Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-03-2024 Planning Board MinutesMinutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board October 3, 2024 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on October 3, 2024, at 6:00 PM in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina.  Members Present    Colin Tarrant, Vice Chair    Pete Avery Kevin Hine Clark Hipp Hansen Matthews Cameron Moore Members Absent Kaitlyn Rhonehouse 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 Lisa Maes, Administrative Coordinator Chair Tarrant called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and welcomed the audience.  An absence was noted: Board Member Kalen Rhonehouse’s absence was excused. After the welcome remarks, Chairman Tarrant led the Pledge of Allegiance and provided an overview of the meeting procedures and read the Code of Ethics. Chair Tarrant noted that items from the night’s meeting would proceed to the County Commissioners meeting scheduled for November 18, 2024. He also noted that Board Member Hansen Matthews would be the Planning Board representative at that meeting. Chair Tarrant then reminded the Board of the Code of Ethics as adopted on January 4, 2016, emphasizing that board members must avoid conflicts of interest. Regular Business Rezoning Request (Z24-20) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, on behalf of ZCH Investments, LLC. To rezone approximately 11.26 acres located at 4200 Castle Hayne Road, from R-20 Residential District to CZD Community Business District for the development of an outdoor recreation establishment. Associate Planner Amy Doss began by providing a detailed overview of the rezoning request for the property located at 4200 Castle Hayne Road, an 11.26-acre site that was zoned as R-20, Residential District. The applicant, Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions, acting on behalf of ZCH Investments LLC, requested to rezone the property to CZD-Community Business District to establish an outdoor recreation facility, specifically a driving range and miniature golf course. Ms. Doss outlined that the surrounding properties included a mixture of residential, commercial, industrial, and planned developments. She highlighted that the site was undeveloped, with existing residential properties on either side and a nearby parcel already rezoned for a business park. During the presentation, Ms. Doss displayed an aerial image of the site and its surrounding area to provide context for the Board. Additionally, examples of similar indoor and outdoor recreational establishments were shared to illustrate the type of development being proposed. Ms. Doss explained that the concept plan submitted by the applicant included an office and rental facility near Castle Hayne Road, a miniature golf area to the south, and a driving range with associated tee boxes, chipping, and putting greens located across the northern and southern edges of the property. The proposal included a maintenance shed and a location for a septic tank within the driving range area, while the proposed stormwater pond would be situated between the parking lot and Castle Hayne Road. Ms. Doss noted that the parcel had full access onto Castle Hayne Road and explained that while a transportation improvement project was planned for Castle Hayne Road, it remained unfunded at that time. However, the right-of-way acquisition process for the widening project was not scheduled until 2025, meaning the development would not be immediately affected. In addressing the traffic impact of the proposed recreational facility, Ms. Doss explained that while the development would have generated slightly more traffic than was permitted under existing zoning, it remained below the threshold requiring a formal traffic impact analysis. She also highlighted that landscaping buffers, as mandated by the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), had been planned to provide a visual and physical barrier between the development and adjacent single-family residences. Additionally, the applicant had committed to lighting conditions designed to minimize floodlighting impact. These included limiting floodlight usage to the operational hours of the driving range and ensuring compliance with UDO standards to prevent light spillage onto neighboring properties. The property had been designated under the Comprehensive Plan as part of the Community Mixed- Use and Employment Center place types. These designations promoted commercial uses and encouraged infill development. The proposed facility aligned with these goals, supporting the area’s growth along the Castle Hayne Road corridor while enhancing local recreational opportunities. She concluded by noting that the staff recommendation was based on policy guidance from the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, zoning considerations, and technical review. Staff had recommended three conditions: limiting the use of the driving range and miniature golf course, setting hours of operation, and establishing limits on the height and timing of exterior lighting fixtures. Ms. Doss concluded her presentation and stated that Mike Kozlosky of WMPO, Tim Lowe of County Engineering, and Dustin Fenske of Environmental Health would be available to answer questions. Chair Tarrant then invited the applicant to present their proposal. Cindee Wolf, representing the applicant, provided additional details about the rezoning request and the concept for the development. Ms. Wolf began by emphasizing that the property had been purchased by two young entrepreneurs eager to bring a family-friendly business to the area. Initially, the buyers had considered a larger project involving upscale storage units, but after discussions with residents and planning staff, they decided to scale back the project to a more cost-effective and practical solution compatible with the surrounding area. Ms. Wolf explained that the driving range and miniature golf facility seemed like a good fit for the Castle Hayne Road corridor, especially given the lack of similar recreational establishments in the immediate vicinity. She elaborated on the sewer and water infrastructure challenges in the area, which limited the feasibility of residential development on the site. Without sewer and water access, the property was better suited for a low-impact commercial use like the proposed outdoor recreation facility. Ms. Wolf emphasized that the driving range would be open to the public, offering a recreational activity in short supply within the County. She also highlighted that the proposed development would serve as a “space-holder” until such time that sewer and water infrastructure might be extended to the area, allowing for future redevelopment. Ms. Wolf then addressed concerns raised by residents during prior meetings. She stated that the property was not located within a floodplain, alleviating concerns about potential flood hazards. Additionally, the septic system design had already been reviewed by environmental specialists, and she assured the Board that the soil conditions had been thoroughly assessed. The septic system would be designed to accommodate the expected number of visitors, with potential capacity expansion planned for future growth. Ms. Wolf cited health department regulations, which the project would fully comply with, to ensure proper handling of waste and water management. Ms. Wolf also addressed the issue of lighting, which had been raised by residents. She assured the Board that the developers would use “shoebox” lighting fixtures meeting dark sky criteria to reduce light pollution. The lighting would be installed in the parking lot and driving range and limited to the hours of operation, particularly during the peak seasons of spring, summer, and fall. The lighting would not exceed County limits, and all lighting plans would comply with County regulations to prevent spillage beyond the property line. She concluded by affirming that the rezoning was consistent with the County’s comprehensive plan and the goals of the Castle Hayne Road corridor for future development. Additionally, she mentioned that the applicants were willing to adjust the Sunday hours of operation, initially proposed as starting at noon, to 9:00 AM to better serve golfers who typically play earlier in the day. Ms. Wolf offered to answer any questions from the Board members regarding the proposal. Chair Tarrant opened the hearing to opposition.  No one from the public signed in to speak in opposition. Chair Tarrant reminded the applicant that they had a five-minute rebuttal period if they would like to come up and speak.    Ms. Wolf stated that she would not need the additional five-minute rebuttal period. Chair Tarrant closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to Board discussion. The Board discussed concerns about golf balls potentially trespassing onto neighboring properties, focusing on the risks to nearby residents and the absence of specific regulations. Staff confirmed that there were no formal requirements for netting around driving ranges and deferred to legal counsel. Counsel explained that such incidents typically fell under civil legal matters rather than the board’s jurisdiction. They added that legal precedent often placed the responsibility on residents living near golf courses to accept associated risks, with disputes generally resolved privately between property owners and businesses. The conversation shifted to tree preservation and site clearance, with members raising concerns about the environmental impact of clearing trees for the driving range. Ms. Doss clarified that a tree removal permit was required, which would include details about the trees to be removed, and that mitigation measures were necessary for any significant trees. A tree survey had identified about two dozen significant trees on the property, though none were classified as heritage trees. Staff noted that previous clearing for soil testing had been authorized and that any additional clearing would adhere to mitigation requirements. Buffer zones were also discussed, with staff confirming the need for a 20-foot buffer alongside residential areas and natural barriers on other sides of the property. The Board also addressed a public comment regarding the proposed use of a septic system. Ms. Doss explained that septic systems had to be individually tested and approved by the health department or private consultants. They noted that state laws allowing private consultants to issue septic permits provided more flexibility for commercial projects, with all systems required to meet strict regulatory standards. The lack of plans for public water and sewer infrastructure in the area was briefly discussed. The applicant also requested adjustments to the proposed operating hours, which staff confirmed they had no objections to. The discussion wrapped up with an emphasis on the thorough approval process for septic systems to ensure compliance and address public concerns. Board member Mr. Hine made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning, stating it was consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the rezoning provided for the types of uses recommended in both the Community Mixed Use and Employment Center place types. Mr. Hine also found recommending approval of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the application limited uses to those which were more appropriate for the area, and additional conditions reduced the impact on adjacent residential areas, with the following conditions: The proposed conditions accompanying the recommendation are as follows: 1. The only permitted uses will be a miniature golf establishment and a golf driving range. 2. Hours of operation are restricted to 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. 3. Specific lighting standards will be enforced in addition to UDO Section 5.5, which regulates maximum illumination levels. These standards include: a. Parking and miniature golf area lighting being limited to a height of 16 feet. b. The driving range floodlighting being limited to a height of 35 feet and turned off outside of operating hours. c. The lighting fixtures being designed to maintain adequate illumination levels while minimizing spillover and glare onto neighboring properties and roadways. Mr. Hine concluded that the proposed conditions effectively address potential concerns regarding compatibility with adjacent properties and ensure the rezoning request serves the community's best interests. The motion was SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery The motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Request (Z24-20) passed 6-0. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Maintenance Amendment Concepts Presentation Development Review Supervisor, Robert Farrell explained that the Planning Department had been regularly proposing maintenance and housekeeping amendments since the completion of the UDO project in 2020. The goal of these amendments was to keep the ordinance up to date with current development practices in unincorporated areas of the county. The purpose of the presentation was to receive feedback from the Planning Board before finalizing the draft language, which would then be released for public comment at a future meeting. Afterward, a formal public hearing took place for the Board’s final review. Mr. Farrell outlined five proposed amendments to the UDO: 1. Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards: An update to align the standards with building code requirements as established by General Statute for single-family residential development. 2. Street Yard Landscaping Standards: A clarification on how street yard landscaping requirements apply in cases of change of use, especially for properties that do not require off-street parking, such as RV or boat storage lots. The amendment would ensure that street yard landscaping is still required along corridors or roads in these cases. 3. Parking Lot Landscaping Flexibility: This amendment introduces flexibility for relocating parking lot landscaping when utility conflicts arise. While the ordinance currently allows administrative flexibility for landscaping, it does not provide the same flexibility for parking lot landscaping standards. This would permit staff to adjust while maintaining the ordinance's intent. 4. Mixed Use Residential Standards for Commercial Districts: A clarification on standards related to residential uses in commercial zoning districts, particularly in connection with special use permits for residential uses. 5. Reducing the Required Parking Ratio for Warehouse Uses: Currently, the UDO requires 1.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of warehousing. Feedback from the development community has suggested that this ratio may be too high. Developers have submitted parking studies showing that less parking is necessary. Staff will use those studies to identify a ration that might be more appropriate. Mr. Farrell invited feedback from the Board about the drafting process and noted that the draft amendments would be presented for public comment in the coming month. Chair Tarrant opened the floor for Board members to ask questions and provide feedback. The Board held a detailed discussion on the proposed amendments, addressing parking ratios, landscaping requirements, and stormwater management. Concerns were raised about the adequacy of the current parking ratio for warehouses. Some members observed that highly automated facilities often required less parking, while smaller warehouses with higher staffing levels might need more. The idea of tailoring parking requirements to occupancy loads or the specific needs of each facility was suggested as a potential solution. Landscaping standards were another key focus, particularly in situations where changes in use had created gaps in the requirements. In Response, Mr. Farrell provided an example involving an RV and boat storage facility. In that case, there were no requirements for off-street parking, which meant no landscaping was mandated, even though the property fronted a major road. He explained that the proposed amendment was designed to address such gaps, ensuring that landscaping requirements would be consistently applied, thereby promoting greater clarity and uniformity in their implementation. Mr. Farrell confirmed that staff would begin drafting the amendments and bring them back to the Board for further review after conducting additional research. Announcements Director, Rebekah Roth, thanked the Board for their participation in the joint meeting earlier that day with the Board of Commissioners. She expressed her appreciation for their feedback during the session and noted that the department would be providing a synopsis of the joint meeting discussions. Chair Tarrant made a MOTION to ADJOURN the meeting. SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery. The motion to adjourn the meeting passed 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:48.