. He explained that is his main concern, except that he doesn’t understand people building in a swamp. He stated that since he’s lived there, for 65 years, that are has been considered wetlands and now it’s buildable. He doesn’t understand that. Robert Tuller of 1004 Lt. Congleton Road thanked Ms. Wolf for her time and input. He noted he’s lived in a lot of homeowners’ associations and has done this before, but he isn’t an expert so if he gets a little off track in what he’s saying there is a purpose for it. First, he thanked the board for the opportunity and also bragged on the developer because as you all know we have had a copious amount of rain, 60 inches this year. This has been incredible. He said he’s lived in Mississippi, in places where it’s wet, and he’s never seen anything like this. Mr. Tuller reported his neighborhood drains better than most any neighborhood in the Wilmington area, noting it’s unbelievable how good their drainage is. He commented from that point of view, the developer has done a great job with retention ponds and the drainage, noting he lives in the first house in Tarin Woods and is so impressed. Mr. Tuller stated he does have a few issues and is also speaking on behalf of some of his neighbors because they only get fifteen minutes. Mr. Tuller said, first, with a rezoning application, a developer submits a plan, there is public notice and comment on the plan, and depending on the size and scope of the plan, a traffic study is done. He thinks in this case, the developer submitted a plan by application, the public meeting indicates a site plan that reflects about fifty more acres and hundreds of additional units than were on the original plan. A traffic stud y was performed on that plan that doesn’t match either the application plan or the plan presented at the public meeting. Mr. Tuller said the proposed solution is that in order for public notice and comment to work, the application plan, the public meeting plan, and the traffic plan has to be the same because otherwise it's apples and oranges that you are agreeing to and saying yes to and that is a big mistake. Mr. Tuller said they understand there are tweaks, but we’re not talking about tweaks, we’re talkin g about big impacts. He stated he understands that little tweaks can be made in the process of rezoning, but what we have seen here is more than tweaks and the traffic study appears to be obsolete due to the changes that are shown so he thinks a re-evaluation needs to happen. He noted it sounds like the applicants somewhat agree and have asked to delay this rezoning request to a future vote and that is a good thing. Page 10 of 21 Mr. Tuller stated in regard to further assumptions in traffic study, in S ection 2.1 in the application plan states that Manassas Drive is a two-lane road. He doesn’t know how you’re going to put two lanes going into a one-lane road when they turn in. If you have two lanes turning in, unless you make the left turn lane U-turns only, and that's confusing because we have a sign saying no U-turns and a sign that says no U-turns for trucks. He acknowledged that is a NCDOT issue that has already been addressed. He commented in regard to the road, there’s about 35 to 40 feet of grass median in there. He doesn’t know who owns that median, but doesn’t know why that couldn’t be turned into another lane because the lanes are 10 feet wide and are eaten up from trucks, cement trucks, constantly. They don’t turn into the side roads that are going to be developed; they go down Lt. Congleton Road and go down the hill from Appomattox Drive to Lt. Congleton and it is eating Manassas Drive up. He suggested the board drive down there to see that it’s full of potholes, and people drive off the road to avoid the potholes, etc., which is a risk for walkers, bikers, kids and everybody else. Mr. Tuller said at the very least from what he has seen in the past, the developer commits to resurface that road because of the damage that he's created because of his trucks. I've seen that happen more than once and I think we need a commitment from the developer to resurface that road because of the damage he has created with his trucks. Mr. Tuller stated they need a commitment from the developer to resurface that road, and when they do it, if that median can be converted to two lanes each side now you have a good thing for the arrows coming off Lt. Congleton Drive and improve the flow of traffic for the many people coming back there. Mr. Tuller then mentioned that Century Oaks is an access point now off Lt. Congleton Drive. There is a lot of traffic coming from Appomattox Drive down the hill avoiding the stop sign. He stated they’ve asked for speed humps for a year and a half, not bumps, but humps. Mr. Tuller doesn’t think they’ve been developed because they want better access for the truckers going through there so they don’t have to hit the speed humps. He reported they are flying. With more and more traffic coming from Century Oaks, it creating a risk with the pool there and it’s unacceptable. He said one of the things the developers need to consider is going ahead and putting two speed humps on Lt. Congleton Drive. He offered to show them where they should be located. Mr. Tuller stated that Section 2.2 takes into account traffic from January and September. Having lived here for two years and coming her for eight years, he knows the traffic is not September. Traffic is during the summer season and is a nightmare; there are wrecks there almost every day. There was a wreck there today. He noted that no traffic from June to August was considered in this traffic plan. Not only that, the traffic volume they said is about a 1 percent increase per year, and actually from 2010 to now it's more like a 2-1/2 percent increase per year that we're seeing on Carolina Beach Road, and that's not even taking into account the summer months. Mr. Tuller said we really need to look at what the traffic is during peak season and what it is during the off-season. He commented that he’s not against development or change, but if you don't manage change, it will manage you. He’s just interested in managing change here because there needs to be some corrections. He also added that the River Lights subdivision traffic is also coming off Sanders Road; it is growing fast and is going to increase traffic even more. He said there's no discussion of the hundreds of heavy trucks or if they are going to redevelop the road as previously discussed. There's no analysis of the side roads off Carolina Beach Road, whether they meet the current or future volumes of traffic or whether they meet the state Page 11 of 21 standards for lane width, striping, signage and so on. Mr. Tuller added that there is no discussion of modern engineering methods. He commented that o ne of things they did on River Road is roundabouts. He’s spent a lot of time in the U.K. on business and roundabouts are good for traffic flow. He wonders why they wouldn’t consider the viability of them in these areas and neighborhoods. He commented that a study of modern engineering methods would be good to see when we come for a vote. In regard to speed humps, he noted that the sidewalks are next to the road with no grass between them and kids fall off bikes all the time; it’s an accident waiting to happen and we don’t want it to be fixed after the accident. Mr. Tuller stated to the developers that Tarin Woods has been very successful; homes have sold well and the appreciation is good, but a lot of things have been promised like walking trails, but there are no walking trails. The developers were going to add more parking on land by the pool. Maybe we could address when and if the second pool is going to be built. Right now, this pool is full and there's a limitation to how many people you can put in a pool ar ea. When all of these other homes are being built, what are they going to do when those ordinances say only so many people can be at the pool. Are you going to tell somebody that's buying a $500,000 home they can't go to the pool? He doesn’t think that’s going to work. He’d like to know when the other pool and the tennis courts are going to be built and also if the apartments are going to have their own pool since they will likely have different homeowners’ dues they are subject to. Mr. Tuller said he is asking those questions for the developer to consider while they are here because it all plays into the roads and the development. He stated they want best development, noting other communities in town have done it pretty well. He said he was assuming t he apartments and townhouses would have their own pool, but he would like that verified by the developer. Mr. Tuller also pointed out that some children at Bellamy Elementary School are in trailer classrooms, noting he doesn’t think a trailer is safe if there is an active shooter. He estimated that 50 percent of families have kids in school so based on how many apartments and townhomes there would be, the low estimate would be 400 kids added to our schools. He inquired whose responsibility is it to go to the school board and say we're adding 400 kids over the next 3-4 years to Bellamy Elementary, to Ashley High School, and are studies being done because there are other developments also. He stated that now, the bus stops and drops off children at the Tarin Woods clubhouse. That’s not going to work when you are building homes and asking kids to walk a mile home. That isn’t acceptable with what they’re paying for a house so he would like that issue to be looked at and considered. Mr. Tuller emphasized he’s not against change; he’d like for it to be addressed and managed as it should be, and then they’ll be all for it. He thanked the board for their time. Vivian Radecsky of 6001 Appomattox Drive stated she would like to add a couple of things given that most everything about the traffic had already been covered. She stated in regard to Ms. Wolf’s comments about the turn signal at Manassas Drive and Carolina Beach Road , it is not unusual for traffic on Carolina Beach Road to be at a standstill in the morning there so even if you have a light, there might not be space for those people to get onto that highway while the light is still green. She noted there are a lot of accidents there. Ms. Radecsky said in regard to the Page 12 of 21 double U-turn at Sanders Road, she has found that in the morning at the U-turns further down Carolina Beach Road at the College Road intersection, the outside lane for the U-turn is always backed up into the left lane and overflows into the left lane so people who want to go straight in the left lane have to move into the right lane, which creates possibilities for accidents too. Ms. Radecsky said she thinks that might be the situation if the double U-turn is placed at Sanders Road because traffic is extremely heavy in the morning. She said she has given up her morning classes at the senior center because the traffic is unbearable. She said she was a substitute teacher for fifteen years and wanted to go back to work, but hesitates to go back because she doesn’t know how she could get to the school on time if she receives a late call. Ms. Radecsky commented as much as she loved her work and misses her students, she has not done that, and if she feels like that in the morning about the traffic and it keeps her from going places, she doesn’t think she’s the only one. She thanked the board for their time. Bob Boldt of 825 Riddick Court stated he would add to what everybody else said that he has nothing against development and people making money and having jobs, but he would like for the board to take a look at the infrastructure. He noted we can’t keep building the way we’re building and the way we want to build without some infrastructure changes. He commented that Manassas Drive as it is will never accommodate the traffic. He noted what is not shown now is the horse farm behind the original Tarin Woods where they are already tearing the trees down and getting ready to build another 180 homes in there. He commented that is not a part of this discussion. APPLICANT REBUTTAL COMMENTS Chairman Olds asked if Ms. Wolf would like to address any of the comments or questions brought up by the opponents during her five-minute rebuttal period. During rebuttal, Ms. Wolf stated in regard to setbacks, there is a 20-foot setback around the perimeter of any performance residential development, and multi-family and attached buildings have a setback based upon the height of the building so the multi-family buildings have a minimum setback of forty (40) feet anyway. Ms. Wolf commented that the fact that they are attached also enacts a buffering between the two so keep in mind this is a conceptual plan. She noted the point of a conditional zoning district is to be somewhat conceptual. We’re showing the types of densities; we’re not showing the exact buildings, the exact anything, but all of those things are covered in the zoning ordinance so there is buffering between residential districts and uses and that is what the zoo is, it is a residential district and performance residential, particularly when it is attached housing. Ms. Wolf also commented that Manassas Drive has median separated lanes and does have an approximately 100-foot right-of-way so there is adequate room within the right-of-way to make the lane improvements that they have discussed. Ms. Wolf commented as an R-7 project, sidewalks are required along both sides of all streets within the R-7 development so this project will certainly provide much safer pedestrian circulation than any o f the existing projects that are in the vicinity. She added that traffic impact analyses do take into consideration particular times of year and when they're done. If there are prepared in an off-peak, then the Page 13 of 21 NCDOT makes very conservative assumptions that are still ingrained into those traffic analyses based upon if it was at a different time, that school wasn’t in or we were on vacation or it was summertime versus wintertime. She stated that traffic calming measures are always an issue. At TRC meetings, the Fire Services department doesn’t want gates or speed bumps; it limits their service for emergency situations. She added that’s not to say that other traffic calming measures aren't possible. She said there are options like what she calls the pregnant s nake, roundabouts, things the applicant team is willing to discuss at some of the intersections of any of our major streets, but those things do slow traffic down. She commented these folks are talking about traffic situations on streets that aren't under the developer’s control; they are either private streets elsewhere or NCDOT streets like Manassas Drive. Ms. Wolf stated in regard to the school system, they are included in the review of any plans that go through here. When a plan comes in for a rezoning , for performance residential, for by-right, or any of those things to planning staff, the school system is always kept aware of new projects on the horizon. She stated there are a lot of people moving into our community and she is sure the school board is painfully aware of that, but new people bring tax income and hopefully, the infrastructure is being considered as that goes on. Ms. Wolf stated as a reminder that the applicant team is still available for questions and would like to continue this item when the planning board’s consideration is over. In response to Chairman Olds’ inquiry, Ms. Wolf confirmed that the current traffic impact analysis been performed does consider the improvements at Sanders Road, as well as the improvements at Manassas Drive. To make it clear that is part of what is studied, not just the traffic in and out of the neighborhood, Ms. Wolf stated that the TIA scoping was for a Manassas Drive intersection at Sanders Road because of the U-turn movements and the other and a northern access for future development. She noted this development is covered with the Manassas Drive, up to 240 units are permitted without any required improvements at this point; any units after 240, including the 51 that are already on the ground, will require those improvements at both Manassas Drive and Sanders Road. Then, for future development, other improvements would be required. Chairman Olds opened the opposition rebuttal period. OPPOSITION REBUTTAL COMMENTS Bob Boldt stated he would like for the public to have another fifteen minutes to speak at the delayed hearing if the planning board continues the rezoning to another time. Chairman Olds confirmed the public hearing process would be repeated if the board continues the item. Robert Tuller stated he understands the traffic patterns on Manassas Drive, but he doesn’t know how you can have two turn lanes into a one-lane road. He stated that doesn’t fix the fact that the road has become almost un-drivable due to the potholes and that issue needs to be addressed by the developers because the cause of the damage is largely due to construction traffic. Second, he understands the school issue is being addressed, but with 400 kids, we need to look at it. Mr. Tuller said that speed humps are all over the community, in Landfall, Beau Page 14 of 21 Rivage, and in many other communities. He said placing two speed humps on Lt. Congleton Drive would slow traffic and suggested that maybe there could be a crosswalk by the speed hump at the overflow parking at the pool. He offered those suggestions, noting that speed humps are much more gradual and less aggressive than speed bumps. Ms. Radecsky added that most of the residents she has spoken to are all very concerned about the zoo so she would ask the board to take that into consideration. She hoped the board would vote with the residents and vote no on the project. Robert Tuller pointed out that they have a letter from the New Hanover County Planning & Inspection Department approving up to four (4) speed humps, traffic control devices, that was approved in 2013, but expired in 2015 because they knew the construction traffic was coming through. He said he thinks that should be considered. Current Planning Supervisor Ben Andrea stated he would like to inform the gentleman there is a process in place for both NCDOT roads and for private roads if someone wishes to pursue speed calming devices, such as speed humps. He can contact the Planning & Land Use Department if he would like to obtain more information. In response to an inquiry from an unidentified lady in the audience, Cindee Wolf reported the 24-hour, two-way traffic volume for the total of this Tarin Woods II would be 4,500 additional trips. The proposed for Carolina Beach Road in the buildout in 2019 obviously takes in a whole lot more of a basin. Chairman Olds closed the public hearing. He stated he wanted everyone to understand what the planning board’s thoughts are on the project, but here won’t be an up or down vote tonight by the planning board. He explained that the planning board will only vote on whether to continue the agenda item to another meeting. Deputy County Attorney advised that the planning board would need to make a motion on whether to continue the item and vote on that motion. Chairman Olds then asked planning board members to offer comments for the record. Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl stated the planning board appreciated everybody's input. He commented that the developers had already chosen to take a second look at this. Traffic is obviously at the top of the list of major points. He noted that a lot of the conversation surrounded Manassas Drive and from the aerials, it looks like there’s a tremendous amount of right-of-way there. He suggested that perhaps the developer could look into it and possibly come up with a more comprehensive plan on how to merge the two lanes of traffic on Carolina Beach Road into one lane on Manassas Drive. In regard to general conditions on the site, during the next hearing maybe we can have more clarification on the status of the wetlands and look at a few of the comments the public brought forward such as buffers off of the townhomes, which are taller in nature. As Ms. Wolf described, those setbacks are based off the height of the buildings so maybe they could put those technical points in the plan. He stated that even though this is a conceptual Page 15 of 21 plan, the planning board is voting on a conditional use, so whatever we approve is virtually going to be taken forward with limited variation. He said he would implore the developer to hear the comments tonight, expand on those, and come back with more detail. Board Member Boney thanked everyone for coming out to the meeting, noting there had been some very thoughtful conversations. He stated he agreed with Vice Chair Rawl , and when he thinks about going to the Totem In Zoo when he was a kid and looking at the animals, looking up and seeing somebody on their balcony is not exactly the experience he would want as a 5 - year old. He suggested the applicants heed his comments and think about the periphery of this project and if they get to do townhomes, consider how those townhomes are set back into the middle of the development and the single family rings this area to be a little better neighbor. Board Member Boney commented that the density is way out of whack for the amount of land there. He noted that typically when he sees this much dark area on an a erial photograph, he would believe Mr. Tregembo when he talked about the potential that he’d be sloshing around if he went over there today in that area where he had earlier marked those X’s on the site plan. Board Member Boney also commented that, in his opinion, putting townhomes in that portion of the site is a bad idea. He added he doesn’t know how the other board members feel about it. Board Member Boney suggested that the applicants think about those type of things. He stated with R-15, what you’ve got going, if you’re selling the lots and it’s a successful project, he would think R-15 would do very well there. He commented he wasn’t sure what the applicant is trying to fix with the additional density, noting the additional density doesn’t thrill him on this particular piece of property. He stated when he looks around the area, he honestly doesn’t see a lot of other apartments, and he sees apartments everywhere in this town. Board Member Jeffrey Petroff commented that he would be interested in seeing the impact on the density if the applicants removed some of the single family that was already approved in the subdivision plat last year. Obviously, it was a plan that the applicants wanted and they are moving forward with construction in that area so it's a valid product. He said it almost appears they are including that to steal the density a bit. He said he’d be curious to see what they could do in that area. Board Member Petroff stated he doesn’t have heartburn with townhomes, but the placement of apartments has to be considered very carefully. He thinks townhomes can be an appropriate mixture with single-family given proper densities, but the placement of apartments has always been an important factor, along with access to an apartment complex. Chairman Olds piggybacked on Mr. Petroff’s comments, stating in regard to the area already set up as R-15, he thinks it is logically done and coordinates with and complements the existing neighbors. He said if that were maybe even R-10, he didn’t think he would have much of a problem because wouldn’t have I don’t think I would have too much of a problem with that because he thinks that single-family is the right use for that area. Chairman Olds said in regard to the area behind the zoo, like Mr. Boney, he doesn’t see that as apartments. He commented that to him, apartments or higher density needs more access to a main road . It shouldn’t be the last thing you get to; it should be one of the first things you approach. Chairman Olds stated he does agree from the place type that higher density living is appropriate behind a commercial strip or Page 16 of 21 a business type of use and is a good buffer to lower density housing. Chairman Olds said he would urge the applicant to consider removing the part of the lots that are on the east side already being developed and focus more intently on how to do a better job with that section of land that is undeveloped and forms that buffer between Carolina Beach Road and the single family neighborhoods. Chairman Olds entertained a motion from the planning board. Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman suggested the board discuss with the applicant if they wish to continue to a date certain. She stated if the public hearing is continued to a date certain, there would not be a requirement that the public hearing be advertised ; however, it may be the county planning department’s policy to advertise regardless. Chairman Olds asked the applicants about that their preference in regard to the date of the next hearing, and asked staff about the policy for advertisement depending on the date. Cindee Wolf stated because of the timeline the NC Department of Transportation has in place for their review period, the applicant would request to continue the rezoning request to the October Planning Board meeting. MOTION: Board Member Paul Boney made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Jeffrey Petroff, to continue the rezoning request item to the planning board’s first meeting in October and that staff have some public notification for this project per normal procedures. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to continue Rezoning Request Z18-11 to the October 4, 2018 Planning Board meeting. Planner Brad Schuler stated the current County policy in this situation is that mailed notices would not be sent, but a notice would be posted on the subject property site and posted on the Planning & Land Use website, and an email notification would be sent to the Planning Sunshine List. He encouraged interested parties to call him for assistance in signing up . Chairman Olds stated his appreciation to everyone who came to the meeting, adding he looked forwarded to hearing more about this proposal in two months. Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z18-12) – Request by College Road Development Partners, LLC, property owner, to revert 8.04 acres of land located in the 2600 block of N. College Road from (CUD) R-10, Conditional Use Residential District, to B-2 and R-15 zoning pursuant to Section 55.2-6 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance. Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Planning Supervisor Andrea presented the following staff report. Page 17 of 21 Current Planning Supervisor Andrea stated this rezoning request is enabled by Section 55.2-6(1) of the Zoning Ordinance, which authorizes the Planning and Land Use Department to schedule a hearing for the Planning Board to consider progress made on the approved (CUD) R - 10. Because a rezoning may occur based on the applicant’s request, the appli cation is being processed as a general map amendment, including public hearings and a staff analysis and recommendation. Because over 24 months have passed since the CUD was approved, the companion Special Use Permit (SUP) for the CUD has expired per the Zoning Ordinance. Current Planning Supervisor Andrea stated the property was initially zoned R-15 in 1972 when zoning was applied to this area of the county. In 1998, a 300’ strip adjacent to N. College Road was rezoned to B-2. In 2016, the property was rezoned to (CUD) R-10 for an apartment complex with 88 units. In 2017, a request to rezone the property from (CUD) R-10 to a conditional B-2 district for self-storage was recommended for approval by the Planning Board but denied by the Commissioners. Therefore, the property remains zoned (CUD) R-10 for the apartment complex that was approved in 2016. Current Planning Supervisor Andrea stated the approved site plan for the conditional use R-10 district for the property in May 2016 allows for 88 apartment units in four buildings on the site. Two conditions were added to the approval – that a 10’ multi-use path be installed along N. College Road and that the existing vegetation must remain in the rear buffer and supplemented as necessary to meet 100% opacity. Current Planning Supervisor Andrea stated that although the conditional use zoning district remains in effect, because it has been over 2 years since approval and no validity extensions were requested, the companion Special Use Permit for the project has expired. With the expired SUP for the apartment complex conditional use district and the unsuccessful rezoning request last year for self-storage, the applicant is now requesting that the zoning of the property be reverted back to R-15 and B-2 as it was prior to the R-10 conditional use district being approved in 2016. The front 300 feet of the property was zoned B-2, and the remainder was zoned R-15. The property remains undeveloped but has a stormwater pond on it that would be utilized and improved if necessary for any development of the site. There is a stream that runs through the western portion of the property that is subject to additional buffering standards required by the NC Division of Water Resources. Portions of the property are within the AE special flood hazard area with a base flood elevation of 32’, and the area around the stream is AE floodway. Access to the site is via an existing driveway serving the subject site as well as the existing fast food restaurant (Taco Bell). Current Planning Supervisor Andrea reported that a Traffic Impact Analysis was completed for a development proposal on this property in 2013, which included a fast -food restaurant and a mixed-use building consisting of 120 dwelling units and office/retail space. The existing driveway and center turn lane were installed after that TIA was performed. An updated TIA was not required for the 2016 or 2017 rezoning proposals because the proposed developments did not exceed 100 peak hour trips. A bus stop for WAVE Transit route 207 is located on southbound N. College Road approximately 500’ south of the property across from Page 18 of 21 Long Ridge Drive. Traffic impacts will be analyzed at the time a development is proposed. Any use that exceeds 100 AM or PM peak hour trips will be required to have an approved Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prior to development. Even if a TIA is not required, improvements may be required when any proposed use is reviewed by NCDOT during the driveway permitting process. Two TIAs have been approved in the vicinity of the project. One was for the Dunkin Donuts in front of the Lowes grocery store, which required an eastbound turn lane on Murrayville Road. The other was for the State Employees Credit Union branch currently under construction at th e corner of Northchase Parkway SE and N. College Road. Improvements for this project include constructing an eastbound turn lane on Northchase Parkway SE and also optimizing signal timing at N. College Road intersection in front of the site. Current Planning Supervisor Andrea stated the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan classifies the subject property as Community Mixed Use. This placetype focuses on small -scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve all modes of travel and act as an attracto r for county residents and visitors. Types of appropriate uses include office, retail, mixed use, recreational, commercial, institutional, and multi-family and single-family residential. Community Mixed Use areas are generally intended to include a mixture of uses. The subject property is located along N. College Rd., immediately adjacent to both existing auto -oriented businesses, Laney High School, and a residential neighborhood. It is located at the edge of a node at N. College and Bavarian/Murrayville and near the Northchase planned development. Ideal uses for this property would provide for the needs of adjacent residential neighborhoods and/or provide higher density residential housing to transition to the adjacent lower density residential areas. The requested reversion to B-2 and R-15 zoning could allow for the types of lower- intensity commercial services appropriate for a Community Mixed Use area at the edge of major nodes, and development regulations would require landscaping buffers along resident ial properties, visually separating and mitigating any effects for the adjacent neighborhood. Current Planning Supervisor Andrea reported the proposed reversion to B-2 and R-15 zoning is generally CONSISTENT with this place type because it would allow the types of services for nearby residents recommended in the comprehensive plan. As such, staff recommends approval of the request and a suggested motion for approval is included in the agenda package. Hearing no questions for staff, Chairman Olds opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Michael Lee of the Lee Law Firm stated he represents the applicant, who had an emergency and was unable to be present at the meeting. Attorney Lee said there was a special use permit that has expired and the rezoning attempt about a year or so ago was not successful. As opposed to it typically being an enforcement action against a property owner when a special use permit expires, the applicant went to staff and worked through this process where we actually request the reversion. Attorney Lee stated that in full disclosure, the applicant is working on a conditional use permit for this particular site. He noted the application has not been filed yet, but the applicant does intend to hopefully file it very soon. Attorney Lee explained that the reason we're not coming before you with a conditional use permit and then reversion if that Page 19 of 21 didn't work, is because if we came through with a conditional use permit on for September or October and were not successful again before the county commissioners, then we would have to come back with a reversion, which would put us into 2019, probably the January meeting. For that reason, we’re looking for the reversion today and then we'll work through the community meeting process and file a conditional use permit as we move forward, which will probably follow this particular hearing. Attorney Lee said we may be back next month before the board with a conditional use. He thanked the board for their time. Chairman Olds inquired if board members had any questions for the applicant. Vice Chair Jordy Rawl asked staff to confirm if the conditions originally placed on the property would expire with the previously approved conditional use plan. Current Planning Supervisor Andrea confirmed the conditions would expire, noting this request should essentially be considered as a straight rezoning. Chairman Olds inquired if there is any additional penalty that sits with the site for a period of time if the applicant just let the site plan expire. Current Planning Supervisor Andrea explained there is no penalty. The property is locked into that conditional use district so it is its own zoning district; however, it is essentially undevelopable without coming and getting another special use permit. The zoning district hasn’t expired, but the special use permit has expired so they are really in a position where they can’t do anything. No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition of the requested rezoning. Hearing no other questions or comments from board members, Chairman Olds entertained a motion from the planning board. MOTION: Vice Chair Jordy Rawl made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Jeffrey Petroff, to recommend approval, as the Board finds this request for a zoning map amendment of 8.04 acres from (CUD) R-10, Conditional Use Residential District, to B-2, Highway Business District and R-15, Residential District, as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the Community Mixed Use place type in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because B-2 and R-15 zoning could provide a full mix of uses for the area. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the R-15 zoning, along with the setbacks and buffers required in the B-2 zoning, would mitigate any negative impacts to the adjacent residential uses. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z18-12. Technical Review Committee Report (July 2018) Page 20 of 21 Current Planner Brad Schuler reported the Technical Review Committee met twice during the month of July to review four residential projects. Three of those projects are located in the northern portion of the county in the Ogden and Porters Neck communities; two of the projects have come before the planning board – The Villages at Plantation Landing and Loblolly Landing. Both were conditional rezonings. Planner Schuler stated that The Villages at Plantation Landing is a townhome development at 6 dwelling units per acre and is the second R-7 zoning district approved in the unincorporated county. Loblolly Landing is a performance residential development rezoned from R-20S zoning district to an R-20 district in order to allow for a performance residential development. The third project is Buckeye Drive in the Middle Sound area, which is for eight lots at 1.2 dwelling units per acre. In the southern portion of the county, Grand Bay at Beau Rivage was approved for 76 townhome units along River Road. Other Items – UDO Work Session Update Senior Planner Rebekah Roth provided an overview of the purpose of the upcoming Unified Development Ordinance work session and the background information that staff will distribute to board members later. Senior Planner Roth reported the work session will take place on Thursday, August 16th in the New Hanover County Government Center in the Human Resources Training Rooms. The work session will be held from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. to ensure that any interested citizens or other stakeholders will be able to attend. Senior Planner Roth stated the purpose of the work session is to obtain feedback from the planning board on the direction that we're heading in terms of zoning districts as we move forward with drafting the unified development ordinance. This work session is part of Phase 1 of the UDO project and is the part of the project where we'll be talking about zoning districts and uses and which uses are allowed where within the county's district line up. Senior Planner Roth explained the information that will be discussed at the meeting takes into account some of the public comments received after a draft was released in April, along with additional research staff has conducted regarding the possible consequences of some of the changes that have been discussed. Staff doesn’t look for any final decisions at this point, but wants to make sure board members are comfortable with some of the high level items we're heading towards, for instance, how we measure building height. Senior Planner Road stated once staff gets the planning board’s confirmation on how you want us to move forward, we will continue refining the drafts of the Phase 1 information presented in April and can start work on Phase 2 of the project where we'll be looking at our general development standards such as stormwater, parking and landscaping. Because all three phases of the UDO project work together, there will be a lot of back and forth so we don't anticipate any kind of full code draft like we did in April until further on in the process. Senior Planner Roth reported to help with the discussion on August 16, planning board members will be provided with a packet of background information that outlines the anticipated topics of discussion at the work session. It includes a list of where staff needs the board’s Page 21 of 21 direction; we're calling these points of direction. Some points of direction are common to all zoning districts. In addition, for each type of zoning district, such as residential, commercial, industrial and mixed use, we've also outlined the points of direction we will be seeking from the planning board. Staff has also included profile sheets on the existing districts, and summary sheets of the proposed new zoning districts so board members can get an idea of what we already have in place, what some potential changes are, and some of the new zoning tools staff anticipates adding to the ordinance. Senior Planner Roth explained the profile sheets for the existing districts include the zoning districts current standards and in addition , in text boxes staff has added background information on some considerations that have been identified. To help provide some context of how much property would be affected by any change, staff has included a map that shows every place where that zoning district is currently applied within the county's jurisdiction . Senior Planner Roth stated that all of the background information will be available on the UDO Project website so anyone who is interested in the project can review it and submit comments and questions. She noted staff is planning to provide any comments submitted by Monday, August 13 that are related to the topics that will be discussed to the planning board at the August 16 work session. Senior Planner Roth said staff is hoping to get through all of the points of direction we have identified at this work session so we can continue moving forward with drafting. To help with this, the draft agenda is focused on those specific points already identified and staff has made sure that the items we need the most direction on are included earlier on the agenda. As you read through the background information, please let staff know if you have any feedback on how the meeting could run more smoothly. If we're able to get through all of the points of direction, there may be the opportunity to discuss other items board members wish to bring up at the meeting. In conclusion, Ms. Roth offered to answer questions from board members about the work session or the background information. Vice Chair Jordy Rawl thanked Ms. Roth for the update on the upcoming UDO work session. In regard to how the work session could run smoother, Vice Chair Rawl inquired if it might be possible to put out a disclaimer prior to the work session. He noted that it didn’t feel as though the planning board received good feedback from the public at the first UDO work session because there were alternate topics, for example, GenX, that most people wanted to comment on that were unrelated to the work session topic. Chairman Olds stated the planning board was really looking forward to the work session. He noted it is a big departure from how things are normally done and he thinks it is the right way to go. Chairman Olds said from what he’s seen so far he thinks it will serve the community well and staff will continue to do a great job for the citizens of New Hanover County. With no other items of business, Chairman Olds adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m.