Loading...
02 FEBRUARY 2019 PB MINUTES - APPROVED Page 1 of 16 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board February 7, 2019 The New Hanover County Planning Board held a regular meeting on Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the André Mallette Training Facility of the New Hanover County Government Center, Wilmington, NC to hold a public hearing. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Jordy Rawl, Chairman Wayne Clark, Planning & Land Use Director Paul Boney Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Ernest Olds Brad Schuler, Senior Planner Jeffrey Petroff Rebekah Roth, Senior Planner Allen Pope Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Edward “Ted” Shipley, III Planning Board Absent: Donna Girardot, Vice-Chairwoman Chairman Jordy Rawl opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing. Planning Manager Ken Vafier led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Jordy Rawl reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z19-01) – Request by Par 5 Development Group, LLC, on behalf of the property owners, William S. Hackney, II, Tara S. Hackney, and Proclaim Holdings, LLC, to rezone approximately 3.28 acres of land located at 813 & 817 Piner Road, from (CUD) O&I, Conditional Use Office and Institutional District, to (CZD) B-1, Conditional Business District and R-15, Residential District, in order to develop a retail store on the southern two acres of the property. Senior Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. The property is located on Piner Road, between the intersection of College and Carolina Beach Roads and Myrtle Grove and Masonboro Loop Roads. To the west is the Monkey Junction commercial node, which is one of the larger commercial nodes in the County, consisting of several big box retail stores and restaurants. To the east is mostly single-family residential, however, the Page 2 of 16 property does directly abut Myrtle Grove Middle School. The property itself consists of two parcels of land totaling 3.28 acres. There are currently two office buildings on the property. The property is currently zoned as a (CUD) Office & and Institutional district, which was originally approved in the late 1990s, and has been modified twice since then. An approved conceptual site plan is attached to the district. This approval restricts the site to professional offices and a recreation establishment, specifically for a golf training center. The recreation use is not currently in operation on the site. This application proposes to rezone the southern two acres of the property to (CZD) B-1 in order to develop a 9,100 square foot retail store. The remaining 1.28 acres on the northern portion of the site is proposed to be rezoned to a general R-15 district. If approved, this portion of the property would be allowed to be developed in accordance with the standards of the R-15 district. 1.28 acres of land within this zoning district would generally permit three residential lots. The retail store is proposed to be 9,100 square feet, and there is an easement dedicated for access to the northern portion of the property. A driveway permit from NCDOT must be obtained for the connection to Piner Road. NCDOT has reviewed the proposal and recently provided some preliminary comments indicating the proposed driveway must be relocated to the western side of the site. The applicant, in response, has provided an alternate site plan which essentially flips the layout of the proposed development, however, the applicant would like to continue to discuss the location of the driveway with NCDOT in order to ensure that it is placed at the safest location on the site. The applicant is prepared to proceed forward with either site plan, pending NCDOT’s final determination. Six projects in the area have recently completed a traffic impact analysis. The required roadway improvements associated with those projects are summarized in the staff report. Of those projects, Kaylies Cove, which is a residential subdivision located south of the subject site, has made some improvements to Piner Road, specifically installing an eastbound, right-turn lane on the road at the entrance of that subdivision. This proposal is expected to generate about 50 trips in the AM peak hours and 70 trips in the PM peak hours. Under the current zoning of the site, the trip generation is estimated to be under 10 trips in both the AM and PM peaks. In addition, the recreational use, if it was in operation today, is estimated to have its peak hour traffic on Saturdays, with about 20 trips anticipated during that time. The WMPO has taken three traffic counts in the area. Piner Road is seeing about 2,000 more trips than its capacity, while Masonboro Loop Road and Myrtle Grove Road are operating within their capacity. The applicant has provided a traffic assessment of the proposal, which is included in the Planning Board agenda packet. That assessment concluded that the proposal would have a minimal impact on the surrounding roadway network. Senior Planner Schuler noted the applicant’s traffic engineer was present to provide additional information regarding that assessment and the potential traffic impacts this proposal will have on the surrounding roads. Page 3 of 16 The Comprehensive Plan classifies the subject property as General Residential. The intent of this place type is to preserve existing residential neighborhoods and provide opportunities for supportive commercial, civic and recreational development. The General Residential place does allow for office and retail; however, the Comprehensive Plan states these uses must be in strategically located areas. The applicant, with their proposal, is trying to provide a neighborhood commercial service, closer to the residents so that they don’t have to travel to Carolina Beach Road; however, the proposed location of the store does not maximize the benefit that it would have on the surrounding residents as if it was located on Masonboro Loop Road or Myrtle Grove Road, as the residents would still have to travel to the edge of the Monkey Junction node to get to the store. In addition, this proposal is expected to increase the number of trips generated by the site; with most of the customers likely coming from the homes located east of the site. This will result in an increased number of left-out turn movements from the property as the customers are returning home so any benefit of closer access to basic goods and services would likely be minimized by increased congestion on Piner Road due to the change in traffic patterns. Senior Planner Schuler concluded his presentation. Chairman Rawl asked if board members had any questions for staff. Chairman Rawl inquired about the current use of the property and the previous rezoning. Planner Schuler explained that under the existing zoning district of the site, Conditional Use Office and Institutional, only professional offices and the recreational use, which is the golf training course, are permitted on the site. In response to Chairman Rawl’s inquiry about the proposed façade and elevation for the Dollar General building, Planner Schuler stated that information had not been submitted to staff and staff is not requiring any architectural design for this facility. Chairman Rawl asked staff to elaborate on the request to rezone 1.2 acres of property behind the proposed Dollar General to R-15, noting the access is blocked off from the commercial site. He inquired if the applicant had approached the school board or one of the neighboring property owners about the property. Planner Schuler stated he would defer to the applicant on their reason for seeking split zoning on the property. Hearing no other questions from board members, Chairman Rawl opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Attorney Matt Nichols stated he represents the applicant, PAR 5 Development. He introduced Richard Vincent, President of PAR 5 Development; Zachary Ivey, Development Project Manager for this project; Phil Norris, Civil Engineer; and Rynal Stephenson, Transportation Engineer with Ramey-Kemp. They will explain some of the components of the proposal and also answer any questions the board members may have. Nichols asked Zachary Ivey to come forward and provide a brief presentation on Dollar General, their experience with developing Dollar General stores, and also on their company. Zachary Ivey with PAR 5 Development Group provided a slide reflecting the mission statement for Dollar General, noting they have a literacy foundation that has awarded more than Page 4 of 16 $127 million in grants to nonprofit organizations and has helped more than seven million individuals take their first steps toward literacy. They also donate yearly to charities and have scholarships for college kids or kids taking a technical route. He stated PAR 5 Development Group and has built over 125 Dollar General stores and also manages and builds a multitude of other projects, including commercial, retail, restaurants, schools, churches, residential and resorts. They manage and build in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia. He presented aerials of the site, the site plan, and a representation of what the store they are proposing will look like. He also provided photos of their standard signage, including the building sign and their standard pylon sign, which they are proposing for this location. Mr. Ivey offered to answer any questions the board may have for him as a developer. Attorney Nichols presented additional slides, noting they had submitted as part of their application packet a supplemental statement regarding how they would respectfully contend that their project is consistent with the future land use map and the County’s Comprehensive Plan. The staff packet addressed the proximity of this proposal to the Monkey Junction node. Part of the plan for this proposal was to provide a convenient neighborhood scale retail store that wouldn't necessarily be in the Monkey Junction node. It would provide an affordable shopping alternative for area residents. He said Traffic Engineer Rynal Stephenson would speak more about the traffic component, but the idea is to catch some of the existing trips that will be there anyway on Piner Road. The design wasn’t to draw traffic from residents that did not live in the vicinity that would otherwise be going to the Monkey Junction area to do their shopping. He provided a slide outlining some of the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan. Generally speaking, the comprehensive plan does favor a mixture of uses for sharing of trips and any number of benefits. The proposal is consistent with the General Residential place type, which would prefer a mixture of uses, including light commercial. What is presently there now is a conditional use district for a very specific use, a golf training facility and the office, and that is limiting what can be used on that property so we think that the proposal would be something that would benefit more people in the sense of usability of that property, something where people could potentially shop there every day and get every day goods there, whereas, the golf training facility and existing office is perhaps not the highest and best use of the property right now. The applicants would contend that the proposal meets a number of the goals of the General Residential place type. In regard to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, much of this focuses on having convenient goods and services in close proximity to residents in residential areas so you don't have to travel significant distances to get to the commercial node, perhaps not having to go all the way into the Monkey Junction intersection and navigate that more heavily used intersection to get where you would like to go. The applicants would contend that their project is consistent with the general guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan, as it encourages the commercial use in an appropriate location and appropriate scale in mixture with the residential area, encourages infill development, and promotes compact development on infill sites with a mix of uses where appropriate. Nichols stated, in summary, the applicants think there are a number of benefits to this rezoning from the current land use. The proposed use would be a higher and better use and this site would be a great place to have a small-scale neighborhood store that would provide a convenient, everyday shopping alternative for the area residents. It is also consistent with the County’s Future Land Use Map Place Type and the Comprehensive Plan. Page 5 of 16 Attorney Nichols said their traffic engineer and civil engineer were present to answer any questions board members may have. He concluded his presentation, stating they would appreciate the Planning Board’s consideration of the proposal. Chairman Rawl thanked Mr. Nichols and inquired if board members had any questions for the applicant. Chairman Rawl said he didn’t get a clarification on the R-15 zoning in the back and asked if that was a question better suited for one of the engineers. Attorney Nichols explained that the R-15 zoning in the back is not the focus of the proposal, which is the 9,100 square foot general retail store. The applicants would certainly be open to ideas or concepts that the board would have for that and there are no plans for that at this time. Currently, the property is now entirely zoned commercial, so that would actually be a down-zoning of that property from O&I to R-15. Nichols stated he would guess you could probably get three residential units on that property or perhaps one large residential unit. The area is a little over an acre, but the applicants do not anticipate it being an intense use. Chairman Rawl commented that the school is adjacent to this property and schools typically like residential zoning for school use. There may be an opportunity for the applicant to offer that property to the school board in a tax-free exchange or sell it to a nonprofit. He noted if not a gift to the school, they might at least give the school a first right of refusal because schools in the U.S. are getting capped out, especially here in New Hanover County. Richard Vincent, President of PAR 5 Development, stated that is certainly a consideration. He noted the applicant team had met with the Planning staff several weeks ago, and it was mentioned to them at that time. That idea was expressed by a few residents, as well, when giving their thoughts and opinions on the project during the community meeting. It looks like it could be something that should be explored. Mr. Vincent said they would like to get through tonight’s meeting, get feedback, and take it from there. He added that it is something they want to talk to the school board about, but they really wanted to get the board’s perspective tonight. Chairman Rawl commented that it’s not common that the board sees that kind of break in zoning requests on one contiguous piece of property with nothing shown for what the future plan is. He thanked the applicants for taking that into consideration and acknowledging that their group has already had that conversation. Chairman Rawl asked if Mr. Vincent would like to add anything else in regard to the application and presentation given he was listed next on the public speakers list in support of the project. Mr. Vincent stated that he would be happy to answer any questions or concerns that may potentially be raised by nearby residents. Engineer Phil Norris of Norris & Tunstall Engineers stated the applicant team has worked closely with the Planning staff and knows that the project has to abide by the setbacks and Page 6 of 16 buffering criteria. Norris pointed out in regard to the site plan that this project would trigger a state stormwater permit. One thing that would be on the site that is not currently there would be some stormwater controls because the current development doesn’t have any. He noted that would be a plus in regard to control of runoff from the site in the future. In response to Chairman Rawl’s concern about a barrier fence or deterrent around the stormwater retention pond to prevent any safety issues due to the site’s location adjacent to a school, Norris stated that the applicant team hasn’t considered that at this point in the process, but it would certainly be an option. Right now, that’s more of a schematic location of where the stormwater pond would be because no formal designs have been prepared yet. Chairman Rawl noted in regard to the current schematic that the applicant would not be able to dig the east side of the pond without entering the buffer that surrounds the property. Engineer Norris stated Chairman Rawl was correct, and there would be a good bit of buffer between the adjacent properties and any retention facility. He said they could consider shifting the retention pond further west because there is plenty of room on the site. Norris also agreed that the applicant will want to preserve the natural vegetation on the site. In response to Board Member Petroff’s inquiry about water and sewer utilities for the site, Norris responded that water for the site is provided by Cape Fear Public Utility Authority; however, sewer is not available for the site at this time. There is a sewer main down the street from this location, but it is the applicant’s intent to have a septic system at the site if the site is suitable. If not, then there is an existing permit to extend the sewer to the site, which was done by the existing property owners so that is an option. The intent would be to connect to the existing water main. Norris added that the applicants realize that there are a number of permits that would have to be obtained for the site if the project moves forward. Board Member Boney asked if the applicant team had talked to the school staff about the proposal given its location adjacent to the school, and if so, had received any response from them about the driveway location or any traffic concerns for their buses, etc. Norris stated he has not had any discussions with school personnel, but he has reached out to the NC Department of Transportation. Traffic Engineer Rynal Stephenson of Ramey-Kemp and Associates stated that a lot of traffic information had already been provided in the staff report, and by Attorney Nichols to some degree, in his presentation. He stated he would be available to answer any questions the board members may have. Stephenson stated in regard to the traffic perspective related to the school that the traffic times for a Dollar General store are late morning and peaks out right before lunch and then in the afternoon around 5:00 p.m. The critical peak traffic times for the school are usually in the morning during the drop-off period and in the afternoon in the 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. time frame for the pick-up period so the peak traffic times for the store do not coincide with the peak times for the school. Page 7 of 16 Board Member Boney commented he would assume that the developer would increase that volume over time. He also stated he was concerned about the conflict between the proximity of that driveway to the proximity of the school. Stephenson stated they were also looking at that and at the times when the traffic would come in and out of the store versus in and out of the school. The peak times do not match up with each other. There is pavement out on Piner Road that currently provides a left-turn lane into the school so the applicant will be working with NCDOT about the best place to put the driveway so that it can accommodate all the movements as safely as possible. Board Member Petroff said he would like to hear Stephenson’s thoughts and input on staff’s comment during their presentation that where most residents and homeowners live would result in a lot of left turns leaving this site at the rush hour and at high-traffic times. Stephenson stated that most of the traffic would come from the east on Piner Road, and it is correct that it would mean a return trip, which it would include making a left turn out of the site. During the afternoon, it would probably be a little difficult to make that left-out. Overall, the traffic volumes aren’t incredibly high being generated by this type of store. It's about one trip per minute in the peak hours, and afternoon peak hours are the heaviest time. Only a portion of that, approximately two-thirds, was heading to and from the east; therefore, less than one trip per minute will make that left turn out of the site to go back to the east. Stephenson agreed that during the PM, there would be more delay than at other times of the day making that left-turn out, but the heavy school traffic is over by that time on both sides of the street. Chairman Rawl then opened the opposition portion of the public hearing. Fredrick Schaeffer stated he bought a home a year ago across the street on a cul-de-sac in Pages Corner. He stated he is primarily concerned about the traffic, and discussed traffic patterns coming in and out of the subdivision. Frank Goodwin of 904 Drayton Court stated he resides next to Mr. Schaeffer and one of his concerns is the fact that he doesn’t see anything about a sidewalk being built on any of the drawings. They want this building built and the intent and goal is to provide nearby residents with a convenient place to buy everyday household goods and food items within walking distance. He stated that the school grounds are across the street on the same side where the Dollar General store will be built, and if one of the applicant’s main points is for this to be within walking distance, he is concerned about the amount of pedestrians on Piner Road due to safety concerns. Cathy Goodwin stated she also resides at 904 Drayton Court, and there are currently only twenty homes that are occupied in Kaylies Cove, but there will over one hundred homes when it is complete. She stated she walks Piner Road with her dog occasionally because it's one of the few areas she has where she can walk in the neighborhood behind the school and it is very difficult no matter what time of day it is. Ms. Goodwin commented that people are forgetting Page 8 of 16 there is also a Christian school associated with the Presbyterian Church almost directly across from the proposed building. That school also generates traffic at different times of the day and has a very active sports program going on. There are games through the spring and practices during the summer, and through the fall there are football games and so forth that also generate more traffic. The peak time for traffic starts at 3:15 p.m. when school lets out at Myrtle Grove and continues to 5:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. The traffic doesn’t stop; it comes both ways and in streams. Ms. Goodwin stated she is concerned about the high volume of traffic. She also stated that, aesthetically, she thinks having a General Dollar store that close to the school and that close to the church is inappropriately placed. She pointed out there is space available near Home Depot, which is less than a quarter of mile away if you want to have a Dollar General that close. Ms. Goodwin commented that she is also a former educator, and schools are very attuned to what their students are doing, but if somebody decides they're having a really bad day and they want to leave, they're probably not going to go back into the neighborhoods to their own home. They’re probably going to end up in the closest store they can find so it might also be a draw for taking a little break from school. She noticed that part of the planning was to provide for the older population over 60, and on one of the maps she saw there was no significant population of older community in their particular area so it doesn’t meet that. She commented that if you are going to do this, it would have to come with sidewalks because you can’t walk on that road. Wanda Moore stated she has lived on Piner Road her entire life so she has seen the progress that has occurred over the last twenty years there. Piner Road is a gorgeous area with private homes, schools, and churches. There are housing developments that go off of it, but Piner Road itself has private houses that sit back off the roadway. At the present time with the building that the county has done such as Trinity Landing, Myrtle Oaks, Kaylies Cove, Pepper Hill, Deer Crossing, and Congleton Farms, all of these developments are between Tanglewood to the north and Deer Crossing to the south are all in the same vicinity. That means that all of these developments are going to be feeding into Piner Road because it is the entrance and exit to Monkey Junction, Carolina Beach Road, and College Road. She also agreed that that there is nowhere to put sidewalks on Piner Road. She noted that Piner Road was widened as far as they could several years ago. She added that when you come onto Piner Road from Monkey Junction, the first problem is a straight lane and a right turn into Home Depot, which people use to merge into that straight lane. Bennett Village will soon be built on the left side behind the Home Depot and a left turn. Further down is Highgrove, which is a left turn, but doesn’t have a turn lane so people will go into the church parking lot to get around people turning. Then, there are the short lanes turning into the school right after where they want to put this Dollar General store. Ms. Moore stated this is a situation where someone wants to put in something uncharacteristic for the neighborhood that will create more problems for people coming in and out of that neighborhood when they could simply go up to the junction, go into that development where Home Depot is and build their store, and have plenty of access and not create all these problems. Sandra Maultsby stated that everything she had planned to say had been said very eloquently. She said she lives off Piner Road on a dirt road behind Ms. Moore and they have owned that land since the 1950s. She stated she is not against progress, but she would like to be able to come out of her driveway, make a left-hand turn or possibly a right-hand turn; however, Page 9 of 16 she lives within a quarter mile of the intersection of Piner Road and Myrtle Grove Road. She implored the board to consider that there are three churches and two schools on a one-mile stretch of road and there are three main feeder roads all going into this one-mile road. Chairman Rawl closed the opposition portion of the hearing and opened the rebuttal period. Attorney Matt Nichols stated his client may want to answer any questions generated in response to the comments made. He said he would not tell them that the proposal is not going to generate traffic as it is a retail store. However, the concept is to provide a place that is an alternative to going to Monkey Junction node, which is congested and has numerous different uses. This would allow someone in the vicinity to get everyday goods without having to go all the way into the Monkey Junction intersection area. The applicants saw that as a benefit and they would respectfully contend that the current zoning is not appropriate or a viable zoning now. It is a golf training facility and an office space so it’s already zoned commercial. If you were to change that O&I zoning to another commercial use, it will generate traffic and it is probably not going to provide the benefit that this store could provide on a daily basis to some. He said folks won’t shop there every day, but it is an affordable option to provide a shopping alternative to people that live in the vicinity. It is not meant to draw folks from other parts of Wilmington or the county. The design is a neighborhood scale retail store. Considering it is already zoned commercial, although it is limited by its existing designation, Nichols stated that the proposal is a better use of the property and will provide a benefit to the area, and is a down-zoning the back third of the property. He stated the applicants are certainly open to the board’s comments and ideas. Attorney Nichols said he isn’t saying the adjacent property owners do not have valid concerns about the traffic, but given the existing zoning versus the proposal, he stated that it is a reasonable proposal for the board to consider and would appreciate the board’s consideration of the request. Chairman Rawl stated everything that comes before the board has some magnitude of change, so the Planning Board does their best to weigh out the pros and cons. Chairman Rawl stated he thinks some definite considerations for the applicant to take into account would be potentially ditching, making stormwater improvements in the front of the property, and accommodating sidewalks. He suggested they come up with something to show buffering for the natural buffer and setback from the school in consideration that there is a school with young children over there. With regard to the stormwater retention facility, the state has a couple of different ways where they don't want those fenced; however, in his opinion, it needs some physical barrier around it to keep somebody from entering it for whatever reason. He was concerned that a child could wander off the school site and something tragic could happen. He stated they were not in a position where they could lean on any code or specific building design. He stated he has seen the Dollar General product and understands it is a value engineered product, with a prefabricated building and some façade and elevation changes that mix up the way it looks. Certainly, they have their plan for how they build these stores. He suggested that might look at some upgraded vegetation and consider providing some fencing just to separate the proposed store from the school area. He commented that the gentleman had mentioned the Page 10 of 16 charitable ties of their organization and he would think that the school should end up with that property. He state he would not speak to what the amount should be or the logistics of that, but he thinks that’s something in good faith on the applicant’s part that should be considered. He stated that the fence would be the biggest thing he would look at making a contingency for approval of this proposal. Attorney Nichols stated those are great comments. A huge part of the process is to hear the board members' feedback, and he is open to suggestions. The one on the sidewalk is completely reasonable and is something that could be accommodated. The increased aesthetic types of things are also things his client would consider in good faith try to accommodate if they can, or any of the other design changes. Nichols said he did not want to speak for his client in regard to what ultimately what the disposition of that would be, but if the board saw that as a positive, and something that we should explore then we would do that. He reiterated they are open to the feedback and the modifications to try to make this proposal work. He noted the neighbors did have concerns. He also reported that they had a good community meeting, and had heard very good comments. Nichols said, if there is an opportunity, they may be able to regroup for a few minutes and then let the board know what things they might be able to change. He also stated that if they need to come back to the board, they would certainly do that. Board Member Paul Boney stated he has a great deal of respect for Nichols and the applicant team has done a great job. He knows that if this project is approved, they will all do everything humanly possible to make it as good as possible. He stated that the company does great things. He sees them everywhere and they fill a need in a lot of communities. He commented that what he does not see is the compelling need for this project in this place at this time. He said what he sees is a great project in the wrong place. Regardless of all the things they can do such as adding sidewalks, moving the retention pond and putting a fence around it to keep kids safe, or moving the driveway to the other side away from the school site, he thinks it’s just in the wrong place and that the problem with it, not all the other things. He stated that if his fellow board members want to approve it, all those things would be great and would enhance what we end up with. He stated again that his problem is the general location where it is proposed. He noted that anything you put there is going to generate traffic, but these are popular stores and it will be a popular place so he would worry about the conflict. He stated appreciation for the traffic engineer's comments about the times, but noted that if you can’t get out of your driveway at 3:00 p.m., you can't get out of your driveway at 3:00. Schools are used longer and longer with recreational events in the afternoon, after-school programs and lots of other things. When you say your peak time is 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., that could be the peak time of people coming to pick up their kids from after-school events too so that argument did not move him. Boney commented that he thinks it is a great project in the wrong place but cannot support it. In response to Chairman Rawl’s inquiry regarding the timing of the applicant team receiving a five-minute recess to discuss options and the rebuttal period, Deputy County Attorney Huffman stated that her assumption of Nichols’ earlier comments was that if the impression of the majority of the board was to make a motion to approve the proposal with conditions, they would like an opportunity to discuss it. She said they might want to get a feel for the leaning of Page 11 of 16 the board before giving them five minutes to talk. Attorney Huffman added that it would be appropriate now to ask the opponents if they wished to have five minutes of rebuttal. Chairman Rawl opened the five-minute opposition rebuttal period. Ms. Moore pointed out that the board should look at that picture of Piner Road again. The Dollar General can build a sidewalk in front of their property, but it’s not going to go anywhere because there’s no place on Piner Road to put a sidewalk. People are still not going to be able to walk on Piner Road to get to the store. Unidentified male speaker stated he didn’t know about this proposal until three days ago. He flew into town because he had a meeting with Bill Clark Homes to address problems with water coming up into his house and garage due to the floodplain. His home is one hundred yards away from this site. The house was built by Bill Clark Homes, and they are trying to figure out a way to prevent this from happening in the future. He warned the applicants that the Dollar General site might have problems there too. Sandra Maultsby stated that her family has lived there since the 1950s. They had original septic tanks and their yard never flooded. She explained that her father put in ditches. They had wonderful drainage. She stated they do have drainage problems there now because so much has been built, there has been little consideration given to drainage, and so many trees have been removed. She also expressed concern that there is just too much traffic, noting that she has to leave for work every morning at 6:20 a.m. because if she doesn’t, she has to sit at the end of her driveway from 7:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and wait to get out due to the traffic. She stated it’s really about having a good quality of life and sometimes convenience is not worth it. Hearing no other questions, Chairman Rawl closed the public hearing and opened the Planning Board discussion period. Board Member Allen Pope commented that Mr. Boney had already said everything he wanted to say. He has the same feeling that this is a great project. He has used Dollar General before and his mother used Dollar General exclusively. He thinks it’s a great project, but he’s just not sure that it’s in the right place. Board Member Jeffrey Petroff stated he does not have concerns with the stormwater drainage. He stated he is not completely opposed to the proposal and thinks the applicants are making a good effort. He commented that he is an advocate of pedestrian movement, but piece- mealing a sidewalk is not very functional. He noted he has always been an advocate of having a fund that developers can put funds into so that pedestrian facilities can comprehensively be put in place. Mr. Petroff said he is struggling with this proposal and agrees with most of what Mr. Boney said. He added that the applicant also has a solid case, as well so he is still on the fence. Board Member Ted Shipley inquired what the property was zoned in 2002 before it was zoned Conditional Use District Office & Institution. Page 12 of 16 Planner Schuler replied he believed the property was formerly zoned R-15. Board Member Shipley explained that if a bad decision regarding a previous rezoning had not been made a long time ago, the board would not be having this discussion. Mr. Shipley stated he has tried to take a left out of the Myrtle Grove Presbyterian Church parking lot on Saturday mornings, and that vehicles on Piner Road are sometimes driving 50 mph and the traffic is congested so he can’t support it. He noted that even though it looks like a nice project, this is just the wrong place for it. Board Member Ernest Old stated that everybody has said the same thing and he would be in agreement with those comments as well. He commented that the original rezoning was a mistake and the property should have stayed R-15. To him, it’s just not quite far enough away from Monkey Junction to be considered a solid neighborhood retail store and it is only a single parcel so you really can’t expand that to add maybe a gas station or something else. He said he just does not think it fits. If it were a quarter-mile closer to Monkey Junction, it might make more sense. Board member Ernest Olds stated he was totally in agreement. It is a great project and the applicants have done a good job with it, but between the traffic and the zoning position, he stated he does not think it is the appropriate fit. Chairman Rawl invited Attorney Nichols to approach the podium. Attorney Nichols thanked the board for the opportunity and stated the applicant team had been discussing the proposal, while listening to comments and they understand the concerns. In regard to the existing zoning on the site, his clients have tried to do a very good job with what they contend is a reasonable request for consideration, but they do appreciate the board’s comments. He noted the comments had certainly lent some clarity on what the board members would like to see on that site at some point. The applicants would like to get an idea of whether it is the size of the store or the overall proposed use. They do not want to just simply ask for a continuance to come back if there's a general consensus from the board on concern over the size of the store, or if the team could make some architectural upgrades or add landscaping. Nichols said the applicants were also willing to do what they can to work out something with the school because it is a great idea and the location lends itself to that. He thinks there are a number of things the applicants could do, but they want to be respectful of the board’s time and the neighbors’ time by asking this to be continued if we’re back at the point where there’s really not any support for any retail use there because that’s what the applicants are proposing. He noted he thinks a continuance could be beneficial, but he’s also sensitive to asking for a continuance so we can have everybody back her in thirty days. They’d really like to try to make it work, but they just want to be reasonable about it also. Chairman Rawl stated the board also respects the applicant’s time and appreciates Nichols’ comments. From a personal standpoint, he thinks there are things that could be done that would make this a viable project for recommendation to the commissioners. He noted that even with a no-vote here tonight, the applicant is still welcome to proceed toward that. Chairman Page 13 of 16 Rawl commented that it sounds like a lot of the feedback is that there is not a great deal of support for retail in this residential node with a lot of established churches, schools, and larger, legacy tracts, but ultimately, it is the applicant’s decision. Attorney Nichols requested a short recess to discuss with his clients how they would like to proceed. Chairman Rawl agreed and announced a five-minutes recess. FIVE MINUTE RECESS Chairman Rawl called the meeting back to order and recognized the applicant. Attorney Nichols expressed appreciation for the board accommodations for a brief recess. He stated the applicants would not request a continuance, but would like to offer a brief explanation. He stated he has worked with this group on two different stores in the area – a store located at Dawson Street and Fifth Street and a store on Carolina Beach Road. They did a great job with those stores and are looking forward to coming before this board with other sites and projects. Richard Vincent, the applicant, explained why they chose this site for the Dollar General store. He noted a couple of comments were made about this location not feeling like the right place for the store. He noted there has been a mind shift in general grocery/general supply as far as retailers go from our experience working with them. They have moved away from the massive commercial nodes with four or five retailers competing against each other, and moved toward coming closer to their core customer. There is a huge misconception in the marketplace about Dollar General being a dollar store; they’re simply not. Dollar Tree stores have the $1 priced items. At Dollar General, you can buy $70 and $80 items at Dollar General stores, and all the essentials and staples. People don’t generally go into a Dollar General and spend $500, but they will spend $15 - $25. Many times, people will do their Walmart or Target or Food Lion shopping for the week and go to Dollar General to pick up what they missed or run low on at Dollar General. In that mindset, the clients really want to be closer to the customer and not have them travel such a far distance. That's really the shift in coming closer to the core demographics and the households. He reported that Dollar General does a significant amount of market research. They would like to cut those people off from having to travel to the congested node at Monkey Junction. It's not simply a quarter‑mile; it’s another few minutes at the traffic light and another few minutes to get to the shopping and find a parking spot. There is a big difference between a quarter‑mile and fifteen minutes from leaving your house and walking into Walmart. Mr. Vincent stated that is the mentality that drove this decision. Dollar General truly does believe in the stor, which is why they have pursued this location. Vincent stated the team has built over 100 stores and this is one they are truly excited about. He noted they are starting to see this shift of national retail stores coming closer to the customer and moving away from the larger centers and regional commercial corridors. Page 14 of 16 Mr. Vincent also addressed the mindset of cutting off traffic. They like being close to schools because there's a natural synergy. Parents come home, come back from the gym, pick up a few groceries and pick up the kids, or pick up the kids in the afternoon, and pick up the essentials in ten to fifteen minutes on the way home. There's sort of fluidity to it, and that's what attracted them to this location. He understands there are traffic concerns, and those have been addressed tonight. He stated that is the thought of being adjacent to a school and they have found that to be in the past a very, very successful business model for them. He thanked the board members for their time. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman Rawl entertained a motion from the Planning Board. MOTION: Board Member Ernest Olds MOVED, SECONDED by Board Member Paul Boney, to recommend denial, as the Board finds this request for a zoning map amendment of approximately 3.28 acres from a Conditional Use O&I district, to a Conditional B-1 and R15 district, as described is: 1. Inconsistent with the purposes an intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan’s aims to strategically locate commercial uses in General Residential areas because the property is located outside of the identified growth node boundary set by the Highgrove Estates neighborhood, where transitional uses like office, institutional, and higher density residential would be more appropriate, and it is not likely to meaningfully increase convenience for residents due to its close proximity to that node. 2. Although small scale retail provides a service to the residents east of the major Monkey Junction node, the side is located close enough to the existing node to not provide the full benefit of the convenience of avoiding the major intersection. In addition, the proposal is expected to increase traffic, and the location of the site being on the northern side of Piner Road would require increased number of left –out vehicular movements to serve the residents east of the site. Therefore, although this proposal may be reasonable, it is not likely in the public interest. The Planning Board voted (5-1) to recommend denial of Rezoning Request Z19-01. (Ayes: Olds, Boney, Petroff, Pope, and Shipley; Nay: Rawl) Approval of the December 6, 2018 Minutes MOTION: Board Member Paul Boney MOTIONED, SECONDED by Board Member Ted Shipley, to approve the December 6, 2018 Planning Board meeting minutes as presented. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the December 6, 2018 Planning Board meeting minutes. Other Items Planning & Land Use Director Wayne Clark provided a brief update on the Unified Development Ordinance project. He stated that the proposed new zoning districts reviewed by Page 15 of 16 the Planning Board at their August 2018 workshop are ready to come forward for votes for adoption. Senior Long Range Planner Rebekah Roth is prepared to provide a presentation at the end of the March 7 Planning Board meeting that will summarize the proposed new zoning districts, etc. in the proposed ordinance that Planning Board members were in agreement with at the August 2018 workshop. Staff may also be able to provide board members with the proposed ordinance package they will be voting on at their April meeting. If the information is not available at that time, it will be provided to board members within a week to ten days following the meeting. The package consists essentially of eight zoning districts. The UDO itself is basically a book where everything is nicely organized. Director Clark stated that the meat of the UDO is the new zoning districts. This is what the comprehensive plan said to do – add flexibility for mixed uses, additional density, and additional housing types. Workforce housing and all the major theoretical components that are in the comprehensive plan are mostly accomplished by putting these eight zoning districts in the County’s code. Staff isn’t going to slow down the UDO process by formatting it into one book, but will bring forward the eight new zoning districts for the Planning Board’s consideration in April. It will be presented in more detail at the March meeting. The County Commissioners have budget adoption discussion and hearings in May and June so the UDO item will likely be presented to the County Commissioners in July for adoption. That will allow additional time if Planning Board members aren’t comfortable voting on it in April. Clark stated there is nothing different in the zoning district information from what was presented last August, and staff wants to make sure they are doing everything they can to get public understanding and ensure there is not opposition to it. Clark stated, in conclusion, if the Planning Board is in agreement, the initial presentation will be at the end of the March meeting moving forward with that schedule. Chairman Rawl noted that workshops have been the format for the comp plan and UDO and inquired if it would be possible to have that review time before the meeting or maybe on a separate date because of the anticipated number of regular items on the March Planning Board agenda. Director Clark stated staff isn’t asking the board to vote on anything in March. Staff respects the board’s time and won’t give them a large ordinance to vote on without explaining what’s in it and how to read through it. He noted they could use the Planning Board’s agenda briefing time and go over it at that point. That allows the flexibility. Board members aren’t required to be there and there is a two-hour drop-in window. He stated he doesn’t mind providing that information at the board members’ convenience during that afternoon if that’s what the board would prefer to do. Upon agreement from the board members, Clark stated that at the review meeting, he and Senior Long Range Planner Roth would be prepared to take interested board members through the explanation of the UDO’s proposed zoning districts to make sure they are comfortable and have the best opportunity to vote on it in April if they so choose. He commented that people are asking when the UDO will be done. The other parts of the UDO will be coming, but this positive change, if adopted in July, could result in somebody applying to rezone their property under one of the new zoning districts and it could be on the Planning Board’s agenda in Page 16 of 16 August. Clark mentioned stass has map of key vacant areas in the county, and how they line up with the Comp Plan and what zoning district might be appropriate. In addition, they are trying to work with the property owners to maybe have a staff initiated rezoning of four or five, or some number at a time, so the Planning Board can look at them in a more global sense instead of a reactionary sense. Clark stated in conclusion, that in response to the inquiries about when the UDO will be done, a big piece of the UDO will be complete in July if this schedule works out. Senior Planner Rebekah Roth confirmed staff has continued having meetings with interested groups and members of the public since August. Director Clark said five or six meetings were held in November and December with various interested groups, including one at the Government Center where 40-50 members of citizens groups attended. He has also done 10-12 presentations to other groups as well. In response to Chairman Rawl’s inquiry regarding another public workshop on the UDO before April, Director Clark stated staff wasn’t planning to hold another workshop because there isn’t anything substantially different from what the Planning Board saw in August. He reported that the board members were okay with the general concept at that time. Chairman Rawl stated the Planning Board would take the agenda briefing to familiarize themselves with it, and expect a review at the March regular meeting. Chairman Rawl suggested staff send some bullet points summarizing where the process is and what the board should anticipate in the next sixty to ninety days, in addition to the summary sheets on the proposed zoning districts. Director Clark stated it may also help that all eight of the proposed zoning districts are rooted out of the City’s code. The proposed districts include four multi-family districts, two commercial districts – the CB district and the CS district, a R-5 district, and an UMX – Urban Mixed Use district. Senior Planner Roth is in the process of making sure they fit into the language in the County’s code. With no other items of business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Note: The above minutes are not a verbatim record of the meeting.