2017-03 March 2 2017 PBM
Page 1 of 28
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
March 2, 2017
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a
public meeting.
Planning Board Present: Staff Present:
Donna Girardot, Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Land Use Director
Ernest Olds, Vice Chairman Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Paul Boney Brad Schuler, Current Planner
Allen Pope Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney
Jordy Rawl
David Weaver
Absent:
Edward “Ted” Shipley, III
Chairman Donna Girardot opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public
hearing.
Chris O’Keefe led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Donna Girardot reviewed the procedures for the meeting.
Item 1: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request (TA17-01) – 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.
Current Planner Brad Schuler provided the staff report.
Mr. Schuler stated this is an application to amend certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed amendments mainly relate to the standards for high density developments,
specifically their setback, height, and buffer strip requirements. A High Density Development is
defined as any residential development which exceeds the density limit established in the
applicable zoning district. These types of development are only permitted in the Urban Mixed Use,
Community Mixed Use, and Employment Center place types. They do require a special use permit
or a rezoning to the Planning Development zoning district. They must connect to public or
community water and sewer services. They must have access to a major or minor arterial street,
and they may consist of any type of housing, so in addition to apartments, they can consist of
condominiums, town homes, and even single family dwellings. There are currently five zoning
districts in which high density developments are permitted – R-10, R-15, R-20, Office &
Page 2 of 28
Institutional (O&I), and Planned Development (PD) districts. The allowable density ranges from
4.25-17 dwelling units per acre, depending on the zoning district. Currently, high density
developments can only locate along Market Street, Castle Hayne Road, North College Road, Kerr
Avenue, Blue Clay Road, and Carolina Beach Road.
Mr. Schuler reported that the applicant is seeking to modify three requirements that high
density developments are subject to. First, the setback and density fringe area requirements.
Currently, high density developments are subject to a 25-foot minimum setback, which increases
to fifty (50) feet when the development is located next to detached residential development. That
setback can then increase when they are located next to detached residential development. If
detached housing is proposed within the high density development, the setback would be the height
of the structure times 2.75. If attached housing is proposed within the high density development,
the setback would be the height of the structure multiplied by 3.73. For example, a 35-foot tall
apartment building located next to a detached residential development would require a setback of
approximately 130 feet. The proposed amendment would require a minimum 25-foot setback and
would modify the setback required when these developments locate next to detached residential
developments. In those situations, the setback would be 25 feet up to the height of the structure,
which is currently limited to a maximum of 35 feet. Currently, high density developments are
subject to a 25’ minimum setback which increases to a 50’ minimum setback if the development
is located next to a detached residential development. Also, when high density developments are
located next to a detached residential development, then the setback could be increase based off
the height of the structure. If detached housing is proposed within the high density development,
the setback would be the height of the structure multiplied by 2.75. If attached housing is proposed,
then the setback would be the height of the structure multiplied by 3.73. For example, a 35’ tall
apartment located next to a detach residential development would require setback of approximately
130 feet. The proposed amendment would keep the 25’ minimum setback, but would modify the
setback required when these developments locate next to a detached residential development. 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. For example, a 31-foot tall building would require a 31-foot
setback.
Mr. Schuler explained the application also proposes to increase the maximum height
standard to 40’. If this application is approved as currently written, the setbacks for high density
development would range from 25 feet to 40 feet depending on the adjoining land use and height
of the structure.
Mr. Schuler stated the application also proposes to remove the density fringe area
requirement for high density developments. This 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.
Mr. Schuler noted 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
Page 3 of 28
application proposes to increase it to 40 feet. Generally, maximum height standards are connected
to the community’s fire-fighting services. Some fire trucks can only serve up to 35’ tall structures,
hence the requirement. However, staff has confirmed with Fire Services that they can provide fire
protection to 40-foot tall structures. The County already allows for 40-foot tall structures in the
B-2, O&I, and I-1 zoning districts.
Mr. Schuler said the last part of the proposed amendment relates to the buffer strip
requirement. Buffer strips are required to be half the setback width, but at minimum must be 20
feet, and must contain three (3) rows of vegetation to create a fully opaque buffer. Currently, the
ordinance requires buffer strips between any residential use or district from any attached housing
development, mobile home park, high density development, or planned development. Staff
discovered this specific language requires buffer strips to be installed between the same use types.
For example, an apartment complex would have to install a buffer when located next to another
apartment complex. That is not the intent of buffer strips. Buffers should be required to mitigate
the impact a higher intensity use would have on a lower intensity use. Therefore, staff has worked
with the applicant to create a chart to clarify when buffer strips are required for attached residential
developments, mobile home parks, high density developments, and planned developments.
Specifically, they would have to provide a buffer from any existing detached or duplex residential
structure, undeveloped residentially zoned land within the General Residential or Rural Residential
place types, which allow for lower density housing. A buffer would also be required from platted
residential lots, or proposed residential lots within an approved and valid preliminary plat for a
major subdivision.
Mr. Schuler stated upon review of the buffer strip standards, staff also noticed some
confusing organization of the screening standards, which require things like dumpsters and ac units
to be screened from certain adjacent land uses, like a residential structure. Currently, these
standards are located in the buffer strip section; however, the required screen is technically not a
buffer strip. In an effort to provide clarity to the applicability of these standards, staff is proposing
that they be relocated to their own section of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Schuler explained that staff had reviewed the text amendment application to determine
its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. One of the main purposes of a zoning ordinance is
to implement the goals of the long range comprehensive plan. As the county is expecting a lot of
growth in the future, the Comprehensive Plan encourages higher density, mixed use development
patterns. This type of development will put people closer to the services they use often, which
promotes business success and also supports alternative modes of transportation that will help
reduce the dependency on the automobile. Overall, it is a more efficient development pattern. The
three place types that allow for high density developments promote taller buildings that are closer
together, and a mixture of different, but compatible uses that would support one another.
Mr. Schuler stated, in conclusion, staff recommends approval of all three parts of the text
amendment as the current standards are outdated and promote a suburban style of development,
thereby, potentially hindering in-fill development and the mixed use development patterns that the
comprehensive plan encourages.
Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Page 4 of 28
Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions, the applicant, said she had worked at length with staff
in a very cooperative effort on the proposed amendment. She noted Mr. Schuler had made many
valid points. She has worked with the high density section of the code for many years and has
found the basis for these setbacks to be very arbitrary. For example, with a two-story, detached
building of 25 feet, there is the ability to one-for-one reduce a setback if you increase the buffer,
but even then the setback for a two-story building would be 68 feet or 93 feet for a three-story
building. The high density development provision is comparable to most other jurisdictions’ multi-
family codes, but none of the comparable jurisdictions ever used any type of multiplier. They set
a standard for a setback, quite often in the 25-foot to 30-foot range, if it was from a different use
as far as the intensity of residential development. This doesn’t address commercial to residential;
this is strictly residential to residential development, but based on density. She noted there are
more high density projects going on. She suspects with the change to our code, we will have a
multi-family zone and much of this will be sorted out, but development is occurring now. This will
be a stepping stone that will be no more severe than the recommended 25 feet minimum up t40
feet for a 40-foot high building as far as the setback. Each of these projects will only be approved
by special use permit so in circumstances where conditions might warrant, there could be a
condition of approval based upon more setback or more buffer, which is always an option with a
special use permit.
Ms. Wolf said architectural trends have raised the interior ceiling heights of most
residential structures. Many architects have come to her with problems fitting the room heights
into structures that meet the 35-foot building height limit, which results in a much flatter roof that
is less aesthetically pleasing. She believes the residential height change will benefit the county.
She also pointed out that the buffers have always been a little precarious in their interpretation.
She noted they had found that very evident on an upcoming multi-family community project. That
multi-family is located adjacent to multi-family, which is in the city and is zoned residential, and
the developer is going to have to buffer from themselves. Ms. Wolf said she thinks the clarity and
the chart will be a great feature to work with, will make things more clear, and will still meet the
criteria of buffering and providing a satisfactory separation between unusual and different uses.
Ms. Wolf offered to answer any questions the board may have.
Michael Lee of Lee Law Firm stated he represents the developer on another item and had
signed up in case there were additional questions he could help answer. He then stated his support
of the amendment.
No one else from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the proposed amendment.
Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the Planning Board discussion
period.
Allen Pope asked staff if all three of the items in the proposed text amendment would be
addressed during the upcoming UDO process. Mr. Schuler confirmed there would be no limitation
on what could be discussed when the county goes through the unified development ordinance
process.
David Weaver stated he is in favor of parts two and three of the proposed text amendment
in terms of the height increase and the buffer yard amendment, but he likes the setback that is
Page 5 of 28
currently in place. It has been used successfully to date, and perhaps can be modified, but he
doesn’t see a need to change it. Mr. Weaver expressed concern about the person who lives in an
existing R-15 subdivision with a 50-foot deep back yard, who might suddenly find himself looking
at a strip of three-story apartments in his back yard located 35 feet past his property line. He felt
that person probably wasn’t counting on that when he bought his property and saw the zoning was
R-15 with a 15,000 square foot minimum lot size. For that reason, he can’t support the setback
requirement at this point in time. While the main reason for the setback is the visual requirement,
in his opinion, the sound requirement is also important. He cited the example of a 3-story
apartment building with people that come home on Friday evening and blast their boom box out
of the back of their apartment, noting that sound will come, with very little modification or
attenuation, right into the existing resident’s backyard or house. He said noted that especially with
sound, distance makes a significant difference because sound is based on the square of the distance;
it's not a linear impact like aesthetics might be. Mr. Weaver said for that reason, he would vote
against the setback part of the amendment, but would support the other two parts.
Mr. Boney said Mr. Weaver had made some valid points and he was interested to hear
comments from Ms. Wolf or Mr. Lee about the thought process behind that portion of the
amendment.
Mr. Lee replied that staff had shown some examples of other jurisdictions with regard to
these types of setbacks. In regard to not getting what they bargained for, we will always have that
concern with the growing county we have. We are the second smallest county in the state and the
plan is to grow inward and upward, and to be closer to other uses so we’ll be talking about that in
any instance where there is a changing use coming next door. In regard to this particular setback,
those changes and uses will come before the planning board and the county commissioners under
this ordinance and it won’t be a straight zoning. He noted the UDO may result in the county having
a multi-family provision in the ordinance with hard and fast setbacks so you have straight by-right
zoning. With this amendment, in each of those instances, those issues will be addressed through
the hearing process. In regard to the sound attenuation component, lighting, sound, and all those
issues that come when there is a change in use of an adjacent parcel are going to be addressed
during the rezoning process so there is a safety valve because you will be able to touch it, feel it,
and see it.
Ms. Wolf commented that you can’t just say because a proposal is a 3-story, high density
project, there will be issues with sound for adjacent residents. The people who live next door might
come home and put on their boom box and get out their grill. There are other codes for those types
of things, and as Mr. Weaver said, distance isn’t necessarily the only thing that makes a difference
in the sound attenuation, etc. Ms. Wolf reiterated that the current setback seemed to be an arbitrary
amount and wondered why the multiplier number is 3.73.
In response to Vice Chair Ernest Olds’ inquiry, Ms. Wolf explained that the front yard
setback is a given at 25 feet and clarified that the proposed amendment only addresses the setback
between a high density development and any detached residential development, a platted lot or a
preliminary lot that has been approved on a master plan even though it isn’t built yet. Vice Chair
Olds said he was conflicted, but shared the staff’s idea about increasing density in proximity and
so forth and thinks it looks good to have some uniformity. H noted he doesn’t think it looks good
to have setbacks vary dramatically along streetscapes; however, the protection is really important
Page 6 of 28
where zones abut. He noted the multiplier seems weird and not very effective because there could
be some unintended consequences, but he doesn’t know that 25 feet is the perfect number either.
Noting he felt a little rushed to make a decision and there will be plenty of opportunity to address
it with the upcoming UDO, Vice Chair Olds inquired what would be the harm in not pushing
forward with the first item.
Ms. Wolf responded that there isn’t a ton of harm. In her opinion, it has just been a thorn
in the County’s side for development for several years because high density development can only
occur in certain spaces along the major highways. In addition to the place types, it also has to be
on a major arterial road. It isn’t just this multiplier of setback. If that 3-story building has to be set
back 130 feet, then technically the buffer has to be 65 feet. Ms. Wolf explained that people are
losing use of this land in our very small and compact community because of this multiplier that
seems to have been picked out of the air. She said it has always been a problem when trying to
design, so you end up automatically putting the parking between the building and the line, and the
parking is where there's more noise, etc. She said she would often rather have a residential building
up against the line, but with these ridiculous setbacks and the expansion of the buffer because of
the size of the setback, it becomes very inefficient for what we're trying to accomplish. Ms. Wolf
said that 40 feet is more than any multi-family zone anywhere that they researched so they felt this
was giving a little and getting a little.
Chairman Girardot stated she agrees with some of the other comments. Although she
realizes the multiplier factor is going to change and is obviously not useful, she is not sure what
the right number is right now. The noted the County has hired a consultant who has looked at the
old comprehensive plan and will be looking at the new comprehensive plan so there will be many
changes. She stated the proposed amendment will not only affect the project that will be heard
later tonight, but will affect all successive projects that come behind it once that change is
approved. Chairman Girardot wasn’t sure the consultant would agree with the proposed change.
She expressed concern that the UDO may change the multiplier number again in 3-6 months, and
the result would be some nonconforming uses. She stated she was reluctant to reduce the setback
to a R-15 district, for example, by almost fifty percent, and was conflicted about supporting that
one portion of the text amendment.
Ms. Wolf stated it was the prerogative of the planning board to pick and choose which
sections of the text amendment they would seek to agree with.
Paul Boney inquired if there was a project that the text amendment would affect or stop if
one portion of the amendment was not done, but portions two and three were done.
Ms. Wolf explained that this was an opportunity to make some changes to the high density
section that made sense and her client was interested in it for a multitude of reasons. She could
name five different projects that would avail it. She reiterated it is the board’s prerogative, noting
they felt the amendment was more in keeping with the comprehensive plan and could be used in
the interim.
Mr. Boney stated he is personally in favor of infill projects, both in the city and the county,
and a higher density to those projects because he believes that is the way the county will grow. He
felt they could gain some knowledge from researching other places such as Charlotte, Raleigh, and
Page 7 of 28
other cities that have already gone through this growth. He noted the chart presented earlier and
said he would like to see some actual projects that show what forty feet looks like. Mr. Boney
noted that forty feet looks a lot bigger inside than outside. Ms. Wolf said they should keep in mind
there is also a buffer yard between uses. Mr. Boney stated that as a board they should take all of
that into consideration and maybe the UDO process would be the appropriate place for that.
Mr. Weaver said his overriding concern is for existing residents. It would be great for a
new piece of property that isn’t impacted by surrounding residences, but in the case of surrounding
residences, that takes priority for him. As far as the height restriction, the current maximum height
of 35 feet would increase to forty feet if the amendment is approved. Noting he is aware that Fire
Services has an extension ladder now, Mr. Weaver said he would like to find out if they could
increase the maximum height to 50 or 60 feet and get an extra story in those high density possible
areas along the major and minor arterials, which would make having a graduated setback in his
mind even more critical. He thought that would be something to explore. Chairman Girardot felt
that would be a topic for another time and suggested staff look at that option and talk to the fire
services department.
Jordy Rawl commented in regard to the height restriction that there are certain cost
feasibility reasons why people don't eclipse that 4-story height, for example, it converts the
building material for the framing from typically wood to steel, which is costly, and elevators would
have to be factored in, as well as ADA requirements. In regard to the buffer language, there were
many comments and some rationale as to why it might not be a good idea to approve the proposed
text amendment, but to him, it really comes down to what is most visually appealing. When you
drive downtown to Third Street, you aren’t focused on how high one building is compared to
another or what the setback is. Instead, it’s really more about the aesthetics and whether it’s a nice-
looking building and everything flows well. When you are can work with a code and there is some
cohesiveness, you are able to abut structures where it makes sense to have some flow and
characteristics as to how the area is built out, resulting in a much better vibe and feel. The current
arduous setbacks create a real challenge for land planners, builders, and engineers, who to
accommodate 130 feet, have to change the parking around so the building is moved over, which
is really counterproductive to everybody's intent to make the city and county look nice. Mr. Rawl
asked staff if there is an example of a high density project in town now that has this large setback
from a R-15 project that could bring this subject to light.
Mr. Schuler noted there isn’t a built project, but showed an approved site plan that meets
the setbacks to R-15. The plan reflects a 2-story building with a 96-foot setback and a 48-foot
buffer yard, which is a good example of how the existing rules are enforced.
Mr. Rawl pointed out if that setback requirement did not have to be met, perhaps these
buildings are facing these single family residences where cars aren’t driving down the exterior of
the building complex with their lights shining in these people’s back yards. He felt that seeing an
actual example helped everyone understand the challenges. Mr. Rawl then asked about the
language change to the term “buffer,” noting in the current zoning ordinance, there is a definition
for “buffer easement” and “buffer strip.” He felt that the verbiage may be confusing and asked if
there was a way to delineate “natural vegetation buffer.” He noted Mr. Boney’s earlier comment
about leaving scrub pines, etc. that don’t provide much of a shield between projects and stated if
some language was added that puts the impetus on the developer or builder to create a nice visual
Page 8 of 28
buffer, whether that be a tree of a certain caliper and species, or perhaps, some specifics for a wall
to be built, whether that be an 8-foot minimum board on board or a brick wall. In regard to
aesthetics, when you go to Raleigh, you may see a brick wall with summer ivy across it located
between projects. It looks good and serves its purpose of separating the two projects. There aren’t
people grilling with boom boxes annoying their neighbors because the sound is not able to travel
over, and you are not looking at your next door neighbor when you walk your dog outside. Mr.
Rawl asked staff to comment on the specifics of the change in the buffer requirement, comparing
the current buffer requirement to what it would be with the proposed text amendment.
Mr. Schuler explained that the proposed text amendment doesn't change the requirements
of what the actual buffer would consist of; it only changes where the buffers are required. There
are still three options in the ordinance. You can keep the existing vegetation and supplement that
with three rows of new vegetation; install a fence with two rows of vegetation; or install a berm
and a fence and vegetation. Specifically, this amendment only modifies when that buffer is
required. In response to Mr. Rawl’s inquiry, Mr. Schuler confirmed the terms buffer strip, buffer
easement, and natural buffer are all generally the same. This is an older ordinance so it might
reference a buffer with a different term in various locations in the ordinance.
Mr. Rawl said it would be nice to see clarity of that language and some prescriptive
measures as to what constitutes these different forms of buffers because there is a big difference
between a fence, an addition to a setback, natural vegetation brought in, and existing vegetation
that is left. He felt it would be pertinent to include that language in this text amendment or to bring
it up in the UDO process.
Chairman Girardot said Mr. Rawl’s statements were true. The majority of the conversation
indicates that the setbacks need to be reduced and that will likely happen through the UDO process.
The only question is whether the Planning Board should reduce the setbacks tonight or should wait
for the consultant’s direction and knowledge, and reduce them through the UDO process.
Mr. Rawl commented that applicants usually come because there is a reason behind the
request so if the Planning Board comes up with a proposal that isn’t suitable to the applicant, they
will ask to either continue or come back with another proposed change, He felt this was a great
opportunity to talk through a couple of the items with the applicant and use this as a branding
measure to help shape the UDO, which will inevitably change this. He noted they are in a unique
window with the market conditions the way they are. If this is something that is going to continue
to come before the board, he felt they should talk about the prescriptive measures they can take to
benefit the citizens of the county.
Chairman Girardot noted Ms. Wolf had previously told Mr. Boney that this wouldn’t affect
her current project.
Mr. Boney said Mr. Rawl had made a lot of great points. He commented that he wasn’t
interested in changing the zoning ordinance to get two more 3-story wood frame apartments on a
particular piece of property because we have enough of that. He believes we should be looking at
innovative designs and innovative places around the state. He noted Ms. Wolf’s talent as a
designer. Mr. Boney said he is supportive of having those setbacks be a little different for that and
having a 5-story building instead of a 3-story building. He is tired of the same old buildings in
Page 9 of 28
Wilmington and he thinks other people are tired of it too. Many of them are being built right now.
We have an opportunity with this to change that dynamic and that’s what he is interested in for a
new ordinance. He noted those setbacks might be reduced if the buildings themselves had more
than a parking lot in that particular setback area. Mr. Boney expressed concern about not knowing
enough about where this is heading to approve the setback portion of the amendment. He said he
would defer to the chairman on whether the board should have a work session or wait for the
consultant, but he has a problem with the way that portion of the amendment is written.
Ms. Wolf stated understanding of Mr. Boney’s comments and asked the board to give
consideration to the whole text amendment, noting there was some consensus on the height and
the buffer portions of the text amendment. She also asked the board to give their recommendation
and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Boney said he didn’t think they were looking hard enough at that and looking far
enough into the future with the text amendment. It seemed to be more of the same and he would
hope they could be more innovative than that.
Allen Pope asked Mr. Boney to clarify if his concerns were in regard to all three items in
the text amendment. Mr. Boney clarified his concerns were in regard to the height and the setback
and said the county has enough of the type of buildings shown as an example by staff.
David Weaver made a motion to recommend 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 the possible impacts on the
harmony and value of existing neighborhoods.
David Weaver made a motion to recommend approval of the height and buffer portions of
the application, finding that they are:
1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it does
follow 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.
Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman confirmed the combined motions are valid.
Paul Boney seconded both motions. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend denial
of the setback portion and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the height and buffer portions of
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request TA17-01.
Page 10 of 28
Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z-958M, 3/17) – Request by Design Solutions on behalf of the
property owner, Lawrence Lawson Heirs, to rezone 6.9 acres located at the 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.
Witnesses were sworn in by Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman.
Current Planner Brad Schuler provided the staff report, noting this is an application to
modify an existing Conditional Use District. The proposed modification is considered to be a major
change; and therefore, according to the ordinance, it must be submitted and processed like a new
rezoning application. The Conditional Use District involves both a rezoning and a Special Use
Permit for the proposed land use; therefore, there are potentially two actions this board must take
- the first on the rezoning and the second on the Special Use Permit.
Mr. Schuler said the subject property is located in an area that transitions into the City of
Wilmington. A multi-family development, the Belle Meade Apartments, has been constructed on
the adjoining property to the north. The properties within the unincorporated areas are mostly for
residential purposes. The subject property is a mostly a wooded tract of land. Sikes Drive stubs
into the property from the north and has been dedicated as a public right-of-way; however, it has
not at this time been officially taken over for maintenance by the City of Wilmington.
Mr. Schuler reported the current approved site plan for the property was approved by the
Board of County Commissioners in May 2016 for the development of an 80-unit apartment
complex. The owner of the adjacent Belle Meade apartments is currently in the process of
obtaining ownership of the subject property and is seeking to incorporate it into the existing
apartment complex.
Mr. Schuler stated the site plan for the new proposal modifies the layout of the development
and increases the dwelling units from 80 to 96. It also removes the driveway to Carolina Beach
Road and provides two parking lot cross-access ways to the existing apartments. The development
will extend Sikes Drive to the adjoining undeveloped land to the south. Sikes Drive will potentially
be able to extended further south and connect to multiple developments, which will create for great
interconnectivity in the area. The development will install sidewalks along all interior drives and
along Sikes Drive and will also install a multi-use path in accordance with the Wilmington-New
Hanover County Comprehensive Greenway Plan.
Mr. Schuler said in regard to traffic, the proposed use will generate 49 trips in the AM, and
60 in the PM peak. As these trips do not exceed 100 in either of the peak hours, a Traffic Impact
Analysis was not required to be completed.
Mr. Schuler stated the proposed site plan was reviewed by the Technical Review
Committee. As currently shown, the proposed site plan does not comply with the Zoning
Ordinance; however, if the previous text amendment application is approved, the site plan would
then comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, this application’s compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance, and the standards for obtaining a Special Use Permit, are contingent on the Board of
County Commissioners approving the text amendment application.
Page 11 of 28
Mr. Schuler said staff has reviewed this rezoning/Special Use Permit application to
determine if it is consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. The Plan classifies the subject
property as Community Mixed Use and General Residential. The map’s place types are not meant
to be parcel specific and because most of the proposed development will be located in the
Community Mixed Use place type, staff reviewed this application for consistency with that pla ce
type. The Community Mixed Use 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. Overall, the proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Multi-
family residential is encouraged within the Community Mixed Use place type. Also, the proposed
site design provides higher density residential infill and multi-modal connections to a designated
growth node, which will assist in meeting the plan’s goals for business success, economic
efficiencies for infrastructure, transportation alternatives, public health improvements, and
reduction in vehicle miles traveled.
Mr. Schuler stated staff is recommending approval of the rezoning to the new Conditional
Use Zoning district, finding that the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and is
reasonable and in the public interest. If the board approves the rezoning, they can consider the
Special Use Permit portion of this application. Staff has conducted an analysis of the proposed
use and the information provided as part of the application package and has created preliminary
findings of fact for each of the conclusions required to be reached to approve the special use permit
request. Those preliminary findings are detailed in the staff summary and again, are contingent
on the related previously heard text amendment application being approved by the Board of
County Commissioners.
Mr. Schuler said staff recommends the following conditions be added to the development,
which are also attached to the current approved Special Use Permit:
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.
Mr. Schuler reported that staff is not recommending the addition of the third condition on
the current approved Special Use Permit limited the access to Sikes Drive as it is their
understanding that Belle Meade apartments have an existing agreement to utilize that road for
access. For that reason, that condition was removed.
In response to Chairman Girardot’s inquiry, Mr. Schuler confirmed the developers are
currently maintaining Sikes Drive, which will have to be voluntarily annexed by the City of
Wilmington for the City to take over the road maintenance.
Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions stated she represented the applicant and reiterated the
applicant is not changing the existing R-10 zoning, but is only increasing the unit count by 16
Page 12 of 28
units. The previous project was contingent upon a certain funding source that didn’t come to
fruition so it was more efficient and feasible for the existing Belle Meade apartment complex to
expand onto this adjacent parcel, which allowed for the additional units. In regard to health, safety,
and welfare, because this is a comprehensive plan, the project can avoid the necessity of a driveway
onto Carolina Beach Road eliminating that extra conflict point. Sikes Drive will be dedicated as a
public right of way. There will be no adverse effect on property values in this area. In regard to
harmony, there is another apartment complex adjacent to this property. Ms. Wolf said the applicant
is fine with the conditions that staff has recommended.
Ms. Wolf stated this particular project is defined as forty-foot high buildings, which is
dependent on approval of the preceding text amendment. If for whatever reason that amendment
doesn’t pass, this project could still go forward. The architects would have to work within the 35
feet height so even though there are contingencies, that would not negate the possibility of this
project happening. She stated it also does meet all of the current code setbacks and the fringe area
that are in place for the high density regulations and setbacks for the building so the applicant
would appreciate the planning board’s recommendation of approval to the Board of
Commissioners.
In response to Chairman Girardot’s inquiry, Ms. Wolf explained there would not be an
HOA for this project, as this would be a managed single owner for lease product and so they would
be responsible for taking care of Sikes Drive.
Michael Lee stated the property owner will maintain the street until it is properly dedicated
and accepted by the City of Wilmington after annexation.
Chairman Girardot asked if there were any other questions for Ms. Wolf.
Vice Chair Ernest Olds stated in regard to traffic access that the previous site plan had a
road, which has been eliminated and now there are three points of contact between the
development, which is a big improvement to even out the traffic flow. It is an expansion of the
current theme as opposed to any deviation or new theme. He thought it was a much better solution
from a traffic stand point.
Ms. Wolf pointed out the applicant is stubbing Sikes Drive, which is on a master plan for
the future. They have also stubbed another access to the property owned by the church, which also
owns the property behind it. That property is already in the City of Wilmington and has a current
conditional district use for an apartment complex. Ms. Wolf said she does not believe it will ever
become that, but this stub will add extra interconnectivity.
In response to Jordy Rawl’s inquiries, Mr. Lee confirmed the other buildings in the
complex are within the City’s jurisdiction and are at the forty feet height. Ms. Wolf confirmed
there is signalization at Mateo Road and Carolina Beach Road. She also affirmed that NC DOT
was happier not to have another access on Carolina Beach Road.
No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the application.
Page 13 of 28
Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the planning board discussion
period.
Jordy Rawl commented that this is one of those oddities where the jurisdictional line is
down the middle of the parking lot on the site plan. It would be nice for all nine structures be at
the same height to provide cohesiveness. It would be unfortunate if the buildings in the County’s
jurisdiction were reduced to 35 feet while the buildings in the City are 40 feet high. He noted
renters are looking for big open spaces so if you can provide elevated ceilings it certainly makes
for a nicer feel in the apartment buildings. Mr. Rawl stated he also liked the site plan as it was
much cleaner than the previous plan and flowed well. He reiterated that it would be nice to let the
applicant have the design as currently stamped out on the other nine buildings to create that
cohesiveness throughout the project.
Chairman Girardot asked the applicant if she agreed with the staff’s findings and any
conditions imposed on the special use permit.
Cindee Wolf confirmed the applicant agreed with staff’s findings and the conditions
imposed on the special use permit.
Chairman Girardot entertained a motion on the application.
Paul Boney made a motion to recommend approval, as the Planning Board finds that this
request for a zoning map amendment of 6.9 acres from (CUD) R-10, Conditional Use Residential
District, to (CUD) R-10, Conditional Use Residential District, as described 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.
Ernest Olds seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval
of the rezoning request.
Ernest Olds made a motion to recommend approval, with all findings being positive, as the
Planning Board finds that this application for a Special Use Permit to develop a high density
development:
1. Will not materially endanger the public health or safety;
2. Meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance;
3. Will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property; and
4. Will be in harmony with the surrounding area, and is in general conformity of the plans of
development for New Hanover County.
Page 14 of 28
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.
David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval
of the special use permit.
Item 3: Rezoning Request (Z17-01) – 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.
Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea provided the staff report.
Mr. Andrea stated the subject site consists of three parcels totaling 8.04 acres located at
2608 N. College Road, just north of Murrayville in the northern area of the county. The site was
originally zoned R-20 when zoning was applied to this area in 1972. In 1998, the 300’ wide strip
along N. College Road was rezoned to B-2. In May 2016, a conditional use R-10 zoning district
was approved for the site for an 88-unit apartment complex, which was recommended for approval
by both staff and the Planning Board.
Mr. Andrea said the new request is to rezone from that R-10 conditional use district to a
conditional B-2 zoning district for a self-storage business. R-15 zoning exists to the north and
east, including Laney High School and the single family residential uses along Long Ridge Drive.
Adjacent to the site to the south is a fast food restaurant within B-2 zoning. Across N. College
Road is mostly vacant and undeveloped R-15 zoned land, except for a small area of Office and
Institutional zoning hosting a barber shop and electronics repair shop. The property is currently
undeveloped. The homes shown on the 2012 aerial have been removed. Portions of the property
are within the AE flood zone with a Base Flood Elevation of 32’. The preliminary new flood map
for this area places the entire property within the AE flood zone with a Base Flood Elevation of
35’, and also includes the area around the stream as AE Floodway.
Mr. Andrea reported the site plan that was approved in May 2016 for the conditional use
R-10 district on the site includes four buildings proposed for a total of 88 apartment units, parking,
buffering, and stormwater management. The site plan proposed for the conditional B-2 district
includes four buildings for 72,850 square feet of self-storage, in addition to parking, buffering, and
stormwater management. Total impervious surface decreases from 123,750 SF with the apartment
complex down to 119,585 SF with the current proposal. The width of the buffer strip adjacent to
the lots along Long Ridge is reduced from 48’ and 65’ in width with the apartment complex plan
down to 22.5’ in width with the current proposal. The existing improved driveway would serve
the development on the site.
Page 15 of 28
Mr. Andrea said the trip generation for this project would be 11 AM and 19 PM peak hour
trips, which is a reduction from the 45 AM and 55 PM peak hour trips projected with the apartment
complex.
Mr. Andrea stated the subject 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 is recommending denial
of this rezoning application, as staff finds the proposal to be inconsistent with the Community
Mixed Use placetype 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 be not 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.
Mr. Andrea reported there is an existing driveway serving Taco Bell, which is adjacent
to the site. The driveway and turn lane were installed in response to the improvements
recommended in a TIA for a different development proposal for this site in 2013. That proposal
included a mixed use building with 120 dwelling units and space for office and retail uses. N.
College Road is functioning at a level of service of F near this site, with a volume to capacity
ratio of 1.64. The site itself is undeveloped and is dealing with some trespass issues of people
parking their cars on the site.
Mr. Andrea concluded the staff presentation and offered to answer questions from the
board members.
In response to Chairman Girardot’s inquiry, Mr. Andrea confirmed that the buffer strip
width at the rear of the property that abuts the homes on Longridge Drive has been reduced from
48 feet and 65 feet wide down to 22-1/2 feet. He noted on the current approved conditional use
district site plan for the 88-unit apartment complex, the edge of the buffer yard is shown and shows
the buffer yard varies in width, but it is wider than it is on the proposed site plan.
Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions stated she represents the owners of the property. She
noted storage facilities are on the rise, presumably because our housing trends are changing, both
multi-family and single-family residents seem to need storage space and desire that convenience
of location. There have been several market studies and the market is wide open. The existing
plan for development is 84 apartment units, but board members may recall the extensive discussion
concerning traffic along this stretch of North College Road as related to the McDonald’s, Dollar
Store, Taco Bell and the adjacent Laney High School. This was a relatively small multi-family
Page 16 of 28
project but even the newspaper weighed in on it at that time regarding perceived traffic issues. The
trip generation for a self-storage facility would be much lower than the current plan or many of
the more intense business or residential uses that might be more appropriate for this location, being
that it is Urban Mixed Use. Hence, the new plan for the parcel would be to replace that apartment
project with storage facility. In all respects, this proposal would have much less impact on the
surrounding area, particularly with the huge reduction in trip generation and also in impacts related
to high density development adjacent to residential development.
Ms. Wolf pointed out on the existing plan that the buffers were a multiplier. These were
two- and three-story buildings so more extensive setbacks were applied. Half of those setbacks
were buffers, and the pool house was even a different height, so there was a very variable buffer
and setback applied. The proposed plan contains twelve feet high storage facilities so that
multiplier assigned the setback. This proposal has the full setback and the full buffer yard. Ms.
Wolf stated she didn’t use any of the intervening area between the setback and the buffer yard for
anything. The rear building serves as the barrier from activity to that adjacent residential, but they
will still be required to have a full buffer yard across that back section of the property.
Ms. Wolf said the project is in a Community Mixed Use land classification, which is
intended for more intensive development. Self-storage is consistent with the types of uses in that
classification and will provide a service to nearby residents. The plan incorporates design features
and conditions to assure public safety and mitigate any potential impacts with the buffers and the
setbacks, and the applicant is not proposing any new access points. Use of the tract will have to
meet all other ordinance requirements and go through the full construction permitting process.
Staff does not consider a storage facility to be the highest and best use for this property, but not
every project can take on the intensity of suburban mixed use development styles, nor in this
particular case, is it appropriate for the more traffic intensive businesses or the high density
development because of the trip generation. Policy 4.1 suggests designating sufficient land area
and suitable locations for various uses. Policy 4.3 suggests maximizing effectiveness of
commercial uses by assuring the land is available in close proximity to the markets they serve.
Her clients believe this proposal is still relevant to enough of the comprehensive land use policies
and our county strategies for growth and economic development, which include encouraging
efforts to attract and retain businesses. This is reasonable and in the public interest because it will
provide a service that will minimize vehicle trips and miles traveled. In conclusion, the
modification petition is replacing a previously planned apartment complex, it is yielding lower trip
generation, it will have less overall activity adjacent to the residences, and it will avail its services
to extensive residential communities in this proximity. We hope you will agree this modification
should be recommended for approval to the board of commissioners.
In response to Chairman Girardot’s inquiry about the facility access, which will be shared
with Taco Bell, Ms. Wolf confirmed the locations of the two gates for the facility and that the
project will be fenced, with fencing connected over to the buildings in secure places.
Chairman Girardot inquired if the center building would have a corridor down the middle
and have units on both sides of the building, noting the other buildings were obviously accessible
from one side only.
Page 17 of 28
Ms. Wolf reported that all units will be climate controlled. It will depend on the developer
and how their storage expert lays the buildings out, based upon the market in the vicinity. For the
most part, there are entrances to interior hallways and interior climate control, but quite often on
the exterior where it is available there could be some exterior doors. She noted in regard to another
project in the southern part of the county that because those buildings were laid parallel to the main
highway thoroughfare and they wanted to have the possibility of having those exterior doors,
landscaping was enhanced along the street yard. In this particular case, they’ll have the ends of
the buildings, which will not have exterior doors and will be architecturally designed so that they
will have that look that is very popular with storage facilities these days. Ms. Wolf stated she
would guess the center building would not have doors on both sides or be limited, but she had not
seen the actual building footprint reflecting hallways and accesses.
Jordy Rawl noted he had read the emails and one resident had expressed concern about the
aesthetics and appearance of the facility. He inquired if the buildings would be corrugated metal
buildings or would have any architectural details. Ms. Wolf confirmed there will be architectural
details on the endcaps of the buildings for the street view.
David Weaver inquired about the vegetation area on the left side and if there was any reason
it’s not being used. Ms. Wolf responded that there is a ditch that runs down that area of the property
and there is a floodway in that area so no use is allowed in any of that area. The property is in the
floodplain. She said that is why the ponds are on the downhill slope. In response to Mr. Weaver’s
inquiry about the effects of the AE zone on the building construction, Ms. Wolf explained that the
building pads will have to be set two feet above the AE zone elevation, as was also the case with
the apartment buildings.
Mr. Weaver said he knows the staff does not recommend approval of this because they
don't feel it's part of the mixed use development concept. However, he is seeing more and more
need for storage areas for people that live in apartments and small single family homes. He inquired
if Ms. Wolf had any marketing information about who would use this facility, for example
businesses that store things for their commercial operations, residents within a five-mile radius,
etc. Ms. Wolf said the marketing study she read indicated users would be within a distance of a
mile and a half, although not everyone would be within that distance, except the Northchase
community. In Northchase business park, there are some older style storage facilities, but these
new facilities are climate controlled, which makes a big difference. She said some businesses take
advantage of the exterior doors, but most residents would take advantage of the interior and climate
control units. There is a lot of development on Murrayville Road, which is basically a dead end,
although it’s interconnected all the way through in different types of things. However, there are no
storage facilities, to the best of her knowledge, other than an old style garage door storage facility
on Bavarian Lane, which is a mile and a half away.
Ernest Olds stated he had recently driven north to New Bern and had counted three or four
new storage structures going up on Highway 17. He noted he was frankly a little tired of that sort
of aesthetic, and would agree that it isn’t the highest and best use, but there is a need and it is
appropriate near a residential area to have that need served. He expressed concern about the
appearance of the facility from the road and if the board were to approve it, he would need to be
convinced that the landscape buffer off College Road will be substantial enough to actually make
a difference. He commented that it would be fine if they planted the buffer that was used for the
Page 18 of 28
storage facility on North Market near his home. He thought Ms. Wolf represented that facility as
well. It has a big effect on what the neighborhood looks like and it's not the greatest look. These
facilities will always read as essentially warehouses no matter what we do with them. Mr. Olds
said he felt if this request is approved, they should make certain the look of the neighbor hood is
protected. Mr. Olds reiterated the importance of the landscaping along the street.
Ms. Wolf stated in that case, she felt the applicant would accept a condition that the front
fence be a decorative metal fencing and that the streetyard be enhanced with a low buffer.
Chairman Girardot said the board received an email from one of the residents stating that
there are two facilities on Gordon Road, one at Murrayville Station, two next to the Food Lion and
one in Castle Hayne, for a total of six storage facilities in the vicinity.
Ms. Wolf stated that is correct; there are storage facilities on Gordon Road, but they are all
the way down Gordon Road and at Dutch Square because that’s the All Seasons, which was
approved off of Carolina Beach Road up the way. There are certainly other storage facilities, but
most of the ones within a mile- or two-miles of this particular site are the very old style facilities.
Chairman Girardot commented that the Planning Board had approved the storage facility
on Carolina Beach Road although staff recommended denial because they thought at that time,
with all the new construction and multi-family units in that area, there was certainly a need for it
between Independence Boulevard and Carolina Beach Road. She said she was not convinced that
this is the best use for that property although it will have less traffic and less impervious surface.
She noted her comments were in regard to the conflict with the comprehensive plan.
Ms. Wolf explained that she leaves that to her owners, who know what the market will bear
and what they believe is the best use for their own property.
Allen Pope expressed concern about the aesthetics along the road frontage and along the
Taco Bell side, which is most definitely viewable from North College Road, as well as the
aesthetics across the pond and noted he would like to hear Ms. Wolf’s comments about the sides
of those buildings and their aesthetics from north college.
Ms. Wolf said the facades that are placed on these types of buildings generally have some
type of wrap around brick or fenestration, etc. She noted in this market, you can’t put up a bunch
of metal buildings, so you look at Monkey Junction Self-Storage, Martin’s, the All Seasons, etc.
and if you are in competition with those facilities, you must have that type of aesthetic.
Mr. Pope agreed that this area does have some storage in that vicinity and he likes that this
proposal has less traffic impact. He is very familiar with this area and additional impacts of any
variety are definitely felt so the least amount of impact would be a good thing. He said he also
liked the fact that the applicants had given themselves some storage before vehicles get to the
gates. He assumed that all traffic would be enter through those two gates and it appeared that traffic
would exit through the rear gate. Ms. Wolf explained that traffic would be able to exit through the
back gate, but could exit or enter.
Page 19 of 28
Paul Boney commented that they had come with the apartment complex that he had railed
against, but if not this, then what. In this market, in this climate, at this time, there is a need for
this facility in this location. These applicants are smart and wouldn’t be putting this facility in
place if they didn’t think it would be successful. He thought they would be very amenable to the
changes the board members have asked for in regard to the buffer yards. If he was looking at this
area, he would wonder who would be next given there is a Dollar General and a Taco Bell. Because
the high school is very close by, Wendy’s or Cook-Out might want to build there. They’ve done a
good job blocking the residential neighbors completely in the back so there is no access around
that building. Ms. Wolf confirmed there is no access around that building. Mr. Boney commented
that if they put another drive-through there, it will disrupt the neighbors even more. These storage
buildings are real buildings that are 3 or 4 stories tall, constructed of concrete and steel, so when
you ride by you don’t know they are storage buildings. Obviously, that is more expensive, but
they’re building them in Charleston and other places. It may not be what he would pick, but he is
a realist about what these applicants can do with that piece of land and feels they have made a
good attempt based on the other four buildings he saw. He personally thinks this proposal is much
less disruptive to the neighborhood and is confined by wetlands to the north. He noted the proposal
mitigates traffic and the applicant has done what the board requested. It wouldn’t be his first
choice, but it is something he could live with. He commented that when you go past Taco Bell and
Dollar General, you’ll just breeze by this facility if they do a good job buffering that front entrance
way and he believes the applicant will.
David Weaver commented that although a lot of money goes into building these storage
facilities, he sees them as a transitional use and not necessarily as a permanent use, for example, a
step above a golf driving range, but a good bit below an apartment complex.
No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the rezoning request.
Chairman Girardot inquired if the applicant wished to continue the application to a future
meeting or proceed with the Planning Board deciding whether to recommend approval or denial
of the application.
Cindee Wolf confirmed the applicant would like to proceed with a decision by the Planning
Board.
Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the board discussion.
Vice Chair Ernest Olds asked if Ms. Wolf would be amenable to increasing the landscaping
on College Road with a fence and low screening buffer, increase the landscaping shown on the
building located on the far right side of the site plan by repeating that landscaping for the long
building on the far left hand side of the site plan. Ms. Wolf confirmed she would be amenable to
increasing that landscaping as proposed by Mr. Olds. Ms. Wolf confirmed the vertical line would
be the buffer to Taco Bell and there would be some landscaping along there as well. She explained
they would use the building itself as the buffer and wouldn’t fence it, but it would have foundation
landscaping along there. Ms. Wolf also agreed there would be no doors on the side of the building
adjacent to Taco Bell as there would be no access to that side of the building and there would be
foundation plantings on that side.
Page 20 of 28
Hearing no other comments, Chairman Girardot entertained a motion from the board, and
suggested that recommendations for fencing or buffering be added as conditions.
Deputy County Attorney stated this is a rezoning so if a board member would like to make
a motion to approve, he/she would need to craft consistency and reasonableness statements to some
degree different from what staff has suggested. She noted, however, it is possible to state that the
rezoning is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, but is reasonable and in the public interest.
She said he could use Goal 1 and Goal 3, as listed in the staff’s report on pages 6 and 7, to craft a
consistency statement that it is consistent, and then the reasonableness and public interest
statement could be related to less traffic.
Jordy Rawl crafted a motion citing the inconsistency of the proposal with the
comprehensive plan. Following a brief discussion regarding the consistency of the proposal with
the comprehensive plan, Mr. Weaver suggested Mr. Rawl amend his motion regarding
consistency.
David Weaver suggested the proposal is consistent with the purposes and intent of the
comprehensive plan as this kind of use is necessary to provide services to compact residential
development that uses high density, low square footage living units and therefore it does support
the Community Mixed Use place type.
Jordy Rawl made a motion to recommend approval as the Planning Board finds that this
application for a zoning map amendment is:
1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan because
the use proposed is necessary to provide services to compact residential development that
uses high density, low square footage living units; therefore, supporting the Community
Mixed Use place type.
2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the development would mitigate
environmental concerns from a more intensive development on the site, and because the
low traffic generated from the proposal would put a minimal burden on the surrounding
transportation network.
With the following conditions:
1. Decorative metal fencing and a “low buffer” of evergreen shrubs shall be used along
North College Road in addition to the required streetyard landscaping;
2. Additional landscaping shall be provided in front of the northern building;
3. Signage shall be kept to a low profile and minimally intrusive.
Allen Pope seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval
of Rezoning Request Z17-01 with three conditions.
Page 21 of 28
Item 4: Special Use Permit Request (S17-01) – 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.
Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea provided the staff report.
Mr. Andrea reported the subject site consists of eight parcels totaling 6.87 acres and is
located at 1380 N. College Road adjacent to Kings Grant. The site is zoned R-10 and R-15 and has
been since zoning was applied to this area in 1972. Zoning in the area is predominately R-10 and
R-15 with single-family residential uses adjacent to the site to the east and south. Just to the north
of the site is a church within R-15 zoning. Across N. College Road is another church that includes
a school. A large area of undeveloped B-2 zoning is further north of the site at N. College Road
and Gordon Road. The site was developed for a church in 1975 and has been historically used as
a church. For the last several years the church occupying the site has also operated a child care
center. There are currently three buildings on the site in addition to a parking area. The site
currently has limited landscaping and buffering and no stormwater management. Access to the site
is through a driveway on the north of the site to Kings Grant Road.
Mr. Andrea stated the proposal is classified as a personal care facility, which is allowed by
special use permit in the R-10 and R-15 zoning districts. The use would provide a multitude of
care and recreation for senior citizens aged 55 and older, Monday through Friday only and not on
holidays or weekends. Daily participation would include up to 112 participants, many of which
would be brought to the facility by vans that provide home pick up and drop off. In addition to the
participants, around 70 regular employees would be on site daily. Services that would be provided
include medical care, adult day care, recreational therapy, social work counseling, and nutritional
counseling. The three existing buildings would be used, and one of the buildings would be
expanded. Additional improvements would include stormwater management, and landscaping and
buffering improvements. An easement is also proposed along North College Road for a multi-use
path as recommended by the greenway plan.
Mr. Andrea stated the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan classifies the subject property
as General Residential. This place type focuses on lower-density housing and associated civic and
commercial services. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the goals of the 2016
Comprehensive Plan, as it re-uses and expands an existing nonresidential site along a major
highway with a use that can provide community services.
Mr. Andrea reported the existing driveway on Kings Grant Road would be improved as
required through the NC DOT driveway permitting process. Kings Grant Road is a state-
maintained road. Trips from the use are projected to be 64 AM peak and 82 PM peak hour trips.
North College Road operates at a level of service of D just north of the site , with a volume to
capacity ratio of 0.75. A bus stop for Wave Transit Route 104 is located across North College at
the intersection of southbound North College Road and Kings Drive.
Mr. Andrea stated four conclusions are required to be reached supported b y findings of
facts based on competent, material, and substantial evidence and testimony in order to approve a
special use permit. Staff concludes that at this time, based on the information submitted with the
application, the four conclusions can be reached and are supported by draft findings of facts
Page 22 of 28
provided in the staff summary. Mr. Andrea concluded the staff presentation and offered to answer
questions from board members.
In response to Chairman Girardot’s inquiry, Mr. Andrea confirmed there would be no
overnight, on-site living facilities. In response to another inquiry, Mr. Andrea confirmed the eight
parcels are all owned by the church and will be combined into a single parcel.
Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions stated she represented the applicant, Elderhaus. Ms. Wolf
stated that Elderhaus is an organization that provides total senior care for those 55 years of age and
older. It supports independent living while at the same time promoting community and quality of
life by providing medical care, adult day care, on-going rehabilitative therapies, in home care
services, transportation and counseling. The subject site was previously used as a church and at
times as a day care. The existing building fronting North College Road will be retained and
renovated into administrative offices, meeting rooms and supply storage for the elder house
organization. The existing building on the western side will be expanded to approximately 5,000
square feet and a covered drop off area added. The existing parking will be improved and
additional staff and client parking will be added around the site. Landscaping of the buffer, street
yard, and interior will be upgraded to current standards. The facility is open to clients from 7:30
a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday only, not on Saturdays, Sundays, but they don't feel that
the limitation on hours should be part of this special use permit because Elderhaus has operatives
that go out on Saturdays and Sundays and administrative staff that could be using the facility. She
was unsure why the board felt the need to limit the use of the administrative portion of it. She
explained they had offered the hours of 7.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. to show there is not a lot of activity
other than Monday through Friday, 7.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m., but it would severely limit the operation
of the business if it were limited to those hours for everyone involved. There are about 70 regular
employees and 112 participants. In regard to traffic, no new connections are proposed to the
residential streets. The only connection is to the north end which is opposite another church so all
traffic would be directed but has sufficient stem legs from North College Road. She explained she
had used this building, which was the day care center was. The size of that building would have
translated into a trip generation of over 100 peak hour trips, 104 in the AM and 106 in the PM,
where this particular use is only in the 60's during the AM and PM and you also have to consider
these trip generation tables. This is an unusual type of use, for an adult day care. There are
mitigating circumstances where you have 70 employees but, of those 112 clients, 95 percent of
them come in on single buses. There are six to eight buses that operate daily, and come and go on
occasion. She said for lack of anything else, she was directed to use a medical office, a
medical/dental office, as one of her uses, and then a recreation center. Ms. Wolf noted the
recreation center is probably the more logical of the two, but regardless, even using the higher
intensity of trip generation for a medical office, part of their therapy and medical service still has
much less trip generation than a day care or some similar use would have. Elderhaus currently has
a facility located off of Greenfield Street and their main facility is located on 17th Street. The main
facility will be shifting their operation to this new location if approved so that gives a nicer, broader
availability to our community for services, having one downtown in that area and one in this outer
area.
Page 23 of 28
Ms. Wolf offered to answer questions from board members and stated the applicants feel
the findings of fact for safety, harmony, no adverse impact. Ms. Wolf stated this is a special use
permit request that does not require a community meeting; however, she very specifically sent this
exhibit with an explanation letter to everyone around the perimeter of the site. She noted they
didn’t send one to everyone within 500 feet, but did send one to those people that the proposal
would directly impact. She stated she only had one phone call, but didn’t know if that board had
received any emails regarding the project. The lady that called wanted to sell her prop erty. Ms.
Wolf offered to answer any questions from the board and noted that Rick Richards with Elderhaus
was present and could elaborate on their business model and the company’s procedures.
Rick Richards stated that Elderhaus is a special place and is a Medicare Pace Program.
Hours are Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. through 5:30 p.m. for regular business, but their
responsibilities are 24/7, 365 days a year for their participants. They have doctors, nurses,
transportation, and various other services on call 24/7 so individuals may be coming and going at
different hours after their regular business hours. Mr. Richards said they wanted to make sure that
was understood.
Chairman Girardot asked if there would be a problem with putting a condition of hours on
the approval with the exception of administrative operations. She noted that with that condition
there wouldn’t ever be a concern that the facility would have activities ongoing there with your
clients on Saturday night or at odd hours.
Mr. Richards stated the only thing they get excited about is a yard sale, so probably not.
He would just like an understanding that those other activities will be going on after hours and on
weekends.
Chairman Girardot inquired if there would be vegetative buffering on West Rye Lane,
noting they had heard from residents with houses adjacent in that area.
Ms. Wolf explained there would not have been a buffer requirement, but if that is a
requirement of the code during the construction permitting and the detailed design, that would be
included.
Vice Chair Ernest Olds stated it would be desirable to have a vegetative buffer, noting he
looks at the proposal like a church.
Ms. Wolf stated the facility is surrounded by four streets technically so they would be
installing street yard landscaping on all sides.
Paul Boney said the aerial of the site appears to show significant trees on Kings Grant
Drive, but not on West Rye Lane.
Ms. Wolf confirmed there are significant trees on Kings Grant that would be supplemented
and cleaned up. She noted there is probably a lot of undergrowth, but the entire area would get
street yard landscaping.
Page 24 of 28
Mr. Boney commented that he would not want to limit Elderhaus because they provide a
fabulous community service that is badly needed and this is wonderful project. He wouldn’t want
them to not have a yard sale. Mr. Boney felt they should allow them some flexibility with their
time of use regardless of whether it is strictly administrative. He noted that may confine them in
the future if they come up with a program and then they might have to come back before the board.
He asked how that scenario would be handled.
Ms. Wolf stated she agreed with Mr. Boney. The regular operations are Monday through
Friday, but the other things he’s talking about are no different from anything that is operating in
that location now.
Mr. Boney said if some of those services were expanded to Saturday or Sunday, what
difference would it make. The traffic is going to flow, and they may get a grant or other funding.
We don’t know what will happen in the future to their program. He felt the board should think
about how this program has grown in our community since it was started and what a tremendous
resource it is. He thought they should do everything they can to encourage it.
Vice Chair Ernest Olds inquired if Alzheimer’s care is a part of what Elderhaus will do on
that site.
Mr. Richards explained that over fifty percent of the individuals Elderhaus serves suffer
from some form of dementia.
Vice Chair Olds inquired if there would be a fenced in area where those clients can be
outside yet not wander away, and if so, where that area might be located on the site plan.
Mr. Richards replied that the plan is to fence in a nice garden, which will likely be located
on the south side of the new addition.
David Weaver echoed Mr. Boney’s comments, noting that Elderhaus is a great facility and
Linda Pierce has always been one of his heroes. He wouldn’t want to limit the hours of operation
for the facility. He inquired if Elderhaus would technically be the operator of the facility and who
would hold the special use permit.
Ms. Wolf replied that upon approval of the special use permit by the Board of County
Commissioners, Elderhaus will purchase the property from the church. The special use permit goes
with the property, but if they were to sell it someone, they would have to operate the same facility
or come back to the planning board and county commissioners to request a new special use permit.
Paul Boney said he agreed with Mr. Weaver that Linda Pierce has done so many things
within this community and is such a pillar of the community. He offered to make a motion.
Allen Pope commented that he also thinks Elderhaus is a great asset to our community and
he would like to see it continue. He made two observations in regard to traffic. First, the site plan
shows all of the traffic coming out to one driveway and an additional driveway would help disperse
some of that traffic. Second, it is a long way around the building to get someone out of this facility
in the back or if a fire truck needed to get to the facility. He expressed concern about the facility
Page 25 of 28
being served by one driveway. He inquired if Ms. Wolf had spoken with Emergency Services or
NC DOT about it and about the reason for not proposing another driveway for the facility.
Ms. Wolf noted that only employees will be located in the back. She stated they haven’t
spoken yet with NC DOT or emergency services personnel. If they add another driveway, it would
be adjacent to some residential sector. She didn’t believe the applicant would have issue with
adding another driveway if the planning board recommended it. She also explained the reason was
concern that they would be impacting further than the church had. It appeared that they might have
had an escape route in the back, but it was not formalized so the applicant wanted to be very
specific for fear there might be some outcry from the neighbors that limited the traffic to where it
was more commercially oriented. Ms. Wolf agreed that a driveway would probably be appropriate.
Mr. Pope pointed out that they wouldn’t know without asking the neighborhood.
Mr. Weaver stated agreement with Mr. Pope. He would be fine with the facility using that
existing driveway access and put a breakaway barrier on it.
Ms. Wolf said they could have an emergency access there and work with fire services. She
noted she did put the turn-around very purposefully at the end of that because it was a dead end.
Jordy Rawl said he would defer to the traffic expert, but it was going to be a proposed
question at the preliminary meeting. The applicant’s program is an amazing addition to the
community and he doesn’t have an issue with them operating 24/7 if they want to, but the traffic
issue is something to take into consideration. He thinks it would create a traffic or pedestrian
hazard if they bring something like this through, at least for emergency ingress and egress ;
however, he would yield to Mr. Pope’s recommendation regarding other opportunities for roadway
accessibility for the project.
Mr. Pope said his initial thought process was an additional driveway on Kings Grant Road.
With the traffic signal at Kings Grant Road and North College Road, he would suspect that
everybody going south will take that route anyway, whether they come out of a new driveway or
the existing driveway. He had not thought about the possibility of an emergency driveway
connecting to West Rye Lane. He brought it up as a concern to Elderhaus because even though
they have an existing driveway, they would likely still have to go back to NC DOT for a driveway
permit because they are changing the use of the facility, which will be a concern for someone. He
didn’t see a reason to make it a condition of the special use permit to have an additional driveway.
Ms. Wolf commented that she would almost prefer that they agree that a supplemental
driveway is necessary in this area because her concern would be if it gets approved the addition of
a driveway could constitute a major modification of the special use permit.
Chairman Girardot asked Bill McDow (WMPO) to comment on the access to the site.
Bill McDow of the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization stated in regard to an
additional access road on Kings Grant Road, he would agree with Mr. Pope that if southbound
traffic is coming down Highway 132, the leftover trying to make a turn to come into Kings Grant
is a bit difficult so they probably would come to the signal and come back around. It is a question
Page 26 of 28
of whether you would have full access here, or as he stated, a natural drop off here. He noted an
emergency access in this area probably would make more sense as he stated, but for regular access
to the site, coming off Kings Grant Drive at the signal and coming in somewhere in this area would
be what would be anticipated to provide the best access to this site.
Mr. Pope said North College Road will not be losing any traffic any time in the near future
and he has no doubt someday the crossover there will be totally closed. The shorter the distance to
the traffic signal and where that traffic doesn't have to cross each other would be a definite
improvement. At this point, he would agree that the addition of a driveway along King's Grant
Road with some separation from West Rye Lane, as well as the knowledge of the curvature of the
road, or an emergency access added to West Rye Lane would be appropriate.
Mr. McDow stated, as Mr. Pope said, all of the projections for College Road have it going
from four lanes to six or more lanes so the ability to cross at the crossover will be more and more
precarious as time goes on.
Paul Boney said based on the discussion, he would recommend the board give Ms. Wolf
the ability to put an additional driveway on Kings Grant Road, noting it would be less disruptive
to West Rye Lane. Allen Pope agreed.
Mr. Boney commented that Ms. Wolf wouldn’t have to come back to the board to add
another access later and he feels the applicant will be happier with that traffic relief.
Ms. Wolf agreed, noting if the planning board recommended approval of the proposal with
an additional driveway, she would add that driveway to the site plan prior to the Board of County
Commissioners meeting.
Mr. Boney said it is a safety issue and a convenience issue because we don’t know what
will happen in the future and it would be harder to come back later to request another driveway.
No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the application.
Chairman Girardot stated that a special use permit which is denied may only be resubmitted
if there has been a substantial change in the facts, evidence, or conditions of the application as
determined by the planning director. She stated the applicant may ask to continue the application
it a future meeting or to proceed with this board deciding whether to grant or deny the application.
She inquired what the applicant wished to do.
Cindee Wolf confirmed the applicant would like to proceed with the planning board
making a decision on the application.
Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the discussion period. Hearing no
additional discussion on the item, she entertained a motion on the application.
Allen Pope made a motion to recommend approval as the Planning Board 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.
Page 27 of 28
With the following condition:
1. An additional driveway be added to the site plan on Kings Grant Road, with the appropriate
distance away from West Rye Lane.
Jordy Rawl seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval
of Special Use Permit Request S17-01 with one condition.
Technical Review Committee Report (February 2016)
Current Planner Brad Schuler reported the New Hanover County Technical Review
Committee met twice during the month of February and reviewed four preliminary site plans.
1. Clay Crossing, aka Myrtle Grove – A one-year extension of the performance plan was
approved for 21 lots with the original conditions.
2. Belle Meade: Phase III
3. Middle Sound Village EDZD – The two-year vesting period for the preliminary plan had
expired and was re-approved for 44 lots or patio homes with five conditions.
4. Murrayville Farms – 6100 block of Murrayville Road. This new performance plan was
approved for a total of 97 lots with five conditions.
Details are included in the TRC Report in the Planning Board agenda package.
Approval of February Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Allen Pope made a motion, seconded by Ernest Olds, to approve the February 2, 2017
Planning Board meeting minutes as presented. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the
February 2, 2017 Planning Board meeting minutes.
Other Business
Chairman Girardot commented that the City of Wilmington considers text amendments on
a quarterly cycle basis and inquired if staff could research to determine if it would be appropriate
for the County’s Planning Board to consider text amendments on a quarterly basis also.
Mr. Weaver said at one time there was also discussion about grouping rezoning requests
by geographical area along the same basis. He wasn’t sure if it was feasible, but it might provide
a more comprehensive review of rezoning requests if they are grouped. It may also have drawbacks
because it may slow down the development process for people that need to keep things moving
along.
Mr. Rawl agreed that considering text amendments on a quarterly basis may be appropriate,
but in his opinion, there may not be enough cohesiveness to group rezonings together based on
geographical area and ask all applicants to come together.
Page 28 of 28
Vice Chair Ernest Olds volunteered to serve as the Planning Board representative at the
Board of County Commissioners meeting on April 3, 2017.
With no other items of business, Chairman Girardot adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________________
Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Land Use Director