Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-06-24 PB MinutesMinutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board June 6, 2024 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on June 6, 2024, at 5:00 PM in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina. Members Present Jeff Petroff, Chair   Colin Tarrant, Vice Chair  Pete Avery Clark Hipp Hansen Matthews Members Absent Kevin Hine Cameron Moore Staff Present Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use  Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor  Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor  Katia Boykin, Community Planning Supervisor Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney  Zach Dickerson, Senior Planner Amy Doss, Associate Planner Love Ott, Associate Planner Wendell Biddle, Associate Planner Lisa Maes, Administrative Coordinator Damion Fulford, Administrative Specialist Chair Jeff Petroff called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM and welcomed the audience. After the welcome remarks, Planning and Land Use Operations Supervisor Ken Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance, and Chair Petroff provided an overview of the meeting procedures and read the Code of Ethics. Approval of Minutes Minutes from the May 2, 2024, Regular Meeting were considered by the Board. No changes or amendments were identified. Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes as drafted. SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery. The motion to approve the May 2, 2024, Regular Meeting minutes passed 5-0. Chair Petroff stated that there was a staff request to amend the meeting agenda to allow for a presentation regarding the ongoing update to the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. Board Member Hansen Matthews made a MOTION to AMEND the meeting agenda to add a staff update presentation on the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update project. The motion to amend the meeting agenda to add a staff update presentation on the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update project passed 5-0. Chair Petroff announced that all public hearing items that were approved would go forward to the July 22nd, 2024, Board of Commissioners meeting. New Business 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update- Destination 2050 Staff Presentation Community Planning Supervisor Katia Boykin gave a brief presentation to update the Board on the ongoing 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update project. She explained that the primary team was currently working on gathering data on existing conditions and conducting broad public engagement, and that the timeline of the project consisted of: • Spring – Summer 2024: o Gather baseline existing conditions data, o Broad public engagement, o Joint meeting to identify plan goals and priorities. • Fall 2024 – Summer 2025: o Additional Studies (housing needs assessment & survey), o Development and analysis of scenarios, o Identification of strategies and tools, o Joint Meeting(s) – Final direction on concepts and strategies • Fall 2025: o Preparation of initial drafts, o Public review of initial draft materials, o Planning Board Public Hearing o Board of Commissioners Public Hearing She explained that the public engagement plan was designed to allow for individuals, communities, and organizations to provide and receive information and to ensure that everyone’s voice is heard. She added that all favorable and unfavorable feedback was important in order to better the county. A visual of the Destination NHC 2050 logo was shown. She stated that short public pulse surveys were anticipated to start in July and cover a variety of topics like infrastructure and the economy. Ms. Boykin explained that a 20-member subject matter expert Technical Advisory Committee had been formed and had started meeting in order to assist with drafting the stakeholder engagement questionnaire and to identify what stakeholder groups to engage with. She added that it was a regional effort with Planning staff from surrounding areas being involved. She explained that the department was in the process of contracting a consultant to conduct a housing needs assessment, a statistically significant public opinion survey, and a scenario planning analysis of future potential development patterns. She explained that the project was currently on track and that the next steps were to complete pulse surveys, to confirm the details of a public forum meeting, and to finalize the consultant selection process. She concluded her presentation and stated she was available for any questions. In response to questions from the Board regarding the number of public forums, Ms. Boykin replied that she intended to hold three public forums with the first to introduce the public to the process and gather information, the second to share the results of the first, and a final meeting to conclude the process and share the final results and findings of the consultant. Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Western Bank – Initial Public Comment Draft Release Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth gave an overview of the public comment draft of the Western Bank amendment to the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. She reminded the Board that this amendment had been in the works for several years because of several projects to develop the Western Bank. She explained that the process had included several work sessions with the Board of Commissioners where they authorized Planning staff to conduct a study on the feasibility of developing the area. She explained that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, which is one of the guiding documents for Planning staff, called for a greater mix of uses along the Western Bank to reflect what was found in Downtown Wilmington. She added that the study found that there were environmental conditions on the Western Bank like sunny day flooding, that made development challenging. She explained that because of this staff developed a series of recommendations for the Board of Commissioners, which included: • Update the Comprehensive Plan to better ensure that property owners and the community are aware of the risks and potential for future development, and to incorporate elements that would mitigate the impact on downtown, and • Identify ways to shift the cost burden of new infrastructure and maintenance from the public to the private sector. Ms. Roth explained that the plan amendment would inform studies, development regulations, rezoning applications and their accompanying staff recommendations, what is considered by the Boards, and what could be built by-right in the district. She stated that the purpose of the public comment draft was to allow for the public to provide their feedback early in the process so that their concerns could be addressed before starting the public hearing process. She added that the Western Bank, Bicycle & Pedestrian Priorities Plan, and the Residential Densities & Infill Policy Guidelines amendments to the 2016 Comprehensive Plan were fast-tracked amendments to be completed before the full Comprehensive Plan update because they were identified as priority areas by the Board of Commissioners. She explained that the amendment would consist of a new place type designation called Downtown Riverfront, implementation guidelines, and an appendix to share existing conditions and other information related to resiliency. She stated that the Downtown Riverfront place type would be applied to all properties across from downtown Wilmington currently designated as Urban Mixed- Use aside from one parcel north of the Isabel Holmes Bridge that would be reclassified as Commerce Zone. She added that based on feedback from the Board stating that without a residential component most projects along the Western Bank would continue to be industrially based, staff recommended a mixed-use component. She explained that staff recommended a five- story height limit or no taller than the Battleship North Carolina. Ms. Roth explained that the public comment period would run from around noon on June 7th to around noon on June 28th and that any comments received outside of the period would be shared with the Board. She added that all comments should be directed to her and notice of the public comment period would be shared with the County Sunshine email list and the Comprehensive Plan Updates email list. She concluded her presentation and stated she was available for any questions. Board Member Hansen Matthews encouraged the public to provide their feedback on the amendment because everyone has a different ideal of what they believe the Western Bank should be. Public Hearings Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Residential Densities and Infill Policy Guidelines – Request by New Hanover County Planning & Land Use to amend the New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan to incorporate guidelines for residential densities and infill development. Associate Planner Amy Doss gave a brief overview of the Comprehensive Plan amendment request. She explained that the purpose of the amendment was to create an appendix to articulate existing residential density guidelines and outline recommended transitional design elements between high and low density uses. She stated that the public comment draft was released in May and staff received many comments expressing concern about overdevelopment, high density, having multi-family development next to single family development, building height, and a lack of regulatory action. She added that staff worked to incorporate those concerns by better explaining that the project only incorporated existing guidelines, adding a chart of existing recommendations for density for each place-type, an explanation about what factors affect density recommendations, and specific examples of how to use these recommendations. She explained that the components of the amendment consisted of a summary of Comprehensive Plan place type density recommendations, a graphic outlining site components to aid in identifying the appropriate density along the scale outlined for a place type, an explanation of how and when the recommendations are intended to be used, and a chart explaining transitional elements with graphics. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan recommended a range of density for each place type and if a proposal was within that range staff found it to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but there were a variety of factors and site conditions that meant that the entire range of density was not always appropriate like water and sewer utility access or environmental factors. She explained that staff discussed these factors with applicants, but staff recommendations could not be based on them because they were not directly mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that what may be appropriate in one area of the county may not be appropriate in another even though they are the same place type. Ms. Doss explained that the amendment was intended to establish a scale to determine when lower density development was appropriate based on factors such as flood plain risks and infrastructure challenges, and when higher density development was appropriate based on factors such as proximity to public transit or public spaces. She provided an example of the General Residential place type, which allowed for up to eight dwelling units per acre, but if using the proposed amendment, staff would have to look at other factors such as proximity to a major road when determining if a project in that place type was appropriate. She explained that even after determining if the density was appropriate for the site, physical transitional elements such as building height or green infrastructure were still needed and the amendment would provide recommendations for appropriate transitional elements. She added that staff had encouraged applicants to locate higher intensity uses near existing uses of the same intensity and the same applied to building height. She explained that during infill development staff looked for additional transitional elements such as multi-modal connectivity to a nearby park. She stated that there were minimal requirements for these elements in the Unified Development Ordinance and the amendment would recommend considering additional transitional elements. She explained that the intent was to have a public hearing on the amendment at Board of Commissioners meeting in July as part of the track one amendments. She concluded her presentation and stated that she was available for any questions. In response to questions from the Board regarding where the chart of densities came from, Ms. Doss replied that they came from the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and confirmed that they were not new guidelines. Nick Silivanch, 1205 Beeston Court, spoke in favor of the amendment because clarifying the rules and building more vertical buildings makes sense. He added that there is a large housing unit shortage in the county and that the amount of people moving here will only continue. Chair Petroff opened the hearing to opposition, but no speakers had signed up. He acknowledged the number of public comments received before the hearing. Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to Board discussion. Board Member Clark Hipp explained that the amendment was not significantly changing information in the UDO and was only providing clarification and a tool to use when reviewing applications. He added that it would not change the application review process. Board Member Hansen Matthews made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County 2016 Comprehensive Plan to provide guidelines for the evaluation of residential densities and clearly articulated infill development elements as it was generally consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it provided a tool intended to enhance the ability to evaluate appropriate residential densities and suitability, and it was reasonable and in the public interest because it provided recommendations to be used as guidance for infill development and could assist the public review process for rezoning and special use permit applications. SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery. The motion to recommend approval of the Residential Densities and Infill Policy Guidelines amendment to the 2016 Comprehensive Plan passed 5-0. Text Amendment (TA24-03) – Senior Living RA Permissions – Request by Samuel Franck with Ward and Smith, P.A, applicant, to amend Article 4 of the Unified Development Ordinance to change the use of Senior Living: Independent Living Retirement Community from requiring a Special Use Permit to permitted-by-right in the RA, Rural Agricultural district. Development Review Supervisor Robert Farrell gave a brief presentation of the text amendment request. He explained that the amendment would allow Senior Living: Independent Living Retirement Community as a by-right use the in the RA, Rural Agricultural zoning district and that it was currently only allowed with a Special Use Permit. He stated that Senior Living: Independent Living was defined as a housing development that may contain a variety of housing types designed for and restricted to occupancy by households having at least one member who is 55 years of age or older, living independently. He added that generally the only difference between a typical subdivision and a Senior Living: Independent Living development was a private covenant restricting age. He explained that there were three County plans that addressed Senior Living, which were the Housing Needs Assessment, the Master Aging Plan, and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. He added that the Housing Needs Assessment estimated an overall gap of 12,147 rental units and 16,875 for-sale units over the next 10 years and a projected 25% increase in senior households (75 and older). He stated that the Master Aging Plan was a five-year plan that contained goals and implementation strategies to address resources and services for older adults. He added that some of the objectives of the plan included attracting private builders and developers to build lower cost community living spaces by offering incentives such as relaxing previous zoning restrictions. Mr. Farrell explained that staff found the text amendment to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it would allow for Senior Living in a residential zoning district without the extra step of a Special Use Permit. He stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, the Housing Needs Assessment, and Master Aging Plan indicate a rising need for Senior Living and a need to reduce barriers to development, so staff recommended approval of the amendment as written. Mr. Farrell concluded his presentation and stated that pending Board Approval the amendment would move to the July Board of Commissioners meeting for final approval and that he was available for any questions. Chair Petroff recognized the applicant for their presentation. Samuel Franck with Ward and Smith, P.A, stated that it was a straightforward amendment because it removed a barrier to Senior Living. He added that a Senior Living community would be of a less intensive use than a traditional community. He explained that the amendment would not change any policy guidelines like density, and only add Independent Living Retirement Community as a by-right use in the RA, Rural Agricultural zoning district. He reiterated Mr. Farrell’s points that removing the barrier to development would make it easier to address the Senior Living housing shortage and that it was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Franck concluded his presentation. In response to questions from the Board regarding what type of housing options were available in a Senior Living: Independent Living community, Mr. Franck replied that it could be a variety of housing types and not just single family detached housing. Mr. Farrell explained that there was a separate use and regulation for Assisted Living facilities. In response to questions from the Board regarding why the amendment only applied to the RA, Rural Agricultural district, Mr. Franck replied that he asked for the amendment to change as little as possible and that it was a result of potential Senior Living project in the RA district. He added that he was open to amending the application to include other districts. Ms. Roth explained that there had been conversations with the Commissioners in the past regarding the Special Use Permit requirement for Senior Living, but it had not risen to the level to initiate a staff proposal. She added that the Commissioners could provide direction to include the change in an upcoming maintenance amendment. Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to Board discussion. Board Member Clark Hipp stated that he believed development in other residential districts like R-15 required more oversight than development in RA and that the RA district was only found in the northwestern portion of the county so there would not be numerous by-right developments popping up around the county. In response to questions from the Board regarding what the highest density allowed would be, Mr. Farrell replied that the maximum density allowed in the RA district was one unit per acre and that would apply to any use in the district. Vice Chair Colin Tarrant made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of text amendment request (TA24-03) to allow the use of Senior Living: Independent Living Retirement Community as by-right in the RA, Rural Agricultural zoning district as it was consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it provided for a range of housing types, opportunities, and choices for seniors; and it was reasonable and in the public interest because both the Housing Needs Assessment and the Master Aging Plan have identified a need for additional senior housing to serve current and future demand. SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery. The motion to recommend approval of text amendment request (TA24-03) passed 5-0. Rezoning Request (Z24-05) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Paul E. & Deanne Meadows, property owners, to rezone approximately 0.93 acres zoned RA, Rural Agricultural located at 4737 Castle Hayne Road to (CZD) B-2, Regional Business, for two commercial structures totaling 8,700 square feet for the use of General Retail for a tire store and other limited uses. Associate Planner Wendell Biddle gave a brief overview of the application. He stated that the conditional rezoning request was to rezone approximately .93 acres currently zoned RA, Rural Agricultural to (CZD) B-2, Regional Business. He added that the site located 4737 Castle Hayne Road was the location of Dad’s Tire Shop and had historically been used for residential and commercial purposes. He explained that the site was zoned RA, Rural Agricultural in 1985 to provide for low density single family residential development at a compatible scale in rural and agricultural settings, but since then the area had seen several commercial and light industrial rezonings. He displayed an aerial photograph of the lot showing that it contained a commercial tire store and a single-family residence that had been recently demolished. He then provided photographs illustrating the existing site conditions, examples of representative development in the RA district, and examples of representative development of the proposed land use of Contractor Office and General Retail sales. He explained the applicant provided site plan and land use proposal. He stated that the site was considered a legal nonconforming use. He explained that the applicant intended to subdivide the lot to allow for the existing tire store and a proposed 3,000 square foot flex space that would consist of two 1,500 square foot bays. He added that the applicant would move the location of the existing well and septic system and would build an underground stormwater system and parking lot. He explained that the tire store currently had an addition that would encroach into the B-2 setback area so a condition of approval would be to remove the encroaching building and replace it with a 15-foot by 30-foot attached shed. He added that the site had two existing connections to Castle Hayne Road and two connections to Sondey Road. Mr. Biddle displayed a map showing approved Traffic Impact Analyses and approved developments in the vicinity of the site. He reiterated that the site would have four access points, two on Castle Hayne Road and two on Sondey Road. He explained that the rezoning was anticipated to create an increase of eight AM and eight PM peak hour trips and was below the 100 peak hour trip threshold to require a TIA. He stated that the impact of the existing use and proposed use were similar, and that current zoning would not allow for subdivision because it would result in lots below the 30,000 square foot requirement. He explained that that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the area as the Community Mixed Use place type which included commercial uses and encouraged infill development. He stated that the proposed conditions included: 1. The proposed rezoning’s principal use shall be limited to: Animal Grooming Services, Contractor Office (without outdoor storage), Offices for Private Business & Professional Activities, Instructional Services & Studios, Personal Services, General Retail Sales, Minor Vehicle Service State, and Warehousing. 2. The attached shed that encroaches into the rear setback is to be removed, bringing Dad’s Tire Store into compliance with required setbacks. 3. A septic and well easement approved by New Hanover County Environmental Health shall be recorded with the Register of Deeds guaranteeing access and maintenance for the existing system and well shall be required prior to issuance of construction permits for the flex commercial space. 4. Exterior lighting including luminaries and security lighting shall be fully cutoff fixtures that are directed downward in compliance with Figures of the UDO. In no case shall lighting be directed at or above a horizontal plane through the lighting fixture. 5. The two Significant Trees identified on the concept plan shall be permanently retained on site. Mr. Biddle concluded his presentation and stated that the site would be subject to TRC and zoning compliance review, and that Scott James of the WMPO and Tim Lowe from County Engineering were available for questions. In response to questions from the Board regarding subdivision of the parcel, Mr. Biddle replied that it would be subdivided after successful rezoning. Chair Petroff invited the applicant for their presentation. Cindee Wolf, Design Solutions, on behalf of Paul E. and Deanne Meadows, property owners, gave a brief overview of the application. She explained that the Dad’s Tire Shop building was constructed in the 1970s and had been a business since the mid-1990s. She stated that in 2023 the home one the site was damaged by fire and that it and the two accessory structures had since been demolished. She added that pending approval, the section of the tire shop that was encroaching into the setback would be demolished. She explained that there were a variety of businesses along Castle Hayne Road and that the Comprehensive Plan allowed for a mix of uses in the area. She stated that the proposed B-2 zoning would allow the site to be subdivided and reiterated that if approved the lot containing Dad’s Tire would be brought into compliance with all regulations. She explained that the rezoning was consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and was reasonable and in the public interest because it fostered sustainable growth and would provide commercial services that would enhance the character of the area. Ms. Wolf concluded her presentation. Chair Petroff stated that he appreciated retaining the significant trees and the underwater stormwater system. In response to questions from the Board regarding limiting the access points to the site, Ms. Wolf replied the WMPO only requested a new driveway permit and not to limit the number of access points. In response to questions from the Board regarding whether the concrete floor of the encroaching shed would be removed, Ms. Wolf replied that it would be removed. Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to Board discussion. Board Member Clark Hipp stated that having two separate parcels and maintaining existing vegetation would make having a shared access point difficult. He added that it was not an unreasonable application. Board Member Hansen Matthews stated that he approved of the limited uses of the flex space but there could be parking issues stemming from having multiple tenants. Chair Petroff asked the applicant if they would like to proceed with a vote, Ms. Wolf affirmed her intention to proceed with a vote. Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL rezoning request (Z24-05) as it was consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the rezoning provided for the types of uses recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type and it was reasonable and in the public interest because the application limits uses to those which are more appropriate for the area and additional conditions reduce impact on adjacent residential areas, with the following conditions: 1. The proposed rezoning’s principal use shall be limited to: Animal Grooming Services, Contractor Office (without outdoor storage), Offices for Private Business & Professional Activities, Instructional Services & Studios, Personal Services, General Retail Sales, Minor Vehicle Service State, and Warehousing. 2. The attached shed that encroaches into the rear setback is to be removed, bringing Dad’s Tire Store into compliance with required setbacks. 3. A septic and well easement approved by New Hanover County Environmental Health shall be recorded with the Register of Deeds guaranteeing access and maintenance for the existing system and well shall be required prior to issuance of construction permits for the flex commercial space. 4. Exterior lighting including luminaries and security lighting shall be fully cutoff fixtures that are directed downward in compliance with Figures of the UDO. In no case shall lighting be directed at or above a horizontal plane through the lighting fixture. 5. The two Significant Trees identified on the concept plan shall be permanently retained on site. SECONDED by Board Member Hansen Matthews. The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z24-05) passed 5-0. Rezoning Request (Z24-06) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of LaLuLi Investments, LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 0.86 acres zoned R-15, Residential located at 501 and 505 Manassas Drive to (CZD) O&I, Office and Institutional for one commercial structure totaling 8,000 square feet for the use of Medical and Dental Office and Clinic and other limited uses. Mr. Farrell gave a brief overview of the application. He stated that the request was to rezone an approximately .86-acre lot located along Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residential to (CZD) O&I, Office and Institutional. He explained that the site was zoned R-15 in 1971 to allow for housing served by private well and septic systems to be built at low densities but since then the area had experienced higher density residential and mixed commercial growth from the Monkey Junction growth node to Halyburton Parkway. Aerial photography of the site and images of the property taken from different angles were then shown. Mr. Farrell explained that the site was currently undeveloped and bordered by single-family residential to the north and east, and commercial development to the south and west. He then provided examples of representative development in the R-15 district and examples of representative development in the O&I district. He explained that the site plan would include a two-story 8,000 square foot with associated parking, right-in-right-out access on Carolina Beach Road, a private septic system, a solid wood privacy fence, an underground stormwater system, and a public access easement for future bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. He explained that NCDOT had conducted preliminary site review and recommended limiting the site to right-in-right-out only access on Carolina Beach Road and southbound traffic on Carolina Beach Road could utilize a U-turn approximately 1,000 feet south of the site. He stated that the rezoning was estimated to result in approximately 20 AM and 50 PM peak hour trips which was under the 100-trip threshold to require a TIA. He explained that while Carolina Beach Road was over capacity the proposed use of the project in proximity to residential development could reduce the longer trips on Carolina Beach Road. He added that the project would be subject to NCDOT Engineering review through the driveway permitting process. He explained that the site was located south of the Beau Rivage Marketplace which offered a variety of goods and services and that there had been increased interest in higher density residential and mixed-use projects in the area. He stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the area as Urban Mixed Use which allows for a mix of uses at higher densities and encouraged a variety of uses. He added that the list of proposed uses included community level services in proximity to residential development that could reduce the need for longer vehicle trips. Mr. Farrell explained that staff recommended approval of the rezoning request because it was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed limited uses were in line with the place type and approval was reasonable and in the public interest because the project would act as an appropriate transition from Carolina Beach Road to nearby residential development, with the following proposed conditions for the application: 1. Street yard landscaping will be installed along Carolina Beach Road to meet current Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) landscape requirements for commercial projects. 2. Any freestanding sign(s) on the site shall be monument-style with landscaping around the base of the sign. No pole signs shall be permitted. 3. Exterior lighting including luminaries and security lighting shall be full cut-off fixtures that are directed downward in compliance with Figure 5.5.4.C Full Cut-off Fixtures of the UDO. In no case shall lighting be directed at or above a horizontal plane through the lighting fixture. Light posts shall be no taller than twelve (12) feet. 4. Permitted uses are limited to: • Medical and Dental Office and Clinic • Bank and / or Financial Institution • Business Service Center • Offices and Private Business and Professional Activities • Instructional Services and Studios • Personal Services (no tattoo parlors) 5. Significant trees identified on the concept plan shall be permanently retained. 6. A six-foot-tall solid wood privacy fence shall be installed along the northern and eastern sides of the project as depicted on the concept plan. 7. A minimum 20-foot-wide public access easement shall be provided along the frontage parallel with Carolina Beach Road for bicycle and pedestrian use. Mr. Farrell concluded his presentation and stated that the site would be subject to TRC and zoning compliance review, and that Mr. James of the WMPO and Mr. Lowe from County Engineering were available for questions. Chair Petroff invited the applicant for their presentation. Cindee Wolf, Design Solutions, on behalf of LaLuLi Investments, LLC, property owner, gave a brief overview of the application. She explained that NCDOT had originally intended to have access to the site on Manassas Drive but due to the proximity of a residential driveway to the site it was decided to have right-in-right-out only access on Carolina Beach Road as far from the intersection as possible. She added that the developer would be responsible for extending the right turn lane from the intersection to where it already exists north of the site. She explained that the site would have access to public water utilities but would be connected to a private septic system; however, if public sewer became available, the site would connect to it. She added that building a standalone dentist office would be better for the practice than renting space. She concluded her presentation and stated that she was available for questions. In response to questions from the Board regarding where the site access would be located, Ms. Wolf replied that it would only have access to Carolina Beach Road. In response to questions from the Board regarding what the intended use of the public access easement was, Mr. Farrell replied that it would allow for pedestrian access to the site and area and the overlay of the site parking into the easement would be addressed during TRC review. Ms. Roth added that based on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Priorities plan staff were asking for easements to build a multi-use path along Carolina Beach Road in the future. Ms. Wolf stated that the parking spaces could be adjusted to avoid encroachment into the easement if need be but there should be sufficient space for a future multi-use trail. Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to Board discussion. Board Member Clark Hipp stated that he believed the application was a good plan and the type of development that should be encouraged because it could reduce traffic along Carolina Beach Road. Chair Petroff asked the applicant if they would like to proceed with a vote, Ms. Wolf affirmed her intention to proceed with a vote. Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of rezoning request (Z24-06) as it was consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed mix of uses is in line with the recommendations of the Urban Mixed Use place type and it was reasonable and in the public interest because the project would as an appropriate transition between the highway and existing residential development, with the following conditions: 1. Street yard landscaping will be installed along Carolina Beach Road to meet current Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) landscape requirements for commercial projects. 2. Any freestanding sign(s) on the site shall be monument-style with landscaping around the base of the sign. No pole signs shall be permitted. 3. Exterior lighting including luminaries and security lighting shall be full cut-off fixtures that are directed downward in compliance with Figure 5.5.4.C Full Cut-off Fixtures of the UDO. In no case shall lighting be directed at or above a horizontal plane through the lighting fixture. Light posts shall be no taller than twelve (12) feet. 4. Permitted uses are limited to: • Medical and Dental Office and Clinic • Bank and / or Financial Institution • Business Service Center • Offices and Private Business and Professional Activities • Instructional Services and Studios • Personal Services (no tattoo parlors) 5. Significant trees identified on the concept plan shall be permanently retained. 6. A six-foot-tall solid wood privacy fence shall be installed along the northern and eastern sides of the project as depicted on the concept plan. 7. A minimum 20-foot-wide public access easement shall be provided along the frontage parallel with Carolina Beach Road for bicycle and pedestrian use. SECONDED by Board Member Hansen Matthews. The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z24-06) passed 5-0. Rezoning Request (24-08) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Vlacancih, 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 maximum 64-unit multi-family development. Mr. Farrell gave a brief overview of the application. He stated that the applicant was seeking to rezone approximately 4.65 acres from R-15, Residential to (CZD) RMF-M, Residential Multi- Family- Moderate density. He added that the Board had held a hearing on the same item last year. He explained that the site was located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road and was zoned R-15 in the 1970s to ensure that homes were built at low densities due to the need for private well and septic systems but since then public water and sewer utilities had become available in the area. Aerial photography and pictures of the site from different angles were shown, and he explained that the site was bordered by single-family residential to the east, west, and south with a religious institution to the north. He then provided representative examples in the current R-15 district and representative examples of multi-family development. A site plan provided by the applicant was shown. Mr. Farrell explained that the site would consist of four, three-story buildings that would house 12-units and two, two-story buildings that would house eight units, for a total of 64 units. He added that the site would have an amenity center, recreation and open space, a stormwater pond, and the voluntary addition of a right turn lane on Carolina Beach Road. He noted that the parking area encompassed the living space to provide an additional buffer between the multi-family units and neighboring residential uses. He stated that there were three TIAs and one subdivision in progress within the immediate vicinity of the site. He explained that the site would have right-in-right-out access to Carolina Beach Road with a U-turn located approximately 1,800 feet to the south for traffic to go north. He added that the project would generate an estimated 43 AM and 48 PM peak hour trips, which was under the threshold to require a TIA. He explained that while this section of Carolina Beach Road was nearing capacity there were several other projects in progress whose TIAs would address general traffic growth in the area. Mr. Farrell stated that the project was expected to generate an additional 10 new students and that those estimates were based on data provided by the school system on an annual basis. He explained that the site was less likely to be developed for lower density residential due to the size of the parcel and the proximity to Carolina Beach Road. He added that the proposed density of 14 dwelling units per acre was within the recommended density for the place type, that the site features would act as a transition between the adjacent uses, and that the applicant agreed to dedicate 10% or 6 units for workforce housing for a period of at least 15 years. He explained that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the area as Community Mixed Use which allowed for a mix of uses at moderate densities and building height of up to three stories and that the Residential Multi-Family district could act as a buffer between the highway and single- family development. Mr. Farrell explained that staff recommended approval of the rezoning request because it was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan as the proposed limited uses were in line with the place type. Additionally, recommending approval was reasonable and in the public interest because it would act as an appropriate transition from Carolina Beach Road to nearby residential development, with the following proposed conditions for the application: 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 sixteen (16) feet. 2. The proposed right turn lane must be permitted by NCDOT. Changes to the concept plan to meet NCDOT requirements for the turn lane may be approved administratively by county staff. 3. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to the onset of land clearing and grading along a minimum 15-foot offset from the edge of the outer drive. No disturbance of existing vegetation or grading will be permitted. Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy, a minimum eight-foot-tall solid wood screening fence shall be installed along a three-foot offset from the driveway pavement. 4. The project will include a minimum of 10% of the units or six (6) total units, whichever is greater, as workforce housing units that will be made available for a period of not less than 15 years with rental limits based upon HUD HIGH HOME standards. An agreement between the developer and county will be required before the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project. The agreement shall specify: • The number of affordable units provided, • The income limits, • Rent limits subject to annual change, • The period of time workforce housing units must remain affordable, • Any other criteria necessary for compliance and monitoring. • An established timeframe for annual reporting from the developer or owner of the development to New Hanover County. Annual reports shall provide the following minimum information: unit number, bedroom number, household size, tenant income, rent rate. • The developer or owner of the development shall report any mid-year lease changes to workforce housing units to New Hanover County to ensure that lease changes remain compliant with the agreement. • If the total number of workforce housing units falls below the minimum of 10% of the units or six (6) total units whichever is greater before the expiration of the minimum 15-year period of affordability, the development will be subject to enforcement measures found in Article 12 Violations and Enforcement of the Unified Development Ordinance. 5. The project is limited to a maximum of 64 units and the two westernmost multi-family structures shall be limited to two stories. He explained that staff had received several comments and petitions that were provided to the Board. Mr. Farrell concluded his presentation and stated that the site would be subject to TRC and zoning compliance review and that Mr. James of the WMPO and Mr. Lowe from County Engineering were available for questions. Chair Petroff invited the applicant for their presentation. Ms. Wolf, Design Solutions, on behalf of Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Vlacancich, property owners, gave a brief overview of the application. She explained that the project had changed in various ways over the past two years to address public concerns. She stated that there needed to be a variety of housing types and that properties along a busy corridor were not appropriate for single-family development. She added that having a variety of housing types encouraged a variety of citizens and that there were not enough rental opportunities in the southern portion of the county. She explained that the site had various elements to reduce the potential impact on neighbors by not having any parking along the shared property boundary and by limiting the rear buildings to two-stories. She added that the buffer would be 73 feet instead of the required 30 feet. She stated that the project would have direct right-in-right-out access to Carolina Beach Road and that there was remaining capacity on Carolina Beach Road. Ms. Wolf stated that the site plan met all State stream buffers and all County conservation overlay setbacks. She explained that land use patterns had changed since zoning was adopted in the 1970s and that the agreed to conditions would limit the impact on neighbors. She concluded her presentation. In response to questions from the Board regarding why the proposal was denied by the Commissioners, Ms. Wolf replied that the vote was 3-2 with the opposition having issues with the three-story build height. She added that she believed they were not aware that the rear buildings had been reduced to two stories. In response to questions from the Board regarding whether the proper setbacks from the nearby stream were met, Ms. Wolf replied that the proper setbacks were met. In response to questions from the Board regarding the locations of the dumpsters, Ms. Wolf replied that they would be located away from the existing residential development. Chair Petroff opened the floor for the opposition. Frank Stanton, 7637 Vancouver Court, expressed his concerns about people exiting the neighborhood onto Carolina Beach Road, which is a 55 MPH speed limit, how different apartments are to single-family homes, and traffic issues. Jonathan Groner, 412 Okeechobee Road, expressed his concerns about traffic, especially during the summer when people are going to the beach. Ben Namiot, 1408 Champlain Drive, expressed his concerns about making a U-turn on Carolina Beach Road, the length of the proposed turn lane, how effective the tree buffer will be, and the effect higher density housing will have on the area. John Wisner, 6803 Hailsham Dr, expressed his concerns about traffic on Carolina Beach Road, the logistics of people merging into traffic, and issues with emergency response only having one entrance to the site. Pamela Bartley, 6703 Chelwood Court, expressed her concerns about drainage and how quickly the area is growing. Dean Stubbs, 707 Glen Arthur Drive, expressed his concerns about adding more traffic to the area. Beth Burgin, 821 Glen Arthur Drive, expressed her concerns about disconnection between neighborhoods, the lack of access to pedestrian infrastructure, and the compatibility of the project with the community. Jerome Willmering, 707 Bancroft, stated that many residents of the area do not support the project as evidenced by the petition he gathered. He expressed his concerns about traffic, stormwater management, the compatibility of the project with the area, and the increased chance of accidents with the turning lane. Chair Petroff explained that the 15-minute period for opposition had expired but the remaining speakers would have five minutes after applicant rebuttal. Chair Petroff recognized the applicant for rebuttal. Ms. Wolf stated that the speed limit on Carolina Beach Road should be reduced but NCDOT controlled that. She added that everyone who already lives there drives and contributes to traffic. She reiterated that the conditions applied to the project would mitigate the impact on the neighbors. Chair Petroff recognized the opposition for rebuttal. Nancy Steele, 618 Mackay Court, stated that she disagreed that low density housing should not be built adjacent to the highway and that more homes should be built for individuals who want to move here. She expressed her concerns about the compatibility of the project with the area. Jess Anderson, 6918 Ontario Road, expressed her concerns about issues with people accelerating and decelerating in the turn lane. John Durant, 509 Superior Road, expressed his concerns about traffic and increased traffic on the private roads of the existing neighborhoods. Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for Board discussion. Chair Petroff asked Mr. James from the WMPO to address concerns from the speakers and the capacity of the road. Mr. James explained that Carolina Beach Road is an NCDOT facility, so NCDOT was in charge of driveway permitting. He stated that there could be confusion in the ingress/egress lane but that the car in the road had right of way and any car entering would have to perform what was called a weaving maneuver. He added that there were similarly designed roads in the area. In response to questions from the Board regarding who sets the speed limit for Carolina Beach Road, Mr. James explained that the NCDOT set the speed limit, but the local jurisdiction could request a speed survey to possibly lower the speed limit. In response to questions from the Board regarding what criteria were utilized in the speed study, Mr. James stated that there were several factors taken into account like adjacent land use such as a school zone. In response to questions from the Board asking for more clarification on the weaving maneuver, Mr. James replied that cars already on the road have right-of way and cars exiting the development onto the road must yield. He stated that College Road north of UNCW is an example of an existing road where drivers must weave into traffic. In response to questions from the Board regarding what the Board vote was when they heard the application before, Mr. Hipp replied 7-0. Board Member Pete Avery stated that he experiences the same traffic issues as everyone else and that it is not possible to construct enough roads to accommodate every car, providing the freeway in Los Angeles as an example. He added that traffic will be an issue until there are better modes of transportation. Board Member Hansen Matthews stated he has had multiple family members get in car accidents in the past year, so he sympathized with everyone who had concerns with traffic, but the NCDOT recommended the turning lane for a reason. He explained that there needs to be a place for everyone to rent and live and that he believed most people would stay on Carolina Beach Road instead of driving through back roads. He added that the applicant had been very accommodating when addressing concerns with the site plan. Board Member Clark Hipp stated that the application as presented had many features to mitigate the impact on neighbors. He added that he would like to add a condition to ensure that all dumpsters are located away from the residential development. Ms. Wolf explained that she forgot to add dumpster locations to the site plan but was open to having them located to the north or east of the site. Vice Chair Tarrant stated that he believed the applicant did a good job addressing any issues the Commissioners and public had. He added all the members experience the same problems and are in the boat. He explained that to get services in an area there needs to be people and the need for the services in the area before it is built. He acknowledged the frustrations felt by the public. Chair Petroff asked the applicant if they would like to proceed with a vote, Ms. Wolf affirmed her intention to proceed with a vote. Vice Chair Tarrant made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of rezoning request (Z24- 08) as it was consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the development scale and density is in line with the plan’s recommendations for the place type and the project would provide additional housing diversity in the area, and it was reasonable and in the public interest because it provided an alternative housing type that acts as a buffer for lower density residential, contributing to the kind of residential development desired along highway corridors and an additional voluntary condition by the applicant ensures workforce housing affordability for 10 percent of the units, or six total units, whichever is great for a period of 15 years. With the following proposed 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 sixteen (16) feet. 2. The proposed right turn lane must be permitted by NCDOT. Changes to the concept plan to meet NCDOT requirements for the turn lane may be approved administratively by county staff. 3. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to the onset of land clearing and grading along a minimum 15-foot offset from the edge of the outer drive. No disturbance of existing vegetation or grading will be permitted. Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy, a minimum eight-foot-tall solid wood screening fence shall be installed along a three-foot offset from the driveway pavement. 4. The project will include a minimum of 10% of the units or six (6) total units, whichever is greater, as workforce housing units that will be made available for a period of not less than 15 years with rental limits based upon HUD HIGH HOME standards. An agreement between the developer and county will be required before the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project. The agreement shall specify: • The number of affordable units provided, • The income limits, • Rent limits subject to annual change, • The period of time workforce housing units must remain affordable, • Any other criteria necessary for compliance and monitoring. • An established timeframe for annual reporting from the developer or owner of the development to New Hanover County. Annual reports shall provide the following minimum information: unit number, bedroom number, household size, tenant income, rent rate. • The developer or owner of the development shall report any mid-year lease changes to workforce housing units to New Hanover County to ensure that lease changes remain compliant with the agreement. • If the total number of workforce housing units falls below the minimum of 10% of the units or six (6) total units whichever is greater before the expiration of the minimum 15-year period of affordability, the development will be subject to enforcement measures found in Article 12 Violations and Enforcement of the Unified Development Ordinance. 5. The project is limited to a maximum of 64 units and the two westernmost multi-family structures shall be limited to two stories. 6. A minimum 20-foot-wide public access easement shall be provided along the frontage parallel with Carolina Beach Road for public bicycle and pedestrian use. 7. Any dumpster or trash facilities will be located on the northern or eastern portion of the property. SECONDED by Board Member Clark Hipp The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z24-08) passed 5-0. In response to questions from the Board regarding who would monitor the workforce housing agreement, Ms. Roth replied that the Planning department had a housing program team that would monitor the agreement. She added that similar conditions had been added to other projects. The Board took a fifteen-minute break. Rezoning Request (Z24-09) – Request by Cinde Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Walter Wayne Winner, property owner, to rezone approximately 0.25 acres zoned R-15, Residential located at 802 S. Seabreeze Road to (CZD) CB, Community Business, for 1,800 square feet of General Retail Sales and other limited uses. Mr. Biddle gave a brief overview of the application. He stated that the request was to rezone approximately 0.25 acres currently zoned R-15, Residential to (CZD) CB, Community Business. He explained that the site was located at 802 S, Seabreeze Road and was originally zoned R-15 in the 1970s. He added that the purpose of the R-15 district was to allow for homes to be built at low densities due to the need for private septic and well systems but since then private water and sewer services had become available through Aqua. Aerial photography and photos of the site from different angles were then shown. He stated that the site was currently undeveloped and was at the corner of the intersection of Carolina Beach Road and Seabreeze Road. He explained that the historic Seabreeze neighborhood was established in the 1920s and was a prime vacation destination for African Americans all over southeastern North Carolina through the 1950s. He then provided examples of representative development in the R-15 district and the Seabreeze neighborhood, and examples of representative development in the CB district. A site plan provided by the applicant was then shown. Mr. Biddle explained that the intent of the proposal was to construct an 1,800 square foot retail building with parking, an access point on the Service Road, a one-way exit onto S. Seabreeze Road, and a conditioned six-foot tall privacy fence between the adjacent residential properties. He stated that stormwater facilities were not required on site due to the amount of proposed impervious surface. He added that there was one subdivision and one TIA underway in the vicinity of the project. He stated that the project was anticipated to create four AM and 12 PM peak hour trips which was under the threshold to require a TIA. He explained that the 1989 Seabreeze Small Area Plan recommended a revitalization of businesses in the area and redevelopment of the waterfront and that while much of the surrounding area was low density residential the sites adjacency to Carolina Beach Road made it more likely to be used for a commercial use. Mr. Biddle explained that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the area as the Community Mixed Use place type which encouraged commercial uses and infill development. He stated that the proposed conditions for the site included limiting the principal uses and installing a privacy fence, capping the amount of impervious surface, and lighting considerations. Mr. Biddle concluded his presentation and stated that the site would be subject to TRC and zoning compliance review, and that Mr. James of the WMPO and Mr. Lowe from County Engineering were available for questions. Chair Petroff invited the applicant for their presentation. Ms. Wolf, Design Solutions, on behalf of Walter Winner, property owner, gave a brief overview of the application. She explained that the applicant wanted to own a family business and the proposed site would be a good location for a small recreational store that would specialize in fishing and archery. She added that the proposed limited uses would serve the community if the business transitioned to something else in the future. She concluded her presentation. Chair Petroff opened the floor for the opposition. Annamarie Atwood, 1308 Deerhill Drive, expressed her concern about how new business would affect the historic nature of the area and the fit of the business in the area. She added that there was a preference for any business to be owned by someone from the community. She acknowledged that change would happen regardless, but she would prefer a home be built there. Chair Petroff acknowledged the applicant for rebuttal. Ms. Wolf stated that the corner of the intersection would not be suitable for a home. She added that the nature of the use would make it a time specific destination for fishermen getting bait. Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for Board discussion. In response to questions from the Board regarding the impervious allotment and the need for a rezoning if it exceeded 13,000 square feet, Mr. Biddle replied that the applicant would have to go through the rezoning process if they changed the site plan and it exceeded 13,000 square feet of impervious surface. Ms. Roth replied that anything over that anything over 13,000 square feet of impervious surface would require an engineered stormwater system and that was more than staff could approve administratively. Board Member Pete Avery asked why it would need to be rezoned again if it had already been rezoned once. Ms. Roth stated that it was considered a new zoning district it the changes were beyond what staff could administratively approve. Mr. Lowe explained that anything over 13,000 square feet would require a stormwater permit. In response to questions from the Board regarding what the 3,000 square foot allotment meant, Mr. Lowe replied that when the ordinance was created the allotment was added to make it less burdensome for projects that would have been allowed before the ordinance was created. He added that the site was less than 13,000 square feet anyway. Board Member Clark Hipp explained that the Board was only able address types of uses and not the ownership of the property. Ms. Wolf stated that the applicant was committed to a double frontage design to reduce the impact on neighbors. In response to questions from the Board regarding if the six-foot fence would be enough to mitigate the height of the building affecting surrounding properties, Ms. Wolf replied that the building was limited to being 25-feet tall and some of the business would be under the roof. She added that the adjacent property was undeveloped. Chair Petroff asked the applicant if they would like to proceed with a vote, Ms. Wolf affirmed her intention to proceed with a vote. Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of rezoning request (Z24-09) because it was consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed uses are in line with the recommendations of the Community Mixed Use place type and it was reasonable and in the public interest because the development would act as a community service business node to serve both the Seabreeze community and the surrounding area, with the following conditions: 1. The proposed rezoning’s principal use shall be limited to: • General Retail Sales, • Animal Grooming Service, • General Personal Services, • Instructional Services & Studios, • Offices for Private Business & Professional Activities 2. A privacy fence measuring six-feet high will be installed between the adjacent residential lots and the required buffer yard. 3. The development’s proposed impervious surface is capped at 10,000 square feet unless granted a 3,000 square foot impervious allotment by New Hanover County Engineering. Any further increase in impervious ground cover will require rezoning. 4. 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. SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery. The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z24-09) passed 5-0. Rezoning Request (Z24-10) – Request by Mattson Wiksell with Hoyt & Berenyi, applicant, on behalf of Southeastern Freight Lines, INC, property owner, to rezone approximately 3.73 acres of a 4.24-acre parcel zoned B-2, Regional Business located at 2824 N. 23rd Street to (CZD) AC, Airport Commercial for the use of Motor Freight Transportation Warehousing to expand the existing Southeastern Freight Lines facility. Associate Planner Love Ott gave a brief overview of the application. She stated that the request was to rezone approximately 3.73 acres of a 4.24-acre parcel from B-2, Regional Business to (CZD) AC, Airport Commercial. She explained that the site was originally zoned AI, Airport Industrial in 1976 and was rezoned to B-2 in 1986 to allow for a wider range of uses. Aerial photography and pictures of the site from different angles were shown, and she explained that the site used to be the location of a legal nonconforming manufactured home park that had since been closed and was currently vacant. She then provided representative examples in the current B-2 district and representative examples of development in the AC district. A site plan provided by the applicant was then shown. Ms. Ott explained that the site would consist of a trailer storage yard expansion, an employee parking lot, stormwater ponds, and would have to access North 23rd Street through an existing driveway and a new proposed exit onto North 23rd Street. She added that there were two existing manufactured homes that would not be part of the project and an existing laundromat nearby. She explained that two planned State Transportation Improvement Projects in the area would improve the flow of traffic. She stated that the proposed use was expected to generate less traffic than the current zoning. She explained that residential growth in the area as well as the expanded transportation network on I- 140 had increased the demand for commercial uses along Castle Hayne Road and the expansion of the Wilmington International Airport had led to an increase in rezoning to Airport Commerce. Ms. Ott explained that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the area as Community Mixed Use place type, which encouraged a mix of uses and infill development, and Employment Center place type which served as employment hubs where office and light industrial uses were allowed. She added that the proposed project would act as buffer between the two place types. She explained that the applicant had proposed a condition that staff did not recommend applying to the zoning district. She concluded her presentation and stated that the site would be subject to TRC and zoning compliance review, and that Mr. James of the WMPO and Mr. Lowe from County Engineering were available for questions. Chair Petroff recognized the applicant for the presentation. Mattson Wicksell, Hoyt & Berenyi, on behalf of Southeastern Freight Lines, INC, property owners, gave a brief overview of the application. He stated that he did not have anything to add because Ms. Ott did a comprehensive job covering the application. He concluded his presentation and stated that he was available for questions. In response to questions from the Board regarding what the function of the new access point would be, Mr. Wicksell replied that it is a one-way exit for employee vehicles. In response to questions from the Board regarding how the trailers would enter the expansion yard, Tonya Powell, Maynard Nexsen, explained that there was a connection point between the existing yard and expansion yard. In response to questions from the Board regarding whether the site plan allocated enough space for stormwater, Mr. Wicksell replied that full drainage studies would be done and would be reviewed by TRC. In response to questions from the Board regarding if there were existing stormwater outlets, Mr. Wicksell replied that there was an existing ditch that ran through the site that the new system would connect to. Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to Board discussion. With no further Board questions or discussion, Chair Petroff asked the applicant if they would like to proceed with a vote, Mr. Wicksell affirmed his intention to proceed with a vote. Board Member Hansen Matthews made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of rezoning request (Z24-10) as it was consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed use in an expansion of a neighboring compatible use in the Employment Center place type and it was reasonable and in the public interest because the project would provide commercial development that is compatible with its proximity to Wilmington International Airport. He added that the applicant had proposed a condition requiring that development of the property would be in accordance with the concept plan. However, this is required for any conditional zoning district, excepting any minor modifications allowed by the ordinance. As a result, staff would not recommend including this condition in order to avoid future misunderstandings of its intent. SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery. The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z24-10) passed 5-0. Other Items Ms. Roth explained that the agenda for the July 11th regular meeting was heavy and if the Board wanted to meet at 5:00 PM again they would need to make a motion to amend the calendar. Board Member Hansen Matthews made a MOTION to change the start time of the July 11th Planning Board meeting to 5:00 PM. SECONDED by Vice Chair Tarrant. The motion to move the start time of the July 11th Planning Board meeting to 5:00 PM passed 5- 0. Board Member Pete Avery made a MOTION to ADJOURN the meeting. SECONDED by Vice Chair Tarrant. The motion to adjourn the meeting passed 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM.