2017-06 June 1 2017 PBM
Page 1 of 34
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
June 1, 2017
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, June 1, 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.
Brad Schuler led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Donna Girardot reviewed the procedures for the meeting.
Approval of Minutes
MOTION: Vice Chair Ernest Olds MOVED, SECONDED by Paul Boney, to approve
the May 4, 2017 Planning Board minutes as written. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 6-0.
Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z17-03) – Request by Lutheran Services Carolinas, Lutheran
Services for the Aging, Inc., and Lutheran Retirement Center – Wilmington, Inc. to rezone
48.53 acres of land located at the 4900 block of Masonboro Loop Road from R-15, Residential
District, to EDZD, Exceptional Design Zoning District, in order to develop an independent
senior living community.
Current Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land
classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, and photographs of
the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Schuler presented the following staff report:
This is an application to establish an Exceptional Design Zoning District, or EDZD. This
type of district is an incentive based zoning district that promotes environmentally
responsible growth. Development within an EDZD is subject to additional standards such
as incorporating Low Impact Development techniques and providing increased amounts of
open space, and in return, the district allows for higher density, a mixture of uses, and
greater flexibility in the design of the project.
Page 2 of 34
A zoning map of the area shows the majority of the area is zoned R-15. Adjoining the
property to the south is the UNCW Center for Marine Science. To the west and north of
the property are single-family subdivisions, and to the east is the Intracoastal Waterway
and Masonboro Island. The subject property is currently undeveloped and consists of 6
parcels of land totaling 48.53 acres. The eastern portion of property, along the Intracoastal
Waterway, contains AE and VE flood zones and also some regulated wetlands.
Per the site plan, the applicant proposes to develop an independent senior living community
consisting of 220 dwelling units and associated amenities. The amenities include a dining
area, wellness center, mini-convenience market, beauty salon, arts and crafts area, multi-
purpose room, 20-seat theater, a pub, clubhouse, library, and an outdoor pavilion and
community boating facility with 9 boat slips. The front of the property will contain the
main building for the development, which will consist of up to 140 apartment units and
many of the amenities. This building will be a maximum of 40’ tall, which is measured at
the mean roof height. The middle portion of the property will be developed with smaller
multi-family buildings, each consisting of up to 8 dwelling units. There will also be a
separate clubhouse in this section for the residents. The eastern portion of the property will
consist of the pavilion and boat dock. This portion of the property is where the regulated
wetlands are located. The pavilion will be constructed on an island of uplands, and access
will be provided by a boardwalk that will allow the residents to walk or drive a golf cart to
the pavilion.
In regard to traffic, the development will generate 42 trips in the AM peak hours, and 51
trips in the PM peak hours. A Traffic Impact Analysis was conducted for the proposed
development in accordance with the standards for a EDZD, and is currently being reviewed
by the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Wilmington Metropolitan
Planning Organization (WMPO). The TIA examined the intersection of this
development’s access with Masonboro Loop Road and found that when the development
is completed, the intersection will operate at a Level of Service (LOS) ranging from A to
F, depending on the direction of travel. Travel north or south on Masonboro Loop Road
currently operates at a LOS of A and will continue to operate at that level of service when
the proposed development is completed. The poorer LOS ratings are for the motorists who
are turning onto Masonboro Loop Road, either from the subject site or from Trailing Vine
Lane, which is located directly across the street from the site’s access. The TIA does note
that is typical for stop-controlled approaches on major streets. Finally, the TIA
recommends that a 100-foot northbound right turn lane taper be installed to the site’s
access.
The EDZD is an incentive based district that promotes environmentally responsible growth
and in return allows for higher density and greater flexibility in the design of the
development. These are not common applications and the development will be meeting
some extra elements as a result of the EDZD standards.
EDZD developments must first comply with the following 6 core requirements. First, the
development must be on an infill site or previously developed site. The UNCW Center for
Marine Science is located to the south, and residential subdivisions are located to the north
and west, therefore, this is considered an infill site. Second, the development will be
connecting to public water and sewer services. The applicant has been working with
CFPUA and has provided plans which illustrate those utility connections. The third
requirement involves consulting with the NC Natural Heritage Program map to determine
if there are any likely rare or endangered species on the property. This map does not
Page 3 of 34
identify this property as a natural heritage area; therefore, there no additional studies
needed to be conducted. The forth core requirement involves the preservation of the
wetlands and water bodies, specifically, that the development will not cause significant
destruction or lasting detrimental effects to the course, location, condition, or capacity of
the wetlands or waterbodies. The vast majority of the wetlands will be preserved in their
natural state. Outside of the pavilion, boardwalk, dock, and the eastern access road, the
majority of the development is located more than 100 feet from the wetlands. Also, as
required, the applicant has submitted a long-term management plan for maintaining the
wetlands and waterbodies. This plan includes keeping a natural buffer around the wetlands,
installing pet waste stations, and conducting annual water tests to evaluate the quality of
the water runoff. Therefore, the development should not cause any significant destruction
or have any lasting detrimental effects to the wetlands or intra-coastal waterway. The fifth
requirement involves avoiding developing in the floodplains. All of the residential
structures will be located outside of the AE & VE flood zones. The only structure proposed
to be developed within the flood areas is the pavilion, as it is obviously located near the
waterway. This building will be constructed in accordance with applicable flood standards.
The last core requirement is that the development incorporate LID techniques into the
stormwater design. The applicant has provided a preliminary stormwater plan and
proposes to utilize constructed wetlands, bio-retention, and infiltration basin as possible
BMPs that will be installed on the site. The requirement will be further reviewed by the
County’s TRC if the rezoning is approved and when the engineered plans are completed.
In addition to the core requirements, the EDZD includes a number of “additional
requirements” that must be met. The development is awarded a certain number of points
for each additional requirement in which it qualifies. An EDZD development must obtain
a minimum of 12 points from the additional requirements. Overall, there are 11 additional
requirements that total a maximum of 28 possible points, which gives the property owner
flexibility on the design of the project while still promoting environmentally responsible
development.
This proposed development is complying with 8 “additional requirements” for a total of 16
points. First, the development is providing a mixture of uses. Again, in addition to the
resident units, the many amenities reviewed earlier will allow the residents to get to the
services they commonly need by walking or biking, and therefore, will help reduce the
vehicular travel generated by this development. Next, the development is meeting the
Bicycle and Pedestrian access requirement. It will be providing a bicycle and pedestrian
network and bicycle parking throughout the site. Also, the Wilmington/NHC Greenway
Plan does recommend a multi-use path to be installed along Masonboro Loop Road. The
third requirement includes the development being located within one-half mile of jobs
equal to or greater than the number of dwelling units. Per the application, there are 250
jobs within this area, with the largest employer being UNCW. The clubhouse building
near the smaller multi-family buildings will be designed, constructed, and certified either
through LEED, NAHB Green Building Standards, NC Healthy Built Homes, or through
Green Globes. Also, 90% of the buildings must be constructed in accordance with the
HERO option listed within the Energy Conservation Code of the NC State Building Code.
The sixth additional requirement being met will require renewable energy generation with
the production capacity of at least 5% of the project’s annual energy costs. The applicant
has provided an estimate of the average daily energy usage for the proposal and they plan
to install solar panels within the site to meet this requirement. The seventh requirement
Page 4 of 34
being met requires that water efficient landscaping be installed. This includes limiting the
turf areas to 25% or less, incorporating rain barrels, installing drip irrigation, and utilizing
stormwater for irrigation. Lastly, 75% of the building sites will be constructed with the
longer dimension facing 0-30 degrees of south. Overall, the proposed development is being
awarded a total of 16 points.
The EDZD standards also award density for projects that exceed the minimum of 12 points.
Specifically, one additional dwelling unit per acre is awarded for each point obtained above
the minimum. As this proposed development qualifies for a total of 16 points, it is allowed
a maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre. After determining the net area of the site, this
would allow for a total of 330 units on the property. However, only 220 units are being
proposed.
The applicant has agreed to eight (8) conditions. Most of the conditions are aimed at
mitigating some of the concerns presented to the applicant at the community meetings held
for this application. A total of three community meetings were held, which exceeds the
minimum of two required community meetings for EDZD applications. The conditions
include:
1. Restricting the age of the residents to 62 or older with the exception of allowing a
spouse that is 55 or older.
2. Limiting the use of the commercial areas of the project to only the Lutheran
Services community, their residents, and their guests.
3. Require increased setbacks, especially from the adjacent residential development
to the north.
4. Require an increased buffer be provided along the northern property line, including
preserving or supplementing the existing vegetation to provide a fully opaque
screen. It also requires a berm to be installed along the northern portion of the
development. (Diagram presented which illustrates how that buffer will look along
the northern property line).
5. Require an increased setback and screening standards for the access road that runs
through the project.
6. Require that dry detention areas are utilized where possible.
7. Dedicate a 20-foot access easement for the purposes of installing a future multi-use
path.
8. The improvements required as part of the approved TIA be installed prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Staff has reviewed the rezoning application to determine if it is consistent with the 2016
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan classifies the subject property as General Residential.
This Place Type focuses on lower-density housing and associated civic and commercial
services. Recommended types of uses include single-family residential, low-density
multi-family residential, light commercial, civic, and recreational. Overall, the
proposed EDZD project is consistent with the goals of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan.
The plan calls for a mixture of housing options and uses which are accessible to
pedestrians and bicyclists. The proposed project is also designed to conserve
environmental features and complement the adjacent low-density Residential and
Intuitional properties. Staff is recommending approval of the application with the
conditions previously noted. Mr. Schuler offered to answer questions from the planning
board.
Page 5 of 34
Hearing no questions, Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the
applicant.
Matt Nichols stated he was present, along with his paralegal, Nicky Cooper, to represent
the applicants in this matter. This board has only considered a few of these exceptional design
zoning district applications since the ordinance has been in existence. Prior to this project, he was
vaguely familiar with the ordinance and having gone through it extensively in this process, he is
increasingly convinced it is a very good ordinance, and hopes to highlight some of the things they
can do with this very special property. He introduced several members of the development team,
including Architect Tim Mueller of SSCS; Transportation Engineer Cory Steiss of Davenport
Engineering; Development Consultant Burrows Smith; Environmental Engineer Steve Morrison
of Land Management. ESP is the surveyor for the project. He then introduced John Frye, Executive
Director for the Trinity land project with Lutheran Services Carolinas, to explain their vision for
the property.
John Frye provided a history of Lutheran Services Carolinas, which was started in Hickory,
NC in 1960 with a single nursing home and has grown today to seven skilled nursing and
rehabilitation centers, one assisted living facility, two independent retirement communities, and
one adult day care center, and has in excess of 2,000 employees. He provided their vision, mission,
and value statements, which were not created by the home office and handed down. There was
employee involvement in every one of them and they are values that we take to heart and live and
work by every day. Mr. Frye stated they are very proud of the local Trinity Grove facility, which
was opened in June 2011. It has a very good reputation in the community and if this project is
approved we would expect Trinity Landing would have the same reputation and presence. If it is
approved, he will have the privilege of being the second director. Mr. Frye was the first
administrator of Trinity Grove also. To speak about the 30-year vision, part of this property was
given to us by Mrs. Able Lawson Crumpler and creating this project would finish the vision of
Mrs. Crumpler and other visionaries like C.D. Gurganious, Emma Hutaff, Bill Rainey, Henry von
Oessen and others who were instrumental in the development of the original project. They had
their first meeting on March 4, 1983 at the Terrace End Restaurant in Wilmington. Our mission
is to bring this project to fruition and if we do, we think it will honor those who have worked for
it in the past, as well as serve those that will be served by it in the future.
Mr. Nichols introduced Architect Tim Mueller to address some of the key components.
Architect Tim Mueller stated that Mr. Schuler had done an excellent job providing an
overall description of the project. In terms of the surrounding neighbors, it is very interesting that
the number of aging, income-qualified seniors in this area made this site a very positive thing for
the Wilmington community. The design itself took into account the needs of Trinity Landing, their
goals, and what they wanted to accomplish. It is a unique retirement community in the sense that
life plan communities or CCRC’s, the older term that is used, usually have multiple components
on the site. This is going to be more unique in keeping with the residential context of the
neighborhood. This is going to be all independent living, and then a mile and a quarter away,
Page 6 of 34
Trinity Grove will provide skilled nursing, as well as other services that are on the higher level of
care.
Architect Mueller stated in regard to the site itself, working with the community and with
the neighbors, adjustments were made to the design. Originally, bigger buildings were closer to
the residential neighborhood to the north on Captains Lane. They have since modified that and
created buildings where the taller component you see is reduced in terms of breaking down the
massing of the building for the neighbors to the north.
Architect Mueller stated that while they do have that bigger component, which are some
3-story buildings with miscellaneous commons on the front of the site, being mindful of the
neighbors, they have tried to wrap the villa buildings around them in a residential setting on two-
thirds of the site. Typically, there are six residences per building with parking underneath, with the
idea of tying back to the larger EDZD context, creating a residential experience, and wrapping the
roads around being mindful of the existing vegetation and integrating the whole site into the design.
Architect Mueller presented a rendering of the larger building Mr. Schuler talked about, noting the
location of the common spaces, the wellness center, dining, and other common amenities, as well
as the size of the villa buildings and the clubhouse.
Architect Mueller noted that the project construction is being phased so initially there will
be a Phase I, consisting of 70-80 apartments and then just over 50 villas being built back here with
connections. Phase II will complete that by adding 40 -60 apartments to the end of the bigger
building and then filling out the rest of the villas in the middle of the site. He stated that one of
the really exciting things about this site is the connection to the Intra-Coastal Waterway and being
able to play off that with a cart path that will come out to a pavilion and a 9-slip boat dock, which
is a big advantage that most retirement facilities don't have and a unique feature to be able to
provide in the Wilmington area.
Attorney Matt Nichols stated Mr. Schuler had gone through all the different points and
criteria, which are pretty detailed in the application, but noted the applicant’s proposal does meet
all of the core requirements, as well as a number of the additional requirements for a total of points
achieved under the ordinance. As noted in the staff report, that number of points would actually
allow considerably more density than the applicant is requesting, but we wanted to achieve as
many points as we could. We are limiting the number of senior living units to 220 for the entire
site, both phases.
Attorney Nichols stated the points and criteria are summarized nicely in the application
and the staff report, but the comprehensive plan that the county passed recently has a number of
key components in that and the applicants feel that we meet virtually all of the main planning
objectives for mixed use and having a very efficient design. The EDZD is an exceptional design
and it does compel you to do an exceptional design and that's what the ordinance has done here.
Mr. Nichols noted the applicant has gone above and beyond in some of the conditions we self-
imposed following the discussion with the neighbors. That information is in the staff report, but
we're happy to go over any of those.
Page 7 of 34
Attorney Nichols said we're adding jobs, which is another big component here, adding 65
full-time jobs and that's something you wouldn't have with a traditional development under the
existing zoning.
Attorney Nichols commented in regard to an excerpt from the New Hanover County
Comprehensive Plan 2016, the applicants feel they are meeting a number a number of those
policies and goals. A total of three community meetings were held. Two meetings were held as the
ordinance requires before even submitting the application. Those meetings were held at the Trinity
Grove facility, and as a result of those, a follow-up meeting was held with the residents that live
on Captains Lane just north of the site. They were all very productive meetings. Attorney Nichols
stated it was very helpful to be able to explain the project and the vision for the site.
Attorney Nichols stated that besides being good neighbors, this is low impact design, we
can talk about some of the low impact development techniques that we will be using. We feel it's
very efficient and well designed and a common thread throughout all of this is the EDZD ordinance
requires you to have an environmentally sensitive design. Mr. Schuler mentioned the proposed
conditions so I won’t review those in detail, but this will be an age-restricted community for
residents 62 years of age and older. We have added a number of setbacks beyond what the
ordinance requires, including extra buffering, extra setbacks, and we're going to be using a number
of low impact development techniques. We are looking forward to connecting to the proposed
future Masonboro Loop Road path when that comes into existence, and we will certainly meet any
of the transportation improvements required by the traffic study. The buffer section has already
been discussed.
Attorney Nichols stated in regard to the benefits of the rezoning, a key point is the
environmentally sensitive design consistent with the comprehensive plan and the future land use
map for the county, as well as that it provides much-needed housing options for seniors. As the
TIA points out and our traffic engineer can explain, we are having less peak hour impact than an
R-15 buildout on the same site. That's partly because of the senior living component and also the
employees that will be working at the facility, a majority of them would arrive in the pre-peak hour
times for the shift for getting the food service and things together in the morning would be before
the busy 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. morning hour and would be leaving earlier in the day than the
typical 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. peak hour in the evening.
Attorney Nichols stated a huge benefit to the area is the installation of the pump station the
applicants will be providing onsite. It will be sized in such a way that the un-sewered community
to the north at Captains Lane will be able to tie in to it, which will be a huge benefit to those
residents, who are currently on septic tanks. Mr. Tunstall is present to provide details and address
infrastructure questions. Staff is recommending approval of the application. The staff report
concludes that the proposal is consistent with the EDZD requirements and the policies listed in the
comprehensive plan and the EDZD ordinance. Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning
with conditions. All of the conditions recommended are acceptable to the applicants. Attorney
Nichols stated in conclusion, he would emphasize that this presents a rare opportunity in the sense
that it's not often you have fifty contiguous acres that you can comprehensively design. We feel
like the EDZD ordinance really provides the best framework to do so. Attorney Nichols stated
that considering the current zoning versus what's being proposed, the applicants think the rezoning
being requested is much better to develop this special property, and again, is an opportunity to
Page 8 of 34
develop it in a comprehensive manner. Attorney Nichols expressed appreciation for the board’s
consideration of the proposal and offered to answer any questions they may have.
Chairman Girardot asked if board members had any questions for Mr. Nichols, Mr.
Mueller, or Mr. Frye.
Board Member Jordy Rawl asked the architect to elaborate and provide more information
about the definition of a hybrid home, noting it is listed on the one of the keys as one of the potential
dwellings to be constructed onsite. Tim Mueller explained that a hybrid home is basically a six-
residence building. On the lower level, you will typically have two apartments at grade with
parking in the building. On the second floor there will be four resident units. The y actually have
an elevator for every 6-unit building. There is one location on site with a slight slope, and we'll
be potentially doing 4, 4, and then into the grade, the parking underneath that so that would be
where Mr. Schuler in his report has some of the buildings will have 8 units; there will potentially
be two of them. Once we work out the grades, it may vary or it may go back to six by the time we
get done. Architect Mueller said you could think of it as a really small apartment flat. Some of
them you will see in other parts of the country where they call them mansion flats; we call them
villa buildings or hybrid homes, but essentially, it is a six-unit building.
In response to Board Member Rawl’s inquiry regarding whether the units will be
transferable, condominiums, or rentals offered by Lutheran Services, Architect Mueller stated they
will not be rental per se, but they will be owned by Lutheran Services Carolinas. In a traditional
retirement community that is not rental, they do more of an entry fee model where they still own
it and you put down an entry fee based on the size unit and the package you are wanting; then from
there you will age in place for a period of time, and at the point where you need additional services,
skilled care or assisted living, you would go to Trinity Grove. Board Member Rawl said it would
be safe to assume from that comment that the course of construction will follow a flow more that
of a commercial site rather than a residential, there's not going to be a lot of picking and choosing
of individual units, it will be a mass construction effort at one time. Architect Mueller explained
the construction will be phased, but a critical mass will be in Phase I to support all the amenities,
including the wellness center, the dining, the library, and other amenities. Mr. Schuler’s report
mentions 70-80 units in terms of the bigger buildings and then 50+ of the villa apartments.
Board Member David Weaver asked what the total square footage of a 6-unit hybrid
building would be. Architect Mueller replied that each apartment would vary in size from 1,300
sq. ft. up to just over 1,600 sq. ft. That’s where the program is sitting right now so each six-unit
building would be approximately 10,000 sq. ft. In response to another inquiry from Mr. Weaver,
Architect Mueller confirmed the applicants will be incorporating passive solar energy design
features in the buildings as a result of their southern orientation on the site. It’s one of the reall y
fun things about working on this project. In a lot of communities, cost drives everything for these
projects so you are always faced with that. With the EDZD, it really sets a different standard for
us so we are thinking about how we’re shading the windows, how we’re doing the overhangs, as
well as some other screening going on. Then, to the five percent renewable energy, we're currently
looking at using solar panels on the roofs on the south face. In regard to the orientation of the
buildings, we very mindfully located and organized this site to get as much south face as we could,
and then one of the challenges is also keeping with the vernacular of an area and trying to play off
balance between overhang and the vernacular and making it all come together.
Page 9 of 34
Board Member Paul Boney inquired about the location of the pump station on the site,
noting that doing the pump station so that people in other neighborhoods can tie into it is a great
feature. John Tunstall of Norris & Tunstall Engineers, explained the pump station will be located
on the southeast portion of the property next to UNCW so it will be away from the residents. We
will be offering gravity sewer that comes down on our site down to the pump station and then
offering easements over to the surrounding property, which would be north and south of us for
them to tie into the new pump station. He confirmed the applicant will as part of our construction
have a manhole there for them to tie into at the road.
Chairman Girardot commented in regard to heating and cooling systems for the
development, several years ago there were issues with the heating and cooling towers and
excessive noise at the MARBIONC center. She inquired how that type of situation would be
prevented and addressed. Architect Tim Mueller said they haven’t decided on the final systems to
use, but he could provide an overview description. For the villa buildings, it will be very much like
the homes next door, a split DX heat pump system for all of those, which is about two -thirds of
the site. For the bigger building, we are looking at two approaches. His preference is a water source
heat pump system, which does have a cooling tower, but they will use a low frequency, low sound,
direct-drive cooling tower, which means instead of having a lot of belts and pulleys like many
cooling towers do, it will be a direct drive, and the size of the fans will be increased so they move
slower and produce less noise for the community. Architect Mueller commented that because this
is a residential building, they have the same concern and must be very mindful of the amount of
sound that the equipment produces for the residents moving into their community. They do pay
attention to the noise. Because this is a residential community, although we have dining, a wellness
center, and other amenities, in terms of the needs and drive demand for cooling and heating, it will
be less than a marine biology building. He speculated that UNCW probably had a lot of rooms and
clean rooms that had to exhaust a lot of air so they probably had to supply a lot of air into the
marine sciences building. Architect Mueller explained the proposed residential use won’t have that
demand issue. In regard to the energy requirements, these are very tight buildings and inside all
the units there is a vertical unit that would look very similar to what you have in your home, except
instead of being connected to the outside to get its heating and cooling in terms of discharging air,
we would have hot water and cold water running to those particular units and that is how they are
heated and cooled. That is the system that would really meets the HERO standards. If we run into
cost and design issues later, we’ll then go to the same system being used on the villas, which will
be a residential air/heat pump system where the condensing units are small units like in your home,
however, the units would sit on the roof. For the common areas, there will be slightly bigger
package rooftop units for those common areas that are one and a half stories.
In response to Chairman Girardot’s inquiry regarding her concerns about left turns during
the peak hours, Attorney Nichols stated that employee start times would be earlier than the AM
peak hour. In regard to staggering of employee start times due to the different amenities being
provided, Administrator John Frye explained that out of the total 65 projected employees, a great
number of those will be involved in the food service department and will arrive at 5am or 6am to
get breakfast ready for the residents and they will leave in the middle of the day. Another large
group of employees will be housekeeping related positions, which will come in before 8am and
leave in the middle of the afternoon, usually a 7am to 3pm shift. There will be some administrative
people, but those numbers are relatively low.
Page 10 of 34
Chairman Girardot commented that the changes to the original site plan to accommodate
the residents in the adjoining properties require the beauty shop, etc. to only be open to the
residents and inquired if they would be viable and able to exist by just serving the facilities
residents. Administrator Frye responded that he didn’t anticipate that, noting that their other two
retirement communities are not open to the public and they exist very well on their own . They
expect the 220 residents to be sufficient to make the businesses viable.
Board Member David Weaver stated the cover summary sheet indicates that the services
are open to the Lutheran Services Carolinas community, which has 2,000 employees and asked
how many in that community would use these amenities also. Mr. Frye stated that there are 2,000
employees throughout the state, but 65 employees are anticipated at Trinity Landing. We do n’t
anticipate a large number of people to visit our site from outside of our organization.
Chairman Girardot inquired if the pavilion would be built in the flood zone, and if so,
would it be elevated and on pilings. Architect Mueller responded that the pavilion will be built in
the flood zone and will have to meet those requirements. It will be slightly elevated and will be an
open pavilion. A couple of bathrooms will be added because that is an important issue for seniors.
In regard to the chairman’s inquiry about large food service delivery trucks, Mr. Frye replied in
his experience with food service deliveries at Trinity Grove, the food service trucks are the short
trucks, not the full size trucks, and they are more than sufficient to meet our needs so we don’t
anticipate a problem.
Vice Chair Ernest Olds asked a member of the development team to speak to traffic
generation related to the proposed development as compared to the site being developed as an R -
15 residential development. Traffic Engineer Cory Steiss of Davenport Engineering explained
that with the senior living community, there would be 42 AM peak trips and 51 PM peak trips, and
with 100 single family homes, it would be 75 AM peak trips and 100 PM peak trips. Mr. Nichols
explained that 100 was the estimated number of homes at the beginning of the process, however,
after the soils test, that number was revised to 96 or 97 homes so he would estimate that 95 homes
would be a good guess.
Board Member Paul Boney noted that Architect Mueller’s answer about the HVAC units
had piqued his interest, particularly in regard to the cooling tower. He would advise the
development team to pay special attention to having that on the ground and pay special attention
to making sure there is some insulated panel and noise dampening panel around that. I think the
residents have already been through that with UNCW and they were able to work with them, but
it caused a lot of concern. He would also advise him to pay special attention in regard to rooftop
units because noise seems to travel pretty readily down there. He hopes the applicants take really
good care and those things cost money, but that’s something they need to understand. Mr. Boney
noted the applicants have taken into account a lot of things with Mr. Tunstall’s pump station to
help the neighbors and the future of New Hanover County and he doesn’t want to see history repeat
itself. Architect Mueller stated our hope is if we end up doing a water source heat pump that it
would be ground mounted. In fact, where the service is planning on coming in is where we would
put the cooling tower. He pointed out that location on the site plan for potential cooling towers,
dumpsters, etc. and agreed that the landscape architect would pay special attention so that it isn’t
the first thing you see when you drive into the site. Architect Mueller noted in terms of a split DX
Page 11 of 34
on a rooftop villa, they would make adjustments to address the noise concerns. He will be very
mindful of the neighbors’ concerns about noise.
Board Member Allen Pope stated overall he thinks the plan is a great plan and a great
opportunity for a dead end subdivision. He inquired if there had been any conversation with
UNCW regarding providing some emergency access to the northern part of the subdivision if there
was an event.
Architect Mueller stated the fire marshal’s big concern is that a car has blocked the
entrance. they haven’t done the design yet, but the fire marshal’s big concern is that a car has
blocked the entrance. One approach would be to come in on the other side if one side was blocked.
We haven't really done the detailed design. If the fire marshal wants another access, we could have
limited or fire only access, which would be a chained entrance for emergency vehicles to undo the
chain and come into the site if both access entryways to the site were blocked. Architect Mueller
noted one of the interesting challenges will be saving the clusters of magnolias and live oaks.
Board Member Pope agreed, but expressed concern that without some other temporary
measure for those easterly residents to get in and out or have emergency fire services if that more
westerly portion is inaccessible that conversation still needs to be held. He commented that the left
turn lane needs to be of substantial length to get those workers in and out of that facility.
Traffic Engineer Cory Steiss stated the TIA has gone through the preliminary process so
most of the technical aspects have been reviewed at this point. Only a northbound right was
recommended. Most of the traffic will be coming from the south on Masonboro Loop Road. They
will look at our recommendations and get back to us.
Chairman Girardot opened the public comment portion of the meeting and extended the
time from fifteen to thirty minutes.
Nine members of the public spoke in support or in opposition to the EDZD rezoning
application.
Francis Roper Lamb of 2113 Bay Colony Lane stated she is a Wilmington native and is in
favor of this rezoning because it offers New Hanover County an opportunity to move forward and
offer services to a group that we need to offer services to in the community and she doesn’t think
they would ever find a better group to work through than Lutheran Services Carolinas. She has
had the opportunity to see them at other sites and knows the quality of their work. She has been to
Trinity Grove on many occasions and it has been a great asset to our community. She is confident
that Lutheran Services would be a great neighbor. The proposed facility not only offers something
in the present for folks in her age group, but also offers us a great future in New Hanover County.
Alan Hunsberger of 225 Gatefield Drive stated he and his wife, Beverly, are in favor of the
rezoning for Lutheran Services. They live not far from the Trinity Landing site. They retired and
moved to Wilmington in 2008, but have been coming to the area since 1976 when his wife's parents
moved here for business. They have seen New Hanover County grow and prosper and remain a
wonderful place to live. They want to continue to live here, but would like to live in a first-rate
Page 12 of 34
independent senior living community that is run on Christian principles. Trinity Landing will be
such a facility and they asked the board to approve the rezoning request.
Jerry Bramley of 4234 Masonboro Loop Road stated he and his wife’s support for the
Lutheran Services rezoning. They bought their property 24 years ago and live on three acres on
Masonboro Loop Road on Whiskey Creek; maintaining that property is becoming cumbersome.
He and his wife also want to move into this community. He asked the planning board to favorably
consider the rezoning request.
Lee Hebner of 5006 Trailing Vine Lane stated opposition to the zoning change, noting he
lives near the entrance. Lutheran Services is a great group and is doing a great job, but he is
concerned about the traffic, which is still a concern for a number of people. Over the last twenty
years, the traffic on Masonboro Loop Road has turned a county road into a major pathway.
NCDOT or New Hanover County has done a marvelous job of making many improvements to
Masonboro Loop Road and he loves driving it for that reason; however, the traffic count for
Masonboro Loop Road in front of this site is 12,000 vehicles a day, which is fifty percent of the
24,000 vehicles per day on College Road near the library before this project is built. He hasn’t
heard any answers to their traffic concerns. He hasn’t seen the traffic analysis and feels it should
be distributed on the website with the latest information so they could see everything. He noted
the difficulties in getting in and out of Trailing Vine Lane and would like to see some action taken
on the traffic side to make this a very good project. He suggested they work out an agreement with
UNCW and build a road into the site from their road to provide emergency access for the project.
Ronald Tiotta a resident of 5408 Captains Lane, the second home on the right, stated he is
not necessarily opposed to the proposal, but he would look here for advice and help to find a way
forward. He met with them and they made some commitments. He is deeply concerned about air
conditioning noise and density, traffic, lighting, and drainage. The board helped them with the
noise issue years ago. We don’t believe the proposed density is warranted at 220. They have certain
requirements, they need to make the numbers look good, and they got the property for free so he
doesn’t see how the equation would require an increased number of units requiring a three-story
apartment complex and 10,000 square foot buildings. These villas will be in close proximity to
the backyards of some of the properties on Captains Lane. It really depends on how they buffer it
and how they treat it. He has every confidence that they will do what’s right, but will they be able
to do it in a way where you don't have an apartment complex in your back yard? These are big
buildings. The issues are density, the air conditioning units, the traffic on Masonboro Loop Road,
the building of an apartment complex or similar and 191 parking spaces and how many of those
parking spaces will be up front in the parking lot. He stated they are not necessarily opposed to the
project and concept, but the EDZD scares him because there is even a provision that allows then
to change things without coming back to the planning board or the county commissioners. The
neighbors want something more concrete if they are going to support a zoning change. This is a
radical departure from an R-15. They couldn't get the density they wanted with an R-7. Those are
the laws put in place to protect us as homeowners. They have to be more restrictive to make sure
the taxpayers' properties and tax values are not adversely affected by such properties. He noted he
has every confidence that they will do what they believe they are going to do and that they will be
a good neighbor, but they said they can’t give it to us in writing. He asked the board to get it in
writing so the neighbors don’t have another UNCW debacle with air conditioners that sounds like
an airport. He also noted they don’t want an issue with lighting on the site and t here is a big
Page 13 of 34
problem with drainage there as certain parts of that property drain toward Captains Lane and
actually come between two houses. He said he would assume once they go into development they
will be required to keep their water on their property by whatever means, but we have run amuck
with some issues on the other side of us with the church that was developed there because we only
have these antiquated ditches and they can only hold so much water and they go back and forth
underneath our road in a residential area. He noted it would be good if they have to connect to a
sewer system and it is an advantage if they put the pump station in. He noted they maintain our
septic tanks and he has spent $15,000 on wells and they have spent $55.000 rebuilding their road,
but they don't complain, they just want a little bit of certainty from the county and the developers
that their property is going to be protected within the guidelines. We're a little scared of EDZD
and don’t want retail in there because we don't know if it can be controlled and what it would
mean. If they limit it to people on that property, that's one thing but if they open it up to anybody
in the Lutheran community, then all of a sudden we have a shopping center on Masonboro Loop
Road without a traffic light and you're asking for trouble.
Barry Tarano of 4901 Merlot Court stated he had sent come comments to Mr. O’Keefe on
March 13, 2017 about why he is against this project, not the project itself, but what it’s going to
do to the area. The traffic on Masonboro Loop Road is phenomenal and it’s going to be worse.
Getting out on it at 8am or 11am is a horror show and coming back to the north in the afternoon is
the same so adding to that traffic is his greatest concern with the project. Also, on the original letter
the developer sent out, they were proposing about 197 units. The number of units has now grown
to 232 units and the number of parking spaces has grown to 352. That's an awful lot of parking,
vehicles, and people. In addition, we have a lot of people going in and out of that area. There will
be no taxes paid because the Lutheran Church does not pay taxes. They will be using county
facilities, county services, and paying no taxes towards them. The local residents will bear that
cost and that is not fair. Even though they are a nonprofit, they are still there to make a profit and
we are going to pay for it. Finally, he commented that there were two meetings attended by him
and Mr. O’Day and they told those people that if they are going to have it to please contact us, we
would like to be there. We were not contacted, we weren't there, and we didn’t even know there
was a third meeting. He said he felt like they had been sandbagged a little bit.
Martha O’Day of 5003 Trailing Vine Lane stated that our zoning laws were put in place to
protect neighborhoods, residents and the environment, and to assure safety. The EMS, Fire, and
Police that we rely on are wonderful, but adding 300-400 senior citizens in this area with limited
access could easily overstretch these resources. If additional services are needed from the county
they would not be paying property taxes so our communities would bear these tax increases. This
is a precedent we don't want set and we hope as our representatives you will understand our
concerns. To add to Mr. Tarano’s comments, they were not included in that meeting so a lot of
their concerns were not met for the Vineyard Green community that is west of Masonboro Loop
Road. She noted the massive building will be right in their entryway and is what the neighborhood
will be seeing. Other concerns have been met, but ours have not been met.
Linda McRae of 4901 Trailing Vine Lan e said she had seen the traffic increase over the
last nineteen years. She expressed concern about the traffic, noting the number of workers at the
site as well as the seniors going into that community, who will likely be very active and on the
move like she is. These are not the seniors of old.
Page 14 of 34
Mark Pasquaren of 5409 Captains Lane thanked the planning board for their comments
about the sound issues with UNCW, noting that really hit on some of his concerns. His other
concern that is less reassuring to him because he lives in the third house is that 60 plus people will
be arriving to work at 5:00 a.m. to take out the trash and get everything ready for breakfast.
Although he understands that is normal operating procedure for a restaurant, etc. that is not normal
for a residential neighborhood so it concerns him. He would like to have some assurance about the
light intrusion and noise level they may experience. He recalled that with the UNCW problem, it
was surprising to their engineers how much it broadcast that noise by putting things up high. The
commissioners decided they would have monitoring of their street to make sure that appropriate
levels of sound and disturbance were kept below certain levels so there was an outcome
requirement, not just good intentions. He thinks monitoring of the sound levels would be helpful
to get his approval.
Chris Batts stated he agreed with Mr. Tiotta’s previous comments and is not totally opposed
to the project. Where it is R-15 at this point, the density could certainly be increased there. There
are a lot of open-ended things so like Mr. Boney said you should look at this very carefully. There
has been no mention of where the berms will be placed except that one will be placed along the
northern portion of the property. Heating and air has been mentioned. The Oak grove they talked
about preserving goes into the lot just north of that and is a continuation of the Henry’s yard so he
doesn’t know how they are going to put a road through there. He inquired how the pavilion is
going to be open and things will be done in order to have the least amount of damage or impact on
the environment. He would like to know what assurances will be in place for the project. He is
concerned about the short-term and long-term effects of the project.
Larry Cleveland of 4916 Trailing Vine Lane stated they are concerned about the right turn
and the left turn. The street is dumping straight into our neighborhood and we’d like to see some
concerns placed on that and remedies as well for that issue. There are a lot of senior citizens
exercising, walking, riding bikes, and dog walking. That is aimed right at our neighborhood and
I’ve already moved off a street on Beasley, Eagles Nest, a corner lot on a through street, and it
destroyed my property value and destroyed our sleep. He doesn’t see that happening, but it is
straight down their street. He asked the applicants and the board to consider that issue.
Joe Farinella of 5610 Captains Lane thanked the planning board for their well thought out
questions, noting they had addressed a lot of his issues and some of his neighbors' concerns. He
is the president of the homeowners’ association and has spent a lot of time talking with Mr. Frye
and Mr. Nichols and thinks Lutheran Services will be great neighbors. He loves the idea of a senior
center. The main concern is the increased density and clearly going to 220 units from what would
be 95 units is an issue. He agreed that seniors drive all the time and are very active. He stated
concern about the accuracy of the number of workers because at the community meeting they had
said there would be 125 workers and now that number has changed to 65 workers. If all of them
arrived at 5:00 a.m. with that many parking spaces, it is clear there is going to be more density.
They could lower the density. The original plan was for 197 units. It was a little disturbing and felt
like a bait and switch when they switched to 220 units at the community meeting. The potential is
for 300 units, and with the EDZD, they can go to 330 units if they get enough points. If there's
minor changes, they only have to see the planning board and they don't have to go through the full
process and it's not really clear what a minor change is. This is a relatively new zoning, there
haven’t seen many of them, and there isn’t much of a precedent. We would love to see a left turn
Page 15 of 34
lane. Sometimes he has to make a right turn when he wants to make a left turn and it is frustrating
to have to take Mohican and then double back. He would think that NCDOT would address the
left turn lane. When traffic is looked at, they always look at the highest possible density. Wh en
they were trying to sell the property years ago, they had various plans. One of them was maximum
density and others had less density so you would probably want to look at an average density.
Furthermore, UNCW really wants to buy their property so it’s possible UNCW buys it and there
would be zero density. He noted he works at UNCW and they have indicated they would want to
use it as a possible lab so it could be green space and a lab. We assume it's going to be maximum
density if it's R-15, but there are other options that are not maximum density or possibly UNCW
not developing it. They came to the board previously looking for R-7. They just want density. It
isn’t consistent with the intent of EDZD, which seems to be mixed use commercial. We are seeking
at least a 35-foot setback, which would be consistent with a R-7 setback. We also want clarity
regarding the berms. He asked what will happen in the future with EDZD. Is the commercial going
to come in, and what would that do to the traffic issues? He stressed that if they could address
these concerns, it would be hard to find a better neighbor. They have been accommodating. There
is a tremendous amount of greenspace and they are working to save trees. They do want those big
buildings and all those people so it could be a lot worse. There are advantages and the Lutherans
are high quality neighbors. He thanked the board for their time and consideration.
Chairman Girardot opened the rebuttal portion of the public hearing.
Attorney Matt Nichols stated those are all very valid comments. He noted some very
productive meetings were held with the neighbors and then addressed some of the concerns
expressed. He pointed out that the EDZD is very flexible, but is also very limiting. The applicant
must comply with what is shown on the plan and the stated conditions. For example, the site plan
states there will be a maximum of 220 units. They could qualify for 28 points. It doesn’t matter;
220 units is the maximum. For 221 units, we will have to back through the entire process before
the planning board and county commissioners and put that as a stated condition. The proposed
setbacks and the berm reflected in the cross-section are all stated as conditions of the proposed
rezoning and were discussed at the community meetings and there is no intent to change those.
We want the neighbors to know we are committed to doing these things we said we are going to
do. He noted this is his first EDZD project; however, if you are dealing with a special use permit,
it doesn't take a lot to become a major change. Minor tweaks and field adjustments are allowed,
but any significant change would be required to come back before the planning board and county
commissioners for approval. The EDZD allows the applicant a lot of flexibility, but it also puts a
lot of conditions and restrictions on the property, which is good for everyone. In regard to the
density comments, the site is approximately 50 contiguous open acres on the waterfront. It is fair
to say if the site is developed near to its maximum density as a single-family development under
R-15, you could have a cluster residential development or town houses and R-15 requires a 25-
foot minimum rear setback. It would not have the buffering that the proposed EDZD development
will be providing, nor all of the benefits of the EDZD design proposed. The commercial uses which
we are limiting to the Trinity Landing development provide a number of benefits. The internal
capture of that so that residents don't have to go out to Monkey Junction to go to the store. Dining
on site; a lot of that is designed to keep it as a reasonably self-contained community and that is a
big traffic benefit. In regard to traffic, a traffic analysis of the comparison of the peak hour of 100,
but we can say 95, but A.M. and P.M. peaks for the proposed EDZD development significantly
lower the traffic impact at the most significant hours. Traffic is actually less in the P.M. and A.M.
Page 16 of 34
peak hours with the proposed development. The applicant sent 97 notices to the neighbors. He said
he would come to their house. After this meeting, between now and the county commissioners
meeting, the applicants are glad to meet with anyone individually. He apologized if someone
wasn't invited to the third community meeting. He offered to meet with anyone as many times as
needed to explain the process. The EDZD process is such that the applicant is giving numerous
assurances about what will be built to a very high quality and very high environmental standards.
That will alleviate many of the concerns heard tonight. In regard to taxes, there is a very
comprehensive response for that question in their application in Exhibit 2-e. He offered to provide
as much detail as the board needs, noting they will be seeking financing through the tax exempt
bonds that are issued pursuant to the health care facilities finance act under the general statutes.
There are a number of requirements for that. In closing, the facility will be a good neighbor and
will be good stewards of the land. We hope to create an open, natural landscape where people will
feel at home outside and be good stewards of the resources.
Chairman Girardot asked Mr. Nichols to address the concerns raised in regard to
monitoring of the sound and light pollution.
Mr. Nichols deferred to Architect Mueller, but said they are fully open to low level lighting,
which was discussed at the community meeting. Josh Mihaly did a good job explaining some of
the advances that have been made in recent years with lighting. We are very committed to having
a high level, high quality project. We don't want excess light pollution for the neighbors or for our
project. The developer will gladly comply with any particular standards the board has in mind.
Architect Mueller stated that sound monitoring can be something that the applicant can try
to incorporate into the conditions. The key is setting up a framework that is a win-win not only for
the residential neighbors, but also for the community itself. We’ve talked about the placement of
some of the equipment. We would have to work with Mr. Frye on what we would do for that
monitoring that would make sense and we would work with our mechanical engineers to figure
out a mechanism and methodology to try to provide those assurances as best we can. Mr. Frye
stated that Architect Mueller had mentioned in his presentation that one of the most critical factors
about the noise that the heating systems will make is that we anticipate having 220 residents
ourselves who will be our most vocal critics if that condition occurs. We've got our own residents
to deal with on sound issues so we're going to be good stewards and not have noise issues.
Chairman Girardot opened the opposition rebuttal period.
Barry Tarano of 4901 Merlot Court expressed concern about the building height, noting
they were told the building height would be no higher than forty feet. The new plan shows a
building height of fifty feet, which is a ten-foot height increase. That makes a difference because
it will be facing their neighborhood and right on Masonboro Loop Road. Anybody coming out of
their neighborhood will be facing that building. He has no doubt that the Lutheran Services would
be a great neighbor. Their primary concern is the density because with density comes traffic and
that is the biggest issue they have.
Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the planning boar discussion
period.
Page 17 of 34
Board member Allen Pope asked the developers in regard to traffic involvement on
Masonboro Loop Road about the potential of a condition for a left turn lane that could serve both
Turning Vine and the subject properties. He would like to hear some comments about that issue as
he thinks that would alleviate some of the concerns that have been expressed by the neighbors. He
would also like to hear some comments about having a conversation with the adjacent property
owner, UNCW, regarding the potential for an emergency access only for the site.
Bill McDow of the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization stated as part of our
function we have started evaluating this site for a traffic impact analysis, which is currently under
review. We have reviewed this site with two scenarios. The first scenario is just with the dwelling
units and the second scenario includes all the amenities that are associated with the project. The
access for emergency vehicles would be addressed through the TRC process in terms of providing
what the New Hanover County Department would need for emergency vehicles. That wasn’t
addressed during the initial TRC, but it will be addressed when the project comes through for
construction. One of the recommendation from the TIA from the applicant was a right turn lane.
He will make sure that the TRC knows that the board has requested a left turn lane be considered
as part of the evaluation to determine if it meets the guidelines for it. This TIA is still under staff
review and various staff members are putting their comments on it now.
Attorney Nichols confirmed that the applicant is willing to engage in a discussion with
UNCW regarding the possibility of an emergency only access, noting UNCW may find it
beneficial for them also. He reported that all of the buildings will be fully sprinklered, which is
significant to note. Cory Steiss stated that based on the number of left turns going in and the
opposing traffic, it wasn't warranted to have a southbound left. Obviously that's not a guideline,
but that may be something that upon review they come back and say for safety purposes that's
something they would like.
Board Member Paul Bonney commented that one of the things the folks in opposition to
the project are looking for is some certainty about the traffic issue. Two people have stated that
it’s under review. It may not be warranted under the technical piece, but it seems to be something
of real concern to the neighbors. A lot of employe es would pull out in that middle lane. Mr. Boney
noted from a resident standpoint and from a safety standpoint, that might be something the
applicant may want to do as a good neighbor because traffic is going to be the biggest issue in that
area. While there is an expense to adding that center lane, the applicant may want to consider
agreeing with it as it may be the difference between neighbors being unhappy or happy with the
project. He drives that road often and thinks the applicant would be a fantastic neighbor. Mr. Boney
is also aware of the problems with getting out of places and how much the traffic has grown in that
area. Mr. Boney then inquired if the applicant would also be able to tap into a water line when they
put in the sewer line or if there are future plans for water access.
John Tunstall confirmed that water exists along Masonboro Loop Road, which the
applicant will tie into for their development. They haven’t talked to the Cape Fear Public Utility
Authority about whether they will be required to master meter the water line because typically in
multi-family settings there is a master meter. If the project’s water line must be master metered, it
would be limited to their development. If their development is not required to be master metered,
they could certainly stub out pipes in the proposed utility easements that go to the north and south,
which could then be extended if desired. He explained the adjacent neighborhood could then put
Page 18 of 34
in a water line along Captains Lane and tie into the existing water line along Masonboro Loop
Road. Mr. Tunstall noted he will be an advocate during talks about CFPUA that this would be a
way not to master meter to extend water lines down to the easement so the adjoining neighborhoods
could be served and CFPUA could pick up new water customers.
Board Member Boney commented that he had mentioned that as a future option for those
folks to get off the wells and onto the water system if they wanted to do so. Mr. Tunstall noted
that CFPUA would have the final say in that regard.
Board Member Jordy Rawl stated that a speaker in opposition had commented about the
tax implication for property taxes that would potentially not be contributed by this development
because of its nonprofit status. Mr. Rawl asked Mr. Nichols to comment on what potential
reimbursement there would be to the county for facilities used to accommodate traffic, etc.
Attorney Matt Nichols stated that Exhibit 3e was submitted with the application, with a
heading of NC Medical Care Financing, and consists of two pages, as well as the latest community
stewardship report from Lutheran Services Carolinas. It contains the details of the type of financing
that will be sought for this project under Chapter 131a of the general statutes and the regulations
implemented under that talks about how an entity such as Lutheran Services Carolinas can seek
this property tax exemption for the numerous reasons and the legislative findings as far as the
benefits to the citizens of the state and the need for these types of facilities. Noting he is not an
expert in these types of projects, Attorney Nichols stated that one of the requirements in the statutes
is that we set forth in our application that this is under Section 105-278.6a of the statute for
qualified retirement facility that Lutheran Services Carolinas will provide at least five percent of
the facility's resident revenue for the financial reporting period will be provided in charity, care to
its residents, in community benefits or both. That is one of the numerous conditions that must be
met. Last year alone, based upon the reports that have to be generated with this financing, Lutheran
Services Carolinas provided over fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) in unreimbursed healthcare
in 2016. Attorney Nichols stated it is his understanding that the General Assembly has made this
type of financing available if you can meet the very strict requirements and fulfill all the regulations
and the obligations that come with that.
Board Member Rawl noted the state statute indicates they are exempt from income tax, and
asked if the state statute addresses the facility being tax exempt from a real estate perspective in
New Hanover County. Attorney Nichols confirmed the state statute does address the ad volorem
real estate tax and does exempt the facility from property taxes in New Hanover County.
Chairman Girardot asked for a clarification on the building height, noting a building height
of forty feet was indicated in the agenda package, not fifty feet. Architect Mueller confirmed there
was an error in the documents. One of the team members listed the building height to the top of
the roof, but the requirement for New Hanover County is to show the calculation to the mean
height of the sloped roof, which will be forty feet.
Board Member Boney asked for a clarification in regard to the building height shown on
the proposed site plan, noting if the well is done it would potentially be lower. A rchitect Mueller
explained the drawing shows a building height of fifty feet to the top of the peak. If the applicant
does a water source heat pump, it will remain. The water source heat pump does not need the well
Page 19 of 34
continuous throughout the entire larger building and if it goes to split DX, the height would drop.
Architect Mueller also clarified that none of the split DX units would be visible on the roof when
driving by the site. The split DX units would be hidden.
Architect Mueller stated appreciation to the board members for asking for a clarification
on the building height. The calculation to the mean height of the roof is basically the middle of the
slope, which is the definition of building height. The applicant is considering two approaches
depending on the mechanical systems we use. The water source heat pump system goes on the
ground and there's a couple locations where you have some stuff on the roof, but generally
speaking it comes to a pitch, and the maximum mean height will be forty feet and peak height
would be fifty feet, which will be three stories, plus the roof.
Board Member David Weaver asked for a clarification on the location and the
specifications of the berms, noting he had seen an approximate profile of a berm height.
Landscape Architect Josh Mihaly explained that as part of their conditions there are
stringent setbacks on the project so they have imposed a thirty-foot vegetative buffer along the
entire northern property line and that must remain. They must keep all the vegetation and then
supplement that. They didn’t put the berm along the northern property line because the plan is to
save as much of the vegetation as possible and supplement that. Their goal is to locate the berm
just to the north side of the entry drive. In the community meetings, the major concern was the
noise of the cars so it made more sense to locate the berm along the drive and they didn't put any
restrictions on the height of the berm; only that it will be a vegetative berm, but because the berm
could change in height depending on the trees, we want to allow flexibility. If we say we're going
to put a 6-foot high berm along the road, then at 3 to 1 they would potentially have to harm or kill
the trees in about twenty feet of area. They would like the flexibility for an undulating berm that
lies just to the north side of the entry drive and allows us to screen the vehicular cars as much as
possible from the residents to the north. Mr. Mihaly reviewed the cross-sections in the two most
critical areas noting they have shown cross-sections in the two most critical areas. The Section A
cross-section shows closer to the front of the project along the larger three-story building and the
Captains Lane property line, reflecting the buffer, the large setback and existing vegetation that
will be kept, along with the intermittent berm located by the entry drive. They feel that the berm
will do a much better job blocking the cars in that location than keeping it closer to the northern
property line. The same is true for Section B, which is closer to the villas and is located in a section
where we have to push the road to its closest point to the Captains Lane property line. They have
held the berm just along the road and not along the property line.
Board Member Weaver inquired if given the height of a car, a possible condition might be
that the berms will be a minimum of five feet high and will go along the north side of the road to
the extent possible given driveways and other things that might interfere with the placement of a
berm.
Landscape Architect Mihaly responded that instead of imposing a strict height on the berm
itself, it might be better to impose a strict height on the opacity of the berm and the total height of
the vegetation on top of the berm. A five-foot berm with eight-foot wax myrtles on top of it would
provide twelve feet of height and would allow the flexibility for the berm to intermittently roll
along the road.
Page 20 of 34
Chairman Girardot pointed out that the minimum distance is a 100-foot buffer that is shown
there and that is certainly a very large, good-sized buffer.
Board Member Weaver asked staff if there was any conditional language that could be
applied in regard to the air conditioning noise as was done on a previous rezoning.
Board Member Allen Pope asked the landscape architect to provide a clarification on the
definition of “intermittent berm,” which was referenced in the presentation, noting that an
intermittent berm could mean different things to different people.
Landscape Architect Mihaly explained that it is still going to be a continuous berm and the
condition stated in the staff report requires a continuous berm along the northern property line.
The berm will not stop; it will keep going, but will intermittently have the ability to roll. It will be
a rolling berm, but the applicant has not specified a specific height to the berm.
Board Member Weaver stated he would suggest as a condition of approval that there be a
berm following continuously along the northern side of the road with a minimum height of six feet
of combined berm and landscaping. He felt that would satisfy Mr. Mihaly’s concerns in terms of
having the flexibility to determine how much would be dirt and how much would be landscaping.
Mr. Mihaly agreed that would make good sense.
Burrows Smith stated he was brought onto the development team as a practical developer
with thirty-five years of experience to address the low impact development techniques. He stated
the project, if approved, will have to go through the Technical Review Committee process for
approval, as well as be approved by many other agencies, including the Cape Fear Public Utility
Authority, Duke Power, AT&T, etc. He recommended that the planning board not put conditions
on the project that the developer may not be able to meet, given the developer will be utilizing low
impact development techniques. He reported that low impact development techniques have
worked very well in the River Bluffs development. When using those techniques, you may not be
able to locate infrastructure, berms, etc. where you would like so you will need some flexibility.
Mr. Smith pointed out that the other option for the property is a single-family subdivision, which
will bring issues like looking into people's back yards, houses will be closer to them, there will be
kids, barking dogs, etc. and nothing is under control. This proposal offers a controlled environment
where you won’t have people running weed eaters or leaf blowers six days of the week and one
trash truck will come through so it will be a quieter environment. LED lighting will be there, which
is beautiful and low with 12 foot poles so it is not obtrusive. Consultant Smith stated he would
recommend the board members not get bogged down in the details as the developer will go through
a six- to eight-month process for TRC approval and permitting. All of those issues will be dealt
with at that time and they will have to get through a lot of high hurdles.
Board Member Weaver asked the developer to give him some language to work with for a
condition for the berm.
Board Member Pope clarified that his major concern was the term “intermittent” and he is
not opposed to the berm being able to meander to provide that barrier.
Page 21 of 34
Planning & Land Use Director Chris O’Keefe stated in regard to Mr. Weaver’s earlier
inquiry regarding a condition for air conditioning noise, staff does not have a suggested specific
condition that would be effective at this time. He offered as a condition that the Planning Board
suggest that a condition be worked out prior to the case going to the commissioners meeting and
that the condition be attached to the plan at that time. It doesn’t give the citizens present today the
opportunity to hear that potential condition, but it does give them the knowledge that a condition
will be forthcoming and will be presented with the hearing before the commissioners if the case
goes forward.
Board Member Weaver asked the architect to provide more clarity on the proposed path
for a mechanical system, noting he had indicated earlier they had not made that determination yet
on the type of system. Architect Mueller stated the developer hasn’t designed the mechanical
system yet; they have only done a concept. Normally, the way you approach that issue is you get
through the zoning process and then go through the design to determine the most effective and
appropriate approach to the two systems. The water source heat pump system is a fairly quiet
system, which has a direct drive cooling tower that is much quieter than the old forced air cooling
towers. It is that location of the singular noise source and you still have to provide room around it.
We could build an enclosure that would direct the sound in whatever direction you choose. The
other option, the split DX system is just like your house unit. A condenser for a 1,200 to 1,800
square feet in a neighborhood would have the same noise level as this unit. The difference is we
typically do put these units in that section previously shown, on the roof, recessed.
In response to Board Member Weaver’s inquiry regarding which mechanical system the
developer would go with if the project receives approval, Architect Mueller stated it that our
preference is the water source heat pump because it’s a better quality and gives better energy
utilization. That is our goal, but it is more expensive system than the split DX roof-based system.
Those factors must be weighed, along with the other things the applicant is trying to do on the site,
for example solar photovoltaics on the roof, etc. It's trying to balance all of that with meeting this
desire to serve not only those of reasonable means, but also those of more modest means in the
community.
Attorney Nichols confirmed the applicant agrees with the conditions recommended by
staff.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Boney regarding wetlands on the site,
Consultant Steve Morrison stated he doesn’t foresee any wetlands issues that would affect the
density on the site or the proposed layout. A wetlands delineation was done and was approved by
the Corps of Engineering early on in the process.
Chairman Girardot asked Attorney Nichols to come forward and stated at this time you
may ask to continue the application to a future meeting or to proceed with this board deciding
whether to recommend approval or denial of the application. What do you wish to do?
Attorney Matt Nichols confirmed the applicant would like to proceed with a decision by
the planning board.
Page 22 of 34
Chairman Girardot opened the floor for additional board discussion or a motion on the
rezoning request.
Board Member David Weaver stated he is in favor of the project and thinks the board can
put conditions on it that would make it acceptable to the surrounding area. He offered to make a
motion to approve upon conclusion of the board discussion.
Board Member Jordy Rawl confirmed he is also in favor of the project. There are pros and
cons whenever there is change. The applicant’s project team is very professional and capable of
moving a project of this magnitude forward. There are certain conditions he would be leery of
imposing upon the applicant because the project design process is in its infancy and there will
opportunities in the future for other departments to weigh in with site specific criteria to meet the
technical requirements imposed by the definitions and language within this EDZD zoning code. It
is encouraging to see a faith-based organization come together and try to adhere to an underutilized
resource in the county's design and code ordinance. There are some unfortunate impacts with the
increased density but, they are not adding to the impact on schools, it is a senior citizen project,
and will not be utilizing the roadway during the peak hours as much as a by-right subdivision. Mr.
Rawl noted again he would be leery to overburden the applicant with insurmountable conditions
that they may not be able to adhere to given there will be other opportunities for those to be
imposed.
Chairman Girardot agreed with Mr. Rawl, noting this project hasn’t gone to the TRC yet
and she wouldn’t want to tie the hands of the development team too early in the process. The
applicant has put together an excellent project. Undertaking this EDZD concept is difficult and
expensive. In the long run, it will pay dividends for the neighbors and the community, as well as
for the applicant and the folks that they serve. She noted an R-15 development would produce
more traffic and more impact on the environment and on the neighbors. No major changes can be
made to the project without these folks coming back to this board and the county commissioners
so what you see today is what you are going to get. She stated her support of the proposed rezoning
and that she is not willing to put too many additional technical conditions on the project at this
time.
Vice Chair Ernest Olds echoed the chairman’s comments, noting it is important that the
county commissioners understand the planning board has some concerns about sound and light
and if the applicant will address those concerns during that time, the public will have the ability to
come to the commissioners hearing and speak their concerns there as well. The board isn’t asking
too much of the applicants to at least bring those matters back and discuss them in an open forum
once again in another month.
Chairman Girardot commented that Mr. McDow, Transportation Planner with the
Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization, has committed, along with the Planning staff, to
look at the traffic issue during the TRC process and any type of alleviation of the traffic problems
that may be encountered there as well. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Girardot
entertained a motion on the rezoning request.
MOTION: Board Member David Weaver MOTIONED, SECONDED by Allen Pope, to
recommend approval of the application because it is:
Page 23 of 34
1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan
because the General Residential place type promotes a mixture of housing options.
The proposed development will provide multi-family, senior housing at an
appropriate density in an area primarily consisting of single-family housing.
2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed EDZD development
promotes environmentally responsible growth and alternative forms of travel that
will help reduce the dependency on the automobile.
Conditions:
1. Trinity Landing will be restricted to residents who are 62 years of age and older
with the exception that spouses residing in the same unit may be 55 years of age or
older.
2. The Common/Commercial areas of the project - such as the proposed restaurant,
mini-convenience market, wellness center, beauty salon and spa - will not be open
to the public and will only be open to the Lutheran Services Carolinas community,
their residents, and their guests.
3. In addition to all other applicable setbacks the development must comply with the
following minimum building setbacks:
Northern property line:
i. 100-foot setback for Villa/Hybrid structures.
ii. 200-foot setback for three-story structures.
iii. 30-foot setback for all other structures.
Front property line (Masonboro Loop Road)
i. 200-foot setback for three-story structures.
4. A 30-foot vegetative buffer must be provided along the northern property line.
Existing vegetation must remain within the buffer to the maximum extent
practicable or be supplemented as necessary to provide for a fully opaque screen.
An intermittent berm with indigenous plantings must be installed along the northern
portion of the development as illustrated within the buffer strip section detail of the
application.
5. The drive lane along the northern portion of the site must setback at least 90 feet
from the northern property line, except along the Villa/Hybrid structures (Section
B of the site plan), where the drive lane must be set back at least 30 feet from the
northern property line. An additional row of native evergreen landscaping must be
planted along the northern side of the drive row as illustrated on the site plan
(Section B).
6. The development will use dry detention areas where possible as generally depicted
on the concept plan based on new BMP practices utilizing native indigenous
planting and grasses.
7. A 20-foot wide access easement must be dedicated to the County along Masonboro
Loop Road for the purposes of installing a future multi-use path/pedestrian facility
in accordance with the NHC/Wilmington Greenway Plan.
Page 24 of 34
8. The transportation improvements required as part of the approved Traffic Impact
Analysis must be installed in accordance with NCDOT’s standards prior to issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy.
9. The applicant will pursue low profile lighting.
10. The applicant will pursue air conditioning units that will utilize enclosed water
sourced heat pumps and use split DX heat pumps in areas where the enclosed water
source heat pumps would not be economically feasible. Both heating and air
conditioning sources would use appropriate and practical sound attenuation
devices.
During discussion, Chairman Girardot stated she can accept the first eight conditions, but
can't support the last two added conditions. She noted the developer has already agreed they will
be introducing the LED lighting.
Board Member Paul Boney stated there had been a lot of discussion about the air
conditioning. The residents will reinforce that quickly if it’s not done properly and he has faith in
the development team and the Lutherans to do the right and best thing. It is not about money, but
is about that balance between the neighbors and your business because you want to be good
neighbors. They may find another more economical system. He didn’t agree with tying the
developers’ hands to a condition at this point in the process and thinks they understand the severity
of it. Board Member Boney stated he would like to proceed with the eight conditions as
recommended by staff and trust the system to require the others.
Board Member Jordy Rawl agreed with Mr. Boney’s comments. None of the board
members are mechanical experts so he would be hesitant to place a condition on the applicant
without a good basis. He offered to make a new motion with the original eight conditions suggested
by staff.
Board Member Weaver explained that he asked the architect about air conditioning plans
before including it, but he was fine with eliminating the condition if the board didn’t agree, and
with removing the low profile lighting condition if it is on the site plan.
Board Member Weaver asked Mr. Pope to comment on language to improve emergency
access to the eastern pod of the development. Chairman Girardot suggested that issue be left up
to the TRC review process because Fire Services would make a recommendation on emergency
access requirements. Board Member Weaver commented that as Chairman of the TRC, it would
be difficult for him to require a stricter standard than the Planning Board-approved site plan. Board
Member Rawl noted County Fire Services could require a condition as a voting TRC member.
Board Member Allen Pope suggested two alternate conditions to resolve some of these
concerns:
1) The developers have conversations with staff to potentially develop performance criteria
to address the noise issue;
2) The developers have conversations between now and the county commissioners meeting
with the southern property owners to determine if it would be feasible to have an
emergency services only access between the two properties.
Page 25 of 34
Board Member Weaver said he would like to re-word his original motion to remove the
last two extra conditions and add Mr. Pope’s suggested alternative conditions as stated.
Planning & Land Use Director O’Keefe commented that it is constructive for staff and the
development team to talk about what can be done to assure that the noise issue is addressed.
However, performance criteria sets up a situation where possible enforcement becomes a
responsibility that is on-going and difficult. The challenge is for the development team to solidify
their proposal by the commissioners meeting and present what they’ll do and how they will address
the noise issue. Staff can review it with them, but he doesn’t know about criteria that would be
enforceable and meaningful beyond that. In regard to the emergency access, Mr. O’Keefe saw no
harm in talking with UNCW about potential access; however, the TRC will be looking at that issue
and will need to be satisfied about how emergency services will be made accessible.
Board Member Boney suggested the applicant start with Fire Services and if they approve,
then go to UNCW to work out a possible agreement. Board Member Pope stated in regard to those
two additional conditions, he felt it was important for those conversations to be held prior to the
county commissioners meeting in order to address the concerns expressed by the residents either
before the commissioners meeting by holding more community meetings or at the commissioners
meeting. Vice Chair Olds agreed it needs to be in the record that this is what the planning board
intends to happen. It is not a condition of the site plan as much as it is our wish that the applicants
have those conversations with the appropriate parties and come to the next public hearing with the
information the citizens are interested in.
Chairman Girardot stated that Mr. Nichols, Mr. Frye, and Mr. Mueller have heard the
concerns expressed in regard to those two issues and she wasn’t sure she would support that
condition. Board Member Pope stated he would withdraw his two recommended alternate
conditions if the applicant would actually state that in the record.
Attorney Nichols agreed for the record to have conversations with the appropriate parties
to address an emergency-only access and criteria to address noise prior to the county
commissioners meeting.
Chairman Girardot entertained a vote on the revised motion with eight conditions as listed
in the planning board agenda package.
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z17-05 with
eight conditions.
Chairman Girardot announced a five-minute recess.
RECESS
Chairman Girardot called the meeting back to order.
Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z17-05) – Request by Design Solutions on behalf of the property
owners, Castle Hayne Junction Partnership, in order to rezone 3.16 acres located at the 5300
Page 26 of 34
block of Castle Hayne Road from O&I, Office and Institutional District, to (CZD) B -2,
Conditional Highway Business District, in order to develop a contractor’s office.
Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea provided information pertaining to
location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, and
photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Andrea presented the following staff
report:
• This is a request to rezone 3 parcels totaling 3.16 acres from O&I to conditional B-2
district to develop a 4,800 square ft. warehouse and office building for a specialty trade
contractor. The subject property includes three parcels: 5301, 5307, and 5311 Castle
Hayne Road, located at the roundabout in Castle Hayne. Although three parcels are
included in the rezoning, only the southernmost parcel at 5301 Castle Hayne Road is
subject to development. The other two parcels are owned by Castle Hayne Volunteer
Fire Department. The existing fire station is located at 5311 Castle Hayne Road, and
5307 Castle Hayne Road is undeveloped. No changes are proposed to these two parcels.
All three parcels were included in the rezoning so that the existing B-2 district to the
north is expanded. The parcel at 5301 Castle Hayne Road by itself would not meet the
5-acre requirement for a B-2 zoning district.
• Zoning to the west is RA, Rural Agriculture and is low density single family. To the
south is O&I zoning and contains the existing office building for Southbay Roofing.
Across Castle Hayne Road is R-15 zoning and contains low density single family
residential. There is a smattering of B-2 zoning in the area, some of which is vacant.
• As shown on the proposed site plan for the development, only the southernmost parcel
is proposed for new development, including the 4800 SF building, parking, and an
outside storage area. With the conditional rezoning, the other two parcels would be
locked in to remaining as they are until a rezoning is submitted to change the use or
development. On the southern parcel, fencing and vegetation would be installed along
the western property line to buffer the new use from the existing residential. The
development would be subject to stormwater regulations that would be reviewed as part
of the review and permitting process. A 20’ wide easement will allow for future
development of a bicycle and pedestrian facility. Traffic generation is minimal, with 9
AM peak hour trips and 8 PM peak hour trips; a TIA was not required to be completed.
The Level of Service (LOS) of Castle Hayne Road is just at an F, with a volume to
capacity ratio of 1.07. A relatively new roundabout was completed recently and replaced
the old intersection configuration at Castle Hayne and North College Roads.
• The area is classified as Community Mixed Use according to the 2016 Comprehensive
Plan. Staff finds the request consistent with the placetype as well as with the Castle
Hayne Community Small Area Plan. Staff recommends approval of the request and a
recommended motion is included in the agenda package.
Mr. Andrea concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions from board
members.
Page 27 of 34
Hearing no questions from planning board members Chairman Girardot opened the public
hearing and recognized the applicant.
Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions stated she represents the owners of the property and
Southbay Roofing, which currently rents an office just south of Garden Place Drive and has been
there for a while. Because of the Office & Institutional zoning, they are unable to keep their trucks,
materials, or equipment there onsite. A special trades or contractor that does have some outdoor
storage or trucks, etc. needs to be in a B-2 zoning district. For that reason, they are in an unusual
situation where they are actually zoning property that isn’t intended to be developed, but the
volunteer fire department was very cooperative in assisting the applicants in getting that proximity
to the existing B-2 zone, which is north of that area. currently, New Hanover County Fire Services
Department rents from the volunteer fire department, which is a nonprofit. At some point in time,
they assume that the County will either buy the property and improve it, or if they were ever to
relocate, then the volunteer fire department would have a little more value added, although,
because this is a conditional zoning district, any new plans for that facili ty would have to come
back in front of this board. Ms. Wolf stated that staff had provided a thorough presentation on the
proposal’s consistency with the comprehensive land use plan. The applicants have worked with
the neighbors as far as the buffer yard and fencing, specifically with the property owner west of
the proposal and her daughter is present to represent her. Ms. Wolf offered to answer any questions
the board may have.
In response to an inquiry by Chairman Girardot, Ms. Wolf confirmed there could be some
outdoor storage in the area that will be screened and fenced. There will be a fence, which is the
required buffer including screening, planting and fence for the actual screening. The applicant will
have some trucks and perhaps some roofing materials, which will also be screened. She pointed
out there is also room inside the building for trucks.
No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the rezoning.
Board Member David Weaver asked if metal fabrication would be done that would be a
noise issue. Cindee Wolf confirmed that no metal fabrication would be done on the site.
Chairman Girardot asked the applicant to come forward and stated at this time you may
ask to either continue the application to a future meeting or to proceed with this board deciding
whether to recommend approval or denial of the application. What do you wish to do?
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 planning board discussion
period.
Vice Chair Ernest Olds stated his support of the rezoning, noting it is straight forward, will
have a neutral end result, will have a fairly low impact use, and is compatible with the area. The
buffering and fence are also positive.
Page 28 of 34
Hearing no other comments, Chairman Girardot entertained a motion.
MOTION: Allen Pope MOTIONED, SECONDED by Paul Boney, to recommend approval as
the planning board finds that the request for a zoning map amendment of 3.6 acres from Office
and Institutional District to CZD (B-2) Conditional Highway Business District as described is:
1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because
the proposal contributes to the mixture of uses encouraged within the Community
Mixed Use place type.
2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed development would
locate a light intensity nonresidential use along a major road corridor and serve as
a transition to the adjacent residential zoning.
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z17-05.
Item 3: Rezoning Request (Z17-06) – Request by Design Solutions on behalf of the property
owners, John & Linda Thompson, and Salvatrice Weaver Heirs, in order to rezone 4.11 acres
located at the 5100 block of Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residential District, to (CZD)
B-2, Conditional Highway Business District, in order to develop a retail store and a
recreational vehicle and boat trailer storage business.
Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea provided information pertaining to
location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, and
photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Andrea presented the following staff
report:
• This is a request to rezone 2 parcels totaling 4.11 acres from R-15 to conditional B-2 to
develop 40,000 SF of enclosed RV, Boat, and Trailer storage and a 19,800 square ft.
specialty retail store. The properties are located at 5119 Carolina Beach Road close to
Monkey Junction. Just to the south and east is a large conditional use B-2 zoning district
that includes Walmart, Lowes Home Improvement, and some other retail uses.
Adjacent to the site is a drive-through convenience store on Carolina Beach Road.
Behind that and adjacent to the rear of the site is Willoughby Park, a townhome style
community within the City of Wilmington’s limits. Across Carolina Beach Road is
Monkey Junction Mini Storage, as well as Royal Palms Mobile Home Park. The two
parcels are mostly undeveloped although there is a residential structure on each.
Walmart to the south and the Lowes Home Improvement store to the east can been seen,
along with Willoughby Park to the northwest.
• Per the proposed site plan, the building in the front is proposed for specialty retail,
selling arts and crafts and other similar specialty products. The two long buildings in
the rear are for covered RV and boat trailer storage in a gated and fenced area. The area
between the buildings is 60’ wide, and there is a hammerhead turnaround at the end of
the buildings. The site would be served by one driveway from Carolina Beach Road,
and a stub will be provided to the Walmart site.
Page 29 of 34
• Traffic generation from the proposal would be 16 AM peak hour trips and 45 PM peak
hour trips. A TIA is not required for this project. Carolina Beach Road at Antoinette
Drive is functioning at a Level of Service of F, with a volume to capacity ratio of 1.15.
Buffering is required along the western property line and will provide a buffer between
the new development and Willoughby Park. Stormwater controls will be required and
reviewed during the permitting phase. Information was included in the application to
show the style of architecture intended for the retail building. Due to the shape of the
property and the adjacent development, the two rear buildings should not be easily
visible from Carolina Beach Road when traveling either direction.
• Improvements are currently underway to improve Carolina Beach Road. The
improvements will include a fence in the median along this stretch of Carolina Beach
Road, and sidewalks on both sides of the road.
• The area is classified as Urban Mixed Use according to the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. Staff
finds the request consistent with the placetype and recommends approval of the request. A
recommended motion is included in the agenda package.
Mr. Andrea offered to answer questions from planning board members.
In response to an inquiry from Board Member Allen Pope, Mr. Andrea pointed out on the
site plan the location of the proposed road stub to the Walmart site.
Hearing no other questions, Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized
the applicant.
Cindee Wolf stated she represents the owners of the property and the developers. As shown
on the zoning map, the two subject parcels are long and narrow and adjacent to the Walmart
Shopping Center. On the opposite side of these lots are the Monkey Mart and then the Willoughby
Park multi-family community. Ms. Wolf explained that her client has always liked the idea of the
Blue Moon on Racine Drive, which is an artisan retail center with artisan crafts, antiques, and
opportunities for craftsmen to rent out little spaces to display their work, and he feels this is a great
location for that type of use. He was unsure of what to do in the second tier of these long, narrow
lots. One of the owner’s businesses is storage so he thought this would be a good opportunity to
use property that would be basically non-visible from the street, but would add some value to the
property.
Ms. Wolf presented a photograph of the area, pointing out the two driveways into the
existing lot and the Walmart lot, which had to buffer because these were residential lots. She noted
there is a 75-foot buffer to the Walmart. There is some vegetation between this and the Monkey
Mart, but at that buffer, they didn’t take a lot of advantage of their entire lot. They are tucked in
there with the trees so there is no reason for any of that visibility to come through.
Ms. Wolf presented an easier to read site plan, noting they would have a turning stub at the
end of a parking lot regardless, but if they carry that pavement to the edge of the property line it
has the potential for future interconnectivity. The applicants have contacted Walmart, which is a
large corporation, and someone responded to their inquiry and asked questions about why it is
Page 30 of 34
needed, why is it wanted, and if it is in just one place. The applicants replied their reason was that
interconnectivity is a good planning policy and is sought by planning staff at all times and the idea
that commercial to commercial, people could be shopping in both facilities without having to get
back onto Carolina Beach Road. Ms. Wolf commented that she had heard through the grapevine
that a signal might be warranted at some point in time at the extension of the main drive that runs
in front of Walmart, but couldn’t get any documentation of that whatsoever. If that were ever the
case and that's where they would put a controlled median on Carolina Beach Road, then obviously
that would also avail the applicant’s clients to be able to get out to a traffic signal to make south
turns if that ever came to pass. It would provide possibilities of interconnectivity because the
Walmart Center does have access points to College Road and Carolina Beach Road, although it
would be a bit of a maze to get through it. An extensive buffer would be required and put in against
the Willoughby Park residential development. It is always a condition of approval that the existing
vegetation must be preserved. An architect has done a very preliminary rendering of the type of
building her client is interested in and what it might look like in regard to the width of building.
The buildings in the back are-three sided and are covered so there is no impact or spillover noise,
etc. to Willoughby Park in the back. There is also a solid wall buffer behind the building. Ms. Wolf
stated that the proposal is that both of these buildings would be totally enclosed so if you purchased
or rented a space in this building for your RV or your boat trailer, you would have your spot and
your garage door. The sixty feet between the buildings is enough room to maneuver but we've also
given the turnaround in the back. In regard to questions during the agenda briefing about an onsite
office and the gate, there would not be an office onsite because the Monkey Junction Self-Storage,
which would operate the storage at the rear is right across the street, so you would go to that office
to create a rental contract for a unit and obtain a code to access the gate to this facility. If, for
whatever reason somebody got in there, that gate can be operated remotely from anywhere, not
just the other office and her client has the 24-hour control over it. There would never be any
backing toward the highway.
Ms. Wolf offered to answer questions from board members. The applicants agree with
staff’s presentation and their determination that the project is consistent with the 2016
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This is an infill type of use and a good mixture to take advantage
of the road frontage, which is appropriate for some type of commercial. A building like this is not
a standard commercial retail use. It has a lot of extra space compared to a commercial center per
square foot of the amount of people that shop there because there's a good bit of warehouse space
involved in this type of use. The applicants hope the planning board will agree and recommend
approval of the proposal.
In response to Chairman Girardot’s inquiry, Ms. Wolf stated if someone reached the gate
with their brother-in-law's boat and didn’t have the gate code, they could call the emergency
number for the storage facility and obtain relief to enter and park the boat or enter and turn around;
thereby, avoiding the need to back the boat and trailer out of the entrance. Ms. Wolf confirmed
there are security cameras everywhere on the facility so they would be monitored the entire time
they entered and exited the facility.
Page 31 of 34
In response to Chairman Girardot’s inquiry regarding washing RV’s and boats or changing
oil, etc., Ms. Wolf confirmed per the rental contract requirements, those types of things are not
allowed in these facilities.
Noting boats have fuel in them and are made of fiberglass, Vice Chair Ernest Olds inquired
how the potential fire load in those common shared enclosed garages will be addressed and how
do we know we’re not creating some sort of additional fire hazard that is separate and different
than another type of building. Ms. Wolf stated that will be addressed in the building code and
introduced Trey McGirt, the manager of the facility, to further address the inquiry. Trey McGirt,
manager of the facility, explained that depending on the square footage, the facility will be required
to have fire walls or sprinklering. He noted they typically build fire walls in anything over 12,000
square feet to provide a separation in the building itself. As far as fire safety or anything else, it's
really no different than parking a car in your garage. In response to Vice Chair Olds’ inquiry, Mr.
McGirt stated the building is made of metal, not concrete, and is not combustible. It will be
partially insulated, but metal and sheeting.
Chairman Girardot inquired if the applicant expected any additional response from
Walmart regarding the road stub to their property line or had just commented that it’s a great idea.
Ms. Wolf explained she didn’t know that Walmart thought it was a good idea because they don’t
need extra people driving through. The big question is who would pay for the connection, since it
is a 75-foot gap. She stated that the applicant had emailed Walmart, Walmart responded with some
questions, the applicant answered those questions via email, and the applicant is now waiting for
a second response.
Board Member David Weaver asked for a clarification that the board is not being asked to
approve or comment on the façade of building and whether it would be appropriate for the board
to say the building will look like the plans presented by the applicant. Ms. Wolf confirmed it would
be appropriate if the applicant is offering that. She noted obviously, it won’t be exactly that way,
but that is the theme they're looking for and they don’t intend for it to be a contemporary flat-
roofed building or metal Quonset hut. Ms. Wolf stated that's fine with the applicant, if in general
terms, that style of architecture is a part of what we're proposing.
In response to an inquiry by Board Member Allen Pope, Ms. Wolf explained that the
architectural drawing reflects the side of the building that will be facing Carolina Beach Road. The
building side facing Willoughby Park would be more of a solid wall or perhaps have some type of
awning over the sidewalk. With the depth of the building shown on the site plan, they would have
some type of entrance or fire exits facing the parking lot toward Willoughby Park. Board Member
Pope said he was comfortable with the Carolina Beach Road façade, but has some questions about
the façade materials for the remainder of the building. Mr. McGirt explained that the building
hasn’t been architecturally designed yet, but the façade on the remainder of the building visible
from Carolina Beach Road would be in correlation to and resemble the front side facing Carolina
Beach Road. It wouldn’t be exactly the same because it would be the side entrance flowing with
the roof slopes, but there would be some sort of cosmetic design. Mr. McGirt added that it wouldn't
be a straight metal wall with a door.
Chairman Girardot agreed with Mr. Pope that she would like to see the façade shown on
the front of the building on at least three sides of the building so the metal doesn’t show from
Page 32 of 34
Carolina Beach Road. Ms. Wolf commented that one side would not be seen because of the buffer.
Board Member Pope noted that if that connectivity is ever made some of that buffer will also be
lost so there is a potential of at least part of that building side being seen. Mr. Pope reiterated that
those three sides of the building need to have some sort of façade that mirrors or has a good tie to
that architectural design.
In response to Board Member Jordy Rawl’s inquiry about whether the proposed boat
storage facility would be aimed at long-term storage or daily use storage, Ms. Wolf noted the boat
and RV storage facility is targeted to long-term storage, not daily use so the gate access and apron
onto Carolina Beach Road would be sufficient. These are 50-foot deep facilities that will usually
be rented by people who use their RVs and larger boats twice a year for vacations so they don’t
expect much traffic as far as the rear part of the site whatsoever. Obviously, it will happen, but
these are high dollar spots. Board member Rawl commented that he had become aware that it’s
increasingly difficult to find a place to store a boat because many neighborhood covenants don’t
allow boats to be stored at residences. Ms. Wolf stated the Monkey Junction Self-Storage has a
variety of storage facilities available and this proposed facility will be on the high end for the large
RVs and boats that don’t come and go on a regular basis. At the back of the facility across the way,
which is your more standard self-storage, there is boat and RV storage, but it is uncovered and out
in the open. There are a variety of different levels of storage. Down near Sanders Road, there is
another boat and RV storage facility. Ms. Wolf noted that this proposed facility would probably
have a 30-foot wide driveway even through there isn’t full motion; it is right in, right out. The
applicants feel comfortable that there is enough width in all of their driveways and their access
onto Carolina Beach Road that any of the vehicles that would access these buildings could
maneuver.
Vice Chair Olds inquired in regard to connectivity with Walmart at the front if there would
be an advantage in being able to provide that additional safety by having another access point at
the front via the connectivity at Walmart to allow fire services access to the rear of the site in case
of a clog at the gate. He acknowledged there would be the same 75-foot gap there as in the rear.
Ms. Wolf replied that the applicant is limited because of the adjacent owners, who have no impetus
to allow it, but they feel they have good circulation to the back of the site. The gate on any gated
facility is always controlled by Fire Services and once you get back there it’s easy to turn around.
She commented that Fire Services would drive over the gate if necessary.
No one from the public spoke in support of the rezoning. Chairman Girardot then opened
the opposition portion of the public hearing.
Harold Borzone of 1513 Honey Bee Lane in Willoughby Park spoke in opposition to the
proposal, stating concerns about the aesthetics. He stated that the boundary between this proposed
site’s development and their development has a beautiful wall of trees, which seems to isolate
them. Carolina Beach Road is very crowded and he can’t imagine frequently pulling RVs and boats
out of there. He and his neighbors feel like they are going to be constricted. On the other side of
them is an 8-acres tract that is also for sale and they have heard it will be developed. He has lived
here 18 months and feels there is super development everywhere. Houses and trees are
disappearing all over the place. His main point is that the property is already zoned residential and
he would like to know what happened to that master plan and if it can be discarded. He asked if
the property located on the other side would be developed in the same manner. He thinks the
Page 33 of 34
planning board should look at why it was zoned residential originally. He offered several photos
for the record, noting they show why the property is well served the way it is. He expressed concern
that they will lose those trees and that it will be inch by inch a slow torture. He reported that he
was speaking for himself and on behalf of all of his neighbors.
Chairman Girardot instructed Mr. Borzone to give his pictures to Deputy County Attorney
Huffman.
During rebuttal, Cindee Wolf stated that Willoughby Park, a multi-family development in
the City of Wilmington’s jurisdiction, was required to put in a 20-foot buffer yard against what is
currently a single-family residential, so that 20-foot buffer is part of Willoughby Park and is not
going away. The applicant must put in a 33-foot buffer and that buffer is to a solid wall. Buffer-
wise, we will have no impact on Willoughby Park whatsoever. Where Honey Bee Lane cuts around
is where the pond is, and it will be buffered by us and is already buffered as part of Willoughby
Park. Most of the comments were related to buffering and there is a condition that our existing
vegetation has to be maintained and/or supplemented as necessary to provide that 100% visual
opacity. They already have visual opacity based on the multi-family project that was there and the
combination of their buffer and our buffer will total in excess of fifty (50) feet.
Chairman Girardot asked the applicant to come forward and stated at this time you may
ask to either continue the application to a future meeting or to proceed with this board deciding
whether to recommend approval or denial of the application. What do you wish to do?
Cindee Wolf confirmed the applicant would like to proceed with a vote by the planning
board.
Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing.
Chairman Girardot made the observation that the property was originally zoned residential,
but being immediately adjacent to Walmart, that type of development would be problematic now.
She noted that a use like this proposal is almost transitional to the residential development.
Chairman Girardot entertained board discussion or a motion.
MOTION: Ernest Olds MOVED, SECONDED by David Weaver, to recommend approval as
the Planning Board finds that this request for a zoning map amendment of 4.11 acres from R-15
Residential District to Conditional Highway Business District, as described is:
1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the
proposal contributes to the mixture of uses encouraged within the Urban Mixed Use
place type.
2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed development would locate
commercial uses in a commercial node with minimal impact to existing residential
development.
Conditions:
Page 34 of 34
1. Existing vegetation shall remain within the 20-foot wide strip in the buffer adjacent
to Willoughby Park as practicable and be supplemented as necessary to achieve
100% opacity.
2. Hours of operation will be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; and no repair,
maintenance, or cleaning of boats, trailers, or recreational vehicles is permitted.
3. Façade on the front facing three sides of the building shall be in a style similar to
the architecture style submitted with the application.
Cindee Wolf accepted the conditions as proposed by the planning board.
Hearing no further discussion, Chairman Girardot entertained a vote on the motion.
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve Rezoning Request Z17-06 with three conditions.
Technical Review Committee Report (May 2017)
Current Planner Brad Schuler reported the New Hanover County Technical Review
Committee met twice during the month of May and considered two performance site plans.
Cape Landing
Cape Landing, formerly known as Pumpkin Creek, is a performance residential subdivision
plan located in the 4200 block of Blue Clay Road. The developer is expanding that
development and has requested approval for 126 total lots amongst both portions of the
subdivision. The TRC voted 5-0 to approve the request with four conditions as detailed in
the Planning Board packet.
Hamilton Farms
Hamilton Farms is a performance residential subdivision containing 163 lots located along
the 6300 block of Myrtle Grove Road and was approved by the TRC in a vote of 5-0. This
is a really interesting subdivision because it is providing great interconnectivity with Tarin
Woods so the residents in that development will be able to get out to Carolina Beach Road.
Other Business
Chairman Girardot asked staff to provide an update on the status of the Northeast New
Hanover County Future Street Plan originally scheduled to be heard tonight.
Planning & Land Use Director Chris O’Keefe reported that the item had been pulled from
the agenda to give the consultant more time to work on the plan and to allow public comment and
feedback. No date has been finalized to bring the plan back to the planning board, but staff will
keep the planning board apprised as they continue to work on it.
With no further business, Chairman Girardot adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kenneth Vafier, Planning Manager