Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-10 October 1 2015 PBM Page 1 of 16 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board October 1, 2015 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Human Resources Training Room of the New Hanover County Government Center, 230 Government Center Drive, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Donna Girardot, Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director Anthony Prinz, Vice Chairman Kenneth Vafier, Planning Manager Jordy Rawl Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ernest Olds Sam Burgess, Senior Planner Edward “Ted” Shipley, III Brad Schuler, Current Planner David Weaver Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Absent: Tamara Murphy Chairman Donna Girardot opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Donna Girardot reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of September 2015 Planning Board Minutes Anthony Prinz made a motion to approve the September Planning Board minutes as drafted. Jordy Rawl seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the September 3, 2015 Planning Board meeting minutes. Item 1: Rezoning Application (Z-945, 10/15) – Request by David Harner of Paramount Development Corporation on behalf of the property owner, Thalia Dukes, and Lawrence S. Craige, legal guardian, to rezone 8.1 acres located at the 6700 block of Gordon Road from R-15, Residential District, to B-2, Highway Business District. The property is classified as Urban according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Schuler presented the following staff report: This application is a straight rezoning, meaning it is strictly proposing to only change the zoning of a piece of land from one district to another. There are no proposed uses or Page 2 of 16 conceptual site plans attached to the application, and conditions above and beyond the requirements of the zoning ordinance cannot be added to the district. A zoning map of the area shows just to the east of the subject property is a large commercial node, which contains the intersections of Gordon Road, Market Street, and Military Cutoff. The node also contains land within the City of Wilmington. The RB zoning district within the City of Wilmington stands for Regional Business district. Adjoining the property to the west is the Dutch Square Industrial Park, and to the north are Eaton Elementary School and the Cape Harbor apartment complex. The property proposed to be rezoned consists of five parcels of land with access to Gordon Road. In 2014, a traffic count was conducted at the 6700 block of Gordon Road, and it found that the road is currently operating at a “D” Level of Service (LOS). According to the County’s adopted Traffic Impact Study Standards guidebook, a LOS of “D” is generally assumed to be an acceptable and safe level of service. There are a couple of projects planned to improve Gordon Road in the future. The 2016- 2025 State Transportation Improvements Program includes a project to widen the road from the NC 132 interchange to west of Market Street. Construction of that project is expected to begin in 2024. A median will also be installed along Gordon Road, east of the property, in accordance with plans for the Military Cutoff extension. Currently, four of the five parcels of land proposed to be rezoned are undeveloped, and one of the parcels contains a single-family dwelling unit. Staff reviewed the rezoning application for compliance with the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. The plan classifies the property as Urban, which purpose is to provide for continued intensive development and redevelopment of existing urban areas. Staff recommends approval of this application, as we feel it complies with the urban land use classification, and that it is consistent with implementation strategies 4.3.1 and 4.3.6 of the Land Use Plan, which call for commercial nodes to be located along major thoroughfares and at major intersections; and because Gordon Road has been recently rated as having an acceptable level of service, and because there are existing plans to improve and widen Gordon Road. Chairman Girardot entertained questions for staff from board members. Vice Chair Anthony Prinz stated the report referenced a level of service of D for Gordon Road in that area. Assuming it was for that particular roadway segment and not necessarily the intersections on either end of the property at Netherlands Drive and at Market Street, he inquired if any consideration was given as to how those intersections perform when the traffic analysis was done. Mr. Schuler responded that a traffic count was only done at one point of the street, but should any proposed use of the property generate more than 100 peak hour trips, a traffic impact analysis would be required, which would potentially examine existing intersections in the area. Page 3 of 16 Vice Chair Prinz felt the level of service “D” was a little misleading. Staff reports typically look at where a potential driveway might be or where the frontage is on a piece of property and analyze that one point, but in this particular case, the issues aren’t necessarily right in front of the development but are a couple of hundred feet in either direction at the intersections so he would like to hear the thoughts of other planning board members as deliberations move forward. Chairman Girardot asked for confirmation that public water and sewer services are available for the site, noting the staff report referenced it, but also pointed out that Soil Threes have severe limitations for septic suitability and may require extensive modification and intensive maintenance to accommodate septic systems. Mr. Schuler confirmed public water and sewer are available for the site. Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. David Harner of Paramount Development in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina explained his company’s interest in the land owned by Thalia Dukes, who is represented by a legal guardian, her attorney. He stated the property hasn’t been for sale for some time. There is a court order requiring the property be sold for various reasons. Paramount Development immediately saw the property as an opportunity because they specialize in commercial and office development. They liked the property for several reasons, including the considerable amount of frontage on Gordon Road. They first contacted the County regarding their intentions for the land and were encouraged by the draft future land development plan that identifies the land as an employment center. Finding that commercial would fall under that category, they were also encouraged to learn that the Dutch Square Industrial Park located behind the property is currently enjoying very high occupancy rates in the mid-ninety percent (90%) range. They then made phone calls to the NC DOT regarding access to the site. Mr. Harner presented slides of the site, noting the area has very good density of 20,000 plus people within two miles. Dutch Square Industrial Park is located behind the parcel and has new growth within its complex. The property doesn’t have direct access to Netherlands Drive, but with the frontage that it does enjoy, they were able to get comfortable with it. The parcel is surrounded by similar uses, including commercial between the site and Market Street, industrial and office in the industrial park, multi-family across the street, which the applicant has no interest in, the school, and more commercial toward Market Street. The traffic count is 24,000 per day. Mr. Harner stated the property, which is currently zoned residential, has not previously been available for sale; however, he felt anyone would argue that residential is not necessarily the highest and best use for this land. Mr. Harner provided a slide reflecting the current NC DOT Mitigation Plan, noting it is part of the Military Cutoff Extension Plan to improve the intersection of Market Street and Gordon Road. It indicates putting in a probably 800 foot concrete stem going up to the beginning of the subject property. The entrance to the apartment complex is directly across the street. As Mr. Schuler mentioned, the protections the County has in place for a straight rezoning include stormwater guidelines and traffic guidelines. Anything the applicant does would require a traffic study and review by NC DOT because it won’t take much to exceed a hundred peak hour trips. Mr. Harner felt that the modifications NC DOT will make there, as well as the modifications Page 4 of 16 they’ll make at Market Street and Gordon Road, will improve the level of service at this intersection. Paramount Development likes the proximity to Market Street and thinks the property has great potential. Mr. Harner stated in conclusion, they would like to buy the land and would request a commercial designation to minimize their risk. He offered to answer questions from board members. Vice Chair Prinz asked Mr. Harner in what he envisioned the access of the property to look like after discussions with the NCDOT regarding access and level of service. Mr. Harner commented if they have anywhere north of “not a high intense” use, the NC DOT will probably require a stem up to Netherlands Drive; but, if a flex space is developed similar to the Dutch Square, but dressed up in front, he would envision having full access. Vice Chair Prinz thought that would be challenging, but would be worked out between NCDOT and Paramount. He wanted to make sure Mr. Harner realized that location is probably not a good location for a traffic signal. Mr. Harner acknowledged he was aware of that because it is less than a thousand feet to both intersections. Christy Kessler, representative of Cape Harbor Apartments at 7113 Cape Harbor Drive, stated the previous conversation regarding access partially addressed their concerns. She is a proponent for growth along Gordon Road and also lives off of Gordon Road. Their concern is the impact on traffic as it relates to residents exiting Cape Harbor Apartments. With the Military Cutoff Extension Project, they will be losing their back entrance for a good period of time and don’t know when that will be rerouted, so Gordon Road will be the apartment complex’s primary entrance and exit for an unknown period of time. For that reason, they would request a traffic signal at that location although it doesn’t sound very feasible. They do not want a right-turn only because there is no place down Gordon Road to make a U-turn; therefore, it would not be feasible for their residents to do that unless the expansion project for Gordon Road is much bigger than she has seen in previous plans. They want to make sure everyone is very aware that for some period of time this will be the primary entrance and exit for all of the residents of Cape Harbor Apartments. It is quite dangerous to make a left turn. It took four minutes to make a left out earlier that day. Ms. Kessler pointed out that a bus stop is located there as well, so there will be pedestrians at that intersection. Chairman Girardot asked if board members had any questions for Ms. Kessler. Vice Chair Prinz asked Ms. Kessler to clarify the location of Cape Harbor Apartments’ secondary access. Ms. Kessler confirmed that Cape Harbor’s secondary access is located on Market Street and would be going away when NC DOT begins construction. Hearing no other questions and seeing no one else present from the public, Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the planning board discussion period. Ted Shipley commented it was his understanding there was no one present on behalf of the estate as Mr. Craige was not present. It was confirmed that Mr. Craige was not present. Page 5 of 16 Vice Chair Prinz stated concern about traffic, as he was appointed because of his expertise in that field. He shared Ms. Kessler’s concerns because it is not only a problem today, but will be a problem in the future even after Military Cutoff Extension goes in. His main concern is the fact that it is a straight rezoning as opposed to a conditional rezoning, which provides much more leverage to ensure some of these concerns are addressed before a rezoning action is taken and a project moves forward through the development review process. He also recognized there is a process with NC DOT to do a traffic study if warranted, and they will try to ensure to the best extent possible that Gordon Road remains a safe and efficient roadway. He stated he had reservations because as a planning board, they are charged with making sure the decisions they make are in the best interest of the community. He didn’t feel they would be doing that without more precisely identifying the issue of traffic created by this project. Ernest Olds stated we don’t know what may come from a traffic standpoint, but we know R-15 would create a certain level. While he didn’t know whether one was necessarily worse than the other, if he was a developer and saw residential zoning inside of a zone of this nature his inclination would be to develop it like a neighboring zone so he found it very compatible to change it. Mr. Olds felt that with these kinds of problems, working together with similar zones was probably a simpler solution than having a residential zone in a dissimilar zone and trying to work through that mix. He agreed it was challenging, but he would rather the zones be the same than have a few outliers fighting the interest of the others. Jordy Rawl said that his mindset was along the same pattern as Mr. Olds, that it is more or less six of one, half a dozen of another. If the zoning were to stay where it currently is at R-15 and single family residences are built, it will still have an impact on the traffic there. Zoning the parcel to commercial-industrial to be conducive with the landscape around it is appropriate. He felt it was fortunate they were not seeking a higher density use for residential. Mr. Rawl inquired if the applicant could highlight what they intend to develop on the property, realizing it was a sensitive question because they are still in the infancy of the process. He asked if it would be appropriate to ask the applicant to comment on their intent for development. Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman explained if the applicant was comfortable with doing that, it would be fine; however, it was certainly not something he was obliged to do. There is no requirement that the applicant give the board an idea what he is thinking about doing. David Harner explained they were unable to come in with a conditional request due to time constraints with the land purchase. They have gone through the conditional process with the County before and it works. For the reasons stated previously by Mr. Prinz, they know it won’t be a high intense retail project. Mr. Harner said they don’t currently know what it will be, but they do see it as being consistent with the uses around it, done right. David Weaver stated he agreed with the rezoning, but had concerns about traffic. He asked Mr. Prinz to comment on what could be done to improve traffic at that location outside of a traffic light. Vice Chair Prinz stated he wasn’t sure they could do much more than access restrictions. The proximity to both Netherlands Drive and Market Street is so close that he didn’t think a traffic Page 6 of 16 signal would actually function there given the volumes and lane geometry. If the property were to be rezoned and developed in a commercial nature, he would see the concrete monolithic island extended and the most ideal access pattern being a left into that site, as well as an opposite left into the Cape Harbor site and all other movements being right-in, right-out. More than likely that is what will happen. Mr. Prinz commented that given the frontage of the property, they could end up with more than one access point, but if it wasn’t sited properly, they would probably be limited to right-in, right-out as well. There are options, but probably not the most palatable options for people on both sides of the street. In regard to the earlier comment about the difficulty of U-turns, Jordy Rawl inquired if the objective of installing that monolithic island with a right-in, right-out would essentially be to reroute traffic further down Gordon Road to U-turn and then a right-in to the project. Mr. Prinz confirmed Mr. Rawl was correct. The left-out from both sides of the street would have to be made with a U-turn, more than likely at the signalized intersection, and there would have to be improvements made at both of those locations to accommodate the U-turn. Chairman Girardot stated she would much rather see a conditional request, but was calmed by the assurances that it would not be a high-intensity project. She would rely on NC DOT doing its job to hopefully alleviate Ms. Kessler’s concerns and felt the proposal was a much better use for the property than R-15. Vice Chair Prinz stated he also believed that B-2 was much more consistent with the surrounding context, as well as with the current and future land use plans. His concern is not being able to see what the future traffic will be. Ted Shipley commented that he had a concern as to whether the request, based on what he heard earlier, should have been a B-1 even though there is none in the surrounding area, based on the intensity of the use and traffic. He inquired if that would have been a better designation for the property given the circumstances and whether staff or the applicant had given that zoning any thought. Planning Manager Ken Vafier stated that zoning was discussed with Mr. Harner, but staff felt that B-2 was the better district to go to because B-2 is defined as the Highway Business District and is a slightly more intense district with direct access to collectors or major arterials, such as Gordon Road and Market Street, whereas B-1 is more of a neighborhood business district to serve a local community. Given the fact that this is also adjacent to B-2 and Industrial Districts, staff felt that the purpose and intent in the definition of B-2 was the better option. Chairman Girardot informed Mr. Harner that at this time, the board shall consider the proposed zoning map amendment application and make a recommendation to the County Commissioners. A recommendation for approval is automatically forwarded to the County Commissioners. A recommendation for denial ends consideration of the application unless the recommendation is appealed. Appeals must be submitted no later than ten days following the decision. At this time, you may ask to either continue the application to a future meeting or to proceed with the board deciding whether to recommend approval or denial of the application. Which do you wish to do? Page 7 of 16 David Harner stated his intent to move forward to a vote. Chairman Girardot entertained a motion or additional comments from the board. Vice Chair Prinz asked Mr. Olds to provide an architect’s opinion on what could be done with eight acres in this area in regard to maximum intensity. He inquired if that would be large enough property for a big box store. Mr. Olds stated the site is large enough for a big box. Part of the problem is the geometry of the site being basically a square, where frontage is the valuable property. Being a couple hundred feet off the road is not a particular value. A big box would maybe take half of that land. A complex of the surrounding uses, industrial or small business, could certainly be built on the other half and would work very well. Some of the neighborhood retail uses that might make sense would also fit in there. In response to Vice Chair Prinz’s inquiry, he felt they would be looking at more of the same uses and didn’t think it was a compelling location for anything particularly special. Ted Shipley made a motion to call the question and move forward with a vote. Ernest Olds seconded the motion to call the question. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to call the question and proceed to a vote on the rezoning. Ernest Olds made a motion to recommend approval to change 8.1 acres from R-15 Residential District to B-2 Highway Business District as it is consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the Urban Land Use Classification allows for continued extensive development and redevelopment of the existing urban areas, and because the application includes land near an existing commercial node with access to an arterial street, which is suited for Urban development, which is also consistent with the land use plan’s implementation strategies. Jordy Rawl seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-1 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-945. (Ayes: Girardot, Olds, Rawl, Shipley, and Weaver. Nay: Anthony Prinz) Item 2: Rezoning Application (Z-946, 10/15) – Request by Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner, Trask Farms of New Hanover, LLC, to rezone 23.74 acres located at the 2400 block of N Kerr Ave from R-15, Residential District, to (CZD) I-1, Conditional Light Industrial District, to develop a veterinary use. The property is classified as Transition according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Ted Shipley asked to be recused from Items 2 & 3 as his firm represents Trask Farms of New Hanover, LLC. Chairman Girardot entertained a motion to recuse Ted Shipley from Items 2 & 3. David Weaver made a motion to recuse Ted Shipley from Items 2 & 3. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. Page 8 of 16 Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Schuler presented the following staff report: This is an application to rezone 23.74 acres of land, located at the 2400 block of North Kerr Avenue, from R-15 to (CZD) I-1 in order to develop and operate a veterinary office, with associated stables, and also a dwelling unit which will be occupied by one of the employees of the vet’s office. The vet will specialize in large animals, focusing primarily on providing care for horses. This is an application for a conditional zoning district and has a conceptual site plan attached to it, and conditions above and beyond the requirements of the zoning ordinance may be placed on the district with the applicant’s approval. The zoning map reflects the zoning of the subject property and the surrounding area, which contains a mixture of zoning districts including R-15, A-I, AR, PD, and also I-2; with the land uses in the area including mostly undeveloped property used for agricultural purposes. The property is currently being used for agricultural purposes. The property has direct access to North Kerr Avenue. A recent Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for a proposed development within the North Kerr Industrial Park found that the intersection of North Kerr Avenue and Hall Waters Drive operates at a “B” Level of Service or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Further, the traffic impact worksheet provided with the application states the proposed use will only generate 10-11 peak hour trips, which is well below the threshold that would require a TIA. The conceptual site plan submitted with the application shows the proposed location of the vet’s office, some storage buildings and barns, grazing areas and a riding ring. It also illustrates the location of proposed buffer yards and streetscapes, which will be installed in accordance with the standards of the zoning ordinance. Staff has reviewed the rezoning application to determine compliance with the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. The plan classifies the property as Transition. The purpose of the Transition classification is to provide for future intensive urban development on lands that have been or will be provided with necessary urban services. Staff is recommending approval of this application, as they feel it complies with the policies of the Land Use Plan and the Transition land use classification. Staff also feels the proposed use will not generate any undue impacts on the surrounding area. Chairman Girardot entertained questions for staff from board members. Ernest Olds asked why the conditional Industrial district was being sought as opposed to the other districts where a veterinary would be permitted. Page 9 of 16 Mr. Schuler explained that three uses were being proposed as part of this application; 1) the veterinary; 2) stables, in case any long-term boarding may occur at the site; and 3) the dwelling unit. There are only two zoning districts that allow all three of those uses to be permitted – the B- 2 and the I-1 districts. Due to its location around other industrial districts and distance from major intersections or well-traveled roads, the applicant thought it was more appropriate to seek an I-1 district. Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions stated she is the authorized agent for this portion of the rezoning petition. She explained Reagan Mobile Equine Veterinary Services is a large animal veterinary service that has been mobile for several years. The owner, veterinarian Ginger Reagan, is pursuing the approval of an actual brick and mortar facility along Kerr Avenue, which seems like the right place for it. Ms. Reagan is a native of Wilmington and graduated from NC State University’s Veterinary School in 2003, and her business has been running since 2005. Ms. Wolf clarified the use is strictly an equine or horse veterinary. Ms. Reagan does take care of other types of animals, but that occurs at the locations of the other animals. This use doesn’t involve dogs, cows, llamas, ostriches, or anything else. This facility will be strictly an equine facility. That being said, obviously there are stalls for the horses while they are being treated or are recovering, having foals, etc. She explained it was her misinterpretation that those would be considered stables, but are actually similar to the cages where dogs or cats stay in vet offices when they are being treated. A veterinarian of that sort is not considered a boarding kennel. She explained this would be an equine veterinary, but the stalls are not considered stables for boarding. No boarding is intended here. Ms. Wolf stated the project has been reviewed by departments in the county so they have fine- tuned the plan based upon questions from board members and staff reviewers. She presented a revised plan which more closely reflects what will happen in the main portion of the use. They initially thought the veterinary offices would be smaller, but they are in the range of 4,300 square feet so it generated a requirement for few more parking spaces. Parking has been enlarged just slightly to satisfy the parking requirements for that amount of office space. The area behind it includes recovery stalls and storage areas, alleyways for lame workups, and mare and foal stalls. All of those would have doors opening out to the riding ring and grazing pastures. Two storage sheds are shown, one initially and the possibility of another. Ms. Wolf explained that since this is a conditional district they wanted to show future items, they wanted to show the future items so the project wouldn’t have to go through the modification process. The storage sheds are strictly for hay and other materials used in the stalls. A couple of parking spaces have also been added for trucks and trailers. The plan also reflects the circulation of those trucks and trailers would be handled, including turning radius for the tractor and trailer truck model to show that if those four stalls were all full, there would be adequate turning ability for those parking spaces. Ms. Wolf said these types of facilities have a unique security requirement for full-time management because when there are horses in recovery, there must be veterinary technicians available at all hours of the day. For that reason, some on-site living arrangements were needed for those vet techs. Page 10 of 16 Ms. Wolf explained a dwelling unit in some of the zoning districts has to be part of the actual building and has to be above or behind the building so that it doesn’t inhibit the whole nature of the use. They believe this use and the facility are in the right place. Following numerous conversations over the past couple of days, Ms. Wolf asked the board to consider if a residential portion of this type of use can be provided in a detached fashion, which is what is shown on this site plan, in the Airport Industrial zone. The Airport Industrial zoning district is probably the most appropriate because of its proximity to this land. I-2 zoning allows both the vet and veterinary stables, but the applicant doesn’t need the use of stables as part of their petition. Ms. Wolf explained if the proposal is rezoned to I-1, a special use permit will be required for the residential use, which is the next item on the agenda. If the board determines that the AI zone is a reasonable proposal for the same use, the special use permit will not be necessary because AI zoning allows the residential feature of this use to be detached. It would still be solely occupied by the person engaged in the principle use. This would not be any type of apartment that would be rented in any other way. In addition to the required off-street parking for the use itself, there are two additional spaces for the apartment. A residence above the barn would certainly have requirements for certain fire code issues, dual access stairways, etc. so for economic reasons, and also for that separation from smells, noise, etc., the opportunity to have a detached dwelling would be an advantage. Ms. Wolf concluded in conclusion if the Airport Industrial zone is satisfactory as an alternative to the conditional district rezoning, they would certainly appreciate the board’s consideration. She reported that Ginger Reagan was present to answer particular questions from the board related to her practice. Chairman Girardot asked if board members had any questions for the applicant. Jordy Rawl asked Ms. Wolf to clarify the Conditional Zoning application is for the CZD (I-1), but it would be preferable to have an AI designation for this property because a detached residential facility is not allowed within an I-1 district. Ms. Wolf said the AI zoning would be a feasible alternative that would be acceptable to them. In an I-1 district, they would need to incorporate the residence into the main building. She stated that was not the preferable scenario. Vice Chair Prinz asked if the applicant would still pursue the conditional aspect of the request if an AI zoning is preferable or would pursue a straight rezoning. Ms. Wolf stated that a conditional zoning district was a given, but it would negate the need for the special use permit so she would withdraw that request. In response to Vice Chair Prinz’s inquiry, she confirmed the application would remain the same, but would change from I-1 to AI with a slightly amended site plan. Ernest Olds asked Ms. Wolf to elaborate on the attached dwelling unit versus the detached dwelling unit. Ms. Wolf stated attachment according to the rules has to be above or behind the principle facility, but attached to, so either upstairs or as an attachment to some rear part of the building. Page 11 of 16 The stalls are set up as interior alleys, but there are also stall doors so that the horses can look out the back windows so it really wasn’t feasible to put it in the rear or the building. Architecturally, there are possibilities. Locating a residence above would require one stairwell, possibly another. A review by the fire marshal said a fire wall would be required between the residence and other use, as well as a residential sprinkler system. She confirmed the detached dwelling would be preferable. David Weaver stated he had no problem with moving toward an AI zoning instead of the I-1, but wondered if they needed to show the single family detached house on the site plan. Ms. Wolf stated because this is a conditional district they would need to show all of the uses that would be part of the district. A residence would need to be shown on the site plan as one of the conditions. Mr. Olds commented the whole concept is pretty fascinating. Most people that have animals understand taking the dog to the vet. A horse is a completely different matter so from a traffic standpoint or a business standpoint, he asked how it would work. Ms. Wolf suggested Ginger Reagan may like to address that question, but noted there are 21 stalls so there is the possibility of that many horses if they are in recovery, being treated, etc. As far as trip generation and traffic, they used the numbers for a veterinary, but obviously a large animal, equine facility is nowhere close to that. There is only one veterinarian. She has the ability to add someone to her practice. In response to Mr. Olds inquiry about what the proposal could become, Ms. Wolf stated with a conditional zoning district, the proposal can only become an equine facility unless the applicant comes back to the board to request a modification of those uses. For that reason, they wanted to make sure they had the veterinary use, the stalls (not stables), the residence, and the riding ring. Veterinarian Ginger Reagan stated they are limited by the number of veterinarians they have, as well as how many patients they see in a day. Many patients will come and stay for a couple of days. If they have surgery, they will recover there, spending a day or two, possibly longer. There is not a huge traffic flow. Ms. Wolf stated people come to the site, drop off their animals, and they don’t come back until it’s time to pick them up. In response to Mr. Old’s inquiry regarding staffing level, Ms. Reagan stated there would not be a huge number of staff. Chairman Girardot commented she was glad the applicant had clarified the traffic patterns and parking. As someone that has maneuvered 2-horse and 4-horse trailers, she understands it is very difficult because they can’t be backed up easily. She inquired about the significance of having a riding ring and asked if it was for lunge lines when there is a lame horse. Page 12 of 16 Ms. Reagan explained the riding ring is for sports medicine workouts so we might see a rider up with the horse working. We also might see a horse lunging, but we do watch a lot of horses under saddle. Chairman Girardot stated the applicant had taken a lot off the table when she stated there would be no boarding. The materials indicate there would be landscaping along the eastern and northern sides of the property. She asked for clarification on that issue. Ms. Wolf explained those are the required buffers. The applicant would not be clearing along those ditches that run along the property boundaries and has no reason to clear out any existing vegetation that is there. It appears that there isn’t a buffer requirement to the PD, but would be a buffer to the adjacent R-15. She reiterated the applicant would not be taking out any existing vegetation. The area the applicant will be working with is totally vacant now and has been used as farming fields in the past. Ms. Wolf reported they will install new landscaping for the street yard because there is very little on the frontage, but as far as the sides and rear, whatever is there in the ditches will likely suffice for accomplishing the buffer requirement of opacity. In response to Chairman Girardot’s inquiry, Ms. Wolf confirmed the applicant would have no problem with having a condition to leave the existing tree lines and existing vegetation on the western boarder where it abuts the PD. In response to Chairman Girardot’s inquiry, Brad Schuler stated the proposal would still be a conditional AI if the zoning were changed and a new buyer would not be able to expand the use into boarding, classes, and shows, which might result in problems with lighting, late hours, etc. for the PD district to the west. Any change to the character of the development would be considered a major change and would require the proposal to go back through the approval process. No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the request. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing. Chairman Girardot informed Ms. Wolf that at this time, the board shall consider the proposed zoning map amendment application and make a recommendation to the County Commissioners. A recommendation for approval is automatically forwarded to the County Commissioners. A recommendation for denial ends consideration of the application unless the recommendation is appealed. Appeals must be submitted no later than ten days following the decision. At this time, you may ask to either continue the application to a future meeting or to proceed with the board deciding whether to recommend approval or denial of the application. Which do you wish to do? Cindee Wolf stated the applicant would like to proceed forward to a vote. Chairman Girardot opened the board discussion. Anthony Prinz stated it was striking to him that there is a conditional district for a use like this and not for the higher impact commercial use on Gordon Road where there are traffic and congestion issues. Page 13 of 16 Jordy Rawl commented he thought the project would bode well for the area to turn the property into a much lower density project, which could potentially be sixty family units, and have something that is a proponent of animal care and a job creator and more conducive with the surrounding area is encouraging. He noted the applicant seemed more than willing to adhere to whatever conditions the board might recommend. Ernie Olds agreed the proposal is a great use for the property and commended the applicant for agreeing to the conditional use. It really helps tie it into exactly what it is. It is an odd thing to combine, but the applicant has been creative in meeting many of the conditions. He stated he was very much in favor of seeing the proposal move forward and felt the neighborhood would benefit from it being there. Mr. Weaver stated he would be in favor of the proposed change to AI because it makes a lot of sense given the area. Mr Weaver inquired if there would be any problem with making a motion to recommend an AI rezoning as a dramatic change from the original proposal. Deputy County Attorney Huffman said she had suggested to Ms. Wolf that she should proceed with her application and talk to the planning board about these issues, present the facts and information obtained and suggest an alternative. Ms. Huffman stated she saw no problem if the board wished to recommend the alternative zoning. The agenda clearly states on the cover sheet that the planning board may consider substantial changes in these petitions as a result of debate, discussion, etc. Hearing no other discussion, Chairman Girardot entertained a motion from the board. David Weaver made a motion to recommend approval for the alternative proposal as brought to us tonight, as the planning board finds that this request for a zoning map amendment of 23.74 acres from R-15 to (CZD) AI as described is consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the use would be consistent with the Transition land classification, and it would also be reasonable and in the public interest because the requested use is consistent with the character of the area and would have no detriment of public health and safety. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. Chairman Girardot asked if Mr. Weaver would consider an amendment to the motion adding the condition to preserve the vegetation and tree line. Chairman Girardot stated the condition would be: 1) To preserve the natural vegetation and tree line on the western border adjacent to the PD district. Dave Weaver amended the motion to include the condition that the natural vegetation not be removed along the western border. Anthony Prinz seconded the amended motion. Page 14 of 16 The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-946 from R-15 to (CZD) AI with one condition: 1) The natural vegetation not be removed along the western border. Item 3: Special Use Permit Application (S-628, 10/15) – Request by Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner, Trask Farms of New Hanover, LLC, to establish a dwelling unit contained within a principle use in the I-1 zoning district located at the 2400 block of N Kerr Ave. The property is classified as Transition according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Cindee Wolf, on behalf of the applicant, withdrew Special Use Permit Request S-628 from the board’s consideration. Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman stated a motion was not required by the board. Technical Review Committee Report (September) Sam Burgess presented the following TRC Report: The County’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) met once during the month of September to review three (3) preliminary site plans and consider one request to install gates and one request to re-designate a road network in an approved subdivision. A special TRC meeting was held on September 30th to consider one new project, which will be included in the October 2015 TRC Report. Cameron Trace (Performance Plan) Cameron Trace is located in the north central portion of the County’s jurisdiction (near the eastern end Murrayville Road) and is classified as Wetland Resource Protection on the County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. The 121 residential lot subdivision will have one primary entrance off Flushing Drive within an existing subdivision with private roads known as Quail Woods, which was established in the late 1980’s. There are several road stubs for future connectivity. The Coastal Carolina Development is south and adjacent to the project. Plantation Road includes Grandview Ranch subdivision, which was created in the late 1960’s and has been very slow to develop due to the lack of infrastructure. Site Plan Data  Zoning: R-15 Residential (limited 2.5 units per acre)  Water: Public (CFPUA)  Sewer: Public (CFPUA)  Road Network: Private  Lots: 121  Acreage: 48.5 (net acres to determine density)  Conservation Resources: None Page 15 of 16  Primary Access: Flushing Drive  Schools: Murrayville & Eaton Elementary (over-capacity) Trask Middle (over-capacity) Laney High (over-capacity) In a vote of 5-0, the TRC preliminarily approved Cameron Trace for a total of 121 lots for a period of two years with five conditions, which are included in the Planning Board package. Saddlebred Acres (Conventional Plan) Saddlebred Acres is located in the northern portion of the County’s jurisdiction (3600 block Prince George Avenue) and is classified as Community on the County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. The eight (8) lot subdivision will have one primary entrance off Prince George Avenue, with a road stub planned along the eastern spine of the road right- of-way. Nearby services exist along Castle Hayne Road, which is less than one mile east of the project. Site Plan Data  Zoning: RA-30 (Rural Agriculture)  Water: Individual Well  Septic: Individual Septic  Road Network: Public  Lots: 8  Acreage: 7.83  Conservation Resources: None  TIA: Not Required  Schools: Eaton & Castle Hayne Elementary (over-capacity) Holly Shelter Middle Laney High (over-capacity) In a vote of 5-0, the TRC preliminarily approved Saddlebred for a total of eight (8) lots for a period of two years with two conditions, which are included in the planning board package. Beau Rivage (Gates Proposal) Beau Rivage is located in the south central portion of our jurisdiction (6200 block of Carolina Beach Road) and is classified as Transition and Conservation on the County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. The residential project was established in 1987 with development build-out almost complete. The attorney representing the Beau Rivage HOA and Board of Directors proposed to install four (4) gates within the development (two on Rivage Promenade and two at the golf course entrances) for the purpose of providing additional privacy within their community. The road network is private. In a vote of 4-1, the TRC approved the applicants’ request to install four (4) gates within Beau Rivage with three conditions, which are included in the planning board package. Page 16 of 16 Gable Run (Road Re-Designation) Gable Run is located near the northeastern portion of the County’s jurisdiction (near the 500 block of Jacqueline Drive - Greenview Ranches) and is classified as Wetland Resource Protection on the County’s adopted 2006 land Use Plan. The primary entrance to the project is thru Old Oak Road. The developer for the project requested TRC to re-designate the road network within the development from “public” to “private.” The site plan was preliminarily approved by TRC in January, 2015 for 45 residential lots. Construction of the project has not started. According to the developer’s engineer, construction plan drawings were submitted to NCDOT for approval. After construction site plan review, comments provided by NCDOT indicated a cost overrun of over $325,000.00 that was not anticipated. Some of the cost over-run involved off-site road improvements. In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the re-designation of the road network in Gable Run from “public” to “private” with four conditions, which are included in the board package. River Bluffs: Phase 3 (PD Plan) River Bluffs is located in the northern Portion of the County’s jurisdiction (near the western end of Chair Road) and is classified as Wetland Resource Protection on the County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. The primary entrance to the project is thru Chair Road with a secondary access from Rockhill Road. This is a low impact development. Site Plan Data  Zoning: PD (Planned Development)  Water: Public (CFPUA)  Sewer: Public (CFPUA)  Road Network: Private  Lots: 105  Acreage: 54.41 (includes 1.82 acres of commercial)  Conservation Resources: Wetland Resource Protection  TIA: Yes (approved) Off-site road improvements will begin after 200 lots are recorded and occupied. In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the latest installment of River Oaks for a total of 105 lots with eight conditions, as listed in the planning board package. Other Business Chairman Girardot reminded board members there will be a joint work session with the County Commissioners on Monday, October 19th immediately following the commissioner’ regular meeting. She also reported that staff had agreed to make an effort to send out meeting packages earlier and hold pre-agenda briefings with planning board members prior to regular meetings. Two meetings have been set up through the end of the year – October 28th and November 24th tentatively at 4pm. With no additional business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.