Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-03 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 3, 2017 PAGE 734 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday, April 3, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present: Chairman Woody White; Vice-Chairman Skip Watkins; Commissioner Jonathan Barfield, Jr.; Commissioner Patricia Kusek; and Commissioner Rob Zapple. Staff present: County Manager Chris Coudriet; County Attorney Wanda M. Copley; and Clerk to the Board Kymberleigh G. Crowell. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Reverend Wayne A. Johnson, Sr., St. Stephen AME Church, provided the invocation and Commissioner Patricia Kusek led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Chairman White requested a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Barfield requested that Consent Item #2, Adoption of Child Abuse Prevention Month Proclamation, be considered under the Regular Agenda and read into the record. Chairman White requested a motion to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. MOTION : Vice-Chairman Watkins MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek, to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes – Governing Body The Commissioners approved the minutes of the Agenda Review Meeting of March 16, 2017 and the Regular Meeting of March 20, 2017. Approval of an Application for the Waiver of Landfill Tipping Fees for the NC Wildlife Resources Commission – Environmental Management The Commissioners approved a waiver of landfill tipping fees for the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, with a maximum cap of two tons per year, valued at $100. This request must be renewed annually and is restricted to waste generated in New Hanover County. A copy of the application is available for review in the Environmental Management Department. REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS ADOPTION OF PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 2017 CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH Commissioner Barfield stated that in light everything going on in the world today, especially with the opioid epidemic, he wanted to read the proclamation into the record recognizing April 2017 as Child Abuse Prevention Month in New Hanover County. Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple, to adopt the proclamation declaring the month of April 2017 as Child Abuse Prevention Month in New Hanover County as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the proclamation is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XL, Page 29.1. CONTINUANCE OF CONSIDERATION OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 2016- 2017 BUDGET AMENDMENT #7 Chairman White announced that at the request of the School System to continue the presentation of the New Hanover County Board of Education 2016-2017 Budget Amendment #7, the Board agreed by general consensus to continue the item until the April 17, 2017 meeting. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST BY DESIGN SOLUTIONS TO AMEND ARTICLE VI AND ARTICLE VII OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE SETBACK, HEIGHT, AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS (TA17-01) Chairman White opened the public hearing and requested staff to make the presentation. Current Planner Brad Schuler presented the request submitted by Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions to amend certain regulations for high density developments. A high density development is a residential development that exceeds the density limits of the applicable zoning district. These developments are permitted in the Urban Mixed Use, Community Mixed Use, and Employment Center place types. The developments do require a Special Use Permit or a rezoning to the Planned Development (PD) district. Connection to public or community water and sewer services and accessibility to a major or minor arterial street are required. They may consist of any housing type (apartments, condos, townhomes, single-family dwellings, etc.) and have a max density range of anywhere from 4.25 to 17 dwelling units per acre. They are allowed within the R-10, R-15, R-20, O&I and PD zoning districts. In order to mitigate NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 3, 2017 PAGE 735 potential impacts high density developments may have on the surrounding area, the Zoning Ordinance contains specific regulations for the use. These regulations include requiring increased setbacks and additional buffer yards. The application proposes to reduce the setbacks/density fringe area, height, and buffer yard requirements of high density developments. In regard to the setbacks/density fringe area, currently high density developments are subject to a 25-foot minimum setback which increases to a 50-foot minimum setback if the development is located next to detached residential developments. When high density developments are located adjacent to a detached single- family development, the setback is based on the height of the structure and the housing type. Specifically, the setback is calculated by multiplying the structure’s height by either 2.75 or 3.73. The proposal would have a 25-foot minimum setback and would modify the setbacks required when these developments locate next to detached residential developments. In these situations, the setback would be 25 feet up to the height of the structure, which is currently limited to a maximum of 35 feet. This application does propose to increase the maximum height standard to 40 feet, therefore if this entire application is approved as currently written, then the setbacks for high density developments would range from 25 to 40 feet, depending on the adjacent land use and the height of the structure. The application also proposes to remove the density fringe area requirement for high density developments. The current standard limits the number of dwelling units that can be developed within 200 feet of any detached residential development. Specifically, the density within this area must be no greater than three times the maximum density allowed in the adjacent detached residential development. The second part of the amendment relates to the maximum height standard for high density developments. Currently, the maximum height is 35 feet and the application proposes to increase it to 40 feet. Generally, maximum height standards are connected to the community's firefighting services. Some fire trucks, for example, can only serve up to a 35-foot tall structure. Staff has confirmed with the County’s Fire Services Department that the County’s fire departments can provide fire protection to 40-foot tall structures. Also, the County already allows for 40-foot structures in the B-2, O&I, and I-1 zoning districts. The third part of the application relates to the buffer strips requirement. Currently, the ordinance requires buffer strips between any residential use or district from any detached housing development, mobile home park, High Density Development or Planned Development. Staff has discovered with this specific language that it requires buffer strips to be installed between the same use type. This is not the intent of a buffer strip. Buffers should be required to help mitigate the impact a higher intensity use would have next to a lower intensity use. Staff worked with the applicant to provide clarification that specifically states when buffer strips would be required to provide a buffer from any existing detached or duplex residential structure; any undeveloped residentially zoned land within the general or rural place types; and any platted residential lots or proposed residential lots included within an approved and valid preliminary plat for a major residential plat subdivision. Staff also found confusing organization of screening standards. These standards require things such as dumpsters and HVAC uses to be screened from certain land uses. Currently, they are within the buffer strip section however it is not technically a buffer strip. Therefore, in an effort to provide greater clarity to the applicability of these standards, staff recommends they be relocated to their own section of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Board considered this application at their March 2, 2017 meeting and recommended denial of the setback portion of the application, finding that it is: 1. Not consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, with particular emphasis on the protection of existing neighborhoods. 2. Not reasonable and not in the public interest because of possible impacts it may generate on the harmony and value of existing neighborhoods. The Planning Board discussed issues regarding the setback portion of the application, citing concerns of the potential impacts that would be generated on detached residential developments if the setbacks are substantially reduced. The Board further stated that additional time and research should be conducted in order to determine appropriate setbacks for high density development, and that the UDO process would provide an opportunity to examine these standards more closely. The Planning Board recommended approval of the height and buffer strip portions of the application, finding that they are: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it follows the guidelines established for the subject place types. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because it follows the guidelines established for the subject place types. Staff is recommending approval of all three portions of this application. Overall when staff reviews a text amendment, it is reviewed to see if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. One of the main purposes of the Zoning Ordinance is to implement the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. As the County is expecting a lot of future growth, the Comprehensive Plan encourages higher density mixed use development patterns. This type of pattern places persons closer to the businesses they often use and will support alternative modes of transportation to help reduce dependency on the automobile, traffic and congestion seen today. Overall it's a more efficient land use development pattern. The current standards are outdated and promote more of a sprawling type of development thereby potentially hindering infill development and mixed use development the Comprehensive Plan encourages. Chairman White invited the petitioner to make comments. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 3, 2017 PAGE 736 Michael Lee of Lee Law Firm, on behalf of the applicant, Design Solutions, stated that the setback requirement is going to move through the Special Use Permit process so that with either a rezoning or a special use request, the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners will have the opportunity to review and make sure they are consistent with all the various requirements. This actually is very consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Moving inward and upward has been the trend as the County becomes even more urbanized. This is a provision applicable to special uses so the Board can review on a project specific basis. The Planning Board did express concerns about this but acknowledged and understood the special use component. It was felt the Planning Board was concerned that when working through a modification of the Zoning Ordinance some of the information and data will be coming forward from the consultants. He concluded his statements saying this request is consistent with where the County is moving. Chairman White announced that no one else had signed up to speak in favor or in opposition and closed the Public Hearing. He then opened the floor for Board discussion. In response to Board questions, Mr. Schuler confirmed that the current setback verbiage is outdated. The Comprehensive Plan wants a mixture of uses close together and the current setback verbiage potentially hinders infill type development where there’s already existing services that would benefit from having a lot of people living near them. Regarding questions about Section 62 of the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Schuler stated that the buffer strips would still apply where the yard is adjacent to the existing detached residential use in this situation and there is already some use of limitations noted in that section. He believed it was added as more of a cross reference to ensure the requirement is being met. The language is in Section 62.1-4 which covers all the County’s buffer yard requirements and would still be applicable. It would not allow other structures to be placed in those areas. Section 62.1-4 covers the uses and explains that no activity shall occur in the buffer except buffer maintenance and installation and maintenance of water, sewer or other utility systems. It prohibits certain structures and this prohibition shall apply at the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy and anytime thereafter shall include, but not be limited, to waste containers, storage buildings, other fixtures or structures. Regarding questions about screening requirements for dumpsters and outside storage, Mr. Schuler explained that the verbiage requiring the screening to be at least 8 feet in height was not discussed with Fire Services. It is an existing regulation in the ordinance and the intent was to relocate it to its own section. There are no changes proposed within this section of the amendment. Motion: Vice-Chairman Watkins MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to approve the text amendments as presented in the staff summary as the Board finds that the request as described is: 1.) Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, as the amendment is necessary to provide clarity and predictability of land use regulations to facilitate intelligent growth, stewardship and economic development in the county; and 2.) Reasonable and in the public interest as the amendment allows for clear interpretation of the County’s Zoning Ordinance in a manner consistent with the spirit and intent of the existing regulations. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the text amendment amending the Zoning Ordinance is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XL, Page 29.2. CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING AS REQUESTED BY HELLMAN, YATES, & TISDALE FOR OPTIMA TOWERS IV, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, HOME LIFE, INC., FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON A 0.80-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 2020 CORPORATE DRIVE (S-630, 7/16) Chairman White stated that the applicant, Optima Towers IV, has requested that the item be continued and invited the petitioner to provide an update. Scott Holmes, attorney with Murchison, Taylor and Gibson, PLLC, representing the petitioner, Optima Towers IV, requested the Board grant a continuance of the public hearing for a Special Use Permit until June 5, 2017. Chairman White requested direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple, to continue the public hearing for a special use permit request by Hellman, Yates, & Tisdale for Optima Towers IV, applicant, on behalf of the property owner, Home Life, Inc., for a telecommunications tower on a 0.80-acre parcel located at 2020 Corporate Drive, until the Regular Meeting of June 5, 2017. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA FOR APPROVAL OF THE ISSUANCE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $220 MILLION IN HOSPITAL REVENUE AND REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS AND CERTAIN RELATED MATTERS AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS Chief Financial Officer Lisa Wurtzbacher reported that the New Hanover Regional Medical Center (the “Medical Center”) is requesting New Hanover County to issue Hospital Revenue Bonds and Hospital Refunding Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $220 million. Debt service on these bonds will be paid for through the revenues generated by the Medical Center and not County dollars. She recognized New Hanover Regional Medical Center Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer Ed Ollie and presented the following overview of the request:  Hospital Revenue Bonds:  Not to exceed $155 million NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 3, 2017 PAGE 737  Use of Proceeds:  New orthopedic and spine hospital  Expansion and renovation of existing ICU  Renovation of Zimmer Cancer Center  Construction and renovation to main campus ER  Parking deck and sky bridge  Financing costs  Hospital Refunding Revenue Bonds:  Refunding 2006 Variable Rate Hospital Revenue Bonds:  $60,000,000 principal to be refunded  The 2006 bonds will only be refunded if financially advantageous to the County and the Medical Center.  Use of Proceeds:  Refund outstanding bonds  Financing costs  Debt service savings greater than Local Government Commission (LGC) requirement:  Estimated savings of $4.2 million over remaining life (PV 5.24%)  The Ask and Next Steps:  April 3, 2017: Request of the Board of Commissioners to adopt the Preliminary Resolution  May 1, 2017: Hold Public Hearing and adopt Series Resolution Ms. Wurtzbacher concluded her presentation stating that County staff is requesting approval to apply to the Local Government Commission and that the Board direct a public hearing to be held on May 1, 2017 related to the bond issuance. In response to Board questions, Ms. Wurtzbacher stated that of the $65 million of hospital refunding revenue bonds, $60 million is principle and $5 million is to pay interest, financing costs, etc. to refund the bonds. There is a not exceed amount in place and the hope is it will be less than that. The market will dictate what has to be issued and the savings achieved by refunding. Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED Chairman White, to adopt a resolution directing the filing of an application with the Local Government Commission of North Carolina for approval of the issuance in an amount not to exceed $220 million in hospital revenue and revenue refunding bonds and certain related matters and making certain findings and set the related public hearing for May 1, 2017. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of the resolution is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in Exhibit Book XL, Page 29.3. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF REZONING REQUEST BY DESIGN SOLUTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, LAWRENCE LAWSON HEIRS, TO REZONE 6.9 ACRES LOCATED AT 4713 CAROLINA BEACH ROAD, FROM (CUD) R-10, CONDITIONAL USE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO (CUD) R-10, CONDITIONAL USE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 96 DWELLING UNITS (Z-958M, 3/17) Chairman White opened the public hearing and announced that the Conditional Use District process requires a quasi-judicial hearing; therefore, any person wishing to testify must be sworn in. All persons who signed in to speak or who want to present testimony please step forward to be sworn in. The following persons were sworn in: Brad Schuler Ben Andrea Chris O’Keefe Ernest Olds Cindee Wolf Michael Lee Current Planner Brad Schuler reported that a Conditional Use District is a district that requires every land use within it to obtain a Special Use Permit (SUP) and therefore, two separate actions would need to be taken by the Board and any conditions must be added to the SUP. He then presented the request submitted by Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner, Lawrence Lawson heirs, to rezone 6.9 acres located at 4713 Carolina Beach Road, from (CUD) R-10, Conditional Use Residential District, to (CUD) R-10, Conditional Use Residential District, and for a SUP for a high density development consisting of 96 dwelling units. The subject property includes approximately 6.9 acres located along Carolina Beach Road. Sikes Drive also connects directly into the property and has been dedicated as a public right of way but has not yet been officially taken over by the City of Wilmington. The property is in an area that transitions into the City of Wilmington. Properties to the north and south of the subject property have been annexed by the City of Wilmington in recent years. A multi-family development, Belle Meade Apartments, has been constructed on the adjoining property to the north. Properties within the unincorporated areas are zoned predominately residential. On May 2, 2016, the property was rezoned to a (CUD) R-10 district in order to allow for the development of an 80-unit apartment complex. The owner of the adjacent apartments (Belle Meade) is currently in the process of NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 3, 2017 PAGE 738 obtaining ownership of the subject property and is seeking to incorporate it into Belle Meade Apartments. In order to do so, major modifications are being proposed for the development, including changes to the site layout and density. The new proposal would eliminate the driveway to Carolina Beach Road and increase the number of dwelling units to 96. The development will extend Sikes Drive into the adjoining undeveloped land to the south. Sikes Drive will potentially be able to be extended further south and connect to multiple developments which will provide greater connectivity within the area. The high density development will generate 49 trips in the AM peak, and 60 trips in the PM peak. Because the trips do not exceed 100 in the peak hours, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not required to be completed. The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan classifies the subject property as Community Mixed Use and General Residential. The proposed development is consistent with the recommended place types. Higher density residential is an appropriate use in the Community Mixed Use place type, and recreational areas, such as the one northeast of Sikes Drive, are encouraged within the General Residential place type. The Planning Board considered this application at their March 2, 2017 meeting and recommended approval of the rezoning to the (CUD) R-10 district, finding that it is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because multi-family residential is encouraged within the Community Mixed Use place type. The proposed density is consistent with the Plan and supports the small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that this place type promotes. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the development provides for increased density in an area best suited for development. The property is located in close proximity to water and sewer utilities, and pedestrian amenities. The development also supports efficient travel by providing interconnectivity to the surrounding properties. Staff concurs with the Planning Board's recommendation. If the Board approves the rezoning, then it can consider the SUP portion of this application based on the current information. Based on current information, staff has created preliminary findings of fact for each of the conclusions required to be reached to approve the SUP request and are detailed in the staff summary. The Planning Board also recommended approval of the Special Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Sikes Drive on the subject property, Tract 7 Biddle Subdivision, shall be platted as a public right-of-way. 2. A 10’ multi-use path shall be installed along Carolina Beach Road in accordance with the Wilmington/New Hanover County Comprehensive Greenway Plan. The multi-use path shall be constructed to the adjoining property lines and shall include any necessary crosswalks, boardwalks, or bridges. Staff concurs with the Planning Board's two conditions being included should the Board approve the SUP. In response to Board questions, Mr. Schuler explained that rather than utilizing the driveway off Carolina Beach Road there will be two cross accesses into the parking lot and then installation of a portion of Sikes Drive in that area. Most of the traffic will be going to Mateo Drive. There will also be a cross access provided to the undeveloped land that hopefully will be connected in the future. Chairman White invited the petitioner to make comments. Cindee Wolf on behalf of the property owner, Lawrence Lawson heirs, stated that this project would be an expansion of the existing apartment complex, Belle Meade Apartments. There is no change to the existing R-10 zoning. The only change is to add 16 units. Through this project, it is believed it is being made more safe, providing more interconnectivity through the apartment complex, and eliminating a point of conflict along Carolina Beach Road. She concluded by stating that the property owner agrees with staff’s recommendations and with the findings as far as compliance with all the requirements of the Special Use Permit. In response to Board questions, Ms. Wolfe stated there are currently 228 apartments and this request would add an additional 96 apartments. There was a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) originally done for the Belle Meade project when it was accepted into the City. The annexation was originally done when Belle Meade was zoned B-2, Conditional District, back in the County. Those improvements, as part of the TIA, were to Mateo Drive, new lanes installed, the traffic signal installation, and the interconnectivity through Pine Hollow and other communities. When the current Belle Meade Apartments were done in the City there was a slightly updated TIA completed and it did not take into consideration the additional 96 apartments. It did take into consideration a movie theater and large amount of commercial space. This was a reduction from the original improvements done to the traffic impact for the Belle Meade commercial project. Regarding the stub out of Sikes Drive, Ms. Wolfe reported that Silver Lake Baptist Church owns the property Sikes Drive is stubbed out to. The property is in the City limits and is under a Conditional District plan for an apartment complex. She stated to her knowledge the complex will never be built due to other circumstances. There are preliminary plans for a subdivision in there and any type of development that happens will continue Sikes Drive to complete the interconnectivity. Until the Church develops or sells the property to be developed by someone else, Sikes Drive will end there. Compared to where it currently ends at a roughly 400-foot depth dead end, emergency vehicles NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 3, 2017 PAGE 739 would have the ability to come into the parking lot and circulate over to Mateo Drive and through the apartment complex. Chairman White requested those who had signed up to speak in favor or in opposition to the request to give their comments. He noted Mr. Robert Bayley, who signed up to speak in opposition, was not present to provide comments. Hearing no further comments, Chairman White closed the Public Hearing and opened the floor for Board discussion. In response to Board questions about the overcapacity of existing schools, Ms. Wolfe stated that an item from the previous project with 84 units was presented as an affordable housing option and there were more three bedroom units. The Belle Meade Apartments have only one and two bedrooms which is a difference as these size apartments aren't generally indicative of families. It is unknown who will live in an apartment so the school burden cannot be addressed. Generally speaking, the difference in the bedroom mix is a difference in the tenants. Regarding transportation questions, Current Planner Schuler stated that the sidewalks will be near the Willoughby Park subdivision and extend a bit north. The apartment complex project approved last year included a condition to continue the sidewalk. Staff also asked the Department of Transportation (DOT) to extend its sidewalk a bit further north to make the connection. There will be a gap of more than a mile in the sidewalks until the areas can be connected. Regarding questions about affordable housing being a part of the original project, Mr. Schuler stated that there was no discussion about maintaining a portion of this project for affordable housing. Ms. Wolfe reported that the issue is funding and the funds for affordable housing are only available through certain avenues. For this specific project, it is not possible since it’s an expansion of an existing project that is funded. Therefore, trying to vary that with management and other items would be very difficult. There was no attempt by the applicant to file for a grant. Commissioner Zapple commented about ongoing conversations that have taken place over the past year concerning the increase in traffic, specifically on Carolina Beach Road, and the number of projects approved. If reviewed aggregately, there is a significant issue that building has gone beyond the tipping scale of the traffic volume on Carolina Beach Road. He expressed appreciation for the Belle Meade Apartments project. However, he has serious concerns with the transportation issues. He understands the Planning and Land Use Department's purpose of continuing to support connectivity through the sidewalks in the future. However, without a serious plan on how to make the sections tie together, he feels it will be a long time before the sidewalks will be connected to this project or projects further south to Monkey Junction. There is also a need for affordable housing in the County and a specific need for affordable senior housing that he doesn’t believe is being addressed. The apartment project and other projects approved over the past two years have had the opportunity to provide affordable housing as part of the design(s). He believes there needs to be a redoubling of efforts to make it happen. Hearing no further discussion, Chairman White requested direction from the Board concerning the rezoning. Motion: Vice-Chairman Watkins MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek affirming staff’s statements that the application is consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and is reasonable and in the public interest. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman White requested direction from the Board concerning the companion Special Use Permit. Motion: Commissioner Kusek MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Watkins to approve, as the Board of Commissioners finds that this application for a Special Use Permit meets the four required conclusions based on the findings of fact included in the Staff Summary, and with the conditions as recommended by staff. Upon vote the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA 4 OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED April 7, 1971, is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book I, Section IV, Page 109. A copy of the order granting the Special Use Permit and listing the findings of fact is contained in SUP Book IV, Page 64. PUBLIC HEARING AND DENIAL OF REZONING REQUEST BY DESIGN SOLUTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, COLLEGE ROAD DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC, TO REZONE 8.04 ACRES LOCATED AT THE 2600 BLOCK OF N. COLLEGE ROAD, FROM (CUD) R-10, CONDITIONAL USE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO (CZD) B-2, CONDITIONAL HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT, IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A MINI-WAREHOUSE USE (Z17-01) Chairman White opened the public hearing and asked staff to make the presentation. Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea presented the request submitted by Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner, College Road Development Partners, LLC, to rezone 8.04 acres located at the 2600 block of N. College Road, from (CUD) R-10, Conditional Use Residential District, to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business District, in order to develop a mini-warehouse use. The subject property consists of three parcels totaling 8.04 acres and was rezoned from B-2 and R-15 to (CUD) R-10 in May 2016 for a high density project of 88 units in four apartment buildings. The Planning Board and staff recommended approval of the 2016 rezoning request. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 3, 2017 PAGE 740 The current request is to rezone the property to (CZD) B-2 for 72,850 square feet of self-storage units in four buildings, along with access drives and parking to serve the development. Total impervious surface coverage decreases with the current proposal by 4,165 square feet, while the width of the buffer strip on the rear of the property between the homes on Long Ridge Drive and the developed area decreases from 48 feet and 65 feet widths to 22.5 feet in width. The property to the north hosts Laney High School. Single family residential lies to the east of the subject property, and adjacent to the south is a fast food restaurant within B-2 zoning. Land across the street is mostly vacant and undeveloped R-15 zoned property, with a small area of O&I zoning hosting a barber shop and electronics repair shop. Mr. Andrea further reported that portions of the property are located within an AE Special Flood Hazard Area, with a base flood elevation of 32 feet. There are preliminary flood maps pending approval by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It encompasses the entire area with an AE flood zone with a base elevation of 35 feet and also has an AE flood area around the stream at the northern end of the site. In response to Board questions, Mr. Andrea explained that an AE flood zone is a 100-year flood zone. Any residential structure in an AE flood zone would have to meet the building guidelines and the County's flood damage prevention ordinance. The base flood elevation is the elevation to which a structure has to be elevated. Currently, the base flood elevation is 32 feet and it would go up to 35 feet with the new flood maps. Flood insurance would be required in any flood zone, including a special flood hazard area. As the preliminary flood maps are being reviewed by FEMA, this was an area that staff sent a comment back about. Staff asked FEMA to review the area again and ensure that this was an appropriate re-designation of the flood zones in this area of the County. There is a tributary creek of Smith Creek that runs through the property just to the north, in between this site and Laney High School. There is an effort to have ongoing education efforts both about the changes in the flood maps and what each flood designation means. Also, part of that effort is the County’s participation in the community rating system and it is a requirement to have an ongoing education and outreach campaign. Most homes along Long Ridge Drive are not currently in a flood zone but may be with the preliminary maps. Regarding questions about staff being in agreement with FEMA about the flood zones, Mr. Andrea explained that staff relies on FEMA hydrologists’ expertise and other agencies that do this modeling. He is uncertain if staff would agree or disagree with FEMA’s determination. A brief discussion was held about the preliminary flood maps being part of an ongoing remapping by FEMA that will have effects on the entire state. The process is currently in the public comment period. Planning Manager Ken Vafier stated that staff did submit some comments, technically known as appeals, during the preliminary map comment and review period. This site is one of the areas where staff noticed a significant increase in the extent of the special flood hazard areas. He recently received input from the North Carolina Flood Plain Mapping Program. They have released the preliminary revised panels to our comment areas and this appears to be an area where there is a reduction of the extent of the preliminary flood zone. Staff has an informal 30-day comment period to respond before entering into another 30-day official comment period. Once staff is agreeable with the results of the appeals, there will be another 30-day official comment period. Once that part of the process is complete, staff can move forward with the adoption process so it may be the end of this year when the new data is adopted. In response to questions, Mr. Vafier confirmed that citizens in the area are adequately informed and are part of the appeal process. It has been a lengthy process but some time ago when there was a 90-day preliminary process, it ran from October 2015 to January 2016. Press releases were sent out and staff held public workshops. There were media articles and outreach efforts. Staff anticipates doing that again once we have entered into the second official comment period. The slide being shown during this presentation does not reflect the revised preliminary flood zone map. Based on what Mr. Vafier has seen, the preliminary map does appear to give relief to the proposed area being presented today. Mr. Andrea further explained that the requirements for whatever is being built are going to be based on what map is in effect at the time. Mr. Andrea continued his presentation stating that based on a different approved plan for this site for a mixed use building with 120 dwelling units and for office and retail uses, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed and based on that TIA a driveway and turn lane were installed. North College Road is operating at a level of service of “F” with a volume to capacity ratio of 1.64. From the 2016 approved apartment plan to this proposal there's a decrease in impervious surface coverage from 123,750 square feet down to 119,585 square feet. The width of the buffer strip between the subject site and the existing single family residential along Long Ridge Drive is reduced from 48 feet to 65 feet in width with the apartment complex down to 22.5 feet in width with the current proposal. The existing driveway would serve the development on the site. The proposal would generate 11 AM peak hour trips and 19 PM peak hour trips, a reduction from the 45 AM peak hour trips and 55 PM peak hour trips projected to result from the approved 88-unit apartment complex. Due to the peak hour trip generation figures being less than 100, a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required to be performed. The Planning Board considered this application at their March 2, 2017 meeting and recommended approval with three conditions of the rezoning to the (CZD) B-2 district, finding that it is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because multi-family residential is encouraged within the Community Mixed Use place type. The proposed density is consistent with the Plan and supports the small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that this place type promotes. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the development provides for increased density in an area best suited for development. The property is located in close proximity to water and sewer utilities, and NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 3, 2017 PAGE 741 pedestrian amenities. The development also supports efficient travel by providing interconnectivity to the surrounding properties. Conditions: 1. Signage shall be kept to a low profile and minimally intrusive. 2. Decorative metal fencing and a “low buffer” of evergreen shrubs shall be used along N. College Road in addition to the required street yard landscaping. 3. Additional landscaping shall be provided in front of the northern building. After the Planning Board meeting, an updated site plan was submitted to address one of the conditions, which was to use decorative metal fencing and a low buffer of evergreen shrubs in addition to other required landscaping. The new site plan satisfies the condition. The property is classified as Community Mixed Use by the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This place type focuses on small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve all modes of travel and act as an attractor for County residents and visitors. Types of appropriate uses include office, retail, mixed use, recreational, commercial, institutional, and multi-family and single-family residential. Staff finds that a mini-storage development would not be consistent with this place type at this location because it does not serve as a commercial attractor for residents and visitors and does not support multi-modal travel. This type of low-density commercial operation also does not capitalize on existing and planned services, such as sidewalks and trails, and increases the distance between nearby residential neighborhoods and services that can be accessed by foot or bicycle. Staff finds the proposal to be inconsistent with the Community Mixed Use place type at this location as it does not contribute to the small scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve multi- modal travel and act as an attractor for residents and visitors. Staff also finds the proposal to not be in the public interest as the use does not provide an optimum return on existing and planned public infrastructure investment, including public utilities and multi-modal transportation network improvements. If the Board of Commissioners approves the request, there is a draft motion in the script that affirms the Planning Board's statements. If approval is given based on the Planning Board's statements, two conditions are recommended to be consistent with what the Planning Board recommended. Chairman White invited the petitioner to make comments. Cindee Wolf of behalf of the property owner, College Road Development Partners, LLC, stated that she and the property owner are aware that staff doesn't feel that this is the highest and best use for this particular property. There are a variety of reasons for the requested modification. First and foremost, is the trip generation. The prior plan caused an outcry regarding the traffic in the area. A marketing study has since been done and it was found that the area was underserved particularly with regards to storage facilities. The second reason is the flood plain. In reviewing the cost and values after receiving prior approval it came up even though the effective flood plain is what is addressed when submitting plans to the County at this point; whereas, the City is enforcing the preliminary right now. Consideration was given to if there was a severe flood, would a person want to lose that much square footage of improved dry wall carpeted value compared to storage. Single story storage is a place saver and not expensive construction. In 10 or 15 years if this area's character changes it wouldn't be hard to remove the storage facility and develop it for something that is more height intensive. However, the ditch that comes through the property was also taken into consideration as there is an active flood way assigned to all the flood maps, both effective and preliminary. Finally, it was found that high school students are parking on the site to avoid getting parking passes even with signs posted that no parking is allowed on the site. This raised concerns that if an apartment complex were built on the site how would parking be controlled. All of these issues came into consideration during the start of the apartment project which led to this modification request for a storage facility. Ms. Wolfe concluded her comments stating it is believed that there is a need for a storage facility in this location. The location meets the criteria of the policies for county strategies for growth and economic development. It does put a service close to where people need it. The conditions in the proposal incorporates the staff's recommendation for approval. The conditions attached to the approval are fine with her and the property owner. Chairman White announced that no one had signed up to speak in opposition and closed the Public Hearing. He then opened the floor for Board discussion. In response to Board questions, Planning Board Member Ernest Olds explained that while staff recommended denial of the application the Planning Board sided more with the neighbors on the modified request. The Planning Board felt the density, while maybe more appropriate academically and in an idealized form when the road is four lanes and all things are working fine, was a better neighbor to the owners behind it. The members felt it was not a permanent solution but rather a somewhat decade long fix. A brief discussion was held about the Comprehensive Plan and goals that are specifically laid out in it by staff do not seem to line up with this request. Concerns were expressed that it is not being followed to a certain extent by the Planning Board when considering projects. Mr. Olds responded to the concerns stating that the Comprehensive Plan is general in nature but site specific and the Planning Board does try to look at each site on its own merits and ask if the use is appropriate for each location. He does not think the Planning Board should be required to rigorously apply a template in every case and there needs to be room for that as there will be unusual situations. In this case, the Planning Board felt the deviation was appropriate. Mr. Olds and the Planning Board were encouraged going forward to look at the Comprehensive Plan from a Planning Board perspective and listen to the staff recommendations to mesh the issues as much as possible. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 3, 2017 PAGE 742 Commissioner Barfield stated that he cannot support this request as he does not see how the project fits in the area. He stated while he understands that sometimes cost dictates a project’s course, aesthetics does matter and he feels this project does not fit with the surrounding area. In response to Board questions, Ms. Wolfe stated there will be a multi-use path incorporated in front of the property. The crosswalk’s only accessible location would be at Long Ridge Drive which is beyond this project. As there is no sidewalk code in the ordinance, it is felt this somewhat addresses the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It is difficult to completely comply with the Comprehensive Plan at this point until the ordinance is updated. She concluded her response that once the new code is in place it will be much more compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. The timing is right for this project rather than a three story apartment complex. Vice-Chairman Watkins commented that the DOT chose not to support the crosswalk going across to the McDonalds because there is not a signal light in that area and felt it was a safety hazard. It is not because there is not a need for it but rather, because there is no infrastructure to support it. Regarding rules about rezoning requests being continually reconsidered in a calendar year, Mr. Andrea explained that if a rezoning request is denied there is a waiting period of one year to make another request. If a rezoning is approved there is no language to prevent the petitioner from returning within the same year to ask for a modification. In response to Board questions, Ms. Wolfe stated that based on the marketing studies she has seen, they suggest people want their storage facilities within a mile and a half of where they live. There are a lot of residences on Murrayville Road and there are no facilities in this section unless you cut through all the developments down to Gordon Road. Gordon Road has one that is closer to Market Street and there is a facility being built in Castle Hayne four to five miles further north. There are some old style storage facilities in the Northchase area but the newer storage facilities are temperature controlled. It’s a different product and for this particular area, there is nothing within about a 3-mile area that is temperature controlled. As far as having a service close to the people who will use it in the Northchase, Murrayville and extended areas, it is viable here. Hearing no further discussion, Chairman White asked whether the applicant wanted to continue the application to a future meeting or proceed with the Board deciding to approve or deny the application. Cindee Wolfe, on behalf the property owner, College Road Development Partners, LLC, responded that the she wishes the Board to proceed with the decision. Chairman White requested direction from the Board. Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple to deny the request for a rezoning as the Board finds that this application for a zoning map amendment is: 1) Inconsistent with the purposes and intent of the Community Mixed Use place type in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed development of a mini-warehouse use does not contribute to the creation of small scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve multi-modal travel and act as an attractor for county residents and visitors and 2) Not reasonable and not in the public interest because the proposed mini-warehouse use will not maximize the available and planned services and infrastructure in the area, and because it does not encourage other modes of transportation that would reduce the dependency on the automobile. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4-1. Vice-Chairman Watkins voted in favor. BREAK: Chairman White called for a break from 5:33 p.m. to 5:37 p.m. CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY DESIGN SOLUTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, CHURCH OF GOD OF PROPHECY, FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN ORDER TO OPERATE A PERSONAL CARE FACILITY ON 6.87 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 1380 N. COLLEGE ROAD (S17-01) Chairman White asked if the petitioner had any requests before the public hearing was opened. Cindee Wolf on behalf of the property owner, Church of God of Prophecy, requested a continuance as the matter is a quasi-judicial proceeding and the attorney has not been able to arrive for the meeting. She stated she has confirmed with the other parties involved that a continuation to the April 17, 2017 meeting would be preferred rather than waiting until the May 1, 2017 meeting. In response to Board questions, County Manager Coudriet stated that the Board did continue the School Board Budget Amendment to the April 17, 2017 meeting. While there are any number of updates for the Board to hear there is not an extensive amount of business at this point and time. He further stated that Planning and Land Use staff has confirmed that no one spoke in opposition to the matter at the Planning Board meeting. After a brief discussion was held about the request to hear the matter at a day meeting rather than a night meeting, Chairman White asked for direction from the Board. Motion: Vice-Chairman Watkins MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Kusek, to continue the public hearing for a Special Use Permit request by Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner, Church of God of Prophecy, in order to operate a personal care facility on 6.87 acres of land located at 1380 N. College Road, until the Regular Meeting of May 1, 2017. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Chairman White reported that no one had signed up to speak on non-agenda items. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 3, 2017 PAGE 743 ADDITIONAL ITEMS: County Manager Coudriet announced that Senior Resource Director Amber Smith was recently recognized by the Cape Fear Council of Governments with the 2016 Area Agency on Aging Professional Excellence Award. It is an outstanding accomplishment for Ms. Smith personally but also a testament to the kind of folks who work for the Board. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman White adjourned the meeting at 5:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kymberleigh G. Crowell Clerk to the Board Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners meeting. The entire proceedings are available for review and checkout at all New Hanover County Libraries and online at www.nhcgov.com.