Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-2024 PB Meeting MinutesMinutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board July 11, 2024 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on July 11, 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 Cameron Moore Members Absent Kevin Hine Hansen Matthews Staff Present Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use   Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor  Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor  Katia Boykin, Community Planning Supervisor Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney  Zach Dickerson, Senior Planner Amy Doss, Associate Planner Love Ott, Associate Planner Virginia Norris, Long Range Planner Lisa Maes, Administrative Coordinator Damion Fulford, Administrative Specialist Chair 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 April 2, 2024, Agenda Review meeting; June 4, 2024, Agenda Review meeting; and the June 6, 2024, Regular meeting were considered by the Board. No changes or amendments were identified. Board Member Cameron Moore made a MOTION to APPROVE the minutes as drafted, SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery. The motion to approve the April 2, 2024, Agenda Review meeting; June 4, 2024, Agenda Review meeting; and the June 6, 2024, Regular meeting minutes passed 5-0. Chair Petroff announced that all public hearing items that were approved would go forward to the August 5, 2024, Board of Commissioners meeting. Chair Petroff stated that the first three items were public hearings and explained the format for the hearings. He explained that each side would have 15 minutes for presentation and five minutes for rebuttal. He added that the Board was only an advisory board and that the Board of Commissioners would make the final decision, but any public comment could impact their recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. Chair Petroff explained that the applicant for Item 3, Rezoning Request Z24-15, had requested a continuance to the August 1, 2024, meeting and staff supported the request. Board Member Pete Avery made a MOTION to APPROVE the applicant’s request for a continuance, SECONDED by Vice Chair Tarrant. The motion to approve the request for a continuance for rezoning request Z24-15 passed 5-0. New Business Public Hearings Prior to Item One, Chair Petroff recused himself from the public hearing due to past business experiences with a client in the Western Bank area that could be a conflict of interest. Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION to APPROVE of Chair Petroff’s recusal, SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery. The motion to approve Chair Petroff’s recusal passed 4-0. Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Request by New Hanover County Planning & Land Use to amend the 2016 Comprehensive Plan to incorporate updated guidance for the development of the Western Bank of the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers. Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth explained that the Western Bank consisted of several parcels directly across from Downtown Wilmington and that all but the parcel housing the Battleship North Carolina were privately owned. She added that while many of the properties were currently vacant, there had historically been Industrial uses and there were currently some businesses on the northern parcels. She stated that the properties were currently zoned Riverfront Mixed Use, I-2, Heavy Industrial, and B-2, Regional Business which all allowed for taller buildings and a variety of uses. She explained that the Comprehensive Plan currently designated the area as Urban Mixed Use which was the highest density place-type classification because there was a vision to develop the Western Bank to mirror Downton Wilmington. She explained that there were some projects submitted in the past that followed that vision that also brought new information to light and public comments that caused the Board of Commissioners to conduct work sessions and direct staff to provide reports in regards to conditions of the Western Bank. She added that there had been a trend of increased sunny day flooding due to tidal influences and increased levels of precipitation up- river that was not present when the vision for the area was first established. She explained that the amendment was the culmination of staff’s work to change the vision for this area and outline the next steps to achieve that as requested by the Board of Commissioners but because the area was privately owned the county could not limit reasonable uses by the private owners. She stated that the amendment would help to better ensure that the property owners and the community would be aware of the risk and potential impacts of developing the Western Bank and to better incorporate elements to mitigate the possible impact on downtown Wilmington. Ms. Roth explained that the current version of the amendment was based on feedback from the Board and public comment received after the June Board meeting. She added that there were over 2,500 public comments with most of them being from an action alert campaign from local organizations and that there were 165 unique emails, with an overall concern about flooding issues and a want to conserve the property or recreational services. She stated that there were some concerns about the impact on private property owners who would want to use their property. She explained that some of the changes from the last version of the amendment included additional clarifying language, a change in the name of the proposed place type to Low-Intensity Riverfront to signify that the uses should be less intense than the downtown Wilmington side of the river, removal of the residential component in the proposed mix of uses, and amended the recommended building heights to have taller buildings located in the northern portion of the Western Bank. She stated that because the area was privately-owned designating it for Conservation was not recommended, but the conservation areas were extended along the river because they were most likely CAMA regulated and to include the entire Battleship property. She explained that in comparison to the current Urban Mixed-Use classification, the proposed Low-Intensity Riverfront classification would still allow a mix of uses but not residential and that only low intensity projects would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She added that the implementation language was updated to reflect the want to have greenways and pedestrian infrastructure connect to the larger system. Ms. Roth concluded her presentation and stated that it was the Commissioners preference to hear the amendment at the August 5th meeting so the Board would need to make a recommendation at this meeting and that she was available for any questions. Hearing no questions for Ms. Roth, Vice Chair Tarrant opened the hearing for public comment. With no speakers signed up in support of the amendment, Vice Chair Tarrant recognized the opposition to speak and reminded the meeting that there were 15 minutes to speak and a five- minute rebuttal period per side. Travis Gilbert, 211 Orange Street, stated that he was the former executive director of the Historic Wilmington Foundation and that he was at the meeting on behalf of a coalition of organizations. He thanked the Board and staff for all of their work. He expressed his concerns about flooding and public safety, the possible impact on the Battleship NC, his preference for conservation, and the need to pursue flood damage prevention as outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance. Roger Shew, 4910 Park Avenue, thanked Ms. Roth for her work in addressing public concerns and outlined his background as a Geology professor at UNCW. He stated that the area was in a dynamic compound flood zone, a 100-year flood zone, and that the base flood elevation of nine feet was higher than the elevation of most of the property. He expressed his concerns that the base high tide level will only increase over time as sea levels rise and that there would be significant challenges to ensuring safety in the area. He expressed his preference to use the area for passive parks, historical education, and eco-tourism. Kemp Burdette, 617 Surry Street, Cape Fear Riverkeeper, expressed his concerns about flooding in the area and provided a video and pictures of flooded roadways. He added his concerns about the cost of infrastructure and replacing it when it washes away. He explained that the Western Bank was at the confluence of two “funnels” that created a very volatile situation, one funnel being the entire Cape Fear Basin and the other being the Cape Fear Estuary which was oriented in a way that hurricanes directly hit to send storm surge up the river. He stated that environmental factors are worsening exponentially and that other projects such as deepening the Port of Wilmington could have unforeseen effects. He added that saltwater would severely impact any infrastructure and that it would be difficult to get insurance for properties in the area. Kayne Darrell, 5008 Castle Lakes Road, stated that the findings of the experts and the opinions of the citizens should be heard. Kirk Pugh, 1336 Regatta Drive, echoed the stance of the letter submitted by the North Carolina Business Alliance for a Sound Economy. He stated that low density, low intensity uses on the Western Bank were not feasible due to the cost of infrastructure and that the only viable use currently is heavy industry which nobody would want. He stated his belief that the changes to the vision for the Western Bank were arbitrary and that the landowners should not be punished. Robert Parr, 6706 Falcon Point Road, provided graphics depicting the elevation of the area and expressed his concerns about the isolation and potential danger of developing the Western Bank and the infrastructure costs. He echoed the previous points that the situation would only get worse. He concluded his presentation by stating that by 2050 12% of the land area on current tax records would be permanently inundated with water due to rising sea levels. Matt Collogan, 180 Arlington Drive, Vice Chair of the New Hanover County Soil and Water Conservation District, expressed his concerns about developing in a volatile area and the possible negative impacts on the ecosystem. He stated that roads on Eagles Island flooded up to 180 days of the year due to sunny day flooding. He added that much of the area was in a 100-year flood zone and that most of the land was only four feet above sea level while the base flood elevation was nine feet. He explained that the issues would only worsen as sea levels rose. He concluded his by stating his preference for an eco-park and for emphasizing the historical nature of the area. Abby Wesley, 206 Keaton Avenue, Geosyntec Consultants, stated her support for some of the ideas of the amendment such as building resilience. She expressed her concerns about the contamination of the some of the area due to previous land uses and the health of the wetlands. She added that there would be a significant cost for development in the area and that she believed that some of the proposed restrictions would be counterintuitive to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Laura McCabe, 2302 New Orleans Place, Alliance for Cape Fear Trees, thanked Ms. Roth for her direct communication with the community. She stated that any development would need to be based on current data and not historical averages. Vice Chair Tarrant asked for a motion to close the public hearing and open the meeting to Board discussion. Board Member Cameron Moore made a MOTION to CLOSE the public hearing. SECONDED by Board Member Clark Hipp. The motion to close the public hearing passed 4-0. In response to questions from the Board regarding the removal of the residential component of the amendment and how it would be applied, Ms. Roth replied that the amendment was just a policy document at the moment and would not change the regulations placed on the Western Bank properties. She added that a residential use could be built in the B-2 district with a special use permit and that the Riverfront Mixed-Use District required a residential component. She explained that based on the language of the amendment, if a rezoning request included a residential component staff would recommend denial of the application and that if any zoning or regulations were to be put into place staff would recommend for it to not allow a residential component. In response to questions from the Board regarding how a project allowed under current zoning would be handled if the amendment passed and how CAMA would affect it, Ms. Roth replied that any by-right use would be able to move forward and that there would be a separate process to incorporate it into the CAMA plan. She added that only the RFMU district allowed residential uses without additional Board approval in comparison to the other districts of the Western Bank. In response to questions from the Board regarding if hotels or motels were allowed in the B-2 district, Ms. Roth replied that they were allowed. Board Member Clark Hipp explained that they were reviewing a request from the Commissioners for staff to develop an alternative place type for the area and that the Board’s job was to review what was before them. He added that he agreed with the comments saying that the Western Bank should not be developed but that the County did not have the ability to take away the property owner’s rights to develop their land. He stated that he believed that the proposed low intensity place type addressed many of the concerns about limiting the impact of development. He added that he believed that as presented he believed that the amendment was a move in the right direction. Vice Chair Tarrant stated that while the general consensus was that the Western Bank should not be developed there would be many legal and financial hurdles to make the entire area a conservation zone. He added that the costs to develop on any of the parcels would be so high that he did not see it happening. He explained that approval of the amendment could lead to unforeseen consequences such as contamination from the brownfields and that any residential project should be considered fully on a case-by-case basis. Board Member Cameron Moore thanked Ms. Roth and staff for all of the effort put into the amendment when they were not given an initial vision to work towards. He explained that there could be a balance between conservation and development and that development could take many shapes and not just a large structure. He stated that at some point in the future the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge will be replaced and that it could be the connection point of a multi-use trail and that there could be a variety of maritime uses due to the proximity of the highway and deep water. He explained that there would need to be participation from the private sector in order for anything to be done and that all the parcels are privately owned. Board Member Pete Avery explained that the property in the Western Bank was very valuable and that any change in place type would chip away at the rights of the property owners and those needed to be protected. He added that if the public truly wanted to make the Western Bank a conservation area, they needed to organize and get the elected officials to work together to buy the property. Board Member Cameron Moore stated that cleaning up the brownfields would have a cost and that he did not see what role the private sector would play yet. He added that he believed that if the amendment was adopted, there would be incongruence between the Comprehensive Plan and the UDO until further work was done to create new zoning districts. In response to questions from the Board regarding when the Board of Commissioners wanted to hear the amendment, Ms. Roth replied that they wanted to weigh in at the August meeting. Board Member Pete Avery stated that a mix of conservation and development could work but what was currently on the Western Bank needed to be protected as well. Board Member Clark Hipp explained that the Urban Mixed Use place type was not suitable for the Western Bank and that the Low Intensity Riverfront place type could be more suitable, but the Western Bank needed a new place type regardless. He added that he was comfortable with the Commissioners deciding on the final details. Vice Chair Tarrant agreed that the Urban Mixed Use place type was not the best for the Western Bank, but he had concerns about making the Comprehensive Plan too tight of a scope. In response to questions from the Board regarding if they could include recommendations in their motion, Ms. Roth replied that the Board could make recommendations to the Commissioners whether recommended approval or denial of the amendment. Board Member Clark Hipp explained that he had more concerns about building height than removing the residential component and that there should be a graduation of height along the Western Bank to reflect downtown. Board Member Cameron Moore stated that the work has to start somewhere and that was hard to create policy without vision. He added that he believed that the Commissioners needed to provide more guiderails for staff and the Planning Board, that a consultant should be hired along with conducting a market analysis of the properties, and that the amendment should be tabled until the zoning regulations were finalized. Vice Chair Tarrant confirmed that Mr. Moore made a motion to recommend denial of the amendment with the recommendations that were mentioned. Board Member Cameron Moore made a MOTION to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the proposed Western Bank amendment to the 2016 Comprehensive Plan with the following recommendations to the Board of Commissioners: 1. To engage with a consultant to prepare a master plan for the area. 2. To conduct a market analysis for the Western Bank properties. 3. To begin contemporaneous work on creating zoning districts for the area. SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery. The motion to recommend denial of the Western Bank amendment to the 2016 Comprehensive Plan passed 3-1. Board Member Clark Hipp dissented because he was generally supportive of the current draft of the amendment but had concerns about the limitations on building height. Chair Petroff returned to chair the meeting. Rezoning Request (Z24-12) – Request by Adam Sosne with Brightwater Development Company, applicant, on behalf of MHMJ, LLC, property owner, to rezone approximately 12.68 acres zoned Conditional RMF-M, Residential Multi-Family- Moderate Density located at 5322 Carolina Beach Road to a new (CZD) RMF-M district for a maximum 133 attached single-family dwelling units. Associate Planner Love Ott gave a brief overview of the application. She stated that the request was to rezone approximately 12.68 acres and that while the zoning district was not changing, the proposed changes to the density, housing type, and site access were substantial enough deviation from the original site plan to necessitate review by the Board of Commissioners through the public hearing process. She explained that the site was located at 5322 Carolina Beach Road and was originally zoned R-15 in the 1970s with the eastern most portion of the parcel being rezoned to B- 2 in 1988 due to its proximity to the Monkey Junction intersection and other commercial areas. She added that the site was rezoned to a Conditional RMF-M district in October 2023 for a 200 multi-family dwelling unit development. She provided aerial photography of the site to illustrate that it was bordered by a carwash and some multi-tenant commercial space along Carolina Beach Road, the Grove manufactured home park and detached single family homes to the south, and an under-construction townhome development to the north. Photographs of existing site conditions and examples of representative development of attached single-family units as proposed by the applicant. A concept plan provided by the applicant was shown and Ms. Ott explained that the site would contain attached single-family dwelling units, stormwater ponds, a recreation area, gated emergency-only access onto Antoinette Drive. She stated that the site would have primary access onto the Carolina Beach Road Service Road through the shared drive with the carwash and that vehicles who needed to go west on Carolina Beach Road would have to go approximately 3500 feet south and preform a U-Turn at Rosa Parks Drive or cross the three lanes of traffic on Carolina Beach Road and preform a U-Turn at the Monkey Junction intersection. She added that the latter option would increase vehicle conflicts at the intersection. She explained that there were three projects that required Traffic Impact Analyses and two State Traffic Improvement Plan projects in a one-mile radius of the proposed site. She added that the STIP projects were funded but right of way acquisition was not anticipated until 2029. She stated that the anticipated traffic of the application was lower than the previously approved plan and under the 100 peak hour trip threshold to require a TIA. She explained that the proposed plan would generate 28 total students which was 16 fewer students than current zoning and that the projections were based on actual student numbers provided by the school system on an annual basis. Ms. Ott explained that the proposed site was located along Carolina Beach Road and adjacent to the Monkey Junction Intersection which was one of the county’s most travelled corridors and was within one of the three growth nodes as identified in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. She added that the proposed modifications would lower the overall density, would provide a uniform housing type that was more consistent with the area, and that the NCDOT’s planned improvements would alleviate traffic concerns in the area. She stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the area as the General Residential and Urban Mixed Use place types and because the property was located at the borders of place types it could be appropriately developed with either place type. She explained that the proposed density of 10.5 dwelling units per acre was slightly higher than the recommended density for the General Residential place type but was in line with other recently approved projects in the area and was appropriate for the Monkey Junction area. She added that the proposed conditions included a maximum building height of three stories and that roadway connections to the Towns at Park Place be paved to the property line and gated as approved by the New Hanover County Fire Marshal’s Office. Ms. Ott concluded her presentation and stated that the site would be subject to TRC and zoning compliance review, and that Scott James of the WMPO was available for questions. In response to questions from the Board regarding whether the proposed density was consistent with the place types for the area, Ms. Ott replied that it was and that General Residential had a maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre and that Urban Mixed Use did not have a maximum. In response to questions from the Board regarding the western most access point, Mr. Farrell replied that all access other than onto Carolina Beach Road would be gated. Chair Petroff invited the applicant for their presentation. Amy Schafer, Lee Kaess, PLLC, on behalf MHMJ, LLC, property owner, gave a brief overview of the application. She explained that the proposal was a reduction in units from what was previously approved and that the change in housing type was necessitated from a change in the market that made multi-family apartment style buildings not feasible for the project. She stated that she did not want to reiterate the area information that Ms. Ott provided unless it was needed. She added that the condition of gated access was a request from staff. She explained that the reduction in dwelling units would result in more open space and less traffic trips and student generation. She stated that the proposal would still meet the county’s need for housing units of all types. She explained that the project was still consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density was within the range of the General Residential and Urban Mixed Use place types and that not much had changed since the previous approval of the project. Ms. Schafer concluded her presentation. In response to questions from the Board regarding whether there would be smaller structures on the site, Ms. Schafer replied that there would be a mix of two- and three-story buildings but there were not concrete plans yet. In response to questions from the Board regarding if the condition for gated access staff was requested, Ms. Schafer replied that the applicant wanted it to be open and she acknowledged that the Towns at Park Place owner and the applicant had not been able to reach an access agreement. Development Review Supervisor Robert Farrell explained that staff wanted interconnectivity but proposed the gated access because the Towns at Park Place was a private neighborhood with private roads because an agreement between owners could not be reached and to prevent possible trespassing. Chair Petroff explained that the Board was receptive to the projects in the past because they believed that there would be access to Antoinette Drive to alleviate traffic issues caused by crossing lanes of traffic and preforming U-Turns. Ms. Schafer explained that the Towns at Park Place was required to stub to the proposed site, but she was not aware of a condition that required them to allow access. In response to questions from the Board regarding the policy to require connections between neighborhoods, Ms. Roth replied that private roads made it more difficult to require connections and that there were situations where private roads connected to private roads and that caused issues because residents would use the road but not pay to maintain it. She added that staff preferred interconnectivity and that the condition could be modified to allow future access if the situation could be worked out. In response to questions from the Board regarding if the parcel had access onto Carolina Beach Road, Chair Petroff clarified that it would have access onto the Service Road. Board Member Clark Hipp asked the applicant if they would be agreeable to an access easement for a future multi-use path. Ms. Schafer explained that the site would share access with the carwash but if there was room for the multi-use path, they were agreeable. Board Member Clark Hipp stated that should be added as an additional condition. Chair Petroff opened the floor for the opposition. Mike Tilmon, 512 Brewster Lane, stated that no matter what there will be traffic on the private roads because of how Carolina Beach Road is set up. He expressed his concerns about speeding, crime and other things coming through his neighborhood, and emergency services ability to provide for the area. He stated that the Service Road already had a lot of traffic. Chair Petroff recognized the applicant for rebuttal. Ms. Schafer stated that she believed that Brewster Lane and other roads in the area were NCDOT maintained and that taking the backroads would not be the most convenient way. Scott James, WMPO, explained that the portion of Brewster Lane connecting to the Service Road was NCDOT maintained and at a certain point west became private. Chair Petroff recognized the opposition for rebuttal. Mr. Tilmon explained that Brewster Lane connected to many other roads so people would use the private section of the road. He stated that the exits from the Service Road onto Carolina Beach Road had been removed and had caused problems and the traffic issues needed to be remediated. Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to Board discussion. Board Member Clark Hipp agreed that the Service Road had issues but not to the level to stop the applicant from developing the parcel and that he was not sure how to fix the issues. He added that the TIA from the previous version of the application had solutions that could solve some issues, but they were not possible without access to Antoninette Drive. He stated that he did not think it was the responsibility of the applicant to fix all the existing issues. Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of Rezoning Request Z24-12 as it was consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the project provided the type of use and density appropriate for the area given the project’s location in the growth node and surrounding development patterns, and was reasonable and in the public interest because the development would provide an appropriate transition from the commercial node to the single-family residences to the south and west, with the following conditions: 1. Buildings will have a maximum height of three stories. 2. The roadway connections to the Towns at Park Place shall be paved to the property line and gated as approved by the New Hanover County Fire Marshal’s Office or the project must obtain an access easement from the adjacent property owner to access Antoinette Drive. 3. A 20-foot-wide public access easement shall be provided along the frontage of the Carolina Beach Road service road for bicycle and pedestrian use. Chair Petroff asked the applicant if they would like to proceed with a vote, Ms. Schafer affirmed her intention to proceed with a vote but that she would rather not have gated access. In response to questions from the Board regarding the need for the gated access condition, Ms. Roth confirmed that staff had determined the gated access condition was needed unless the applicant could reach an agreement with the neighboring property owner and that staff would continue working with the applicant to figure it out. Chair Petroff stated that the previous motion covered both options. In response to questions from the Board regarding how close the to property owners were in reaching an agreement for an access easement. Grady Gordon, McAdams Homes, replied that they were far apart as the other property owner asked for $500,000 and conversations fell apart after that point but they conservations would continue. Ms. Schafer explained that there were many ungated connections to private roads around the county as Mr. Tilmon stated but she did not want this to be a sticking point for the rest of the rezoning. Chair Petroff confirmed with staff that the current motion was the best way to move forward. SECONDED by Vice Chair Tarrant. The motion to recommend approval of rezoning request (Z24-12) passed 5-0. Preliminary Forum Prior to the fourth item, which was a preliminary forum for Special Use Permit (S24-02), Chair Petroff provided an overview of the procedures for this type of item. He explained that the purpose of the preliminary forum for special use permit request S24-02 was to facilitate a transparent discussion and to allow for the opportunity for public comment and questions. He added that per state law the Planning Board would not be making a recommendation on the permit, the final decision would be made by the Board of Commissioners based on the findings of a quasi-judicial hearing where public participation would be limited to parties with standing and evidence be provided through sworn testimony. He then explained the process for the preliminary forum, which would consist of a staff introduction of the application, an applicant presentation, public comment and questions, applicant rebuttal, Board member comments and questions, and finally staff will close the forum by explaining the next steps. Special Use Permit Request (S24-02) – Request by Nathan Christy with Future Homes, applicant, on behalf of Terrilyn and Celecia Philips, property owners, for a Special use Permit for the use of a Single-Family Detached Dwelling in a B-2, Regional Business district on a 0.19-acre parcel of land located at 1029 S. Seabreeze Road. Associate Planner Amy Doss provided a brief overview of the application and reiterated the purpose of the preliminary forum. She explained that the necessary conclusions for approval were: • The use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and approved, • The use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), • The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or the use is a public necessity; and • The location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County. She explained that the site was located at 1029 S. Seabreeze Road and was currently vacant as shown in photographs of the site and that the site would have primary access on S. Seabreeze Road. She stated that the site was originally zone B-2 in 1971 and was abutted by all B-2 zoned parcels. She explained that single-family residences were permitted in the B-2 district with the approval of a Special Use Permit and had to meet the development standards of a multi-family development. She added that the dwelling must be part of a mixed-use development that would provide innovative opportunities for an integration of diverse but compatible uses into a single development that is unified by distinguishable features and amenities and walkways to increase pedestrian activity. She explained that some of the included design features needed to be but were not limited to: • Residential Uses integrated with Non-Residential Uses • A mix of housing options • Off street parking • Open Space (15% or greater) • Public Space • Pathways or Sidewalks • Street Trees Ms. Doss explained that the setbacks on the applicant provided concept plan met the requirements of multi-family development and showed a rendering of the proposed single family dwelling. She reiterated the necessary conclusions for approval and the purpose of the preliminary forum. She explained that comments from the Board should focus on providing advice to the applicant on components of their application and presentation that may not be clear, advice to parties speaking in opposition on what they might want to consider for preparation for the Board of Commissioners meeting, and advice for both parties on potential issues that that should be addressed before the public hearing Ms. Doss concluded her presentation and stated that Mr. James had left and County Engineering was not available for questions. She added that the applicant was in attendance and had a presentation. In response to questions from the Board regarding what the setbacks of the property would be if developed under B-2 zoning and what affects would the development have on surrounding properties, Ms. Doss replied that if developed commercially under B-2 the setbacks would be 25- feet on the front and zero on the side and rear, while the Residential Multi-Family Low Density setbacks would be 20 feet in the front, 15 feet in the rear, and five feet on each side. She confirmed that it would not require a future buffer for the adjacent properties. Chair Petroff invited the applicant for their presentation. Terrilyn Phillips, on behalf of Celecia Philips and himself, property owners, gave a brief overview of the application. He explained that the application was for a single-family dwelling on a B-2 lot and that a recent rezoning of a 7.3-acre lot to a commercial use, limited lot size, and flood zone considerations led to the applicant believing that the best use for the property be a single-family detached dwelling. He reiterated that residential uses were permitted in B-2 by a special use permit and were subject to additional development requirements and the necessary conclusions for approval. He explained that the project met the necessary conclusions because similar structures were nearby so no danger to public safety existed, the proposed use met all requirements of the UDO and Comprehensive Plan, the proposed use would not injure the value of any adjacent property, the use would be a public necessity due to the ongoing housing unit shortage or change abutting setbacks, and the proposed use would be in harmony with the land use pattern and the four homes built in the vicinity. Mr. Phillips concluded his presentation. In response to questions from the Board regarding how the recently constructed single-family homes were built, Ms. Doss replied that one was built through conditional rezoning. Planning Operations Supervisor Ken Vafier added that another home was built through some non- conforming language where a structure that was on site prior had not been discontinued for 180 days so the owner was able to get an interpretation that allowed them to build a single-family residence in the same footprint. In response to questions from the Board regarding the intent to require a mixed-use component, Ms. Doss replied that she believed the intent was to create a mix of housing options and uses so the residential multi-family standards would apply to the lot. Ms. Roth explained that the intent was to show that a developer could have a residential and commercial use together in one unified development, like the Mayfaire area. In response to questions from the Board regarding what the mixed use would be, Ms. Doss replied that the applicant intended to have a home office. In response to questions from the Board regarding what would happen if the homeowner moved and the next owner changed the use of the office, Ms. Doss replied she did not think it would be regulated. Board Member Clark Hipp explained he believed that the B-2 zoning for that area was not serving the intended purpose of revitalizing the Seabreeze area because of the number of rezonings the Board had seen recently, and that the area seemed more suitable for residential uses. He advised the applicant to be prepared to answer questions regarding the commercial and mixed-use aspect of the application because he believed that the current explanation was a stretch. He added that proposal would not negatively impact any property values and would most likely raise them. He stated that the Special Use Permit was the only way to not negatively affect the neighbors in comparison to the recent conditional rezoning in the area that placed setback conditions on adjacent properties. Chair Petroff added that he believed the proposed use was fitting for the area and that the Special Use Permit application might not be the best option for what the property owner wanted to achieve but a rezoning could have more impacts on neighbors. Board Member Cameron Moore echoed that there definitely be more questions about the commercial component. He stated that the Seabreeze area should be a focus for staff in the future. He encouraged the applicant to emphasize the number of residential uses built in the area. He added that he believed that it was a fine project. Mr. Christy stated that the applicant was not trying to game the system, and this was the least impactful way to get a single-family residence without affecting the neighbors. He asked the Board what they believed the best way to go about this was. Chair Petroff asked if they considered a variance and rezoning application. Celecia Phillips, property owner, explained that she did not want the possibility of a rezoning to be found illegally spot rezoned so the Special Use Permit would be the safest route. Board Member Clark Hipp explained that generally mixed-use projects required certain code requirements related to separation and he was not sure that a home office met that standard. In response to questions from the Board regarding if the applicant could have requested a variance from the mixed-use requirement, Ms. Roth replied that staff was not able to vary use, only dimensional standards so the applicant could apply for a variance from the minimum lot requirements of a residential district then apply for a conditional rezoning. She added that there was not an easy process to get the desired result. Board Member Clark Hipp stated that the applicant was stuck with a hard situation and that he appreciated the applicant’s efforts. Ms. Philips explained that she believed that the proposed home would fit into the mixed-use of the area along with the other homes and businesses and not just the mixed-use nature of the lot. Ms. Roth explained that there was a difference between how the Comprehensive Plan and the UDO defined mixed-use, with the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to the area as a whole and the UDO being parcel specific. Board Member Cameron Moore explained that the Comprehensive Plan defined mixed-use as a mixture of uses while the UDO was stricter. Ms. Roth explained that another standard for residential in a commercial district was that mixed- use development was under common ownership and integrated. Board Member Cameron Moore encouraged the applicant to use the Comprehensive Plan to better make a case for their application. Chair Petroff thanked the applicant. Ms. Doss explained the next steps and the procedure for the quasi-judicial hearing before the Board of Commissioners. She stated that at the August 5 hearing each side would have 15 minutes for discussion and five minutes for rebuttal. She added that public comment must be provided at the hearing and had to be based on factual evidence. Chair Petroff closed the preliminary forum and asked staff for any announcements. Other Items Announcements Ms. Roth announced that staff was moving forward with public engagement for the Comprehensive Plan Update Project and that a pulse survey was currently live. She explained findings from the survey and an upcoming public forum in August would inform the topics of the upcoming joint Planning Board/Board of Commissioners meeting. She encouraged everyone to go to the planning department website and to sign up for the Comprehensive Plan Updates email list for more information. Vice Chair Tarrant made a MOTION to ADJOURN the meeting. SECONDED by Board Member Clark Hipp. The motion to adjourn the meeting passed 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:37 PM.