Loading...
2022-12-01 PB MINUTES1 | Page Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board December 1, 2022 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on December 1, 2022, at 5:00 p.m. in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina. Members Present Staff Present Donna Girardot, Chair Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning Jeff Petroff, Vice Chair Robert Farrell, Senior Current Planner Hansen Matthews Kenneth Vafier, Planning Manager Clark Hipp Zachary, Dickerson, Current Planner Kevin Hine Julian Griffee, Current Planner Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney Absent Members Pete Avery Colin Tarrant Vice Chair Jeff Petroff called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. and announced that the Planning Board Chair was running late. Planning Manager, Kenneth Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Donna Girardot arrived and resumed the meeting. Chair Girardot welcomed the new Planning Board member Mr. Kevin Hine. Approval of Minutes Minutes from the September 1, 2022, Planning Board meeting were presented to the members. No changes or amendments were identified. Vice Chair Jeff Petroff made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Clark Hipp, to approve the minutes as drafted. Motion to approve minutes carried 5-0. Minutes from the November 3, 2022, Planning Board meeting were presented to the members. No changes or amendments were identified. Vice Chair Jeff Petroff made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Clark Hipp, to approve the minutes as drafted. Motion to approve minutes carried 5-0. NEW BUSINESS Rezoning request (Z22-18) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Vlacancich, property owners, to rezone approximately 4.65 acres of land located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residential to (CZD) RMF-M, Residential Multi-Family – Moderate Density for a multi-family development Senior Planner Robert Farrell 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. Farrell stated that the proposal was to rezone 4.63 acres from R-15 to (CZD) RMF-M for construction of a 4- story multi-family dwelling with a maximum height of 50 feet. He stated that the property was zoned to R-15 in the 1970s and that at the time the purpose of the district was to ensure housing densities remained lower due to the need for private wells and septic systems. He stated that since then, public water and sewer had become available in the area. 2 | Page Mr. Farrell stated that the site had direct access to Carolina Beach Road, an NCDOT maintained Urban Principle Arterial Highway. He stated access would be right-in/right-out and that there was an existing U-turn for northbound movement approximately 1800 feet to the south. He stated that the applicant proposed the voluntary addition of a right-turn land to serve the development which would be subject to NCDOT requirements and permitting. Mr. Farrell provided information indicating that the existing development generated 0 AM and PM peak hour trips. He stated that the proposed development was estimated to generate approximately 47 AM and 54 PM peak hour trips. Mr. Farrell stated that the subject site was one of several undeveloped tracts along Carolina Beach Road and acted as a buffer between the highway and lower density single-family development to the west and was located between Carolina Beach and the Monkey Junction Commercial Node. He stated that the proposed concept plan positioned a portion of the stormwater facilities close to the existing single-family homes to the south and 100-foot setback were required from adjacent residential development. He stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated this area as Community Mixed Use which was intended to promote a mix of retail, office and residential development at moderate densities up to 15 units per acre and a building height range of 1-3 stories. He stated RMF-M district was intended to act as a transitional district between residential and commercial development. He stated that the proposed density of 17 dwelling units per acre exceeded the 15 dwelling units per acre recommended for the place type, and the proposed project exceeded the recommended height. Mr. Farrell stated that although staff recommends denial, if the board were to approve the rezoning staff recommended the following conditions: 1. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged or shielded so as not to cast illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to the ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that light spillage and glare are not directed at adjacent property, neighboring areas, or motorists. Light posts shall be no taller than twenty (20) feet. 2. The Pickleball court amenity shown on the concept plan may be used for other outdoor recreational purposes. The amenity area as shown on the concept plan must remain an amenity for use by residents of the development and their guests. 3. The maximum height of the building shall not exceed 50 feet. 4. The proposed right turn lane must be approved and permitted by NCDOT. Changes to the concept plan to meet NCDOT requirements for the turn lane may be approved administratively by county staff. Mr. Farrell stated that if the rezoning were approved it would be subject to Technical Review Committee and Zoning Compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Ms. Cindee Wolf, applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed project. She stated rezoning this property for multifamily residential development would be consistent with the concept of transitioning uses, infilling vacant parcels where existing utilities could readily be extended and where urban services were available. She stated that although a mix of housing types does increase the density, it also helped create a broader range of residents to support a vibrant community. She stated the shortage of multi-family development covers a wide range of income levels, but the deficit is extensive. Ms. Wolf stated that the applicant was proposing a 4-story complex with ground floor parking and 3-levels of residential for a total of 78 one- and two-bedroom units. Each unit would have at least one designated parking space on the deck. The proposal included recreational amenities with a courtyard pool and pickleball court that would be available for daytime use only with no lighting provided. She stated that direct access would be provided to Carolina Beach Road and a right-turn lane would be added. She stated the proposed general architecture of the style of the structure would not affect the character of any neighborhood and the massing allows for more greenspace surrounding it. She provided information indicating that 10 units would be committed to Workforce Housing for a period of no less than 15 years and 3 | Page that the established rent limits for those units would be based on HUD’s “HIGH HOME / 80%” standard. She provided proposed conditions of a maximum building height of 50’ and a 30’ bufferyard with a screening fence with no clearing of vegetation within it. Ms. Wolf provide trip generation comparisons indicating an increased difference of 11 overall peak hour trips. She stated that the proposal would have only 38 percent impervious surface that allowed for more greenspace and more area for the pond. She stated that there was an existing drainage way that would continue to traverse offsite flow across the southern boundary, there were no impacts to the wetlands, and the swamp forest resource would be buffered. She stated the applicant accepted each of staff’s proposed conditions. In response to questions from the Board regarding the distance of property line to the north, Ms. Wolf stated that there was a 30-foot setback. She stated that there would most likely be a management office onsite with 24-hour contact. Chair Girardot opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Mr. Tom Toby, spoke on behalf of Ms. Marguerite Derrick 5701 Oliver Court, and read her notes that opposed the project and expressed her concerns with insufficient time allowed for residents to review information regarding the potential impacts of project; wetlands survey, hazardous waste and endangered species assessment and the request for a continuance for 45-60 days. Ms. Nancy Steel, 816 Mackay Court spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern with the buffer not being sufficient, the height of the structure and it being out of place; and increased in traffic on Carolina Beach Road and Lords Creek Road. Ms. Cindy Fusco, 10 Pickett Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern with the proposed density, if there would be adequate support from county emergency services and medical services, traffic control and public transportation, affordability for residents. Mr. Tom Toby, 6605 Oliver Court spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concerns regarding overcrowding in the area. He expressed his concern with traffic on Carolina Beach Road, and the high-density construction. He expressed his agreement with the request from Ms. Derrick for a continuance of the meeting. In rebuttal to the opposition, Ms. Wolf stated that this was not low-income housing, but market rate rental and that Workforce Housing was not low-income housing. She stated this is not part of the Lords Creek neighborhood but will be along the Carolina Beach Road corridor and provided information regarding recreation in the area. In rebuttal to the applicant, Ms. Steele commented that she felt that the workforce housing would be more appropriate for a more urban area and did not see the need for more rental and the density of the project. Mr. Toby stated that rental was not needed in the area but opportunities for home ownership. With no further comments or questions, Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. Board member discussion focused on how to balance height and potential massing of the multi-family structure with the need for housing, the proposed affordability component, and reduced footprint. Members agreed that additional density was needed in order to accommodate people continuing to move to the area and would occur across the county. Members expressed reservations regarding the proposed project intensity in terms of both form and traffic impact but emphasized the positive aspects of the design and the need for affordable units in this part of the county. Vice Chair Jeff Petroff made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Clark Avery, to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the proposed (CZD) RMF-M rezoning. The Board found it to be INCONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed height and density of the development exceeds the height and density recommendation for the Community Mixed Use place type. The Board found RECOMMENDING DENIAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because while multi-family development acted as a buffer for lower density residential development, and parking garages help reduce impervious surface limits on projects, the overall scale of the proposed development would not be consistent with anticipated patters of development in the Carolina Beach Road corridor. The motion to recommend denial of the proposed (CZD) RMF-M rezoning request carried 5-0 4 | Page Rezoning request (Z22-21) - Request by Paramounte Engineering, applicant, on behalf of the Cornelius E Nixon Revocable Trust, Cornelius Nixon Trust, and Nixon Associates, LLC, property owners, to rezone four parcels totaling approximately 9.75 acres of land located at 7011 Ruth Avenue from B-2, Regional Business and R-15, Residential to (CZD) RMF-M, Residential Multi-Family – Moderate Density for a multi-family development. Current Planner Julian Griffee 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. Griffee stated that the request was to rezone four parcels totaling 9.75 acres from R-15 and B-2 to CZD RMF- M. He stated the existing R-15 and B-2 zoning designations were applied in 1972. He stated that since the original zoning was applied, water and sewer services had been introduced and the area has become more urbanized. He stated the proposal was to construct 144 units consisting of two 4-story structures. He stated a stormwater management facility was proposed to be located between the multi-family structures and that setbacks and buffering from the adjacent residential uses had been proposed by the applicant. He stated that primary access to the site was on Ruth Avenue, a private right-of-way to be maintained by the applicant and that a secondary access road had been proposed from the development to Market Street but would be subject to permitting by NCDOT. He stated that this access would be a right in/right out access. Mr. Griffee provided information indicating that the existing development generated 1 AM and 1 PM peak hour trip. He stated that trip generation under the current B-2 zoning would vary dependent upon the type of use if development were to occur. He stated that typical development under the existing B-2 zoning could support a 71,300 square foot supermarket and was estimated to generate 252 AM peak hour trips and 644 PM peak hour trips. He stated that the proposed development was estimated to generate approximately 52 AM and 57 PM peak hour trips. Mr. Griffee stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classified these parcels within the Urban Mixed Use place type, which promoted development of a mix of residential, office, and retail uses at higher densities. He stated this classification intended for moderate to high densities while providing a transition between the existing lower density housing and higher intensity commercial uses along heavily traveled roadway corridors. He stated the RMF-M zoning was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the district was more in line with the densities recommended for Urban Mixed-use areas. Mr. Griffee stated that if the rezoning were approved it would be subject to Technical Review Committee and Zoning Compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. In response to questions of the Board regarding the secondary access road Mr. Griffee stated that the secondary access could be another path for residents to exit the site. He stated the secondary access may be required because of the number of units provided within this development. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Ms. Alison Engelbretson, applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed project. She stated that proposal was located in an urban-mixed use area and was close to an employment center and general residential. She stated the area was consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan which designated the parcel as the Urban Mixed Use place type, which proposed a moderate mixed density. She stated that about 45 percent of the site was encumbered by easements; utility easements, AT&T easement, and powerline easement, and that there was an existing 100-foot minimum buffer. She stated a Traffic Impact Analysis was not required because the number of units did not trigger a traffic impact analysis but that the applicant did look at any improvements that may be needed for the project. In response to questions from the Board about the description of the amenity leasing office, Ms. Englebretson stated there was no full design for that building but the applicant was working around the trees and having a design that would be comparable with the design of the homes. She stated that the buffer and parking was within the 100-foot easement and the landscaping was not in the powerline easement. She stated that the storm drainage would be intended to both be part of the amenities for the project and function as stormwater for the site. Chair Girardot opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. 5 | Page With no one signed up to speak in opposition or with questions, Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. During board discussion, members agreed that multi-family residential was appropriate in this area but requested that an additional condition be placed on the application limiting the amenity building to one-story. Vice Chair Jeff Petroff made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Clark Hipp, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed (CZD) RMF-M rezoning with the following condition: 1. The amenity leasing office shall be no taller than one story. The Board found it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project provided for the types of uses recommended in the Urban Mixed Use place type and the residential densities were in-line with those recommended for the property. The Board found RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal would benefit the community by providing a transition between the existing land uses along Ruth Avenue, the roadway to the west, and the commercial uses to the south, and will provide additional housing in close proximity to existing and future commercial development in between the City of Wilmington and the Kirkland – Porters Neck Commercial Node. The motion to recommend approval of the proposed (CZD) RMF-M rezoning request carried 5-0 Rezoning request (Z22-22) - Request by Samuel Franck with Ward and Smith, P.A., applicant, on behalf of Wilmington Development Group, Inc, property owner, to rezone approximately 7.63 acres of land located at 147 Brentwood Drive from R-15, Residential to (CZD) R-5, Residential for a quadraplex and triplex residential development. Current Planner Julian Griffee 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. Griffee stated that the proposal was to rezone 7.63 acres from R-15 to CZD R-5. He stated that the subject site was undeveloped and located within the Hightsville portion of the county and is located off Brentwood Drive, an NCDOT maintained local road. He stated that the original zoning had been applied in 1971, with R-15 zoning existing north, west and south of the parcel, and B-2 zoning fronting Castle Hayne Road, an NCDOT maintained minor arterial roadway. Mr. Griffee provided information indicating that the site currently generated 0 AM and PM peak hour trips. He stated that compared to the type of development typical under the current R-15 zoning, the requested district could generate an additional 4 trips in each peak hour. He stated that the estimated trip generation for the proposal was under the 100 peak hour trip threshold that would trigger the ordinance requirement for traffic impact analysis but that any development would still be subject to NCDOT review through the driveway permitting process. Mr. Griffee stated that the property abutted residentially zoned property to the north, south, and west and B-2 zoned parcels that currently accommodated commercial uses that front Castle Hayne Road, and that the proposal could serve as an appropriate transition between these uses. He stated that the subject site was located in close proximity to employment centers, including the airport commerce park and industrial uses toward downtown Wilmington and that the project could serve as an appropriate infill by providing different housing options in close proximity to theses concentrated employment centers. He stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classified the parcel as being within the Employment Center place type which was intended to serve as employment and production hubs where office and light industrial uses were easily available; however, low to moderate density residential uses were encouraged within this place type to support the employment and production hubs. He stated this parcel was adjacent to single-family residents to the west, north and south and classified in the General Residential place type, and that commercial and industrial uses to the east, were classified as within the employment center place type. He stated that the proposal was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the district was more in line with the densities recommended for employment center areas than the existing zoning, and the type and amount of housing options proposed could support nearby employment areas. 6 | Page Mr. Griffee stated that if the rezoning were approved it would be subject to Technical Review Committee and Zoning Compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Mr. Samuel Franck, applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed project. He agreed with the information provided by Mr. Griffee. Mr. Franck stated the proposal was low impact infill development, designed to meet the demand for a greater diversity of housing options in the northern side of New Hanover County. He stated this development would bring more affordable housing. He stated the proposal would provide a transition between the relatively intense commercial district uses along Castle Hayne Road and the lower density existing residential uses to the west and north. He stated that the rezoning was consistent with both the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Plan. He stated in order to have sustainable housing options that were available across demographics of need, you have to be able to incorporate density in appropriate places to provide smaller less expensive homes available to people or relatively close to places of work, which is what the employment center area on the Future Land Use Map described and what the proposal delivered. He stated that there would be a walkable community with a public right of way. He stated that the applicant created a cul-de-sac drive and single point of entry/exit point at the entrance of the development closest to Castle Hayne Road, a stormwater plan with specifics to where the ponds would be located and how they would serve as a natural buffer in their location and manage stormwater appropriately. He stated that the applicant had created several additional overflow parallel parking spaces along Brentwood Drive and established a sidewalk on both sides of the road that would be dedicated as a public street and adjusted the buffers between the property. He stated that there would be new stormwater management infrastructure and utility connections installed, and that the water and sewer lines would be established in front of the lots on Brentwood Drive. He stated the proposal was consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and would significantly increase the diversity of housing options in the county and allow for the development of an attractive, low impact infill development that acted as a transition between the relatively intense commercial uses along Castle Hayne Road and the lower density and existing single-family residential uses to the west and north. In response to questions from the Board if the installation of stormwater in the ditch along Brentwood Drive was a condition to the rezoning or a requirement of development standards, Mr. Franck stated that they had not engineered the stormwater system yet and were seeking approval of the use. He stated that there would need to be improvement of the stormwater system and that they had no expectation that NCDOT would install the stormwater system. He stated that the applicant would not be objective to adding this as a condition to the application. In response to questions from the Board about the driveway cuts, Mr. Franck stated that currently at the driveway cuts there was a vegetative swale that was not effectively working because it had been blocked in various locations but could not speak to the specifics. In response to comments from the Board about the NCDOT and the public right of way, Mr. Franck stated that the applicant had no way to confirm that NCDOT would take over the road, but had committed to dedicating the roadway to be a public right of way for public use. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Josh Mihaly, Landscape Architect, stated there would be 2 parking spacing for each dwelling unit with 11 on street parking spaces for overflow. Chair Girardot opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Ms. Patricia Bradford, 165 Brentwood Drive spoke in opposition to the project. She indicated the project would have a negative impact on the sense of community in Hightsville and was incompatible with the cottage style houses that were already in place. She stated that the traffic would negatively impact Brentwood Drive, which while NCDOT maintained, was unmarked with no streetlights. Ms. Kelly Jewell, 304 Palmetto Road, spoke in opposition to the project and described the history of the site and that its use had been limited due to wet conditions. Ms. Scarlett Spencer, 137 Brentwood Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concerns that new units would be out of scale with the community. She indicated there were existing drainage concerns requiring at home sump 7 | Page pumps be installed in coordination with County Engineering. She also spoke about delays in the NCDOT project to widen Castle Hayne Road while a high number of homes had been added in recent years. Mr. Terry Tonn, 134 Victoria Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern that there was not enough evaluation of stormwater issues in this area or information at this point. Mr. Chris Brock, 127 Brentwood Drive, whose property abutted the site on two sides, spoke in opposition. He stated residents were passionate about this community and indicated that the Preservation Point rezoning changed conditions that led to the Employment Center designation for this area. He indicated that proposed units would not be affordable, and the developer wanted to maximize density. Ms. Brittany Castillo, 114 Victoria Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and described the quality-of-life in this area and concerns that it would be lost with higher intensity development. She stated she believed the proposal would be out of place within the generally rural community. Mr. James Strickland, 200 Palmetto Road, spoke in opposition to the project and referenced the connection of Preservation Point with Brentwood Drive. He expressed the desire for assurance that drainage would not be negatively impacted by the project. In rebuttal to the opposition, Mr. Franck expressed that the intent of the proposal was to develop the project to become a part of the existing community. He clarified the information he provided regarding the capacity of traffic along Castle Hayne Road. He stated the single point of entry in egress, the driveway that the applicant had maintained, was further away from the driveway for Preservation Point and should reduce potential interference problems for people coming in and out of the neighborhood. He reiterated the improvements that the applicant intended to make to improve the drainage system and the availability of water and sewer than what currently existed. He stated that the type of housing being proposed had become more popular with citizens of the county and there were not enough of them available. He stated the design was compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the needs and demands of the community. Ms. Julia Walker-Jewel asked if Mr. Franck would provide more information about the proposed height of the project. In response to Ms. Walker-Jewels question Mr. Franck stated that maximum height for R-5 was a maximum of 40 ft but had not been designed yet. However, the height would be what would be permitted per the current zoning. . Ms. Julia Walker-Jewel returned and expressed her concern with the height and stated that the current homes were small cottages and that the proposal was congruent with the current neighborhood. Ms. Scarlett Spencer returned and presented a petition from the neighborhood. She stated along Glendale Road and Brentwood Road, there were already 50-60 homes, and that the proposal would bring as many homes in that area as there were on the two streets. She stated the height would be an issue because there was no buffer. Mr. Chris Brock returned and expressed his belief that the increase to 49 from 20 units was being driven by greed. He stated R-5 didn’t serve as a buffer between residential and commercial in this area. Mr. Terry Tonn returned and expressed his concern with the intersection of Brentwood Road and Castle Hayne Road as it was currently congested and couldn’t handle more traffic. With no further questions or concerns, Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. Board member discussion focused on likely end result of proposed project related to density and traffic impact. Board Member Hansen Matthews made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Clark Hipp, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed (CZD) R-5 zoning with the following conditions: The Board found it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project provided for the types and mixture of uses recommended in the Employment Center place type and the residential densities are in-line with those recommended for the property. The Board found RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal would benefit the community by 8 | Page providing diverse housing options in close proximity to existing employment centers. The proposal also provides a transition between adjacent neighborhoods to the west and the commercial industrial uses to the east and will provide additional housing in close proximity to existing and future commercial developments in the Hightsville area. The motion to recommend approval of the proposed (CZD) R-5 rezoning request carried 5-0 Rezoning request (Z18-02M) - Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Bailey & Fuller Properties, LLC, property owner, to rezone two parcels totaling approximately 3.44 acres of land located at 7887 Market Street from CZD B-2, Regional Business and O&I, Office and Institutional to (CZD) B-2, Regional Business in order to modify the existing CZD B-2 concept plan approved April 2, 2018 to modify allowed uses and add parking, and an additional story. Current Planner Zachary Dickerson 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. Dickerson stated that the proposal was to modify the zoning of two parcels located at 7887 and 7957 Market Street to CZD B-2 to develop a mixed-use 3-story building. He stated that the proposal was comprised of three modifications; one to the site plan, one to the building form, and one to the uses allowed. He stated the applicant had proposed that the stormwater management would be designed for under-pavement in both the front and rear lots, and that the concept plan showed the enhanced streetyard and setback required in the Special Highway Overlay District. He stated that in regard to the modification of use, the applicant has removed the fast-food restaurant with drive-thru and high turnover restaurant uses which would allow the applicant to request a Special Use Permit to allow residential units in the 3-story structure as part of a mixed-use development. He stated that access to the property was to be provided from Bump Along Road, a private road which was accessed from a right turn off Market Street, and Raintree Road, which was maintained by NCDOT. He stated that the entrance to Market Street from Bump Along Road was right turn only; Raintree Road would act as a connector through the development, and traffic calming devices were proposed to be installed. Mr. Dickerson stated that the proposed development was estimated to generate approximately 52 AM and 85 PM peak hour trips. This would result in a reduction from the previously approved project, which would have generated 134 AM peak hour trip and 264 PM peak hour trips, Mr. Dickerson stated that the subject site was located near the Porter’s Neck Growth Node and that the proposal was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan which classified this area as Community Mixed Use type. Mr. Dickerson stated that the applicant has proposed the following condition: 1. The improvements required as part of the approved 2018 Traffic Impact Analysis be completed in accordance with NCDOT’s standards prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 2. The two-way vehicular connection to Raintree Road, extending to Bump Along Road, must be included within a 30-foot-wide access easement that is dedicated for public use. 3. The portion of Bump Along Road adjoining subject property must be improved as a minimum 20’ paved, two-way drive and dedicated for public use, either by dedicating an access easement or private right-of-way 4. Subject property owners will participate with all other property owners along Bump Along Road in a road maintenance agreement for their pro-rata road frontage. 5. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged or shielded so as not to cast illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to the ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that light spillage and glare are not directed at adjacent property, neighboring areas, or motorists. Light posts shall be no taller than 20’ Mr. Dickerson stated that because this project was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and provided for the type of use recommended in this place type, staff recommended approval of this application and if 9 | Page the rezoning were approved it would be subject to Technical Review Committee and zoning compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. In response to questions of the Board about conditions for high-turnover restaurant as part of this development, Mr. Dickerson stated that there were no applicant conditions and that the list would be the updated uses allowed in the conditional district. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Ms. Cindee Wolf, applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed project. She stated the request was a modification to the existing zoning and that the applicant’s proposal was for a 3-story mixed-use development. She provided a brief history of the property along Bump Along Road, a private access easement and stated that for this proposal, the applicant had agreed at a minimum to install the right turn lane along Market Street and to improve 300 linear feet of Bump Along Road for two-way travel with a minimum of 20-foot pavement. She stated that the future maintenance of the improvements along Bump Along Road and the Raintree Road extension would be the responsibility of the property owner and that the applicant would install signage at the end of the improved portion of Bump Along Road to notify the public that it was a Private/ No Outlet Road, for use by residents and guests only. She stated that because of the changes in use and changes in density, the current proposal did not require a new Traffic Impact Analysis however the improvements recommended at the first Traffic Impact Analysis would be completed as agreed. She stated that the project would not impact the existing wetlands. She stated that Raintree Road was only paved to a certain extent and did not extend to the property line; however, the pavement for the project would extend all the way out to Bump Along Road. She stated currently there was no culvert, and that area was totally isolated which contributed to drainage issues. She stated the proposed project would provide a new culvert under the extension of Raintree Road which would remedy some of the drainage issues because it would provide for the overflow that is not currently there. Ms. Wolf stated that the proposal to modify the existing zoning was consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan which designated the parcel as the Community Mixed Use place type and would improve the form and function of an underutilized site. She stated that the improvements offered by conditions would not only benefit the project itself, but the greater area with infrastructure, including the turn lane at the Bump Along Road intersection, the extension of Raintree Road for better interconnectivity and emergency services delivery, and stormwater management improvements that should remedy existing issues. Chair Girardot opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Mr. Chevelier Cromartie 7893 Raintree Road, spoke in opposition to the projected. He detailed extensive issues with flooding at his home due to poor drainage in the area caused by there being no stormwater outlet at the end of Raintree Road near Market St., which he believed would be exacerbated by the development. He outlined conversations that he had had with both NCDOT and County Engineering without the identification of any remedy and described how the issues had affected his property and his family. In rebuttal to the opposition, Ms. Wolf spoke to how the project as proposed would improve the drainage issues described by Mr. Cromartie. She described the drainage improvements that would be required in order for the development to be constructed. In rebuttal to the applicant, Mr. Andy Fazzari, 73 Sansberry Court, spoke in opposition and reiterated drainage issues due to no stormwater outlet and indicated that the proposed development would reduce the carrying capacity at that area. Mr. Cromartie stated that development would not be in harmony with the area, which is an existing wetland, and would increase drainage concerns in the area. He outlined additional methods he had undertaken to deal with the issue and that the project would make conditions worse. Ms. Deborah Mitchell, 7827 Sansberry Court, described flooding on Raintree Road with just rainstorms and indicated future occupants of the building would not be able to get off of the property. With no further opposition or questions, Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. 10 | Page Board member discussion focused on the amount of impervious surfaces for this project as related to stormwater. Vice Chair Jeff Petroff made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Hansen Matthews, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed (CZD) B-2 rezoning with the following conditions: 1. The improvements required as part of the approved 2018 Traffic Impact Analysis be completed in accordance with NCDOT’s standards prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 2. The two-way vehicular connection to Raintree Road, extending to Bump Along Road, must be included within a 30-foot-wide access easement that is dedicated for public use. 3. The portion of Bump Along Road adjoining subject property must be improved as a minimum 20’ paved, two-way drive and dedicated for public use, either by dedicating an access easement or private right-of-way 4. Subject property owners will participate with all other property owners along Bump Along Road in a road maintenance agreement for their pro-rata road frontage. 5. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged or shielded so as not to cast illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to the ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that light spillage and glare are not directed at adjacent property, neighboring areas, or motorists. Light posts shall be no taller than 20’. The Board found it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it is located in an area designated as Community Mixed Use, is located near a growth node, and provided for the uses that are appropriate for this area. The Board found RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal provides neighborhood-serving commercial development. The motion to recommend approval of the proposed (CZD) B-2 rezoning request carried 5-0 OTHER ITEMS No other items. Chair Donna Girardot adjourned the meeting at 9:01 PM. Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.