Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPT 3 2020 PB MINUTES -DRAFT 1 | P a g e Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board September 3, 2020 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on September 3, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. in the Andre Mallette Training Center at the New Hanover County Government Center, 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 135 in Wilmington, North Carolina. Members Present Staff Present Donna Girardot, Chair Wayne Clark, Planning Director Paul Boney, Vice Chair Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Jeffrey B. Petroff Brad Schuler, Senior Planner Colin J. Tarrant Rebekah Roth, Senior Planner Ernest Olds Gideon Smith, Current Planner Thomas “Jordy” Rawl Ron Meredith, Current Planner H. Allen Pope Marty Little, Long Range Planner Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Chair Donna Girardot called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Planning Manager Ken Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Girardot read the procedures for the meeting and welcomed the audience. Approval of Minutes Approval of the August Planning Board meeting minutes was postponed to the October 1, 2020 Planning Board meeting. NEW BUSINESS Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z20-13) – Request by Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner, Desirable Properties, LLC, to rezone approximately 31.31 acres of land located at the northwest corner of Sidbury Road and Dairy Farm Road from R-15, Residential District, to (CZD) RMF-L, Conditional Residential Multi-Family Low Density District, in order to develop a multi-family project consisting of 288 units. This request was continued from the August 6, 2020 Planning Board meeting. Senior Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, trip generation, transportation and zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area, and presented an overview of the proposed application as referred to in the staff report. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Schuler stated the TIA required improvements for the phased Sidbury Farms project will also be completed in phases. He explained the first phase, which includes 300 units, will require turn lanes to be installed on Sidbury Road at the project’s access points; the second and third phases will require improvements outside the Sidbury area as they are built. He stated in regard to the Cape Landing buildout date of 2021, the southern portion of the project south of Blue Clay Road has been constructed and homes are occupied in those phases; construction drawings are currently being completed for the final phase north of Blue Clay Road. Mr. Schuler also 2 | P a g e explained that the small triangle-shaped parcel between Dairy Farm Road and Blue Clay Road is zoned R-15, is not owned by the applicant and is not included in the application. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Land Planner Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions, representative for property owner, Desirable Properties, LLC, and developer, HH Multi, LLC., presented photos, maps, and drawings, and gave an overview of the proposed project. Ms. Wolf stated the tract is in the Community Mixed Use land classification and is next to Urban Mixed Use and the growth node at Cape Fear Community College. Ms. Wolf stated there is an undeniable need for more affordable homes for young people, the workforce, and the aging population, and infill with some increased density is the key to making a good project feasible and translates into affordability for residents in a multifamily community. Ms. Wolf stated her client has an excellent track record with successful multifamily projects in North Carolina and South Carolina. She stated the project proposes a density of just over 9 units per acre, which allows for preservation of natural features onsite and more usable open space. She stated the developer’s projects are considered higher end rental housing because of the extensive amenities offered. Ms. Wolf stated the property is split by a major power transmission line, so storm water management was facilitated in two separate ponds. She stated a preliminary drainage design was prepared to assure stormwater management was feasible and could be adapted to the pond locations and sizes. She provided elevations and photos of previous projects, including typical architecture and construction materials of all buildings. Ms. Wolf stated a wetland delineation has been done for the site and indicates minor environmental impacts with some road crossings; project impacts are under 10,000 square feet. Ms. Wolf stated a traffic impact analysis was approved by the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO) and the N.C. Department of Transportation, and the developer has committed to the required road improvements. Ms. Wolf stated the staff report and recommendation for approval shows supporting justification that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the future vision for the county and that the plan is reasonable and in the public interest for positive economic development and increased tax base. Ms. Wolf offered to answer questions from the planning board. In response to questions from the Board regarding offsite utilities and stormwater, Ms. Wolf states there is a CFPUA water line on Dairy Farm Road and the Sidbury Farms project has committed to a developer agreement to run a force main from their project east on Sidbury Road to Blue Clay Road and into the public system. She said the applicant would design a lift station to connect into that force main. Ms. Wolf stated in regard to the northern pond, there is an outlet to the roadside ditches of Dairy Farm Road because a Prince George’s tributary runs across the corner of their property and along the eastern side of Dairy Farm Road, and all of this drainage runs north across the New Hanover- Pender county border. Ms. Wolf stated that the owner of the small triangle parcel adjacent to the site was present at the meeting. In response to Board questions, Ms. Wolf explained that the Unified Development Ordinance defines open space as anything without a surface, and the proposal has more than adequate open space. She deferred to the engineer that prepared the site plan to clarify specific calculations, noting the open space calculations did not appear to include wetlands, floodplain, or floodway. With no speakers in opposition, Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. 3 | P a g e Board members were generally in favor of the project. Chair Girardot asked for a motion from the Board. Board Member Jordy Rawl made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Paul Boney, to recommend to the County Commissioners to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to a conditional RMF-L district. They found it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because multi-family development is a typical land use within areas designated as Community Mixed Use, and because the proposed number of units is in-line with the recommended densities for the area. In addition, multi- family housing is generally more appropriate along major road corridors like Interstate 40 than low density single-family housing. The Board also found APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal would benefit the community by providing diverse housing options. The motion to approve the Rezoning Request carried 7-0. Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z20-15) – Request by Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner, Redland Development Incorporated, to rezone approximately 7.15 acres of land located at 8814 Market Street (Hwy 17), north of Futch Creek Road, from R-15, Residential District, and B-1, Neighborhood Business, to (CZD) RMF-L, Conditional Residential Multi-Family Low Density District, and (CZD) CB, Conditional Community Business District, in order to construct a 60-unit townhome development and an 8,000 square foot retail/office/personal service building. Planner Gideon Smith provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation, trip generation and zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area and gave an overview of the proposed application as referred to in the staff report. In response to Board questions, Mr. Smith stated the second large parking lot behind the front parking lot is additional parking associated with the commercial component; there are 36 spaces provided for the commercial side, as well as additional parking in the rear to meet the minimum parking requirements for the townhome development. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant, Cindee Wolf. Applicant Cindee Wolf, of Design Solutions, presented photos, maps, and drawings and gave an overview of the proposed project. She stated the site access is directly to U.S. Highway 17 and has no connection to Futch Creek Road, therefore, traffic from the proposal will have no impact on turning movements at the Futch Creek/U.S. Highway 17 signal. She stated the Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as Community Mixed Use place type, which focuses on small scale, denser development patterns to provide an orderly transition from higher to lower intensity areas and add to the diversity of housing options, and development up to three-story and 15 units per acre is an acceptable land use. Ms. Wolf stated the site plan proposes to continue the commercial use at the front of the site, but the rest of the property would be developed as an attached 2-story townhome project; the new site plan has a density of less than 10 units per acre. She confirmed the large parking areas discussed earlier would serve the proposed commercial zoning district. She stated the real estate will be under fee 4 | P a g e simple ownership, which is eligible for 85% FHA financing; homes will be constructed with quality materials and serviced by public water and sewer, sidewalks will circulate throughout the entire project, stormwater management will be via a pond, and buffer yards will consist of maximum existing preserved vegetation, supplemented as needed to provide visual opacity required between attached and single-family housing lots. Ms. Wolf then presented a cross-section of the proposed buffer yard and photos of the existing 30-foot drainage and utility easement between the subject property and the four adjacent properties in Sagewood. She stated the easement has a swale running through it. Ms. Wolf stated there is vegetation along the drainage easement, and beyond the easement, the subject site would have a 20- foot, 100% opaque buffer, which would be natural vegetation to the extent possible for the essential site improvements, supplemented by additional plants to provide the required buffer. Then, there is a 14-foot drive aisle, 8-foot of parallel parking to prevent headlights in neighboring backyards, and then the first building. She stated the closest home would be 140 feet further than the closest townhome would be. Ms. Wolf stated the relocation of the ditch that runs through the developer’s property had been discussed at length. She stated regulations prohibit the damming of any off-site water that flows through a site, it must be traversed through. Ms. Wolf stated because the water traverses on a diagonal thorough this site, it makes more sense for a feasible development that the water be relocated in a pipe system that would outlet at the same place that it currently goes. She stated they had some difficulty explaining piped outlet protection and velocity control to the neighbors. Ms. Wolf stated there are a bulk of regulations at the state and county level regarding erosion control and control of velocity at any outlet. Ms. Wolf presented two photos of typical riprap aprons at outlets, noting one of them showed the existing outlet where the Custom Colors project relocated water going past their property. She showed a map of a public drainage and conservation easement beyond that property at the back of Lots 112-115, where the natural creek runs. Ms. Wolf presented photos taken there earlier that day along that natural creek that indicate the existing drainage easement is not being maintained by the responsible property owners of those lots. Ms. Wolf stated debris is being dumped in the ditch, reducing the storm volume, and that is a problem throughout the county. She reported that New Hanover County is currently pursuing a storm drainage management plan to remedy these situations and put a maintenance program in place. Ms. Wolf stated it is the property owner’s responsibility to maintain ditches to ensure flow until a county program is established. She also presented photos of ditches further downstream behind lots along Brantwood Court where the drainage easement is much better maintained and shows no erosion or severe slopes so it can accept greater volume in some of the greater storms. Ms. Wolf commented that the Board may hear from Mr. Bentley that the developer is not meeting the criteria of the UDO, which establishes requirements for individual zoning districts. She stated the rezoning request tonight is generally covered by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which gives us guidance where changes in our antiquated zoning districts could and should probably occur; if we are positively rezoned, we have new district of regulations and requirements that we must abide by during detailed design and permitting, before any construction can begin. Ms. Wolf stated the concept plan before the Board for consideration meets all requirements for setbacks, the buffer, the curves in the 5 | P a g e road, the parking requirements, etc. She stated that Mr. Bentley had also commented that the applicant, by virtue of this rezoning, would become injurious to adjacent properties. She was hopeful he would take advantage of the county engineer’s expertise to answer any questions he may have regarding permitting, drainage, etc. She stated his supposition is that the proposed project will result in further deterioration of perceived existing problems, but there is no basis in that, because the applicant will be required to handle all of their stormwater management onsite from a post development situation to predevelopment, and all of those regulations related to erosion control, storm water design, and pipe sizing are covered during the permitting process. Ms. Wolf stated that perhaps in the past we weren’t as diligent as we should have been in preparing for the future; many previous projects in this area did not have stormwater management requirements, and can cause problems downstream and cause upstream flooding. Ms. Wolf stated there is an undeniable need for more affordable homes for our young, our workforce, and our aging population, and in these times, infill and some increased density are the keys to making a good project feasible and not cost prohibitive. Ms. Wolf stated the Pinnacle townhomes project is a moderate density project, is an acceptable transition along a busy highway corridor, and would have no traffic impact on adjacent neighbors, and will result in a negligible difference in vehicle trips, as shown in the staff report. She stated the project will be required to meet all state and county permitting standards for preserving water quality and providing attenuation control to ensure post- development runoff is no greater than predevelopment conditions. Ms. Wolf stated her client is a local builder and developer in the community. She stated the applicant concurs with staff's recommendation that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and townhomes would be reasonable and in the public interest because it provides increased housing with infill development on an underutilized tract of land. In response to Board inquiry, Ms. Wolf confirmed that five feet of the 30-foot drainage and utility easement coincides with the proposed 20-foot vegetative buffer. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing to speakers in opposition. Attorney Gregory Bentley, resident of 8915 Tilbury Drive, stated he would like to correct the record by acknowledging he was trained as a physicist and could scientifically comment on anything that a civil engineer could comment on. Mr. Bentley presented a slide presentation on behalf of 11 households along or near the proposed development and clarified that they do not object to the developer’s proposal to build 60 two-story townhomes on this property. He also acknowledged the applicant’s willingness to listen to their concerns and substantially change his proposal from the large apartment buildings in the first proposal to two-story townhomes and expressed appreciation for the applicant’s commitment to preserve as many mature trees as possible. Mr. Bentley stated they objected to two problems in the development proposal – inadequate stormwater and erosion control measures for the Futch Creek gully, and the need for additional privacy through a thicker plant buffer. He stated belief that the rezoning request was not in compliance with the intent for residential zoning districts stated in the UDO, specifically Section 3.2.1, which points to the intents of residential districts to do several things, be consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare, and to ensure adequate 6 | P a g e privacy for all dwelling units and to protect residential districts from flooding. Mr. Bentley stated they believe certain aspects of the rezoning request, as submitted, would: 1. Materially increase the risk of erosion and flooding for our homes along Futch Creek, by too small a stormwater retention pond, and failure to provide adequate assurances of water-calming features on the water-transit conduit discharging into the gully, so that they don’t get a fire hose effect and erode the steep walls of the Futch Creek gully when water comes out at the bottom, and 2. Impair the privacy for adjacent homeowners, by too thin a plant buffer. He said they would like to have additional privacy for the adjacent homeowners through a thicker buffer. After a detailed presentation, Mr. Bentley requested the Planning Board approval of the rezoning request be conditioned on three changes to address the issues identified by the residents: 1. The stormwater detention pond be a 100-year storm pond, not a 25-year storm pond, to avoid predictable erosion and flooding; 2. Adequate and effective “flow-calming” features be added in the stormwater transfer pipe under the property to avoid a “firehose” effect into the head of the gully; and 3. Increase the opaque buffer from the proposed 20 feet to 35-50 feet. As he did in the March presentation, Mr. Bentley also requested: (a) protection of the tree near Tilbury Drive containing the active red- shouldered hawks’ nest, and (b) the developer conduct a full ecological survey (e.g., with Andy Wood, formerly of the Audubon Society) to permit the identification and relocation of any turtles, reptiles and animals that will be displaced to other protected properties. Mr. Bentley then pointed out that the 100-year storm pond was consistent with the planning board’s recent precedent at The Oaks at Murray Farms. He stated in response to Ms. Wolf’s photos of the debris in the gullies, the residents who live along that gully were instructed that they were not allowed to take anything out of it, including trees, dead wood, etc. He explained their HOA had told them it was illegal under state or county law, but there was a lot of desire to clean out the gully. He stated the photos were evidence that the residents follow the rules. Mr. Bentley offered to answer questions from the Board. Chair Girardot asked if the Board had any questions for Mr. Bentley. In response to Board questions, Mr. Bentley stated the photo of the flooded home in his presentation was located on Gaskins Lane. Board Member Boney stated he did not understand the relevance of the photo to the applicant’s proposal and thought it might be a Plantation Landing issue. Mr. Bentley explained they had talked to other people besides the people that signed their letter who live further down in Plantation Landing, and the excess water that comes from the newly impermeable land at the Redland development, to the extent that it overflows the retention pond, would the incremental water that flows down the Futch Creek gully first and then fairly quickly into the flatlands down below where the flooding occurs. Mr. Bentley explained the Futch Creek gully runs to the east and eventually meets a perpendicular channel that links several more of the east-west drainage areas into it so they all pool together and collect water down there. He stated that to the extent you have incremental water that the impermeability of the Redmond property would put into the system over and above the retention pond will wind up down at the bottom and spread out to the east and laterally. In response to Board inquiry regarding the prohibition of debris removal from the gully, Mr. Bentley explained the HOA at Plantation Landing provided that information because many of the residents had trees that had fallen 7 | P a g e down because of erosion in the past storm and wanted to clean them up. He reported they were told by the HOA that they were not allowed to clean the gully because there are 404 wetlands down there and there are rules about them. He acknowledged that he had not researched the rules related to 404 wetlands. He stated that they were told by the HOA not to do anything in the gully. Mr. Bentley stated it was not because they were not interested in cleaning them up; it was because they were told by the HOA that it was illegal to clean the ditches based on their understanding of the laws. He noted that information was provided to the residents several years ago. Mr. Boney commented that he would like to know if that information was accurate because it looked like that gully needed to be cleaned, and he was trying to understand the facts regarding where that water was coming from. Mr. Bentley stated that in the upper gully, it is clearly the Redland property’s problem. Mr. Boney asked Mr. Bentley if it was his scientific opinion that the problem was being caused by water coming off the Redmond property. Mr. Boney explained that if the applicant is following the regulations of the county, they cannot have any more water go off their property than what the county says. He said it seemed that everything Mr. Bentley was requesting the developer do, except the buffer, was something Mr. Bentley thought may happen in the future because we get a storm that may exceed what the pond can handle and/or that water may come through the riprap too fast. Mr. Bentley explained that based on the proposed plan, two-thirds of the Redmond property, the residential piece, will become impermeable. He stated when storms have come through, the preexisting flow was already eroding during a major storm, so it was logical that dumping more inches past the capacity of the pond into that same preexisting flow will increase erosion. Mr. Bentley then stated the last error in Ms. Wolf’s statement was about how the water flow in the gully had been impeded. He stated he would guarantee that was not the case because he goes out frequently after storms to look at that ditch, and it is flowing fine. In response to Board questions, Mr. Bentley responded that during the regular flow, the ditch flows fine, but if you dump a major storm into it and the incremental water from the impermeable land proposed on Redland’s property, it will result in additional erosion and flooding. Mr. Boney responded that he believed the county’s regulations were sufficient. In response to Board questions from H. Allen Pope about flooding in that drainage gully created by two previous storms in 2005 and 2010 in these subject properties, Mr. Bentley replied that there was not an overflow from the upstream part, but there was erosion and photograph he presented showed the trees that were undercut and chunks of the bank that were eroded into the creek and pulled away with the water. He stated they had to clean out trees and bushes that had fallen over because their root systems were undercut. He noted one tree in particular in the photo has nothing really under its roots because the water in the stream has eroded the soil away so it’s vulnerable to being pushed over in the next west wind to fall over onto his property. He stated further erosion would worsen that and cause loss of that side of the creek wall. Board Member Pope asked if Mr. Bentley would agree to the fact that the larger the trees become within that gully, the more restriction it has upstream for flooding. Mr. Bentley stated the gully is about 15 feet deep and 15-20 feet wide, and there is a lot of cross- section area to carry a lot of water which helps to prevent overflow and flooding on the upstream part, but it doesn’t help with avoiding the erosion of the banks that can be seen in that photo. Mr. Pope commented that the velocity of flow through that gully is impeded by trees and other debris that is in 8 | P a g e the gully and on its slopes and it also impedes and backs up water too, if a drainage gully is not maintained as it was designed. Mr. Bentley stated that conceptually, trees and vegetation can slow down flow, but his point was that if you look at the cross-section of the gully, the cross-section that is impeded is rather limited. He didn’t know if that would be true in 10-15 years, but today, the flow is not likely to be materially impacted from a flooding standpoint; it’s in the upper part of the creek, the erosion is the bigger issue and he thought that was evidenced by the photo. In response to Board questions, Mr. Bentley replied that his property extends to the far side of the bank or somewhere near the far side of the bank because some of that has eroded over time, and there is an easement in the gully itself. Board Member Jeffrey Petroff stated he is a civil engineer and commented that the idea that there is an erosion deficiency here is not accurate as the system has not been designed. He stated the county regulations on erosion control are strong. He thought the bypass system needed to be designed, and then the appropriate erosion control measures would follow. He felt the idea that the pond was not adequate was a little erroneous. Mr. Petroff stated he didn’t agree that the pond is undersized. In regard to a 25-year pond and a 100-year pond, it is somewhat arbitrary. He stated the current county rules are following an outdated storm number, and volumes and inches of storms have changed and evolved. He noted some other municipalities and the State reference NOAA storm, a more updated storm design. He added that other projects before the planning board had pledged to design to a 100- year county storm, which more closely correlates to a 25-year storm on the NOAA storm, which is a more accurate number. Mr. Petroff stated he thought it was a fair question to ask the applicant if they would consider designing this pond to the County’s 100-year storm event. He noted it is not a requirement, but he thought it was the only valid question because the erosion control will be addressed. Chair Girardot opened to applicant rebuttal. Ms. Wolf stated appreciation for Mr. Petroff’s comments. She then stated that to the best of her knowledge, no one can remove soil from or fill in a wetland, and that includes stumping because dirt is being moved when a stump is taken out. She stated she has no recognition that there is a prohibition from clearing vegetation that is an impediment to a drainage ditch. Regarding what constitutes inadequate stormwater management and erosion control in their project, she stated the applicant believes the assurances Mr. Bentley has requested are accommodated by our state and county laws, which are established for protection of property and the safety of the public. She stated that the flooding that occurs upstream is due to a lack of downstream volume or damming. She stated the proposed plan would meet all current requirements if they are successful in their rezoning and the project goes to the detailed design and permitting. Ms. Wolf stated the pond size has no connection to downstream erosion, and commented that when the property is designed and regulated for volume in the pond, and the outlet and the emergency spillway are armored, it's not permitted to just spout out; those types of things are covered by our laws and regulations. She said, as far as a condition for outlet control with the pipe and pond outlets, the applicant would agree to a condition because they know it’s something that has to be done, but they believe that mandating requirements above and beyond some of the other established rules and regulations would have a material impact on their project’s 9 | P a g e feasibility and productiveness. She stated one of those is that the applicant is providing a buffer, which comes in two parts – visual buffering and separation of uses. Ms. Wolf stated the applicant has shown that it is 140 feet from the closest neighbor’s building to the proposed townhome community’s buildings, which are perpendicular. Ms. Wolf stated they can commit to the buffering, which is total separation visually, and is required by the County’s code within that area that they have provided. Ms. Wolf stated she and the project’s civil engineer were available to answer questions from the Board about the preliminary design for this site. In response to Board inquiry regarding whether the 30-foot utility and drainage easement has wetlands involved, Ms. Wolf stated to the best of her knowledge, there are no wetlands within the applicant’s site. Chair Girardot closed applicant rebuttal and opened to opposition rebuttal. Mr. Bentley stated he believed he had provided the data to show that the use of a 100-year pond would eliminate all but one of the instance where the proposed pond would be too small to retain all of the water, and in that fourth instance, it was only by a third of an inch; on that basis, they were pointing to the county’s manual and regulations for stormwater. In response to an inquiry by Board Member Pope regarding material evidence showing the drainage and utility easement has wetlands on it, Mr. Bentley stated he could provide a copy of his property plot plan that shows 404 wetlands in the easement and gully. Chair Girardot requested that County Engineer Jim Iannucci address the stormwater control issues related to the proposed project, including the size of the pond, the increased velocity and erosion. County Engineer Jim Iannucci stated New Hanover County does have a stormwater ordinance, and part of that ordinance is a design manual used by engineers. He explained that county requires engineers to design for any new construction that adds over 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, to pre- and post-development, so they have to control that amount of flow for an 8.0-inch rain event over 24 hours, which is called a 25-year storm, to the predevelopment condition. In other words, however, much rain leaves that site today, they must control to that amount after they add impervious surface to the 25-year storm. When we say we analyze at a 100-year storm, that means they look at finished floor elevations of existing homes and the proposed homes and it did not flood a structure during that 100-year event; if there is an outlet, which we’re referring to as a gully tonight, a natural drainage path, then we require and permit to the 25-year storm. He stated the numbers we use, 8.0 inches of rain, are in our current manual. Mr. Iannucci stated the County currently has an engineering firm under contract because as part of the county’s new stormwater services program, we are revising the stormwater ordinance, and then next year, we will revise the design manual. Mr. Iannucci stated that the implementation of the stormwater services program was delayed due to COVID-19. He stated the County will begin maintaining these systems on behalf of residents as part of that program, for example, drainage ditches, pipes, things that convey water across the county that are in a drainage easement or we have authorization to do will be maintained by New Hanover County as of July 2021. Mr. Iannucci stated the County is doing hurricane debris removal. He stated debris can be removed from drainage ditches, however, you are not allowed to use mechanized equipment if it is a wetland, but if there are hurricane-downed trees, sediment, or trees leaning more than 30 degrees, those can 10 | P a g e be removed. He reported the County received a grant to do that work and is currently doing that on behalf of residents in several of the watersheds. He stated there is a bid out now for a street on Pages Creek, so the County is doing some of that work. Mr. Iannucci stated that currently property owners are required to maintain those systems, but next year, it will be a fee-based system, and the County will start doing that for systems that carry water across the county. Mr. Iannucci stated in regard to the ditch the applicant wants to pipe that currently runs through the subject property, those design plans will be reviewed by the county, and that pipe will have to carry the same amount of flow, there will be sediment and erosion control measures while the pipe is being installed, plus they have to maintain those; that is part of the county’s local program that staff look at those systems moving forward. He stated that county stormwater services would then maintain that pipe system that carries water from one neighborhood to the other. Mr. Iannucci stated that these permitted systems are the requirement of the property owners, property owner associations or homeowner associations, like to what Plantation Landing has, so whatever ponds and stormwater measures are installed must be maintained by the property owner(s). He explained that the County will not maintain those systems. Mr. Iannucci stated there was a very good chance that when the county’s stormwater ordinance is updated, the County will bring its ordinance into compliance with the NOAA Atlas standards, and next year, the County will update the design manual. Mr. Iannucci stated the pipe system for the proposed project would have to be sized and have velocity controlling measures, and there would be a sedimentation and erosion control plan in place, which is a state program. He stated the county has a locally funded program that manages it and the county would inspect it during construction. Mr. Iannucci stated the stormwater system would have to be designed for an 8.0-inch rain event, and if this system comes before the County for review after the new ordinance is in place, there is a good chance that those standards could increase. He reported that the stormwater system would also require a state stormwater permit, which would require water quality features to obtain a state stormwater permit, which would require water quality features, and is separate from the county’s requirements. He stated the County requires the engineer to certify the system and it is performance based so that system has to continue to perform, and if for any reason the property owner is not maintaining it, the County could revoke that permit and they would have to bring the system back into compliance. He stated that system would have to be maintained by the homeowner association, which is why the associations will pay a stormwater fee like everyone else, but there are some discounts available for properties that have these permits. Mr. Iannucci stated the goal is for the County’s ordinance to work hand in hand with the State of North Carolina, like we have been since September 2000 when the ordinance was put in place; however, it will be updated because the county will be taking on the maintenance. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Iannucci confirmed the 25-year pond would be adequate for the proposed project, would meet the requirement for the proposed project, and that a separate condition would not be needed because there is a velocity control ordinance. He also confirmed that the homeowner association could clean out that ditch, and it is their responsibility to maintain the ditch until the county starts the stormwater program in 2021. Mr. Iannucci stated that pond 11 | P a g e requirements could change between 2020 and 2021 to the NOAA Atlas for a 25-year event, which is just over 9.0 inches, and would increase the footprint/size of the pond and soils on the site would be considered. He also explained that the developer had stated they would be engineering and designing a wet pond instead of an infiltration area where water will go into the ground. Mr. Iannucci stated there is an outlet structure that will drain this pond down to be able to react to the next storm. He stated the County currently requires a 25-year storm by ordinance and he cannot overstep that ordinance as the County Engineer, but he can hold to those measures and require they be met. Mr. Iannucci also confirmed the homeowner association or property owner could clean out the hurricane debris, etc. that is impeding the stormwater in the ditch, but it must be done by hand or with simple machinery, not mechanized equipment, which would be an issue with the Corps of Engineers in wetlands. Mr. Iannucci stated he would be interested to see if the County could be of assistance to Mr. Bentley’s neighborhood with the removal hurricane-related debris from recent storms, in conjunction with the work in the Pages Creek watershed. Mr. Bentley was encouraged to contact the Mr. Iannucci to regarding the possibility of obtaining the County’s assistance with cleaning hurricane debris from the ditches along Futch Creek in his neighborhood. In response to an inquiry from Board Member Jeffrey Petroff regarding stormwater control measures, Mr. Iannucci stated that if a storm event exceeds a structure’s design standards, it does not mean that the structure has failed. He cited the examples of a 25-year storm wet pond with an outlet structure, where the excess water would pass over a grate, and a wet pond built to a 100-year storm standard, which must have an emergency spillway or overflow. Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. In response to Board questions regarding the conditions proposed by Mr. Bentley outside those that will be accomplished through permitting of the project, Ms. Wolf stated there are rules and regulations regarding certain species, and natural and environmental assets, conservation resources, and those types of things, but she had no idea what tree that hawk may or may not be in. She stated she was not comfortable accepting a condition requiring the applicant to exceed normal requirements for today’s construction, development and environmental impacts. She stated this is a watershed area with gullies and all developments have some disturbance of the existing natural patterns of turtles, reptiles, etc. Board Member Paul Boney made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Ernest Olds, to recommend to the Board of Commissioners to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) RMF-L and (CZD) CB district. The Board found it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed CB portion of the project will provide the types of retail and office uses recommended for Community Mixed Use area, the residential densities proposed for the townhome portion of the project are in line with those suggested for that place type, and the project will provide an appropriate transition between a major highway corridor and existing lower density residential development. The Board also found APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal has the potential to provide services to the adjacent residential 12 | P a g e neighborhoods and could reduce the need to travel on Market Street, and would align with the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of providing more diversity of housing types. In response to board questions, Planner Gideon Smith confirmed the property owner would be required to maintain the 100% opacity standard within the 20-foot buffer if the existing vegetation within the drainage and utility easement was cleared for any reason. Board Member Colin J. Tarrant stated although the pond meets the 25-year storm requirement, the board had not discussed whether that requirement is adequate for this project. He stated the Board does have the ability to add a condition if we feel it should go beyond that requirement. In response to Board questions, County Engineer Jim Iannucci confirmed the 25-year storm pond meets the requirement, will accommodate the proposed project, plus they will have to analyze the 100-year storm to make sure they are not flooding structures. Board Member Tarrant stated, as pointed out by Mr. Bentley, the planning board has required as a condition for certain developments to go above and beyond the 25-year storm, he felt it was appropriate to have the discussion in this case. Board Member Petroff stated he was not sure the planning board had required the 100-year storm, however, the planning board accepted it for a couple of different because it was offered by the applicant to appease the neighbors. Chair Girardot called for a vote on the motion. The motion to approve the Rezoning carried 7-0. Chair Girardot stated that a special use permit request is a quasi-judicial hearing, and all witnesses planning to speak on the item should come forward to be sworn in by Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman. Witnesses were sworn in by Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman. Item 3: Special Use Permit Modification Request (S-603M) – Request by the Law Offices of Matthew A. Nichols on behalf of the property owner, Plantation Village Inc., to modify the Special Use Permit for the Plantation Village Continuing Care Retirement Community to allow for the redevelopment of the eastern portion of the community and to increase the maximum number of units to 300. Long Range Planner Marty Little provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation and zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area and gave an overview of the proposed application as referred to in the staff report. Mr. Little stated Plantation Village was seeking a modification to its existing special use permit. He stated Plantation Village was granted their original special use permit in 1983, and after several modifications, that permit was renewed in 2011 under the requirements for a Continuing Care Retirement Community. He stated Plantation Village was seeking to renovate the eastern portion of their property and no change in the existing senior living use was proposed. He stated the site is located immediately east of the Davis Community senior living facility along Porters Neck Road. Mr. Little stated there are currently eight quadplexes, three apartment buildings, and the commons buildings on the eastern half of the subject 13 | P a g e property where most of the renovation is proposed. Mr. Little reviewed the applicant’s concept plan and provided a comparison between the existing and proposed plans. Mr. Little stated the development was proposed to occur over three phases to prevent the displacement of any residents. He stated due to the phasing, a few of the larger buildings would be built before any existing structures are torn down, resulting in a temporary surplus of 30 units during phases 1 and 2. Mr. Little stated the final total number of senior-living units will be 300 at project completion. He reported that primary access would be provided by Porters Neck Road, with a secondary access from Jeanelle Moore Boulevard, that also serves as a connection to the Davis Community, which provides nursing care. He stated that both accesses were gated. The renovation would result in 23 additional trips in the AM peak hour and 32 trips in the PM peak hour. Mr. Little stated the Comprehensive Plan designates the Plantation Village property, along with the surrounding Porters Neck area, within the General Residential place type. He stated that overall density remains in line with the preferred density range in the General Residential areas, up to 8 units per acre, and because there is no change in use, the development remains in line with the residential uses intended for the place type Mr. Little stated because this is a Special Use Permit modification, the Board must come to four conclusions to recommend approval: 1. That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety. 2. That it meets all requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance. 3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. 4. The use is in harmony with the surrounding area and in general conformity with the comprehensive plan. He said these conclusions must be based on findings of fact, derived from competent, material, and substantial evidence presented at this hearing. Mr. Little stated staff had provided preliminary findings of fact in the staff report; however, the Board had the discretion to modify or add conditions based on the evidence presented at the hearing. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Little stated he believed the buildings were a mixture of quadplexes and duplexes. Board Member Jeffrey Petroff commented that the project would exceed the 300-unit maximum for a period of time due to the phasing and expressed concern about the project being out of compliance for a period of time due to exceeding the approved unit count for a period of time, even though it had been disclosed. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant, Matt Nichols. Attorney Matthew A. Nichols, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the Special Use Permit application and the required criteria. He stated the development team was present to answer any questions the board may have. Zane Bennett, Executive Director of Plantation Village, provided a brief history of Plantation Village, their vision, and their mission, noting it was incorporated as a 501(c)(3) organization in 1982, subsequently received the special use permit approval in 1983 and opened to residents in 1988. He stated they are licensed as a CCRC through the North Carolina Department of Insurance, Special Entities Division, and was the first of its kind in southeastern North Carolina. He stated they serve over 14 | P a g e 300 residents with a high level of hospitality and offer a wide range of services and amenities to make life more fulfilling, convenient, and purposeful. He stated they employ over 150 associates. Nick Herrick, Senior Project Development Manager for LCS Development representing the owner, provided information regarding phasing of the proposed renovation. He presented the master plan, which will occur in three phases. He stated Phase 1 would add 44 additional units in four small apartment buildings and relocate the maintenance and hobby buildings, and would include funding of site drainage improvements; Phase 2 would replace 8-quad buildings with 70 new residences in five 8- plex buildings and a 30-unit building, and replace Building C with a new 22-unit building. Phase 2 would be at the 330-units level from that point on. He stated Phase 3 would replace Buildings A and B with a new 53-unit building. The unit count would be deductive from that point on to the project back down to 300 units. Peter Epermanis, Architect and Principal for CJMW Architecture, presented building designs and images of existing and proposed building designs, renderings and concept elevations. He stated they needed to develop the property so that the new apartments are completed prior to removal of the current buildings, so that no residents are displaced. Mr. Epermanis said for that reason there would be a bulge in units until the project was completed. He stated that a low country design would be incorporated into the buildings. He stated there is a beautiful lake water feature and amenities would be added overlooking that water feature and continue around the lake. Mr. Epermanis stated the proposed updates were needed so the community could remain competitive in the region. Phil Norris of Norris and Tunstall Engineers address stormwater requirements for the site and explained there were two existing stormwater features, the large lake in the center, which is the permitted stormwater pond for the state and the county, and an existing infiltration area on the right side of the site that is also permitted. Mr. Norris stated there was excess capacity in the existing permits and they were hopeful they could utilize that since the project would be a lot of renovation. He stated they would be taking out existing impervious surface and replacing it with new impervious surface, and it initially appeared that the two existing features would be adequate to meet all of the regulations; however, as the project phasing developed, it became apparent that because the first phase would take place in areas of the campus that were currently undeveloped, they would be increasing impervious surface before they could remove an adequate amount of existing impervious surface to take its place. He stated the solution was to add a proposed stormwater BMP in the upper right corner of the site, which they felt certain would be an infiltration area. He reported that soil testing had been done to ensure the soils were suitable for that purpose. Mr. Norris stated the proposal meets the 25-year storm, and the 100-year storm with the current proposed design. He stated that after all three phases have been completed, there will be much more stormwater treatment and capacity on the site than is required by regulations, and more than the site has today, which will benefit the community and the neighbors. Mr. Norris offered to answer questions from the board. Don Bennett, Senior Transportation Engineer at Davenport Engineering, provided trip generation information and stated the site generally would not trip the requirement for a traffic impact study. He stated the traffic study was very conservative in the statement of what the impacts would be. Mr. 15 | P a g e Bennett stated when the final project was built, the impact would be half of what is represented in the traffic study. He stated, at its peak, it did not eclipse any of the thresholds that the NCDOT congestion guidelines and the driveway manual would put in place for requiring improvements be done by the applicant. He stated all approaches at all intersections would operate at a Level of Service of A or B, even at the peak of the development. He offered to answer any questions about traffic. In response to questions from the board regarding the difference in traffic volumes for a senior living community and a regular, broad age range apartment community, Mr. Bennett explained that regular apartment buildings typically have commuter traffic which enters and exits in the peak hours, resulting in impacts, and in assisted senior living units, some residents will not drive, and will use other transportation options, and those who do will be able to spread their trips out over the day, if needed, utilizing the system when it’s not congested. He noted there are also employees providing onsite services to senior living residents. He also explained the current 10th edition of the trip generation manual takes studies from other comparable locations, which would include the employees and the residents. He also stated it had recently been updated and has not had the chance for the studies to include ride-sharing services that may be afforded to residents. Mr. Bennett stated they were probably overstating the impacts significantly, and the project is still at a Level of Service of A and B for all approaches. Cal Morgan, a N. C. Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, stated he had performed research and a detailed analysis that would enable him to conclude an opinion as to criteria number three of the applicant's special use permit application – that the use will not substantially injure the value of the adjoining or abutting property or the use is a public necessity. He then described the multi-step process used to develop that opinion. Mr. Morgan stated that his analysis indicated that the proposed expansion associated with Plantation Village would have no impact on the values of the properties abutting or adjoining the subject property. Matt Nichols stated the development team was available to answer any questions the board may have. He noted the request was a modification of a special use permit so the County Board of Commissioners has already determined that the use via the existing special use permit is appropriate and meets all of the criteria, and the applicants were not proposing any change of use. He stated they were proposing a modernization, the use would remain the same, and the proposal would be a great addition to Plantation Village; therefore, they would appreciate the board’s consideration. In response to questions from the board, Mr. Nichols stated the applicant is required to have a 30-foot buffer and they are maintaining a 40-foot buffer, which will remain intact. In response to questions from the board regarding the temporarily exceeding 300 maximum units, Zane Bennett stated those details were included in the application package, and the surplus units would occur during Phase 2A so that residents would not be displaced. He confirmed that during Phase 2 there would be 330 potential residents or occupants on the campus at that time, which is over the 300-unit maximum, and from that point on, it would be deductive through the rest of the phasing. Mr. Bennett also stated that the length of time for Phase 2 would depend on the market conditions, and noted the overall 3-phase project would be between 7-10 years, but the time frame for the excess units in Phase 2 would be approximately 5-7 years. 16 | P a g e Board Member Jeffrey Petroff expressed concern that the board might approve something that would put the applicant in violation. Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman suggested that the applicant amend their application to request up to 330 units permanently. Mr. Nichols stated the applicant did not want the project to be in violation and had held those discussions with staff because the proposal was a unique situation. He stated they were open to the board’s comments about what they would need to do. He added they would amend the application if needed. Director Wayne Clark stated staff did not understand there would be 330 occupied units, and those 30 units should be unoccupied to get down to 300 units. He agreed with Deputy County Attorney Huffman that the applicant should modify the number of units to 330 and clarify that is what it would be. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing to speakers in opposition. Robert Walsh of 625 Wild Dune Circle and President of the Hunters Green Homeowners Association in Porters Neck Plantation stated their neighborhood directly abuts the northern boundary of Plantation Village and presented the association’s questions regarding the project, including the construction timeline, the preservation of the existing tree line along the northern property boundary, their preference to not include the installation of a fence along the northern property line, stormwater detention, and the applicant’s property value assessment. Chair Girardot opened to applicant rebuttal. Attorney Matt Nichols stated Plantation Village would continue to be a good neighbor and would coordinate with the neighbors on those items. He offered to answer any questions the board may have. Mr. Nichols again stated the applicant was open to ideas on how to address the phasing, and if needed request 330 maximum units so they would not be in violation of the special use permit. No one from the public spoke during opposition rebuttal. Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. After a lengthy Board discussion with staff and the applicant regarding the timing of the build-out taking ten years or longer, Applicant and Attorney Matt Nichols requested their application be amended for a maximum of 330 units permanently, instead of their initial request that the maximum 330 be temporary until completion of the final phase of the project. The Board and applicant agreed to make the request for a maximum 330 units permanently. Chair Girardot asked for a motion from the Board. Board Member Thomas H. (Jordy) Rawl made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Jeffrey Petroff, to recommend to the Board of Commissioners to APPROVE, as the Board found that this application for a Special Use Permit Modification met the four required conclusions based on the findings of fact included in the Staff Report. 17 | P a g e Also, that the following conditions be added: 1. The existing 40-foot vegetative buffer along the northern property line shall be retained where the development proposed in this modification adjoins the single-family homes of the Porters Neck Plantation subdivision. 2. The application be amended to request 330 units permanently. The motion to approve the Special Use Permit carried 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS Items from Staff: 1. Development Code Update (Unified Development Ordinance Project) Senior Long Range Planner Rebekah Roth provided an update on the County's Unified Development Ordinance project, which covers code changes intended to implement the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and update the format for the county's development regulations. She stated the core product of the project was complete and staff was wrapping up the last stage of the project. She reported the first round of amendments in that stage would be considered by the Board of Commissioners at their September 8 meeting, and the final round of amendments was being prepared for the Planning Board’s consideration. Ms. Roth stated proposed changes include amendments related to trees and open space, infill compatibility, and changes to zoning standards, such as parking. Ms. Roth stated the amendments were discussed in concept at the Planning Board’s August 26 virtual work session, and a recording of that meeting was posted on the UDO Project’s project update page. She stated staff was finalizing the public review drafts with the consultants so they could be released for public comment prior to a public hearing scheduled for the Planning Board’s October 1 meeting. Ms. Roth stated a draft of each amendment would be released the next week, along with a summary sheet highlighting the code effects, the content of the update, the major changes to the standards and where the specific language could be found. She stated additional summaries would also be provided for some amendments for clarification, for example, a chart outlining parking standards for each principle use. Planner Roth informed board members that the draft would be released the following week and posted to the Planning Department website on the UDO Project webpage, the email list would be alerted and copies would be emailed directly to board members, as well as specific stakeholders who had expressed a desire to see or review the draft amendments or were recommended as key to their review. She stated that public comments received by 5:00 p.m. on September 18 would be included in the planning board’s October 1 meeting packet and may affect the draft the board would see at the public hearing; though additional comments could be provided at the public hearing. 18 | P a g e Ms. Roth offered to answer questions from board members. Hearing no questions for staff, Chair Girardot asked for a motion to adjourn. Board Member Thomas (Jordy) Rawl made MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Ernest Olds to adjourn the meeting. The motion to adjourn carried 7-0. With no other business, Chair Donna Girardot adjourned the meeting at 8:43 p.m. Please note: The above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.