Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-09-07 PB AGENDA PACKETNEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AGENDA Assembly Room, New Hanover County Historic Courthouse 24 North Third Street, Room 301 Wilmington, NC 28401 Members of the Board Jeffrey P Petroff, Chair |Donna Girardot, Vice-Chair Paul Boney|Hansen Ma'hews |Jeffrey Stokley Jr. | H. Allen Pope |Colin J. Tarrant Rebekah Roth, Director| Ken Vafier, Planning Manager SEPTEMBER 7, 2023 6:00 PM Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Minutes REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS The Planning Board may consider substanal changes in these peons as a result of objecons, debate, and discussion at the meeng, including rezoning to other classificaons. 1 Public Hearing Rezoning Request (Z23-17) - Request by Adam Sosne with MHMJ, LLC, applicant, to rezone approximately 12.68 acres zoned B-2, Regional Business and R-15, Residen>al located at 5322 Carolina Beach Road to (CZD) RMF-M, Residen>al Mul>-Family - Moderate Density for a maximum 200-unit mul>-family and townhouse development. This item was connued from the August 3, 2023 meeng. 2 TA23-03 - Staff Presenta>on - Electric Vehicle (EV) Parking Standards - Public Comment DraB Release 3 TA23-05 UDO Maintenance Amendment Planning Board - September 7, 2023 NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/7/2023 Regular DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Zach Dickerson, Senior Planner CONTACT(S): Zach Dickerson; Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor; Rebekah Roth, Planning & Land Use Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing Rezoning Request (Z23-17) - Request by Adam Sosne with MHMJ, LLC, applicant, to rezone approximately 12.68 acres zoned B-2, Regional Business and R-15, Residen@al located at 5322 Carolina Beach Road to (CZD) RMF-M, Residen@al Mul@-Family - Moderate Density for a maximum 200-unit mul@-family and townhouse development. This item was connued from the August 3, 2023 meeng. BRIEF SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 12.68 acres from B-2, Regional Business and R-15, Residen.al, to the (CZD) RMF-M Residen.al Mul.-Family, Moderate Density district for a maximum 200-unit mul.-family apartment and townhome development. This item was scheduled to be heard at the August 3 Planning Board mee.ng. Prior to the mee.ng the applicant submi6ed a request to con.nue the item to the September 7 regular mee.ng. At the applicant's request, the Planning Board voted unanimously (7-0) to con.nue the item to the September 7 mee.ng. The concept plan consists of 200 residen.al units: 35 townhome units in the form of eight quadruplex buildings and one triplex building, and 165 mul.-family units in five apartment buildings. The concept plan states that the maximum height of the buildings will be three stories. The concept plan also outlines two stormwater ponds on the site and an amenity building. The R-15 district in this area was established in 1971. At the .me, the purpose of the R-15 district was to ensure housing served by private sep.c and wells would be developed at low densi.es. Since that .me, public water and sewer services have become available to the surrounding area. The B-2 zoning was applied to the three-acre parcel closer to Carolina Beach Road in 1988, and was intended to provide for the proper site layout and development of larger format or larger structure size business uses. The RMF-M district was established to provide lands that accommodate moderate density single-family and mul.- family development. The intent of the RMF-M district is to func.on as a transi.onal district between intensive nonresiden.al development and higher density residen.al areas. The district is designed to provide a reasonable range of choice, type, and loca.on of housing units. As currently zoned, the R-15 por.on of the site would allow approximately 23 dwelling units under performance residen.al standards. It is es.mated that the 3.15 acres of property zoned B-2 can generally support approximately 25,000 square feet of tradi.onal retail uses based on a typical 18% building area for this type of zoning. The proposed 200 units would result in an overall density of 15.8 units per acre. Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 The proposed project is located along a major arterial highway that is currently nearing planning capacity; and the Monkey Junc.on intersec.on improvement project has been delayed, with right-of-way acquisi.on and u.lity work not scheduled un.l 2029. The applicant has had a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) approved by the NCDOT and WMPO recommending some roadway improvements, including signal .ming adjustments and site design. The development will connect internally with other neighborhoods through private roads in the Townes at Park Place development to allow for other access points onto Carolina Beach Road via Antoine6e Drive, which is signalized for full movement. The lack of available NCDOT data indicates that Antoine6e Drive does not currently experience heavy enough traffic volumes to warrant monitoring. While there is no specific data available to indicate current or an.cipated impacts to roadway capacity for Antoine6e Drive, the es.mated trips generated by both the proposed development and neighboring Townes at Park Place will increase traffic on the local road. The TIA that was completed for this proposed development took into considera.on the impact of traffic from the planned Townes at Park Place Development in the final recommenda.ons of road improvements. The full TIA can be viewed here. As currently zoned, it is es.mated that the site would generate approximately 75 AM peak hour trips and 187 PM peak hour trips. The proposed RMF-M development is es.mated to generate 87 AM peak hour trips and 109 PM peak hour trips, increasing the es.mated number of AM peak hour trips by 12 and decreasing the number of PM peak hour trips by 78. Students living in the proposed development would be assigned to Bellamy Elementary School, Myrtle Grove Middle School and Ashley High School. Based on a generalized historic genera.on rate, staff would es.mate the increase in homes would result in approximately 39 more students than the es.mated number of students generated under exis.ng zoning. The site is within the Pocosin Conserva.on Resource. Sec.on 5.7 of the UDO requires areas containing or adjacent to over 5 acres of an iden.fied conserva.on resource must comply with addi.onal setback and other performance controls. The property is located in one of the county's more densely developed corridors and within one of the three growth nodes iden.fied in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project is more appropriate closer to the Monkey Junc.on intersec.on, and provides a transi.on into the lower density housing further from Monkey Junc.on. Addi.onally, the project is adjacent to another RMF-M zoned property, the Townes at Park Place, which is under TRC review and is an.cipated to begin construc.on in late 2023 or early 2024. The Comprehensive Plan designates these proper.es as both Urban Mixed Use and General Residen.al. The General Residen.al place type focuses on lower density housing and associated civic and commercial services, recommending up to 10 dwelling units per acre. The Urban Mixed Use place type focuses on higher density housing and associated commercial services, recommending up to 25 dwelling units per acre. This project's proposed density at 15.8 units per acre sits between the two place types' density recommenda.ons. The proposed RMF-M zoning is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the district is more in line with the densi.es recommended for Urban Mixed Use area, especially in growth nodes, than the exis.ng residen.al zoning. Addi.onally, the mix of housing types within the development could provide housing choice and an appropriate transi.on from the commercial node to the single-family residences to the south and west. Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Staff’s recommenda.on is based on the policy guidance of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, zoning considera.ons and technical review. The proposal includes a mix of housing types that appropriately sit in between the recommended densi.es for the General Residen.al place type and the Urban Mixed Use place types. The project does provide for addi.onal connec.vity through the Townes at Park Place development, but would generate traffic on Antoine6e Drive. In addi.on, while the proposal does provide for addi.onal higher-density housing (than currently zoned), its loca.on in one of the County’s high growth nodes would generally recommend for more density to address the County’s need for more housing. The proposed RMF-M zoning is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the district is more in line with the densi.es recommended for Urban Mixed Use areas, especially in growth nodes, than the exis.ng residen.al zoning. Addi.onally, the mix of housing types within the development could provide housing choice and an appropriate transi.on from the commercial node and the single-family residences to the south and west. As a result, Staff recommends approval of the proposal and suggests the following mo.on: I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district is more in line with the densi.es recommended for Urban Mixed Use areas, especially in growth nodes, than the exis.ng residen.al zoning. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the development would provide a mix of housing types and an appropriate transi.on from the commercial node to the single-family residences to the south and west. Proposed Condi@on: 1. Buildings will have a maximum height of three stories. Alterna@ve Mo@on for Denial (If, based on informa.on provided at the public hearing or other considera.on beyond the scope of staff review, the Board finds denial appropriate.) I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district is more in line with the densi.es recommended for Urban Mixed Use areas, especially in growth nodes, than the exis.ng zoning, I find recommending DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the project increases traffic in an area which is experiencing conges.on issues, with the main access on a service road which does not have full access to Carolina Beach Road. ATTACHMENTS: Descrip.on Z23-17 Script PB Z23-17 Staff Report PB Z23-17 Zoning Map Z23-17 Future Land Use Map Z23-17 Mailout Map Initial Application Cover Sheet Z23-17 Application Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 Concept Plan Cover Sheet Z23-17 Concept Plan Z23-17 Traffic Impact Analysis Cover Sheet Z23-17 TIA Approval Letter TIA Executive Summary Public Comments Cover Sheet Public Comments in Opposition Supplementary Materials Cover Sheet Z23-17 Appendix - Concept Plan Large COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 PLANNING BOARD SCRIPT for Zoning Map Amendment Application (Z23-17) Request by Adam Sosne with MHMJ, LLC, applicant, to rezone approximately 12.68 acres zoned B-2, Regional Business and R-15, Residential located at 5322 Carolina Beach Road to (CZD) RMF-M, Residential Multi-Family – Moderate Density for a maximum 200-unit multi-family and townhouse development. This item was continued from the August 3rd Regular Meeting. 1. This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then the applicant and any opponents will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation and an additional 5 minutes for rebuttal. 2. Conduct Hearing, as follows: a. Staff presentation b. Applicant’s and supporters’ presentation (up to 15 minutes) c. Opponent’s presentation (up to 15 minutes) d. Applicant’s and supporters’ rebuttal (up to 5 minutes) e. Opponent’s rebuttal (up to 5 minutes) f. Staff review of any additional conditions 3. Close the public hearing 4. Board discussion 5. Before we proceed with a motion and vote, I would like to invite the applicant to the podium. Based on the Board discussion and items presented during the public hearing, would you like withdraw your petition, request a continuance, or proceed with a vote? 6. Vote on the application. The motion should include a statement saying how the change is, or is not, consistent with the land use plan and why approval or denial of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest. Example Motion for Approval I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district is more in line with the densities recommended for Urban Mixed Use areas, especially in growth nodes, than the existing residential zoning. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the development would provide a mix of housing types and an appropriate transition from the commercial node to the single-family residences to the south and west. Proposed Condition: 1. Buildings will have a maximum height of three stories. Alternative Motion for Denial (If, based on information provided at the public hearing or other consideration beyond the scope of staff review, the Board finds denial appropriate) I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district is more in line with the densities recommended for Urban Mixed Use areas, especially in growth nodes, than the existing zoning, I find recommending DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 1 - 1 public interest because the project increases traffic in an area which is experiencing congestion issues, with the main access on a service road which does not have full access to Carolina Beach Road. Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial: I move to RECOMMEND [Approval/Denial] of the proposed rezoning to a (CZD) RMF-L district. I find it to be [Consistent/Inconsistent] with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because [insert reasons] __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ I also find RECOMMENDING [Approval/Denial] of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because [insert reasons] __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 1 - 2 Z23-17 Staff Report PB 9-7-2023 Page 1 of 18 STAFF REPORT FOR Z23-17 CONDITIONAL REZONING APPLICATION APPLICATION SUMMARY Case Number: Z23-17 Request: Rezoning to a Conditional RMF-M district Applicant: Property Owner(s): Adam Sosne MHMJ, LLC Location: Acreage: 5322 Carolina Beach Road 12.68 PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type: R07600-006-042-000 & R07606-003-002- 000 Urban Mixed Use & General Residential Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Undeveloped Maximum 200 Residential Units: 165 Apartment Units & 35 Townhome Units Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: B-2 & R-15 (CZD) RMF-M SURROUNDING AREA LAND USE ZONING North The Townes at Park Place CZD RMF-M (approved 1/6/2020) East Monkey Junction Intersection South Grove Park Mobile Home Park & Citrus Grove Subdivision R-15 & R-10 West Brewster Park & Marquis Hills Subdivisions R-10 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 1 Z23-17 Staff Report PB 9-7-2023 Page 2 of 18 ZONING HISTORY April 7, 1971 Initially zoned R-15 (Area 4) May 1988 B-2 zoning applied to R07606-003-002-000 COMMUNITY SERVICES Water/Sewer Water and sanitary sewer services are available through CFPUA via a mainline extension. Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Southern Fire District, New Hanover County Myrtle Grove Station Schools Bellamy Elementary, Myrtle Grove Middle, and Ashley High Schools Recreation Arrowhead Park CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Conservation Conservation Resource maps indicate pocosin wetlands may exist on the property. Projects containing 5 acres or more of pocosin conservation resources are required to comply with additional buffer and conservation standards in Section 5.7 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Historic No known historic resources Archaeological No known archaeological resources Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 2 Z23-17 Staff Report PB 9-7-2023 Page 3 of 18 APPLICANT’S PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL PLAN Includes Staff Markups (Please refer to the appendix for a detailed image of the applicant’s concept plan) • This item was scheduled to be heard at the August 3 Planning Board meeting. Prior to the meeting the applicant submitted a request to continue the item to the September 7 regular meeting. At the applicant’s request, the Planning Board voted unanimously (7-0) to continue the item to the September 7 meeting. • The applicant is proposing to construct a maximum of 200 residential units, consisting of 35 townhome units in the form of eight quadruplex and one triplex buildings, outlined in blue, and 165 multi-family units in five apartment buildings, outlined in orange. • The proposed project has an overall density of 15.8 dwelling units per acre. The RMF-M district allows a maximum density of 17 dwelling units per acre. • Per the application, the proposed site plan places the taller buildings internal to the site or adjacent to the neighboring commercial and multi-family zoning while providing townhouse units adjacent to the single-family properties. • The applicant’s proposed conceptual plan includes a building height maximum of three stories and the UDO-required 20% open space, 2.54 acres. • The concept plan depicts two stormwater ponds, an amenity area, and two points of proposed access to the adjacent Townes at Park Place development, currently in TRC review. • The site would also share access with the adjacent car wash that fronts the service road. Matchline A B B A Matchline Ca r o l i n a B e a c h R o a d Connections to Townes at Park Place Car Wash Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 3 Z23-17 Staff Report PB 9-7-2023 Page 4 of 18 ZONING CONSIDERATIONS • The R-15 district in this area was established in 1971. The purpose of the R-15 district in this area was to ensure that housing served by private septic and well would be developed at low densities. Since that time, water and sewer services have become available to the surrounding area. The purpose of the B-2 district, applied to the 3 acre parcel in 1988, is to provide for the proper site layout and development of larger format or larger structure size business uses, including big box stores and automobile dealers. It is also designed to provide for the appropriate location and design of auto oriented uses that meet the needs of the motoring public or that rely on pass-by traffic. • While the site is zoned B-2 and R-15, there is another adjacent parcel zoned (CZD) RMF-M (Z18-16), for a moderate-density housing project, the Townes at Park Place. This project is currently under TRC review. • Approximately 9.53 acres of the site is zoned R-15, which would allow approximately 23 dwelling units, under performance residential standards. • It is estimated that 3.15 acres of property zoned B-2 can generally support approximately 25,000 square feet of traditional retail uses based on a typical 18% building area for this type of zoning. • The RMF-M district was established to provide lands that accommodate moderate density single-family and multi-family development. The intent of the RMF-M district is to function as a transitional district between intensive nonresidential development and higher density residential areas. The district is designed to provide a reasonable range of choice, type, and location of housing units. • Under the RMF-M zoning district, there is a maximum density of 17 units per acre and structures are limited to 3 stories unless an additional height allowance is granted, which requires stricter setbacks. The applicant has specified a height maximum of 3 stories on their concept plan. • The UDO requires Type A: Opaque Buffers where the site abuts single-family residential zoned parcels. This can include fencing, a berm and/or vegetation. • The UDO contains controls on exterior lighting on the site, and the maximum illumination levels at the common property line with residential properties to the east and south shall not exceed 0.5 foot candles. • If approved, the project would be subject to Technical Review Committee and zoning compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements and specific conditions included in the approval. Only minor deviations from the approved conceptual plan, as defined by the UDO, would be allowed. Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 4 Z23-17 Staff Report PB 9-7-2023 Page 5 of 18 AREA DEVELOPMENTS W5703-C STIP Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 5 Z23-17 Staff Report PB 9-7-2023 Page 6 of 18 TRANSPORTATION CURRENT CONDITIONS Intensity of Current Zoning Typical development under current zoning would allow a maximum of 23 single-family dwelling units and 25,000 sq ft of traditional retail. PROPOSED ACCESS Primary Access Carolina Beach Road via a service road running parallel to Carolina Beach Road. Secondary Access Carolina Beach Road and Antoinette Drive through a connection to the Townes at Park Place residential development. Right-turn only light Connections to Antoinette Drive Connections to Townes at Park Place Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 6 Z23-17 Staff Report PB 9-7-2023 Page 7 of 18 EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Affected Roadway Carolina Beach Road Antoinette Drive Type of Roadway NCDOT major arterial Local Road Roadway Planning Capacity (AADT) 41,639 N/A Latest Traffic Volume (AADT) 33,500 N/A Latest WMPO Point-in-Time Count (DT) 41,232 (08/22) N/A Current Level of Congestion Nearing Capacity N/A Sources Source of Planning Capacity: WMPO Source of Latest Traffic Volume: NCDOT (2021) (for Carolina Beach Road) Source of WMPO Point-in-Time County: WMPO (2022) NEARBY NCDOT STIP ROADWAY PROJECTS U-5702B – S. College Rd. Improvements (2025 Right-of-way acquisition & utilities) - Access management and time travel improvements along College Road between Shipyard Boulevard and Carolina Beach Road. U-5790 – Monkey Junction Intersection and Roadway Improvements (2029 Right-of-way acquisition & utilities) - Project to convert the intersection of Carolina Beach Road and College Road to a continuous flow intersection. - The project includes widening Carolina Beach Road south of the intersection to Sanders Road. TRAFFIC GENERATION Traffic Generated by Present Designation Traffic Generated by Proposed Designation Potential Impact of Proposed Designation R-15 B-2 AM Peak Hour Trips 16 59 87 +12 PM Peak Hour Trips 22 165 109 -78 Assumptions Typical Development with Existing Zoning – 23 single family detached dwellings and 25,000 sq ft of retail Proposed Development – 35 single family attached dwellings and 165 apartment units Sources Source of Trip Generation: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Ed. Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 7 Z23-17 Staff Report PB 9-7-2023 Page 8 of 18 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA) New developments that are anticipated to generate more than 100 trips during any peak hour period are required to submit a traffic impact analysis (TIA) as part of their rezoning application. A team of NCDOT, WMPO, and County planning staff work with an applicant’s traffic engineers to develop the scope for the TIA, including the study area, the traffic data which must be collected, trip distribution, and the developments and background traffic growth that must be analyzed. This document is used to identify off-site transportation improvements required to mitigate the impacts of the development and must be approved by the WMPO and NCDOT. Approval Date June 28, 2023 Development Proposal Analyzed 165 apartments and 35 townhomes Study Intersections - US 421 and Antoinette Drive (signalized) - US 421 and Service Road (unsignalized – near car wash) - US 421 and NC 132 (College Road)/SR 1521 (Piner Road) (signalized) - US 421 and Service Road (signalized – near Fire Station) - Service Road and Site Access 1 (unsignalized- existing car wash exit) - Antoinette Drive and Site Access 2 (unsignalized) Trip Generation - 87 AM peak hour trips - 109 PM peak hour trips - 1,349 average daily trips Traffic Data Collection Thursday, January 12, 2023 Trip Distribution and Assignment - 30% to and from the west on US 421 - 35% to and from the north on College Rd - 5% to and from the east on Piner Road - 20% to and from the south on US 421 - 10% to and from the north on Retail Center Drive Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 8 Z23-17 Staff Report PB 9-7-2023 Page 9 of 18 Approved Developments & Background Growth - Townes at Park Place (88 townhomes) - Planned Roadway/Intersection Improvements o None as part of Townes at Park Place o W5703-C (NCDOT STIP, sidewalk and multi-use path project extending from Antoinette Drive to Willoughby Park Road) - Full Build – 2024 - Growth Rate – 1% per year Recommended Improvements US 421 and Antoinette Drive – - Signal Timing Adjustments US 421 and Service Road (unsignalized, near car wash) – - No improvements recommended US 421 and NC 132 (College Road) (signalized) – - No improvements recommended US 421 and Service Road (signalized- near fire station) - No improvements recommended Service Road and Site Access 1 (unsignalized- existing car wash exit) – - No improvements are recommended - Design site/drive connection according to application NCDOT and New Hanover County Standards Antoinette Drive and Site Access 2 (unsignalized) – - No improvements are recommended - Design site drive according to applicable NCDOT and New Hanover County standards SUMMARY The proposed project is located along a major arterial highway that is currently nearing planning capacity; and the Monkey Junction intersection improvement project has been delayed, with right- of-way acquisition and utility work not scheduled until 2029. The applicant has had a TIA approved by the NCDOT and WMPO recommending some roadway improvements, including signal timing adjustments and site design. The development will connect internally with other neighborhoods through private roads in the Townes at Park Place development to allow for other access points onto Carolina Beach Road via Antoinette Drive, which is signalized for full movement. The lack of available NCDOT data indicates that Antoinette Drive does not currently experience heavy enough traffic volumes to warrant monitoring. While there is no specific data available to indicate current or anticipated impacts to roadway capacity for Antoinette Drive, the estimated trips generated by both the proposed development and neighboring Townes at Park Place will increase traffic on the local road. The TIA that was completed for this proposed development took into consideration the impact of traffic from the planned Townes at Park Place Development in the final recommendations of road improvements. Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 9 Z23-17 Staff Report PB 9-7-2023 Page 10 of 18 ENVIRONMENTAL • The property is not within a Natural Heritage Area. • The property is within the Motts Creek watershed. • There is a stream on the property, marked on the concept plan. • Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the property consist of Class I (suitable), Class II (moderate) and Class III (severe) soils; however, the project is expected to be served by public water and sewer. • The site is also within the Pocosin Conservation Resource. Section 5.7 of the UDO requires areas containing or adjacent to over 5 acres of an identified conservation resource must comply with additional setbacks and other performance controls. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Schools • Students living in the proposed development would be assigned to Bellamy Elementary School, Myrtle Grove Middle School, and Ashley High School. Students may apply to attend public magnet, year-round elementary, or specialty high schools. • A maximum of 23 dwelling units would be permitted under the current R-15 zoning base density, and 200 units could potentially be developed under the proposed zoning for an increase of 177 dwelling units. • Based on a generalized historic generation rate*, staff would estimate that the increase in homes would result in approximately 39 additional students than would be generated under current zoning. • The general student generation rate provides only an estimate of anticipated student yield as different forms of housing at different price points yield different numbers of students. Over the past four years, staff has also seen a decline in the number of students generated by new development. Student numbers remained relatively stable between 2015 and 2020 (excepting the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic), while 14,500 new residential units were permitted across the county. In addition, the student population is anticipated to only grow by approximately 1,300 students over the next 10 years based on the most recent New Hanover County Schools Facility Needs Study. Development Type Intensity Estimated Student Yield (current general student generation rate) * Existing Development Undeveloped Approximate** Total: 0 (0 elementary, 0 middle, 0 high) Typical Development Under Current Zoning 23 residential units Approximate** Total: 5 (2 elementary, 1 middle, 2 high) Proposed Zoning 200 residential units Approximate** Total: 44 (18 elementary, 10 middle, 14 high) Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 10 Z23-17 Staff Report PB 9-7-2023 Page 11 of 18 *The current general student generation rate was calculated by dividing the New Hanover County public school student enrollment for the 2022-2023 school year by the number of dwelling units in the county. Currently, there are an average of 0.22 public school students (0.09 for elementary, 0.05 for middle, and 0.07 for high) generated per dwelling unit across New Hanover County. These numbers are updated annually and include students attending out- of-district specialty schools, such as year-round elementary schools, Isaac Bear, and SeaTech. **Because the student generation rate often results in fractional numbers, all approximate student generation yields with a fraction of 0.5 or higher are rounded up to a whole number and yields with a fraction of less than 0.5 are rounded down. This may result in student numbers at the elementary, middle, and high school levels not equaling the approximate total. • Since the residential components associated with the proposed rezoning are likely to have a build-out date within 5 years per the Traffic Impact Analysis, staff has outlined existing school capacity to provide a general idea of the potential impact on public schools. • Staff has provided information on existing school capacity to provide a general idea of the potential impact on public schools, but these numbers do not reflect any future capacity upgrades. School Enrollment* and Capacity** (2022-2023 School Year) *Enrollment is based on the New Hanover County Schools student numbers for the 2022-2023 school year. **Capacity calculations were determined based on the capacities for the 2022-2023 school year, and funded or planned capacity upgrades were those included in the Facility Needs Study presented by New Hanover County Schools to the Board of Education in January 2021. This information does not take into account flexible scheduling that may be available in high school settings, which can reduce the portion of the student body on campus at any one time. • The 2021 facility needs survey prepared by Schools staff indicates that, based on NC Department of Public Instruction (DPI) student growth projections and school capacity data, planned facility upgrades, combined with changes to student enrollment patterns, will result in adequate capacity district wide over the next ten years if facility upgrades are funded. Level Total NHC Capacity School Enrollment of Assigned School Capacity of Assigned School w/Portables Capacity of Assigned School Funded or Planned Capacity Upgrades Elementary 91% Bellamy 556 515 108% None Middle 92% Myrtle Grove 640 747 86% None High 98.5% Ashley 1983 1990 99.6% None Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 11 Z23-17 Staff Report PB 9-7-2023 Page 12 of 18 New Hanover County Strategic Plan On July 17, 2023, the Board of Commissioners adopted a new strategic plan for Fiscal Years 2024-2028. This plan focuses on three core areas: workforce and economic development, community safety and well- being, and sustainable land use and environmental stewardship. Strategic Plan Outcomes Relevant to Proposal Analysis Through planned growth and development, residents have access to their basic needs. The strategic objective to achieve this desired outcome includes the provision of a variety of housing options. The proposed CZD RMF-M rezoning will provide new multi-family and attached single-family homes in an area of the county that is largely single-family, detached and can aid in achieving the target of increasing the housing supply to a level of one residential unit per every two residents. Natural areas and critical environmental features are enhanced and protected. While the conceptual plan included as part of the proposed rezoning shows an existing stream crossing the site, the proposed development is designed to minimize impacts to the stream, and no wetlands or floodplain areas have been identified on site. Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 12 Z23-17 Staff Report PB 9-7-2023 Page 13 of 18 Representative Developments Representative Development of R-15 & B-2 (Existing Zoning): Cottage Grove B-2 Shopping Plaza in Monkey Junction Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 13 Z23-17 Staff Report PB 9-7-2023 Page 14 of 18 Representative Developments of RMF-M Amberleigh Shores Woodlands at Echo Farms (Townhomes) Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 14 Z23-17 Staff Report PB 9-7-2023 Page 15 of 18 Context and Compatibility • The property is located in one of the county’s more densely developed corridors and within one of the three growth nodes identified in the Comprehensive Plan. • The property is located to the west of the Monkey Junction Intersection and is accessed by a service road that connects the property to Carolina Beach Road, with proposed connections to neighboring development. • While the western part of the property was zoned for lower density residential development in the early 1970’s, both public water and sewer services are now available, which makes this area less likely to be developed for low-density residential. • Additionally, the configuration of the B-2 portion of the site reduces the likelihood of future commercial development. • The adjacent Townes at Park Place, currently under TRC review, is anticipated to begin construction beginning in late 2023 or early 2024. • This proposed higher density project is more appropriate closer to the Monkey Junction intersection, and provides a transition into the lower density housing further from Monkey Junction. • The application states that the proposed site plan places the taller buildings internal to the site while providing townhouses adjacent to the single-family properties. However, there are some townhouse units closer to the service road access point. While often more common to place higher-density housing closer to commercial corridors and transition to lower density farther back, this site layout is intended to be more compatible with the adjacent uses and densities. The placement of the taller buildings internal to the site reduces the visual impact of the development on adjacent uses. • Traffic traveling westbound on Carolina Beach road will use the Antoinette Drive connection, through the Townes at Park Place. • NCDOT’s eventual planned improvements to the Monkey Junction area in the coming years are anticipated to alleviate traffic concerns in this area. However, NCDOT is not anticipated to begin right-of-way acquisition until 2029. • Required setbacks and transitional buffers provide additional mitigation for aesthetic effects along the property boundaries. Multi-family residential developments require transitional buffers where the site abuts single-family residential, consisting of vegetation, berms, or fences with vegetation. Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 15 Z23-17 Staff Report PB 9-7-2023 Page 16 of 18 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The New Hanover County Future Land Use Map provides a general representation of the vision for New Hanover County’s future land use, as designated by place types describing the character and function of the different types of development that make up the community. These place types are intended to identify general areas for particular development patterns and should not be interpreted as being parcel specific. Future Land Use Map Place Type Urban Mixed Use and General Residential Because of the general nature of place type borders, sites located in proximity to the boundaries between place types could be appropriately developed with either place type, allowing site-specific features and evolving development patterns in the surrounding area to be considered. Place Type Description Urban Mixed Use: promotes development of a mix of uses at higher densities. Types of uses encouraged include office, retail, mixed use, small recreation, commercial, institutional, single-family, and multi-family residential. General Residential: focuses on lower-density housing and associated civic and commercial services. Types of uses include single-family residential, low density multi-family residential, light commercial, civic, and recreational. Commercial uses should be limited to strategically located office and retail spaces, while recreation and school facilities are encouraged throughout. Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 16 Z23-17 Staff Report PB 9-7-2023 Page 17 of 18 Analysis The proposed townhome and apartment development is located along the Carolina Beach Road corridor, accessed by a service road. The site is located within the Monkey Junction Growth Node, identified as a high growth area in the Comprehensive Plan. The site is adjacent to a similar townhome development, The Townes at Park Place (Z18-16, approved in 2020), which is expected to be developed in late 2023-early 2024. This development has a density of 10.4 units per acre. Generally, the Comprehensive Plan designates areas along major roadways for higher residential densities. This site is located into two place types, General Residential and Urban Mixed use and could be appropriately developed with either place type. The overall project density of 15.8 dwelling units per acre is in the middle of the recommended densities of the General Residential place type of no more than 10 units per acre, and the Urban Mixed Use place type of no more than 25 units per acre. The adjacent similar townhome development is designed with a density of 10.4 units per acre. The mix of housing types within the proposed development provides for more choice in housing, which is recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the project’s layout proposes the higher-density portion of the site closer to adjacent higher-density townhome project. While the B-2 zoning is appropriate within the Urban Mixed Use place type, this site’s unique layout and parcel shape make it less likely to be developed for a general business or retail use. The proposed RMF-M district and project are in line with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations for the Urban Mixed Use place type. While the proposed project’s density is lower than recommended for the Urban Mixed Use place type, it is higher than that which is recommended for General Residential, straddling the line between the two place types. The application provides for the type of use and density that is appropriate within this area and within the Monkey Junction Growth node. Consistency Recommendation The proposed RMF-M zoning is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the district is more in line with the densities recommended for Urban Mixed Use areas, especially in growth nodes, than the existing residential zoning. Additionally, the mix of housing types within the development could provide housing choice and an appropriate transition from the commercial node to the single-family residences to the south and west. Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 17 Z23-17 Staff Report PB 9-7-2023 Page 18 of 18 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff’s recommendation is based on the policy guidance of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, zoning considerations and technical review. The proposal includes a mix of housing types that appropriately sit in between the recommended densities for the General Residential place type and the Urban Mixed Use place types. The project does provide for additional connectivity through the Townes at Park Place development, but would generate traffic on Antoinette Drive. In addition, while the proposal does provide for additional higher-density housing (than currently zoned), its location in one of the County’s high growth nodes would generally recommend for more density to address the County’s need for more housing. The proposed RMF-M zoning is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the district is more in line with the densities recommended for Urban Mixed Use areas, especially in growth nodes, than the existing residential zoning. Additionally, the mix of housing types within the development could provide housing choice and an appropriate transition from the commercial node and the single-family residences to the south and west. As a result, Staff recommends approval of the proposal and suggests the following motion: I move to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district is more in line with the densities recommended for Urban Mixed Use areas, especially in growth nodes, than the existing residential zoning. I also find recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the development would provide a mix of housing types and an appropriate transition from the commercial node to the single-family residences to the south and west. Proposed Condition: 1. Buildings will have a maximum height of three stories. Alternative Motion for Denial (If, based on information provided at the public hearing or other consideration beyond the scope of staff review, the Board finds denial appropriate) I move to recommend DENIAL of the proposed rezoning. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district is more in line with the densities recommended for Urban Mixed Use areas, especially in growth nodes, than the existing zoning, I find recommending DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the project increases traffic in an area which is experiencing congestion issues, with the main access on a service road which does not have full access to Carolina Beach Road. Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 18 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 3 - 1 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 4 - 1 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 5 - 1 Initial Application Documents & Materials Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 6 - 1 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 1 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 2 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 3 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 4 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 5 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 6 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 7 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 8 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 9 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 10 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 11 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 12 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 13 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 14 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 15 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 16 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 17 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 18 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 19 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 20 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 21 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 22 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 23 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 24 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 25 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 26 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 27 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 28 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 29 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 30 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 31 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION OF AN EXISTSING 9.45 ACRE TRACT, MADE FROM TRACT "A", DAVID AND GARY MATVA SUBDIVISION, MAP BOOK 52, PAGE 262, DEED BOOK 5531, PAGE 2200, NEW HANOVER COUNTY REGISTRY, NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. COMMENCING AT AN EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT IN THE EASTERN LINE OF LOT 124, MARQUIS HILLS SUBDIVISION, SECTION 6, MAP BOOK 11, PAGE 42, THE WESTERNMOST CORNER OF THE BENNETT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, LLC TRACT 1, DEED BOOK 2793, PAGE 719, THENCE WITH THE SOUTHERN LINE OF SAID TRACT 1, SOUTH 71°34'17" EAST, 194.13 FEET TO A NEW REBAR (SET) AT THE WESTERNMOST CORNER OF A, MAP BOOK 52, PAGE 262, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. (POB}; THENCE WITH THE SOUTHEASTERN LINE OF THE BENNETT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, LLC TRACT 1, DEED BOOK 2793, PAGE 719, NORTH 50°11'36" EAST, 1,465.98 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON ROD, THE WESTERNMOST CORNER OF TRACT B, MAP BOOK 52, PAGE 262, THENCE WITH THE SOUTHWESTERN LINE OF SAID TRACT B, SOUTH 39°48'51" EAST, 99.00 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON ROD IN THE NORTHWESTERN LINE OF TRACT "A", CAROLINA JUNCTION RECOMBINATION, MAP BOOK 48, PAGE 190, DEED BOOK 6578, PAGE 850, THENCE WITH THE LINE OF SAID TRACT "A", SOUTH 50°15'30" WEST, 150.44 FEET TO A NEW REBAR (SET}, THENCE SOUTH 39°48' 49" EAST, 228.04 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON ROD IN THE NORTHWESTERN LINE OF THE GROVE PARK PROPERTIES TRACT, DEED BOOK 1384, PAGE 1369, THENCE WITH THE LINE OF SAID TRACT, SOUTH 50°12'40" WEST, 1,112.99 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON PIPE, THE SOUTHERNMOST CORNER OF TRACT A, MAP BOOK 52, PAGE 262, THENCE WITH THE SOUTHERN LINE OF SAID TRACT A, NORTH 71°37'25" WEST, 384.27 TO A NEW REBAR (SET}, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. (POB} THE DESCRIBED TRACT HAS A CALCULATED AREA OF 9.45 ACRES. ALL BEARINGS ARE REFERENCED TO NORTH CAROLINA GRID NORTH, NAO 1983 (2011). ALL DISTANCES ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCES. AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF SURVEY BY SEPI ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION, INC. MADE IN AUGUST, 2022. TOGETHER WITH: Legal Description for ParcelR7600-006-042-000: Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 32 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION OF THE 10,391 SQUARE FOOT GAP AREA SOUTHWEST OF TRACT "A", DAVID AND GARY MATVA SUBDIVISION, MAP BOOK 52, PAGE 262, DEED BOOK 5531, PAGE 2200, NEW HANOVER COUNTY REGISTRY, NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. COMMENCING AT AN EXISTING CONCRETE MONUMENT IN THE EASTERN LINE OF LOT 124, MARQUIS HILLS SUBDIVISION, SECTION 6, MAP BOOK 11, PAGE 42, THE WESTERNMOST CORNER OF THE BENNETT COMERCIAL PROPERTIES, LLC TRACT 1, DEED BOOK 2793, PAGE 719, THENCE WITH THE SOUTHERN LINE OF SAID TRACT 1, SOUTH 71°34'17" EAST, 194.13 FEET TO A NEW REBAR (SET) AT THE WESTERNMOST CORNER OF TRACT A, MAP BOOK 52, PAGE 262, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. (POB); THENCE WITH THE SOUTHWESTERN LINE OF SAID TRACT A, SOUTH 71°37'25" EAST, 384.27 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON PIPE IN THE NORTHWESTERN LINE OF OPEN SPACE B, CITRUS COVE SUBDIVISION, MAP BOOK 52, PAGE 105, THENCE WITH THE LINE OF SAID OPEN SPACE B, SOUTH 50°12'40" WEST, 29.21 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHERN LINE OF BREWSTER PLACE, SECTION TWO, MAP BOOK 37, PAGE 216, THENCE WITH SAID NORTHERN LINE, NORTH 72°16'59" WEST, 387.05 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHERN LINE OF BREWSTER PLACE, SECTION THREE, MAP BOOK 38, PAGE 312, THENCE A NEW LINE NORTH 50°11'36" EAST, 34.44 FEET TO A NEW REBAR (SET) THE WESTERNMOST CORNER OF TRACT A, MAP BOOK 52, PAGE 262, THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. (POB) THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY HAS A CALCULATED AREA OF 10,391 SQUARE FEET. ALL BEARINGS ARE REFERENCED TO NORTH CAROLINA GRID NORTH, NAD 1983 (2011). ALL DISTANCES ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCES. AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF SURVEY BY SEPI ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION, INC. MADE IN AUGUST, 2022. 2 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 33 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 34 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 35 Concept Plan Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 8 - 1 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 9 - 1 Traffic Impact Analysis Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 10 - 1 July 13, 2023 Mr. AJ Anastopoulo, PE DAVENPORT 5917 Oleander Drive, Suite 206 Wilmington, NC 28403 RE: Approval with conditions of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) associated with the proposed 5322 Carolina Beach Road development in New Hanover County, NC. Dear Mr. Anastopoulo, The WMPO, NCDOT, City of Wilmington and New Hanover County staffs have reviewed the 5322 Carolina Beach Road residential development TIA (sealed June 28, 2023) and based on the information provided to date, it is our understanding that the proposed development has a build out year of 2025 and will consist of: ITE Land Use Code 215 Single Family attached residential – 35 DU ITE Land Use Code 220 Multi-Family (low-rise) residential – 165 DU The following improvements are required of the developer: US 421 (Carolina Beach Rd) at SR 1247 (Antoinette Dr)/Industrial Park Dr (Signalized Intersection) • Construct a northbound left turn lane on SR 1247 (Antoinette Dr) with 200 feet of storage, appropriate full-width deceleration and taper. • Provide a four-section FYA for the northbound and southbound left turn lanes. • Modify the signal plan to accommodate the above improvements. US 421 (Carolina Beach Rd) at SR 1575 (Service Road) near car wash (Existing Unsignalized Intersection) • No improvements are required. US 421 (Carolina Beach Rd) at NC 132 (College Rd)/SR 1521 (Piner Rd) (Existing Signalized Intersection) • No improvements are required. US 421 (Carolina Beach Rd) at SR 1575 (Service Road) near fire station (Existing Signalized Intersection) • No improvements are required. Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 11 - 1 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 11 - 2 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 12 - 1 6/28/2023 220280 5322 Carolina Beach Road i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 5322 Carolina Beach Road development is located west of US 421 (Carolina Beach Road) and south of Antoinette Drive in Wilmington, NC. It will consist of up to 165 apartments and 35 townhomes. Two access points for the development are proposed, one existing connection on the Service Road that currently functions as the car wash exit, and one on Antoinette Drive. The expected build-out year for this development is 2025. Information regarding the property was provided by GSP Consulting, PLLC Engineering and McAdams Homes, LLC. DAVENPORT was retained to determine the potential traffic impacts of this development and to identify transportation improvements that may be required to accommodate the impacts of the new development traffic. The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) was performed based on the scope agreed upon with WMPO. This site has a trip generation potential of 1349 daily trips, 87 trips in the AM peak hour, and 109 trips in the PM peak hour. In conclusion, this study has determined the potential traffic impacts of this development and recommendations have been given where necessary to mitigate the impacts of future traffic. The analysis indicates that with the recommended improvements in place, the proposed site is not expected to have a detrimental effect on transportation capacity and mobility in the study area. The recommendations summarized in Figure A and in Table A should be constructed to comply with applicable NCDOT Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways and local standards. Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 12 - 2 6/28/2023 220280 5322 Carolina Beach Road ii Table A – Recommended Improvements INTERSECTION RECOMMENDATIONS US 421 and Antoinette Drive (signalized) Signal timing adjustments. US 421 and Service Road (unsignalized- near car wash) No improvements recommended. US 421 and NC 132 (College Road) (signalized) No improvements recommended. US 421 and Service Road (signalized- near fire station) No improvements recommended. Service Road and Site Access 1 (unsignalized- existing car wash exit No improvements are recommended. Design site drive/connection according to applicable NCDOT and City of Wilmington standards. Antoinette Drive and Site Access 2 (unsignalized) No improvements are recommended. Design site drive according to applicable NCDOT and City of Wilmington standards. Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 12 - 3 Public Comments In Support 0 Neutral 0 In Opposition 5 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 13 - 1 1 Dickerson, Zachary From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, August 1, 2023 2:20 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Biddle, Wendell; Doss, Amy; Griffee, Julian; Dickerson, Zachary Subject:Online Form Submission #4779 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Janet Last Name Wilson Address 914 Dunhill Lane City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28412 Email Wilson_j86@hotmail.com Projects available for comment. PB Meeting - Z23-17 - Multi-Family Development at 5322 Carolina Beach Rd What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment I am opposed to the development of the property on Carolina Beach Road which lies adjacent to Brewster Place and Citrus Cove developments. Housing development with multiple dwellings, and a small acreage, will impact traffic and services to nearby single-family dwellings. Where we currently have low crime rates, the influx of many new people will likely change that status. As a resident of Citrus Cove, I would like to protect the integrity of our small development and the safety of all of Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 14 - 1 2 our residents. I oppose the development which will be directly adjacent to our neighborhood. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 14 - 2 1 Dickerson, Zachary From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, August 2, 2023 11:28 PM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Biddle, Wendell; Doss, Amy; Griffee, Julian; Dickerson, Zachary Subject:Online Form Submission #4820 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Hanyu Last Name Ren Address 800 Brewster Ln City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28412 Email iamrenhanyu@gmail.com Projects available for comment. PB Meeting - Z23-17 - Multi-Family Development at 5322 Carolina Beach Rd What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment In my opinion, the residents in Monkey Junction are very stable for a long time, the population density is high, and this is the only green and quiet area left. The residents of the apartment are flexible, poor security, very noisy, three-story apartments, which are too closely with the nearby community, privacy is drastically reduced. The red circle area can not be read, if it is the dumpster, Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 14 - 3 2 recycling or storage, it will be too close to the Brewster Lane’s pond, looks really bad and cause pollution. If it is a park, I will be acceptable. Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 IMG_2292.jpeg File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 14 - 4 1 Dickerson, Zachary From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Friday, August 18, 2023 7:57 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Biddle, Wendell; Doss, Amy; Griffee, Julian; Dickerson, Zachary Subject:Online Form Submission #5408 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Jean Last Name Graff Address 910 Cobia Lane City Wilmington State NC Zip Code 28409 Email jean_s_graff@charter.net Projects available for comment. PB Meeting - Z23-17 - Multi-Family Development at 5322 Carolina Beach Rd What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment This area is wetlands and adjacent to wetlands. It is critical for it absorbs storm water during hurricanes, and thereby protects residents from flood damage. In addition to the environmental ecosystem that also needs protection, adding such a number of residential units will produce an increase in traffic. Leave this area alone!!!!!!! If a developer made a mistake by purchasing it, that is their problem. However, if this project goes through, it becomes a huge problem for everyone in the area!!! Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 14 - 5 1 Dickerson, Zachary From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Sunday, July 30, 2023 11:39 AM To:May, Katherine; Roth, Rebekah; Vafier, Ken; Farrell, Robert; Biddle, Wendell; Doss, Amy; Griffee, Julian; Dickerson, Zachary Subject:Online Form Submission #4744 for Public Comment Form ** External Email: Do not click links, open attachments, or reply until you know it is safe ** Public Comment Form Public Comment Form The agenda items listed are available for public comment at an upcoming Planning Board or Board of Commissioners meeting. Comments received by 8 AM the day of the applicable meeting will be made available to the Board prior to that meeting and will be included as part of the permanent, public record for that meeting. First Name Michael Last Name Tilmon Address 512 Brewster Lane City Wilmington State North Carolina Zip Code 28412 Email teachmescuba@yahoo.com Projects available for comment. PB Meeting - Z23-17 - Multi-Family Development at 5322 Carolina Beach Rd What is the nature of your comment? Oppose project Public Comment HECK* NO!!!! You are going to bring traffic and crime to relatively calm, quiet and safe neighborhoods. 1 and 2 bedroom doesn't sound like family units to me!! Sounds like Affirmatively futhering fair housing, section 8, low income affordable housing. It sounds like you're bringing the projects into Monkey Junction. Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 14 - 6 2 Young families, retirees and working people cant handle criminal pressure. We will be negatively impacted. This will not end well. How do you propose to handle the traffic pressure? You can't go north (left) from either interchange off the frontage road...anymore. You planning on using privately owned roads such as Brewster? Its unavoidable that Brewster will be used. Is the county going to start paving, policing and maintaining our road? The non-resident traffic is already unbearable, dangerous and not enforced by county personnel. Don't shoe-horn this unsightly massive complex in here. We'll be talking to every voter in Brewster, Lake Brewster, Cypress Cove, Silver Lake, Marquette and Silva Terra concerning this monstrosity. Stop this plan right now. Michael Tilmon Upload supporting files If you need to support your comment with documentation, upload the files here. No more than 20MB in size total for all files. File types accepted are: doc, docx, ppt, pptx, txt, pdf, jpg, png. File 1 Field not completed. File 2 Field not completed. File 3 Field not completed. File 4 Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 14 - 7 To: New Hanover County Planning and Land Use Re: Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z23-17) 5322 Carolina Beach Road Residential Multi-Family housing development. From: Sharon Alford Dear Planning Board Members: I am a property owner within 500 feet of the parcel boundary of the proposed project for Item 2 Rezoning Request (Z23-17). I am unable to attend this Public Hearing due to work but have a strong voice against such construction. I just received this notice in the mail, as well as my neighbors with our HOA in Citrus Cove, with only 5 days’ notice to this hearing, to prepare to oppose this request. I am writing this letter to express my strong opposition to allowing this land to be developed with a 200 – unit multi-family development. First of all, as residents /property owners within the 500 feet parcel boundary of this proposed property, it came as quite a surprise to my family and neighbors to just recently hear that this was being proposed. This proposed development would be within 500 feet of my property line, and when I purchased this land to build a home for my family, I was advised two certainties on this property. One, I would be allowed to construct an inground pool and two, no other property would be constructed beyond the pond or the proposed area, which is to the left of my home. As I began the HOA procedure for the pool, I was advised that will not happen and now the proposed construction in the exact area we were advised would remain a forest area of landscape, due to the wetland behind my house. My primary concerns are as follows: the fire hazards from this new construction, with so many residents being added, and being so close to our community. The lack of available emergency service workers to maintain this area, after adding an additional 200-units. It is a great concern that a fire, in such a large development would be literal devastation to the homes and structures located so close to this complex. To date, regarding The Myrtle Grove Volunteer Fire Department, there is only 1 Fire and Emergency Station, with only 9 career Firefighters. Our school system just redistricted the middle school students in this area due to overpopulation. Murray Middle School already has a population of 832 students in grades 6-8, with a student /teacher ratio of 17/1, and Myrtle Grove Middle School, grades 6-8, has a population of 715, with a student / teacher ratio of 16/1. Adding an additional 200- unit will max out our already crowded schools and impair the overall academic achievements of these school. We only have 1 high school in this jurisdiction, Eugene Ashley High School, grade 9-12, which has 1,931 students and a student /teacher ration of 18/1. This school is currently rated #6 out of 126 in the National Rankings. Let’s not sacrifice our future to a 200-unit complex. Another issue that also does not seem to be adequately considered is the noise. Our small area was not structured to implement such a huge development, with homes so close to the proposed site and nowhere for the noise to travel freely. The noise would be unacceptable for this community. The environmental impact of the forest area, which is adjacent to the wetlands behind my house is a concern of being destroyed. I have yet to see an Environmental Impact Study for this prosed site. If any information is available, our community should have a right to review the results of such studies. Also, with reference to larger apartment houses, like this proposed 200-unit multi-family housing development, they very often are a parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by our residential districts. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk, with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises, incident to increased traffic, depriving our children of the privilege of a quiet, open and safe space for play and relaxation. Multifamily apartments lower the value of single-family homes in the neighborhood. Multifamily apartments overburden schools and produce less revenue for local governments and require more infrastructure support. Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 14 - 8 Finally, what is the impact on the traffic flow, and traffic congestion to maintain access to this 200-unit complex on an already congested highway, which just underwent major reconstruction in the past couple of years. Can the roads and infrastructure support the higher population density? Has a Traffic Impact Study been done for this proposal? The single road “Old Carolina Beach Road, which per the diagram provided, reflect that this road will be the main access to this 200-unit complex, and it is a single lane road that cannot handle the additional traffic flow of 200+ additional vehicles, public school transportation vehicles, and emergency vehicles, on a daily basis without the repercussion of major collisions, traffic congestion and even fatalities, as there are no traffic lights to direct traffic of this magnitude, in an area this small that is already a safety issue. Should all of these things not be fully vetted out BEFORE making a proposal? This proposal seems in direct conflict with our own mission statement…” to ensure environmental protection, public safety and a rich quality of life...” As an entity who has vested a career in public service in our community for over 30 years, preserving our community would include preserving forests, water and habitat, it seems ironic that this proposal has gotten this far in such a small location. Please vote against this zoning proposal. I strongly oppose this request to rezone this 12.68 acres for a 200-unit residential multi-family development and I also speak on the behalf of my fellow neighbors in our Citrus Cove HOA community. It is my hope and trust that you will work on this, with the people of this community’s feedback in mind. My Rebuttal: I frankly don’t see any upside to this addition to our community. Just because you can build it – doesn’t mean you should… Our little community of Citrus Cove is a stakeholder in this project and your decision to either accept or reject this proposal, will impact our quality of living in this small, quiet, subdivided neighborhood. It is much easier to make changes on the drawing board than to wait until the construction process. It is also imperative to keep in mind the people who will be impacted by such a proposed addition, is our small community. Sure, buildings that look new and are beautiful can be a success, but what’s really important is that they work for the people in the community which they are meant to serve. Remember what Winston Churchill once said: …”We shape our buildings: Thereafter, they shape us…” If you build it, they will come, as well as the unwelcomed after mass of chaos and destruction in our little community of Citrus Cove. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter, Sharon Alford Citrus Cove HOA 902 Dunhill Lane Wilmington, NC 28412 Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 14 - 9 Supplementary Applicant Materials Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 15 - 1 Ca r o l i n a B e a c h R o a d Connections to Townes at Park Place Car Wash Amenity Area Townhomes Apartments Z23-17 Appendix: Concept Plan Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 1 - 16 - 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/7/2023 Regular DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Zach Dickerson, Senior Planner CONTACT(S): Zach Dickerson; Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor; Rebekah Roth, Planning & Land Use Director SUBJECT: TA23-03 - Staff Presenta*on - Electric Vehicle (EV) Parking Standards - Public Comment Dra6 Release BRIEF SUMMARY: Poten!al Amendment Concepts were presented to the Planning Board at the August 4, 2022 mee!ng and dra(s of the amendments were released on August 12, 2022 for public comment. The original Electric Vehicle (EV) Parking Text Amendment was included in the UDO Concepts presented at that mee!ng. Following the ini!al public comment period, the dra( amendment was presented to the Planning Board at their September 1, 2022 regular mee!ng. At that mee!ng the Planning Board directed staff to solicit addi!onal public comment and refine and revise the dra( language. Staff have met and discussed with stakeholders during this interim to refine the Amendment. The intent of the Amendment is to: - Create clear standards that everyone understands. - Allow for easier and less expensive modifica!ons to install future charging sta!ons. - Avoid burdens on developers and excessive costs for future owners to install charging sta!ons. - Consider needs of ci!zens that might not be met by the current market. Staff will be presen!ng a concept and framework, followed by release of the Text Amendment dra( for public comment. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 2 COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 2 NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/7/2023 Regular DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor CONTACT(S): Robert Farrell; Rebekah Roth, Planning and Land Use Director SUBJECT: TA23-05 UDO Maintenance Amendment BRIEF SUMMARY: STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Planning Board - September 7, 2023 ITEM: 3