PB Minutes 20111006-Approved
Page 1 of 28 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board October 6, 2011 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, October 6, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in the Assembly Room of
the Historic County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Melissa Gott, Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director
Troy Barboza Jane Daughtridge, Current Planning & Zoning Manager Richard Collier Shawn Ralston, Long Range Planning Manager Dan Hilla Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Tamara
Murphy Anthony Prinz Absent: Andy Heath, Vice Chairman Chairman Melissa Gott opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Chris O’Keefe led the reciting of the
Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Gott reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of the September Planning Board Meeting Minutes Chairman Gott stated due to some changes in the
September minutes it was recommended the approval of the minutes be continued to the November Planning Board meeting. Richard Collier made a motion to continue the approval of the September
minutes to the November meeting. Dan Hilla seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to continue the vote on the September minutes to the November meeting. Item 1: Rezoning Request
(Z-912, 10/11) -Request by Charlie Downs on behalf of O’Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. to rezone approximately 2.657 acres at 5232 Carolina Beach Road from R-15 medium-density residential
to B-2 Highway Business District. The parcel is identified as Conservation and Urban on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification Map. Richard Collier asked permission to be recused from Rezoning
Request Z-912 because his company performs work for the O’Reilly Automotive Stores. Anthony Prinz made a motion to recuse Richard Collier from Rezoning Request Z-912. Dan Hilla seconded
the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recuse Richard Collier from Rezoning Request Z-912.
Page 2 of 28 Jane Daughtridge provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning. Ms. Daughtridge also showed maps, aerials, and photographs
of the property and of the surrounding area. Ms. Daughtridge stated the level of service on Carolina Beach Road is E, meaning the road has reached its capacity. This parcel is located
in the Monkey Junction area near the intersection of College Road, which has a level of service of F. The zoning of the surrounding area is primarily commercial, with the exception of
the R-15 residential property located directly behind the proposal and an area of R-10 along Antoinette Drive. She presented photos of a dilapidated, unoccupied residence currently on
the parcel, as well as the surrounding commercial activity including a carwash and shopping center across the street, a convenience store to the south across Antoinette Drive, and Junction
Billiards and additional commercial activity to the north. She noted the Walmart site located nearby and stated the parcel was definitely located in an intensive commercial area. The
residential area of Marquee Hills is west of the property. Antoinette Drive is a public collector road for several residential subdivisions and is a signalized intersection. Traffic
on Carolina Beach Road has decreased slightly since 2010. Driveway permits will be required from NCDOT. Although several areas on the parcel are located in the floodplain and floodway,
it would not prevent the parcel from being developed, but would require the developer to utilize proper building practices to achieve their proposal. Ms. Daughtridge concluded her presentation
by stating staff recommended approval of the rezoning request. Dan Hilla asked for clarification that the parcel was surrounded by B-2 except for the parcel located directly behind it
and asked about the strip of R-15 shown on the zoning map. Ms. Daughtridge confirmed the proposal was surrounded by B-2 zoning except for the parcel located directly behind it and explained
the R-15 strip reflected on the map was the road right-of-way, as well as Antoinette Drive. She commented that type of situation occurs throughout the county where people have rezoned
parcels and provided the boundaries of their own property, resulting in these slivers of property that are road rights-of-way. She noted it would be appropriate to recommend also zoning
that right-of-way to B-2 if it was the board’s pleasure. Chairman Gott opened the public hearing. Jim Turvey, of O’Reilly Auto Parts, stated they were aware of the flood plain located
on one side of the property and would easily be able to develop the site with no negative effect on flooding. They may be required to construct a retention pond that would alleviate
or somewhat improve some of the floodwaters from the residential areas behind the site. He stated the property around the parcel is obviously zoned business and they felt it would be
a great opportunity for them to locate a building there as well. Thomas Melin, a resident of 30 Antoinette Drive, stated he wasn’t opposed to the rezoning because he realized the property
would be purchased and rezoned by a developer when the family passed away. He expressed concern about putting additional traffic on Antoinette Drive, which has seen an increase in recent
years. He noted there are mornings when he can’t get out of his driveway due to heavy traffic from all of the housing developments that have been tied into
Page 3 of 28 Antoinette Drive. He commented on the Michigan turnaround that was installed on the service road adjacent to the fire department when the housing developments were built
which forces people to go south first in order to go north. To avoid that scenario, traffic takes a shortcut through Marquee Hills to the traffic light on Carolina Beach Road. He was
particularly concerned about additional cars on Antoinette Drive across from the Scotchman, noting the current crazy traffic pattern entering and exiting the Scotchman and entering the
neighborhood. People exiting the O’Reilly parking lot would either exit onto a turn lane on Carolina Beach Road or onto Antoinette Drive. Mr. Melin also commented on a newspaper article
last year about the conversion of the Royal Palms Mobile Home Park into an apartment community tied into Marquee Hills, which he felt would result in more traffic on Antoinette Drive.
Mr. Melin stated the request to rezone the property to commercial came as no surprise to him. He wasn’t in support of or opposed to it because he felt something needed to be done with
the property because homeless people had taken refuge there. Mike Powell, the resident of the property located directly behind the proposal, stated he was not opposed to rezoning and
sale of the property, but was concerned about protecting the right-of-way driveway access he has had for thirty years. He explained he has an easement along the northern border of the
parcel and would like to preserve his access. He also corroborated his neighbor’s statements regarding the amount of traffic on Antoinette Drive. During rebuttal, Mr. Turvey stated the
property would eventually be zoned commercial by his company or someone else and noted their proposal would utilize only 1/3 to ½ of the total property. He understood the traffic concerns
on Antoinette Drive and noted there may be something that could be looked at to help the traffic flow better for the residents. The home onsite would have to be demolished and the odds
of another house being built there are slim. Mr. Turvey commented that O’Reilly is a very good tenant and would help the community. Chairman Gott asked Mr. Turvey to address the driveway
plans for the site. Mr. Turvey explained the driveway would be located on Antoinette Drive because it didn’t appear that NCDOT would grant a driveway permit onto Carolina Beach Road,
which they would prefer. The driveway permit was still in the working stages with NCDOT. Chairman Gott asked Mr. Turvey about the plans for Mr. Powell’s easement, which is clearly not
on the edge of the property. Mr. Turvey explained O’Reilly had no plans for that side of the property and would likely try to sell that piece of property to Mr. Powell at a good rate
to ensure his full access to it. In response to a question from Dan Hilla regarding the location of the driveway, Mr. Powell stated the driveway he had used for thirty years was slightly
out of his metes and bounds easement so he hoped he could work with O’Reilly to maintain that current driveway, but noted he also has a prescribed metes and bounds easement along the
northern border of the property. Sherwood Strickland, of Coldwell Banker in Wilmington, stated he represented the seller and O’Reilly in the acquisition of the land. He explained the
property owner’s mother passed away
Page 4 of 28 willed the property to her. The owner lives out of state and can’t afford to pay the taxes or for maintenance of the property, which is obviously an eyesore for the neighbors
and needs to be cleaned up. The homeless have taken over the home, which is inhabitable, the site is overgrown, and the structure needs to be demolished and hauled from the site. Mr.
Strickland felt the property would eventually be rezoned to commercial and commented that O’Reilly had designed a nice structure for the site, which complemented the intersection. In
regard to the traffic, he stated the O’Reilly store clients would only drive a very short distance on Antoinette Drive before taking a right turn into the parking lot and would not be
continuing down the street. O’Reilly will address water or flood problems, obtain and follow all permits for retention ponds and drainage, and handle Mr. Powell’s easement issue to ensure
continued access to his home. No one spoke during opposition rebuttal. Chairman Gott closed the public hearing. Anthony Prinz asked if staff had provided any guidance to the applicant
regarding pursuing a conditional rezoning instead of a straight rezoning due to the neighbors’ statements about the easement and traffic. He expressed concern that approval of the straight
rezoning would not guarantee the O’Reilly site plan would actually be built on the site, but could easily become a MacDonald’s or something that generates a tremendous amount of traffic.
He felt it was important to address foot traffic in the area as well, noting a pedestrian fatality at the intersection a few years ago. Ms. Daughtridge explained she didn’t know if the
discussion had taken place because Ms. Dreibelbis had spoken with the applicant and handled the application intake. Ms. Dreibelbis was attending the NC American Planning Association
Conference and was not present at the meeting. Mr. O’Keefe acknowledged the applicant had requested a straight rezoning so there was no guarantee the site plan presented would be built
on the parcel; however at some point, the site plan would be reviewed and the applicant would be required to complete a traffic information sheet. If the traffic volume was over 100
peak hour trips per day, a Traffic Impact Analysis would be required, giving staff the ability to review the traffic impact and evaluate what improvements need to be made. Noting the
importance of the sidewalk question, he stated the County doesn’t have a formal commercial site plan review at TRC so that would be something the conditional zoning process could address.
Mr. Prinz asked staff if this was the board’s only opportunity to determine if commercial or residential is appropriate at this location. Ms. Daughtridge explained the board could advise
the applicant to submit a conditional zoning request for the site, but because the applicant had requested a straight rezoning of the property, the board’s options were to either recommend
approval of the B-2 zoning or leave the zoning as is. Dan Hilla made a motion to approve Rezoning Request Z-912. Troy Barboza seconded the motion. During discussion, Anthony Prinz strongly
encouraged the applicant to consider the
Page 5 of 28 sidewalk issue and live up to some of the issues presented during discussion with members of the audience. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning
Request Z-912. Richard Collier was recused from the vote. Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z-913, 10/11)-Request by Cindee Wolf, Withers & Ravenel, on behalf of B & M Holdings, LLC to rezone
approximately 6.82 acres at 8330 & 8342 Market Street from R-15 medium density residential to CD (B-2) Conditional Highway Business District. These parcels are identified as Transition
on the 2006 CAMA Land Use Classification Map. Jane Daughtridge provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning. Ms. Daughtridge
also showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and of the surrounding area. The level of service in that area on Market Street is F, meaning it exceeds its design capacity.
The property is located near the Lowe’s at Porters Neck. The configuration of the street is odd because because this old section of Market Street was cut off and became a service road
when the new road system went into place. There is a signalized intersection and a turn lane at that point. There is a hardware store after you turn in a CD B-1 district specific for
the store and nothing else has been developed in the front section. Old Market Street runs down and takes a right turn for the rest of the service road. You can also take a left turn
onto Futch Creek Road. Further down the service road on the old Market segment is an apparent non-operating or seasonal business for collectibles and antiques, Butch’s Auto Sales, and
a segment of older homes. There is a cul-de-sac area at the end of the road, with an adjacent home on the south side of the site. The subject property is a wooded lot. Ms. Daughtridge
noted the proposal includes an office with a custodial residence. The parcel is larger than the request for rezoning. Some stormwater is proposed on the site and there are existing wetlands
at the back of the the lot so the proposal would be set back well off the residences on Tibbey’s Lane. The applicant has tried to limit their adjacency to other residences in the area.
She noted the traffic on Market Street increased 7% between 2010 and 2011, but there are no traffic counts for this service road. Water and sewer is nearby in the area, but will probably
not be utilized on this site. She explained the plans and policies in the Land Use Plan indicate we should preserve the character of existing residential neighborhoods and quality of
life; but also require us to address commercial uses by assuring the availability of land for it. The proposal envisions that the large portion of the maneuvering area would be gravel
rather than permanent pavement and the storage itself would be one-storey with a cover on each of the units. Staff felt the rezoning was consistent with the land use plan and reasonable
and generally in the public’s interest, and therefore, recommended the rezoning. Because this is a conditional use, there is a mandatory special use permit with preliminary Findings
of Fact, which are mostly positive. Staff has proposed three conditions to be considered by the board:
Page 6 of 28 1. A security or privacy fence is installed around the parcel that would be a portion of the buffer requirement. 2. The driveway and the maneuvering area in the bulk of
the project remain as gravel and not be permanent concrete or asphalt. The market is not very healthy currently so this would provide a better opportunity if the market changed to transition
back to residential. 3. Limit the hours of operation to 7am – 9pm because it is entrenched in a residential neighborhood. There is a section in the County Code of Ordinances related
to unlawful noise-generating activities in residential areas that lists certain things that aren’t supposed to happen between certain hours in residential neighborhoods. That ordinance
would not apply if the property was rezoned. She reported with those conditions, staff felt it would meet the intent and requirements of the ordinance. Dan Hilla asked for the building
setbacks from the property line and if it was unusual to rezone only part of a parcel without giving the same use to the back part of it. Ms. Daughtridge stated the building setback
is forty feet from the property line. She explained it was not unusual to rezone part of a parcel and happened quite often on that particular segment for reasons of convenience or because
there may be other uses ongoing on other portions. For example, an owner may request a change in zoning for 500 feet from a particular right-of-way. When the zoning districts were created,
many of them were created with some distance from a right-of-way, which does split lots and can cause inconvenience for owners if they want to use the back portions for another use later
because they are held to the zoning. Chairman Gott stated in general the business districts fall along that line along Market Street and from that line back, the zoning is kept residential
so this request would keep that zoning relatively consistent. Chairman Gott opened the public hearing. Tom Melin, a partner in B & M Holdings (the applicant), provided a brief background
on the company that was formed in 1996 to rebuild Scotts Hill Marina, which was devastated by Hurricane Fran. By early 2000, it had been turned into one of the better marinas in the
southern part of Pender County, which serves the northern part of New Hanover County. Because they have no on-site boat storage, they have been forced to turn away customers. Access
to the intra-coastal waterway has become more limited due to the privatization of many marinas in the area. Their goal is to have an off-site storage facility with as little impact to
the surrounding neighbors as possible and still offer a service to their clients. Mr. Medlin noted it was important to realize they are a local, family-owned business that wants to serve
their clientele better. Cindee Wolf, of Withers & Ravenel, spoke on behalf of the applicant, stated this type of use is an extremely low impact use because it is basically an open field
with two lean-to type enclosures that doesn’t have the impact that many B-2 uses have. There are still some residences along Porters Neck Road, although there have been efforts to rezone
them in the past for some more transitional uses from the busy intersection back toward Porters Neck Road. With Scotts
Page 7 of 28 Hill Marina being nearby to the north, the impact of traffic on the service drive of Market Street up to US Highway 17 is the perfect scenario and is a logical rezoning.
Ms. Wolf pointed out a section of wetlands on the property and uplands toward the front and stated she felt placing a retention pond in the back and going all the way to the property
line would have some impact into the wetlands so she advised the owners to develop toward the front of the property to avoid any environmental impacts and exaggerate the buffers by placing
the 3-sided buildings forty feet off the property lines for a combined buffer and setback. She explained the line is all the way at the back and follows the wetland delineation because
B-2 districts must be a minimum of five acres. Historically, if you were adjacent to a B-2 district, your property would be considered to be in that B-2 district. She wasn’t certain
that was the case anymore, so she had to make the request for five acres. Keeping the back as a buffer probably meant it would not be used unless it was for a residential purpose in
the future. Ms. Wolf commented the request has such a small impact on the traffic on the Market Street service road and in her opinion has no impact at all on the residences on Porters
Neck Road. She explained between the buffers, the setbacks and the depth of their lots, they had tried to be sensitive to those residences. Ms. Wolf reported during the community meeting
residents had expressed concern about lighting, which is conditioned in the petition and is also covered in the zoning regulations. She noted noise is also covered in the overall code
for the county. Ms. Wolf clarified that the applicant agrees with all of the Staff’s Findings of Fact. In regard to the privacy fence issue, she suggested the back of the building serves
as its own privacy fence and they would agree to place a privacy fence along that boundary. She felt there was no reason to put a fence at the back of a building because they aren’t
encroaching into into the buffer. In regard to the area remaining gravel, she felt it would be wise to pave only the parking area because they would be required to pave the handicap
parking area anyway and for aesthetic purposes. She stated they were willing to amend the hours of operation to 7am to 9pm as recommended by staff. Hours were originally specified as
6am to 10pm. Chairman Gott asked if Ms. Wolf had photographs of the proposed lean-to storage shelters. Ms. Wolf stated she did not have photos, but described them as fairly typical structures
similar to those in Murrayville Station. The storage shelters are generally very simply constructed three-sided structures with metal vertical sides and metal frames and tin roofs. The
pilings for the roofs separate the individual units. The office/manager’s residence located at the front of the property has a porch and is designed to look similar to the house next
door. Anthony Prinz asked if there was a left turn lane on Highway 17 onto Futch Creek Road if he was heading southbound with his boat to this site. Ms. Wolf stated she didn’t believe
there was a left turn lane into Futch Creek Road from Highway 17 so you would have to drive north and make a U-turn at Porters Neck Road. NCDOT has constructed a number of left-overs
in that area. A vehicle would, however, be able to turn left and go south from this facility.
Page 8 of 28 Mr. Prinz expressed concern about the ability to make a U-turn at Porters Neck Road with a 20’ – 25’ boat because the cross section is only two lanes heading toward Hampstead.
Ms. Wolf explained a vehicle heading north on Highway 17 would be able to access Futch Creek Road. Ms. Daughtridge reported there is a signalized intersection at Futch Creek Road so
a vehicle would be able to make a left turn. Ms. Wolf stated they do not envision the need for U-turns at Porters Neck Road. Mr. Prinz explained that he wanted to be certain there wouldn’t
be a need for U-turns at the Porters Neck Road intersection because the curb is already damaged in that location and the turning radius for a truck pulling a boat could create problems.
He noted he was satisfied that U-turns at that intersection would not be necessary. In response to a question from Dan Hilla regarding the height of the proposed buildings, Ms. Wolf
stated the one-storey buildings would be 16’ – 18’ high. The 40’ building setbacks were measured off the 20’ building height. The back of the structure would be 14’ and the front of
it would be 16’. They could have a gabled roof over the entire area. She also clarified the setbacks for the property and explained the calculations. Ms. Wolf noted there would be 40’
setbacks on all sides for the buildings. She stated a 40’ setback was mandated for the building to the south, but a 25’ setback was mandated for the building to the north because the
Antonio Foy property was vacant. Chairman Gott asked Ms. Wolf to clarify the sound boarding for the proposal, noting that noise was listed as a concern by the neighbors who attended
the community meeting. Ms. Wolf stated Mr. Cothren had expressed concern about noise at the community meeting, but realized the use was not intended directly behind his property. There
was a discussion about the use of soundboarding, which could be placed along the back wall of the building adjacent to the residences and determined it would be feasible if it was a
request or requirement. She explained soundboarding is like insulation and gives the wall extra thickness and provides a noise barrier. She pointed out there are rules and conditions
for the facility, which prohibit working on a boat or motor or changing oil, etc. onsite and there would be an onsite manager for the facility. She reiterated the applicant was willing
to soundboard the 20 plus units on the south side. Bill Cottingham, an adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposal and acknowledged his wife, Jana, was also present
in the audience. He reported two other property owners, Bob Long and Barbara Earp, were unable to attend the meeting due to a conflicting obligation and family emergency, but Matthew
Lowder, who leases the adjoining property, was also present. He thanked the board and staff for their service, noted the process was necessary, and asked if they would like to have a
boat and RV storage facility located behind their homes. He expressed concern about pressing the commercial district further into their neighborhood and urged the board not to approve
the proposal. He also stated concern about potential noise from boat owners flushing saltwater from their 350hp outboard motors by running them for thirty
Page 9 of 28 minutes with freshwater. He felt the residential area was being very distressed and was concerned that putting a Pender County boat storage facility his neighborhood to
enhance their property values in Pender County would diminish his property value. He stated the condition for this property was that this project will provide a needed service, while
not diminishing the quality of life in the nearby residential area. He questioned for whom the project would provide a needed service. He stated everyone he had spoken with said the
project would diminish his property value, although Chairman Gott had told him they couldn’t prove it would diminish the property value. Mr. Cottingham pled with the board and the Commissioners
to allow legal counsel and expert witnesses to show that the rezoning would have a negative effect on his property value. He also felt the rezoning would have a negative impact on his
quality of life. Matthew Lowder, an adjacent resident, stated he rents the property beside Mr. & Mrs. Cottingham and has three small children that are homeschooled and spend much time
in the backyard conducting activities for science, etc. Mr. Lowder acknowledged plans for a security fence for the site and stated he was still concerned about traffic, noise pollution
and the welfare of his children. He felt the proposed rezoning would squeeze the adjacent residential properties between commercial zoning. Per a request from Chairman Gott, Ms. Wolf
addressed the traffic count and noise issue and noted water will not be provided to the individual units. The manager’s office will have a septic system and well because no other sewer
or water service is available. There will be a wash down area close to the gate. The conditions and laws for New Hanover County protect the neighbors from the noise through the hours
of operation and the ability of anyone to complain about it. There will be no traffic to the facility travelling past the neighborhood homes. The applicant has agreed to install soundproofing
and a solid wood fence around the buffer. The buffer yard will be planted to 50% visual opacity of the 100% visual opaque fence. The properties along Porters Neck Road are a just over
300’ deep and behind that will be a wooded area that can’t be denuded for the first 20’ and then an additional 20’ of setback before the solid wood screen. The houses are in the front
100’ of the properties. For facilities of this type, the average daily trip number is ten trips. That number is obviously higher on weekends and holidays. On the biggest day of the year,
the estimate is 30 trips per day. The limited traffic will affect the Market Street service road, not Porters Neck Road. Ms. Wolf also stated while the Scotts Hill Marina is located
in Pender County, this facility will generate tax income for New Hanover County and is economic development with a very low impact use. Mr. Melin stated that the only reason someone
going to the facility would be on Porters Neck Road would be if they were lost. They would get off Highway 17 on on Futch Creek Road. He noted that 70% of their clientele is in New Hanover
County because of the restricted covenants preventing boat storage in residential neighborhoods. During opposition rebuttal, Mr. Cottingham stated his disappointment that drawings of
the proposed facility were not provided during the presentation and wondered if it would have closed in back walls. He also questioned the wind resistance capabilities of the storage
structures and
the effect hurricanes might have on the facility. He stated appreciation for the soundboarding. He asked the board if they would vote for a proposal that would devalue the homes of those
living in a residential area and stated he would never have purchased his home if there had been
Page 10 of 28 an RV and boat storage facility behind it. Mr. Cottingham urged the board to vote against the rezoning proposal because it is in a residential area with a total plan for
the entire area. He explained it is not a facility that fits the way residents want to bring up their children and grandchildren and how we want to welcome people into our community.
He thanked the board for their attention and diligence. Per a request from Chairman Gott, Ms. Wolf agreed to provide photos of similar facilities for the Commissioners meeting if the
request was recommended and stated the commercial building code would apply relative to wind loads for the structures, etc. Dan Hilla expressed concern about noise in the wash down area.
Ms. Wolf stated clients would be able to run their motors in the wash down area, but would not be allowed to operate motors in the units. No water would be available in the units. Mr.
Prinz asked for clarification on the access and utility easement located south of the wash down area and whether the fence would have any impact on that easement. Ms. Wolf stated the
fence would be located along their property boundary and would not have any impact on the access easement, which is located south of the property boundary and goes over the northern
tip of the B&M Holdings property at the end of the cul-de-sac and entirely over the Pope properties. Off that tip, there is a property line to be abandoned. This petition covers two
pieces of property. She felt that easement had been needed for the property owner prior to B&M, who owns half of their property. She noted B&M has access to it, but would be cutting
it off because of the commercial use/residential use factor. Chairman Gott asked if Ms. Wolf agreed with the three conditions recommended by staff, which included fencing, hours of operation,
and the temporary nature of the back portion remaining gravel. Ms. Wolf stated the applicant agreed with all staff findings provided it would be satisfactory to staff for the parking
area to be paved and and the back area to be gravel and precluding fencing the rears of the buildings. Ms. Daughtridge stated that paving the parking area would be satisfactory and the
fencing would be acceptable as long as a complete barrier would be created by the fence and buildings. In response to a question from Mr. Collier, Ms. Wolf stated the buildings had not
yet been designed, but would have a 16’–18’ opaque back wall with soundboarding and the fence would be no less than 8’ tall. Mr. Hilla said he shared Mr. Cottingham’s concerns about
loud noise from outboard motors and asked if anything could be done to restrict noise, such as soundproofing the fence in the wash down area.
Page 11 of 28 Chairman Gott stated she was more comfortable with the proposal because there would be an onsite manager for the facility and limited access to water on the site. Ms. Wolf
commented she was agreeable to a higher fence, but the distance of the wash down area from the homes was the key. She reported the owner had indicated that washdowns could also be done
at the Scotts Hill Marina. Users of the Wrightsville Beach ramp may be doing their washdowns on this site, but many new engines don’t require the engine to run to clean out the lower
units. Mr. Hilla still had concerns about loud noise from outboard motors outside the water. Mr. O’Keefe suggested better defining the washdown area on the site plan and adding a statement
to assure that washdowns would not occur outside that area and engines would not be operated outside the delineated washdown area. Ms. Wolf stated the applicant was agreeable to Mr.
O’Keefe’s suggested conditions. Mr. Hilla stated he would be more comfortable with the request if if there was a specific restriction. Dan Hilla made a motion to recommend approval of
Rezoning Request Z-913. Tamara Murphy seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-1 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-913. Richard Collier voted against the motion. Dan
Hilla made a motion to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit for Rezoning Request Z-913 with conditions as recommended by staff, as well as a statement acceptable to staff with
the wash down area and running of the engines in that area only. Tamara Murphy seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit for Rezoning
Request Z-913 with conditions recommended by staff and a statement regarding the wash down area and running of engines in that area only. Richard Collier voted against the motion. Chairman
Gott informed Mr. Cottingham that he could present his evidence regarding valuation and bring an expert witness to the County Commissioners meeting in November. Item 3: Rezoning Request
(Z-914, 10/11)-Request by Cindee Wolf, Withers & Ravenel, on behalf of Archie McGirt and Jane Batten to rezone approximately 6.93 acres at 5050 Carolina Beach Road from R-10 residential
to CD(B-2) Conditional Highway Business District. The parcel is identified as Conservation and Urban on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification Map. Prior to the presentation, Ms. Daughtridge
offered board members a copy of the noise section of the ordinance, noting the references she made were specific to residential areas regardless of the decibel level.
Page 12 of 28 Jane Daughtridge provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning. Ms. Daughtridge also showed maps, aerials, and photographs
of the property and of the surrounding area. Ms. Daughtridge stated the site is along Carolina Beach Road and the zoning in the area is predominantly residential with a Conditional B-2
district in front of this proposal, which has been amended several times, including 2007, to add a few mini-storage units. The traffic level of service in the area is E, meaning the
road is operating at capacity. There is a dedicated turn lane into Archmil Way. On the front is existing CD(B-2) zoning and on the opposite side is existing R-15 zoning. This proposal
does not assume to rezone the entire parcel, but only a portion of the parcel that will utilized for the proposed project. Ms. Daughtridge presented a color representation of the proposal
reflecting the layout of the site and providing a perspective of its relation to its neighbors. The mini-storage, which is under the same ownership as the proposal, is located across
Archmil Way from the site and the Archmil residential development is also adjacent. Ms. Daughtridge presented the site plan for the proposal, which is a conditional request will require
two actions. The applicant is proposing a Conditional B-2 zoning for boat and RV storage. The traffic decreased in the area of Carolina Beach Road by approximately 14% between 2010 and
2011 and Archmil Way is a private, fairly narrow drive. They have proposed their entrance to be jogged away from that, but they could potentially create an entryway and have access through
their other site if necessary. Ms. Daughtridge reported staff felt the rezoning was a reasonable request in the area and was generally consistent with the plans adopted by the County
and so recommended the rezoning portion of the request. Staff also recommended the special use permit portion of the request with the same three conditions recommended for the Z-913
boat and RV storage request. She noted staff felt this type of use was perhaps more appropriate on a temporary basis and should have the opportunity to transition as the residential
market begins to recover at a later time; therefore, staff recommended: 1) the surfaces remain gravel into the future; 2) the parcel be fenced to satisfactorily assure greater security
to the residences around it; and 3) the hours of access be limited to 7am – 9pm. Staff felt with those conditions the proposal would be appropriate and the Findings of Fact would be
positive. Chairman Gott opened the public hearing. Mark Carter, an attorney with Morgan and Carter, stated he represented the applicant and his wife, Archie McGirt and Janet Batten,
who were present. He identified Cindee Wolf as the project manager. Mr. Carter stated the adjoining properties have been in the McGirt family for almost 75 years and the proposal is
adjacent to the Monkey Junction Mini-Storage site, which was developed by and is currently operated by Mr. McGirt. He commented that Mr. McGirt’s facilities are first-class operations
and are very aesthetically pleasing with excellent landscaping and buffers and brick facades on many of the storage buildings. The proposed site will be used in conjunction with the
Monkey Junction Mini-Storage, but will be used only for RV and boat storage. There will not be any buildings, lean-tos or water on the property, but there will be
Page 13 of 28 onsite management through the Monkey Junction Mini-Storage site. There is a high demand and need for this type of facility in New Hanover County because home lots are smaller
than ever before, which is one of the reasons boats aren’t allowed in residential neighborhoods like they were 20-30 years ago. People need places nearby to park their boats and RVs
so they can access them when they want to use them. He pointed out Mr. McGirt has a similar facility a couple of miles away that is at 98% capacity and has storage facilities also. This
is a high demand use that is needed by the public and is very suitable for the area. He stated they felt it would provide an excellent transition between the mini-storage site and the
nearby residential area because it is a very low impact use. Cindee Wolf, of Withers & Ravenel, provided details about the proposal, noting the facility is designed as an extension of
the Monkey Junction Storage Facility. She provided information in regard to access, noting Archmil Place was originally designed from the west to the east beginning at Motts Creek Drive,
which has connection to Silva Terra Road out to a stop light on Carolina Beach Road; however, subdivision regulations precluded development coming up into this narrow strip and dead-ending
there. A cul-de-sac would not have been possible at the end of Beamon Road because of its length from a through street and for safety purposes. At the time, Mr. McGirt, the developer
of Archmil Place, also owned the land in the front so he provided the 50’ access utility ingress and egress easement, which is now Archmil Way. Archmil Way is still an interior drive
of Monkey Junction Storage. And is 18’ wide from face to face of curb, which is roll-type curb of 2’ each, resulting in a stabilized area of 22’ to actually travel on. New Hanover County
Fire Services has been on Archmil Way and verified that all curves and circulation patterns were possible because it does act as an emergency and alternative access point for the residences
in Archmil Place and west of this property. Ms. Wolf stated the property is not required to be a minimum of five acres because it is adjacent to B-2 zoning. The applicant had no desire
to make the project any larger than is economically feasible so the proposal has 75 total spaces of various sizes for storage. The rear part of the property will remain R-10 zoning and
is reserved for Mr. McGirt to build a home in the future. The original home on the site was removed because of problems with vagrancy and vandalism so the entire tract is vacant with
the exception of a storage building, which will be removed because it sits within the boundary of the proposal. The site meets the buffer criteria of the ordinance and the buffer has
been increased on the north side. The rear of the properties on Archmil Place has a 30’ drainage easement, which is wooded but contains a ditch that runs from it, drains the pond and
goes off toward the river. Rather than the mandated 20’ buffer yard, a minimum of 25’ of buffer before you reach the corner of the potential parking spaces has been provided. Ms. Wolf
reported there is no floodplain on the site or wetlands impacts, although there are some wetlands down along the waterway, but that portion will remain residential. She provided actual
traffic counts for Monkey Junction Storage South near Sanders Road for the last six months of the year, which includes the summer months when boat use and RV use are most prevalent.
She noted the highest number of vehicles was 29 on August 25th and averages less than 10 vehicles per day with up to 12-15 vehicles per day on the weekends. The Monkey Junction Storage
South facility does not have onsite management, but is secured via electronic security. Ms. Wolf pointed out that facility has 120 boat and RV storage spaces, as well as 130 mini-storage
units. Ms. Wolf provided additional written research documentation to be included in the record.
Page 14 of 28 Archie McGirt, manager of the Monkey Junction Storage Facility and son of the owner, spoke in favor of the proposal, noting the research came from his electronic access
program records. In regard to home values, Mr. McGirt stated he purchased a home in Archmil Place in 2008, lived there for three years, and sold his home two months ago at a profit.
He also provided initial sales figures from the County’s tax website for the residences on Beamon Lane, noting the properties were built and sold in 2001 and 2002. He reported 1226 Beamon
Lane, which is the first home adjoining the Monkey Junction Self-Storage property originally sold for $107,500, was sold four years later after the facility was built in 2003 for $143,700
for a substantial profit and sold again in 2007 for $184,000. He cited sales histories of other properties on Beamon Lane as well. Chairman Gott informed Mr. McGirt he could submit his
information into evidence for the record if he so desired. Gail McGirt identified herself as Mr. Mr. McGirt’s sister and spoke on behalf of her mother and herself. They both own adjacent
properties south of the property in question. In regard to crime on the property, which had been vacant for some time, she cited instances of homeless people living in the house, gang
activity 2-3 years ago, which was broken up by the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Department Gang Task Force, teenagers breaking into the house last summer and vandalizing the house to
the point that her brother destroyed the house to prevent additional crime. She also reported last summer, a number of homes on Archmil that were broken into during the day. Law enforcement
apprehended one teenager on her mother’s property and later that day, detectives determined there was a path from Archmil crossing her mother’s property and going into the woods. Teenagers
stole electronics, etc. from the homes on Archmil and took them to Royal Palms Mobile Home Park. Ms. McGirt concluded by stating she supported the proposed rezoning because she felt
that that developing the property would reduce crime in the area. Mr. Carter asked the board to request that Mr. Waress focus his remarks, noting he had sent a 30 page letter to the
Planning Board today which largely focused on issues that have no bearing on the case before the board. Brett Waress, a homeowner in Archmil Place which abuts the proposal, spoke in
opposition to the conditional rezoning, stating he was joined by Shirley Fisher, another adjacent homeowner. He cited concerns about the road width, continuity with the neighborhood,
stormwater drainage and inaccuracies in the developer’s petition. He stated most of the homes in Archmil Place are currently valued between $110,000 and $130,000 and some of the homeowners
paid a much higher price. He noted previous rezoning requests by the developer that were either withdrawn or denied. He provided photos and examples of citations or findings against
the developer, Mr. McGirt, asking him to complete some of the work. Chairman Gott explained that the board was addressing two different items at the hearing, a rezoning and a special
use permit, which requires the developer meet four requirements. If the developer meets those requirements, the board is required to pass the item on the commissioners for approval.
She asked Mr. Waress to assist the board by relating his evidence to the four items on the special use permit.
Page 15 of 28 Mr. Waress agreed and cited historical articles about issues with the developer regarding stormwater issues, the narrow road width of 18’ of the streets in Archmil Place,
and the lack of 100% opacity in the buffer behind the storage facility. He stated he doesn’t believe the roads qualify as collector, major or minor arterial roads. He commented there
are four RV storage facilities within two miles of the site and noted the 90 degree turn in the road and the road width, which he felt would make it difficult to access the site by boats
and RVs. No neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate. He felt that 24 hour access activity, lighting adjacent to their backyards, and additional runoff
from the site would be noxious activity. He stated he felt the value of the adjoining property would be injured, as well as their quality of life. During rebuttal, Ms. Wolf addressed
Mr. Waress’ concerns and reiterated Archmil Way is a secondary access to Archmil Place and operates fine. The amount of traffic generated by this use will be minimal. All drainage in
the county goes to floodplains and lighting on commercial properties must be controlled directionally and there are remedies. If the buffer has deteriorated, Mr. Waress can make a complaint
to the zoning department and request remedy. Mr. Carter also spoke during rebuttal, stating there would be limited use with the gated entrance which would make it safer for the residents.
The facility will be very low impact and meets all the requirements. Brett Waress spoke during opposition rebuttal, noting most people would seek alternate streets to access the property
rather than going through three gates. He commended the developer for removing the old home from the site, but expressed concern that the proposed facility would actually attract crime.
He commented the proposal will affect property values and stated no one wants a boat and RV storage facility in their backyard. Chairman Gott closed the public hearing. Anthony Prinz
stated one of the requirements of the conditional zoning district is that the principal means of egress and regress be along a collector road, minor arterial or higher order type of
facility and asked how it was determined that this particular conditional zoning district met those requirements. Ms. Wolf explained the facility is intended to be an expansion of the
existing mini-storage facility, which has two accesses onto Carolina Beach Road, a major thoroughfare. Archmil Way is an entrance into the Monkey Junction Mini-Storage. Tamara Murphy
asked about the difference in travel time from Archmil Way to Carolina Beach Road and from Archmil Way to Silva Terra. Ms. Wolf stated there was obviously quite a difference in travel
time so the residents generally use Archmil Way rather than taking Beamon over to Silva Terra, but Archmil Way is owned fee simple and is part of the Monkey Junction mini-storage facility.
There is an easement which the residents of Archmil have the option to use and there will be no impediment to that use.
Page 16 of 28 Archie McGirt stated it was relatively the same distance to use either exit, noting he and his wife generally arrive at the same time regardless of which exit they use.
Dan Hilla asked why the driveways were not lined up if the intent was to access the site from the mini-storage in front, noting it would appear lining up the driveways would provide
easier access. He also asked if a fence was proposed for the property. Ms. Wolf explained the driveways could be lined up, but significant trees were saved with the current site plan.
She noted staff had requested fencing as a condition. Mr. Waress commented it was a much shorter distance to use Archmil Way rather than Silva Terra Drive. Chairman Gott noted Mr. McGirt
was most likely addressing time rather than distance because the distance was much longer. Richard Collier asked how tall the trees are in the 30’ drainage easement and for clarification
on the lighting style and timeframe for operation of the lights. Ms. Wolf stated they could not see see the backs of the houses across the ditch from the site when they visited the site.
There is still good tree cover along that thirty feet easement and there are trees along the boundary. No disturbance can be done within that 20’ buffer yard. The fence will be placed
on the 25’ mark on the northern property boundary. The trees along the ditch line are approximately twenty feet tall. Ms. Wolf explained that all lighting would be security lighting
on photocells with directional shields, which would operate dusk to dawn. Fencing would be 8’ high so an RV would not be seen. Mr. Collier stated he understood the width of the road
and the fact that it is private. He asked if conditions would include prohibiting the running of boat motors and the other conditions placed on the earlier RV and boat storage request.
He commented he wasn’t sure he would support this facility either because he didn’t like the idea of locating this type of facility behind people’s homes. He noted he believes Mr. McGirt
builds nice facilities. While this proposal has some differences from the previous item, it is still the same situation. Archie McGirt stated they moved the gated entrance at the back
of the storage facility to gain an extra 25’ of buffer from the adjacent residences. He stated they could also move the lights to the other side of the property and reduce the height
of those lights. Mr. Collier commented he didn’t know if there was a middle ground for the residents and the applicant and wasn’t sure if the fencing and 50’ buffer would make a difference
to the residents. He doesn’t think the facility will decrease property values, although it could be based on the difference in the 2007 or 2008 sales and today’s sales. This proposal
will be gated and protected and RV and boat owners will simply be picking up and dropping off, not cleaning. Anthony Prinz asked if they would be required to modify the existing NCDOT
permit on Carolina Beach Road.
Page 17 of 28 Ms. Wolf said she didn’t see an issue, but wouldn’t know until the proposal had been reviewed by zoning, engineering, etc. Mr. Prinz asked if vehicles heading north could
turn left onto Archmil Way and if it was misaligned to make a left out. Mr. McGirt stated the next turnaround is located at the service access to Walmart and can easily be used. Ms.
Wolf stated the fire department had approved it. Mr. McGirt stated tractor-trailors use the turnaround regularly and he had made turns towing a 40’ trailer. They currently have RV and
boats stored in the mini-storage that regularly make that turn. In response to a question from Dan Hilla, Ms. Wolf stated the mini-storage business maintains Archmil Way. Chairman Gott
asked if the applicant agreed with all Findings of Fact presented by staff and the conditions recommended by staff. Ms. Wolf stated the applicant does agree with all findings presented
by staff, as well as the conditions recommended and was willing to add the conditions Mr. Collier mentioned. Chairman Gott stated there was not a gate at the entrance to the new storage
shown on the site plan and asked Ms. Wolf to add the gate to the site plan. She also asked about adding a condition requiring security cameras for the site. Mr. Collier stated moving
the lights to the other side wouldn’t help the neighbors and would be more detrimental. He recommended moving the lights to the center of the property. Dan Hilla made a motion to recommend
approval of the rezoning request Z-914. Melissa Gott seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-1 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-914. Anthony Prinz voted against the
rezoning request. Dan Hilla made a motion to approve the conditional use for Z-914 with the conditions set by staff and the conditions added by Ms. Gott and Mr. Collier. Richard Collier
seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for Z-914. Anthony Prinz voted against the motion. Item 4: Text Amendment (A-392,
09/11) -Request by Staff to amend Section 53.6 of the County’s Zoning ordinance to clarify certain standards for establishing an Exceptional Design Zoning District (EDZD). This item
was continued from the September 1, 2011 meeting. Shawn Ralston provided a brief background of the amendment and noted the changes since the September meeting were highlighted in yellow
and changes to the ordinance were shown in red.
Page 18 of 28 Ms. Ralston reminded the board that the intent of the Exceptional Design Zoning District is to create mixed-use and high density developments where existing urban features
are present in order to prevent urban sprawl. There are several provisions within the EDZD to prevent water quality degradation and to preserve natural hydrology with low impact development
techniques, to preserve habitat, to promote biodiversity, to create a sense of community with the open space requirements, to connect to well integrated service areas with bicycle and
pedestrian opportunities and transit opportunities, to promote energy efficiency, to reduce traffic congestion, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to promote healthy lifestyles
with people walking and taking part in recreational activities. She explained the county very much wants projects to conform to this intent so staff has proposed these revisions to the
EDZD. She stated the two previous projects did not exactly conform to the intent of the ordinance. She noted staff realized that neighborhood patterns greatly influence people’s habits
so to get to the intent of this ordinance they want to influence people’s habits in the way that works with the intent. She asked the board to think of the changes as a whole in order
to understand how they relate to the intent of the ordinance. Ms. Ralston explained staff based the EDZD on the LEED for Neighborhood Development standards, which has become very popular
in this area in the last few years. Several projects have received LEED certification, including the Monteith Construction Corporation headquarters in downtown Wilmington, a recently
constructed UNCW residence hall, the Lower Cape Fear Hospice and Lifecare Center, First Federal and One Main Financial, and three single family residences. In this year alone, several
other projects are seeking LEED certification that have just been completed or are nearing completion. Those are Snipes Academy, WAVE Transit Fording Station, Robert Taylor Estates,
a Wilmington Housing Authority Project, South Front Apartments and the Wilmington Convention Center. Ms. Ralston explained the EDZD is an elective district, meaning there aren’t areas
of the county that are zoned EDZD. You must rezone in order to get to an EDZD project so we aren’t actually taking away from people’s opportunities. There are other mixed use options.
If you wanted to do mixed uses, but didn’t want to comply with all the EDZD requirements, you could opt for Planned Development or go into the Riverfront Mixed-Use District. In developing
the Market Street Corridor Plan, staff will be looking at some mixed-use type projects with that as well. We’ll also be looking at other mixed-use type districts with the comprehensive
planning effort we will begin very soon. Additionally, there are other options for high density, which is another appeal of the EDZD. You can zone to high density in several other districts
in the County, for example, you can zone by right in the PD to high density and there are possibilities for high density type projects in R-20, R-15, R-10, and O&I. Ms. Ralston reviewed
the changes made to the proposal since the September 1st Planning Board meeting. 1. Section 53.6-1 – Intent: Change or to and in the first sentence. 2. Section 53.6-4 – District Regulations:
1) Authorization to Construct shall not be issued until unified ownership is established. 3. Core Requirement #1: Removed Option 5 which addressed projects over 100 acres and allowed
them to create a mixed use neighborhood center, which must also include a grocery store. This option was originally added because staff was talking about doing away with Planned Development
districts and pointing
people toward EDZD instead of
Page 19 of 28 PD. Because there was much debate over the grocery store requirement and because the PD option was left in the ordinance, staff decided to remove Option 5. 4. Additional
Requirements: 1) Mixed Uses. At the direction of the Planning Board, Mixed Uses was removed from the list of Core Requirements and added to the Additional Requirements as an option.
Ms. Ralston noted however, for a project to qualify for more than 6 units per acre, which is the base density, this requirement must be satisfied. We also made this optional requirement
easier to meet. Prior to now, there was a ¼ mile walk distance, which meant that 50% of the dwelling units had to be located within a ¼ mile distance of at least 4 of the diverse uses
in the Diversity of Uses list, but that was changed to ½ mile walk distance of at least 3 of the diverse uses in the Diversity of Uses table. 5. Definitions: We have defined Walk Distance
because the term is referred to several times in the EDZD ordinance, in Smart Locations, Option #3 3 and Option #4, in Mixed-Uses: Additional Option, and it is referred to in Housing
& Jobs Commercial Opportunity Proximity. Staff defined it based on the LEED for Neighborhood Development definition, which is walk distance for this specified walk distance – the pedestrian
must be able to travel between origins and destinations without obstruction in a safe and comfortable environment on a continuous network of sidewalks, all weather surface footpaths,
crosswalks, or equivalent pedestrian facilities. Pedestrians should not have to cross a street with speed limits greater than 25 miles per hour without signals or stop signs at crosswalks.
Ms. Ralston stated staff wanted to be sure that people can actually walk efficiently and safely to the destination for which the developer is receiving credit. Ms. Ralston reported two
points were added by adding the Mixed-Uses component to the Options so a maximum of 28 points can now be earned rather than the original maximum of 26 points. She provided a list of
the options available to earn points. A project can receive 6 units per acre for meeting the base density requirements. With bonus density, a project can receive up to 22 units per acre.
She reiterated that there are other options for high density in the county zoning ordinance and staff doesn’t feel that EDZD is for everyone. If someone wants to develop a mixed use
project or high density project, there are other options. For high density, 17 units per acre could be obtained in R-10, 10.2 units per acre in R-15, and 4.25 units per acre in R-20,
and 10.2 units per acre in O&I, 4.2 units per acre in a PD inside the Urban Transition area or 10.2 units per acre in a PD outside the Urban Transition area. Ms. Ralston reported the
following in response to a question about affordable housing from Chairman Gott earlier in the day. Staff had recommended changing the 80% of AMI to 60% of AMI based on the HUD standard
rent income limits table. In order to receive low income housing tax credits, a project must be 60% of AMI. If it was 80% of AMI, those tax credits would not be available. The project
would also not be eligible for the rental production program loans which are offered to these types of projects. There are several apartment complexes in our community that would meet
the 60% of AMI requirement. Seventeen are listed on the Housing & Finance Agency’s website so staff didn’t feel that standard would be too difficult to achieve. Also, if it is a For
Sale Unit, it would be based on the first time homebuyer’s rate, which is $225,000. Staff felt it was important for people to be able to take advantage of these tax credits and low interest
loans by meeting that 60% of AMI requirement.
Page 20 of 28 Chairman Gott asked if board members had any questions or comments. Anthony Prinz asked how someone would achieve the higher density in the other areas of the ordinance,
for example in R-10, R-15, or R-20. Ms. Ralston stated the property would have to be rezoned to High Density. Jane Daughtridge stated by right in R-10, you would get 3.3 units per acre;
in R-15, you get 2.5 units per acre; and in R-20, you get 1.9 units per acre. Anything beyond that would require a special use permit and the caps that Ms. Ralston showed were the caps
in those districts. She noted EDZD does net a higher density than our current highest density under a special use permit, but the requirements to achieve that density are also exceptional.
Ms. Ralston also noted an additional item added to the Bicycle Network based on comments received from Mr. Prinz earlier in the week. He had referenced the AASHTO Bicycle and Pedestrian
standards, which were added to the Bicycle Network definition. Chairman Gott asked for a clarification of AASHTO. Ms. Ralston stated it is an actual standard which can be referred to
when determining if a sidewalk is adequate. Anthony Prinz stated the intent is to avoid winging these things as we design them. AASHTO is the golden standard for designing these types
of things and stands for the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials and is commonly known as the Golden Standard so we felt it was the most appropriate standard
to use. He also commented that we should specify ADA compliant network in regard to the walk distance. He explained in his experience working on several TRCs, if we are going to provide
a walk distance, it should be accessible to persons of all abilities. He recommended that the definition be changed to read “…in a safe and comfortable environment on a continuous network
of ADA compliant sidewalks, all weather surface footpaths...” Chairman Gott asked how an ADA compliant sidewalk would be different from the current ordinance. Anthony Prinz stated it
is a matter of design and would just ensure it would be accessible to people with disabilities, for example people in wheelchairs, people with sight disabilities, etc. Richard Collier
thanked Ms. Ralston for providing the chart with the other zoning districts and how to achieve higher densities in those districts. He asked how the two previous EDZD projects would
match up under the proposed amendments to the ordinance and how they might be deficient other than the mixed-use aspect. He asked if the two projects were written purely on the density
of exceptional design points and they got up above the base six units or did those projects only have six units per acre.
Page 21 of 28 Ms. Ralston stated that both projects had more than six units per acre and tried to take advantage of all of the points. The apartment complex took advantage of the maximum
points or just below the maximum points available. The Middle Sound Village project took advantage of a couple of points less than the apartment complex. The apartment complex would
not really be hurt by this because they would have been within a ½ mile walk distance of services and so would have been able to take advantage of those bonus points. The Middle Sound
Village project probably would have been affected and so would have been able to do a little less density because they wouldn’t have been able to locate within ½ mile of the services.
They would only have been able to get the base density as opposed to the bonus density. Ms. Daughtridge commented that the Middle Sound Village project was only looking for 4 or 5 units
per acre so they only had to meet the base requirements, but did have additional points. Mr. Collier stated he remembered the Middle Sound Village project achieved around 22 points.
Ms. Ralston noted the Middle Sound Village project was able to achieve more density than they actually needed or desired. In response to a question from Mr. Collier, Ms. Ralston explained
that 60% of AMI threshold was harder to meet than the original 80% of AMI requirement. The current area median income is $60,000. Mr. O’Keefe stated it would essentially mean a lower
rent level. Mr. Collier stated he was trying to determine if it was a more stringent change or a change that was easier to meet. Mr. O’Keefe explained it would be determined by the market
whether it was easier or harder to meet. It is easier to build a cheaper product so it could be argued that it would be easier to meet the 60% of AMI threshold. The end result is the
amount of money you’re paying for the unit so that is what staff is trying to address with that requirement. Mr. Collier asked if the term Licensed Traffic Engineer on page 2, bullet
3 regarding the the evaluation for the traffic impact was technically accurate. Mr. Prinz stated the term should read “Licensed Professional Engineer.” Mr. Collier stated he understood
the intent was to have an engineer with a traffic background performing the evaluation rather than another engineer, but agreed the term should be Licensed Professional Engineer. Mr.
Collier asked staff to clarify the change from the term or to the term and regarding the intent of the EDZD ordinance.
Page 22 of 28 Ms. Ralston stated the term and makes the intent clearer because the board thought the intent of the ordinance was to encourage either High Density or Mixed-Use, but the
intent has always been to encourage High Density development combined with a Mixed-Use component. Mr. O’Keefe stated that it doesn’t preclude one or the other, but does encourage or
emphasize the mixed-use component and taking advantage of the locational bonuses for being next to a diversity of uses, which is what the County is actually seeking. Mr. Collier read
the statement of intent and commented that staff still wants both mixed-use and high density components in a project. Ms. Ralston affirmed that staff does want both mixed-use and high
density component in a project, but the mixed-use component is still optional so technically an EDZD project could be done without a mixed-use component as long as the base density is
six or less. Anthony Prinz asked how staff arrived at the 6 dwelling units per acre figure for base density. Mr. O’Keefe explained 6 units per acre was the base density originally set
before bonus points could be earned to exceed the amount so staff didn’t want to develop a new number of units from which to start. That number is considerably higher than the maximum
density that can be done in the by-right districts so staff thought it was still quite a carrot if you were trying to meet some of the other criteria to build more density in a residential
development. Ms. Ralston noted that it is also spelled out in Section 53.6-4(6) and was existing language within the ordinance. Mr. O’Keefe asked Mr. Prinz if he could clarify his suggestion
to add the ADA compliance requirement for the sidewalks for the walking distance and asked if that would include not just the sidewalks within the development, but also those along the
route to get to the diversity of uses claimed. Mr. Prinz confirmed he wanted to make sure the entire route to the diversity of uses was ADA compliant because while building codes require
the project to be ADA compliant, as soon as you leave the property there may be some major hazards there that create problems for persons in wheelchairs or with other disabilities. He
explained if the County is giving a density bonus for a walking path, he wanted to make sure that all persons within the project would be able to use it. Mr. O’Keefe stated concern,
noting without taking an inventory of the few sidewalks within the county, if non-ADA compliant sidewalks are in place, they would still be serving a good percentage of the new population.
It may be impossible for the developer of a proposed EDZD project to enter someone else’s property to retrofit their older, non-ADA compliant sidewalks. He commented while it was a great
goal to strive towards, he wondered if it would be feasible. Anthony Prinz stated ultimately the burden of proof would be on the applicant to determine what is and is not ADA compliant.
He commented it was very important to him that the ADA compliance requirement be included in the ordinan
ce. Page 23 of 28 Chairman Gott asked if in addition to requiring the new sidewalk network within the proposed development to be ADA compliant, Mr. Prinz was also requesting that every
sidewalk it is connected to outside the development be ADA compliant forever and ever. Mr. Prinz explained he was only concerned with sidewalks located within the ½ mile walking distance.
Chairman Gott commented that sidewalks outside the development would be outside the developer’s control. Dan Hilla noted that ADA compliance would be difficult to achieve if the sidewalks
are outside the project area and asked if it could be worded to require the new area to be built to be ADA compliant with the hope that the sidewalks outside the development become ADA
compliant as they are re-done. In his opinion, to require a developer to go offsite and build sidewalks would be quite extreme. Chairman Gott stated per a discussion with Mr. Collier
any new development going forward must be ADA compliant so inserting that requirement in the language would be redundant unless the intent was to control sidewalks outside the proposed
project. Mr. Prinz confirmed Chairman Gott was correct so the language he proposed would apply only to sidewalks built before ADA standards were put into place or before they were adjusted,
which seems to be done quite frequently. Dan Hilla stated he was also in favor of ADA compliancy wherever possible, but he was against anything offsite requiring a developer to change
existing sidewalks because it would be too much of a burden. Mr Hilla said if the County wanted to pay for the improvements that would be fine, but if the burden is on the developer,
he wouldn’t be in favor of it. Mr. Prinz reminded board members that the intent of the ordinance is for the design to be exceptional and wouldn’t apply to every development. Chairman
Gott agreed that the design should be exceptional, but stated concern about tying the developer’s hands for things outside his control that he may not be able to improve even if he wished.
She then expressed concern about changing or to and because when the ordinance was originally approved, it was presented as an either-or situation where the developer could choose both
mixed-use and high density. She felt the market should dictate whether it would be mixed-use or strictly commercial or residential rather than the Planning Board making that decision
for the developer. Her other concern was regarding the blanket prohibition regarding gates. She has lived in areas where gated apartment complexes were very, very desirable. She asked
the board to consider if there was a developer that wanted to install gates somewhere within their development other than at the entrances, noting she felt the developer should have
that flexibility. When the developer comes before the Planning Board and the board decides to nix it, she would be fine with that scenario, but if it seemed a reasonable request, she
would at least like to the give staff and the board the flexibility to allow gates. She also asked about the the status of
Page 24 of 28 her suggestion to staff to add an explanation to the Diversity of Uses regarding the fact that the list of uses provided was not an exhaustive list. Chairman Gott expressed
concern that the Diversity of Uses list would be misconstrued as an exclusive list of uses rather than a suggested list of uses. Ms. Ralston stated an asterisk and notation could be
added to Diversity of Uses list to provide clarity. Chairman Gott opened the public hearing. Tyler Newman, a representative of BASE and the Wilmington-Cape Fear Homebuilders Association,
stated he had provided comments on the amendment at the September meeting and had since met with staff and concerned developers trying to utilize the EDZD process to review the ordinance
changes and the potential impact on their projects. He stated support for the district as it currently stood and stated he wanted the district to be used rather than be a theoretical
district. He expressed concern that two proposed changes may frustrate the use of the district. First, the replacement of the term or in the intent section with the term and. Second,
the board’s recommendation to move the Mixed-Use requirement to an option, but keep the six units per acre cap. He felt those two requirements would have frustrated the two projects
that had already gone through the process. Mr. Newman also stated his opinion that those earlier projects may not have been able to meet the new ordinance because it would be more difficult
to achieve. He concluded by asking the board to consider those two items and thanked them for asking good questions earlier in the meeting. No one else spoke in favor or opposed to the
text amendment. Chairman Gott closed the public hearing. Richard Collier stated in regard to the threshold of six units per acre, which would require both mixed-use and high density
residential, he was undecided if six was the right number of units. Ms. Daughtridge explained that six units per acre was the launch point from the beginning for the EDZD district and
created a certain density staff had heard often over time people were interested in pursuing. For that reason, staff felt it was a generous base density. She commented that Cindee Wolf,
of Withers & Ravenel, had told her on more than one occasion it is incredibly difficult with the environmental conditions in New Hanover County to do more than 10.2 units per acre anyway.
By the time you put in all the other required improvements, it is a very difficult task to do that. She stated this district does have some height leeway that may ease that to some extent,
but it is her understanding that it is very difficult to do more than 10.2 units per acre under most circumstances. The County has provided these opportunities if you go way above and
beyond and can make it work in your project. She noted 10.2 units per acre of density are available in R-15 and even more units than that are available in R-10 districts by special use.
Ms. Daughtridge commented that six units per acre is a good starting point and has been consistent as the absolute required section plus twelve points as the base density for EDZD that
can be pursued.
Page 25 of 28 Richard Collier asked Ms. Daughtridge to provide the figure for the highest density by right that can be achieved in New Hanover County. Ms. Daughtridge stated the highest
density by right in New Hanover County is 3.3 units per acre. Mr. Collier said in essence you can almost double the density by right by doing a few other things. Ms. Ralston noted the
maximum density that could be achieved in a Planned District would be 4.2 units per acre so 6 units per acre is more density than could be achieved in a Planned District. Mr. O’Keefe
commented that the requirement to achieve 6 units per acre is to be able to walk safely ½ mile and be around three uses from a very broad list of potential useful and beneficial commercial
activities that people will want to be near. That is not a very high bar to meet. He noted the project at Military Cutoff Road and Market Street was qualified for 18 units per acre and
was within walking distance of more than thirty uses. The other project requested only 4.2 units per acre so Diversity of Uses wasn’t a factor and wasn’t needed. Per a request for clarification
by Mr. Collier, Ms. Ralston confirmed that both existing uses and new uses could be used to meet the requirement to be within ½ mile walking distance of three of the Diversity of Uses
categories. Mr. Collier asked staff about the terms and and or in the intent section of the ordinance. Ms. Ralston stated it wasn’t a tremendous problem because the project could potentially
not be a mixed-used project, but could be located near a mix of uses so the intent could still be achieved without a technically mixed-use project. Mr. Collier noted staff had said existing
commercial uses outside the project but within the prescribed area could be used to meet the Diversity of Uses requirement so removing the and wouldn’t take anything away. Ms. Daughtridge
asked how the board felt about changing the language to or high density residential projects near existing commercial uses. Mr. Collier stated his preference for the term or. Ms. Ralston
noted the ordinance states where appropriate urban features are in place, which is a reference to services. Chairman Gott commented while she understands higher densities can be achieved
in other districts with a special use permit, she would like to encourage developers to use the EDZD rather than seeking a special use permit. She would like for developers to use the
EDZD because it will be better so she would like to encourage a developer to use EDZD rather than adding a roadblock such as the mixed-use requirement. She cited the example of a fantastic
tract of land that is perfect for residential, but is ¾ mile from mixed-use. Everything around the property is
Page 26 of 28 zoned B-2 so it is eventually going to be commercial, but because of the economy they just can’t build yet. She doesn’t want the developer to be stuck at six units per
acre or require a mixed-use there just because the site is ¾ mile from the existing mixed-use. She commented that little things like that can turn a project so she is concerned about
limiting the flexibility for the developer to be able to put in that one use. It should be determined by the market rather than by the Planning Board. Anthony Prinz agreed and echoed
Chairman Gott’s comments, noting that the county currently has this option with the high density residential in all of the zoning districts and it is not creating the communities we
want to see; otherwise, the EDZD wouldn’t be needed. The underlying goal is to obtain a higher quality of development regardless of whether it’s mixed-use or not. He stated, in his opinion,
allowing people to go through EDZD rather than encouraging them to obtain a special use permit would in the end accomplish that goal of higher quality development. Chris O’Keefe stated
Mr. Prinz made a great point and agreed that the County should be encouraging exceptional development and encouraging as many people as possible to consider and utilize the ordinance.
He noted he encounters difficulty when trying to promote the ordinance in the relationship between density and infrastructure particularly with transportation now where much of our road
system is overburdened. Encouraging or allowing higher density, even with some of the other exceptional criteria in place, will create problems, including possible safety problems on
the roadway such as increased accident rates and congestion; whereas, the locational aspect of the ordinance is aimed directly at addressing traffic congestion and extending water and
sewer lines to provide infrastructure in a more efficient manner. Allowing density to be disassociated with existing development would put a much greater burden on the infrastructure
currently in place. He commented that is the main reason staff wants to take every opportunity to help with the public health issue. Since the American Medical Association issued a statement
criticizing urban development for obesity, it has become very important for planners, developers, cities, and counties to realize there is a connection between how our built world is
constructed and the condition of our hearts and minds. He reiterated the location connection to density is very important and needs to be part of the exceptional designs that will be
approved, especially when trying to promote density. Ms. Ralston recommended staff tackle the high density issues as a separate item. She noted staff would be undertaking a comprehensive
planning effort and should perhaps seriously review the high density language to encourage the desired types of projects. She explained that narrowing the requirements won’t help us
reach the intent of the ordinance, which is to prevent urban sprawl. That intent can’t be achieved if developments aren’t created near or with well-integrated services areas so that
people are walking rather than driving to their services; thereby, reducing traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. All those things play into the different elements incorporated
into the EDZD. She noted staff had increased the walking distance from ¼ mile to ½ mile against what research indicates people will do. Increasing walking distance to ¾ mile, people
are really not likely to walk to their services. What we have done is a good balance of what the Planning Board has recommended and what staff feels is the right thing to do.
Page 27 of 28 Ms. Daughtridge stated one of the bonuses of EDZD is that it allows for high density in land classifications where high density has never been allowed such as environmentally
sensitive areas. That is one of the main draws of the district. If there was no proximity to commercial, projects could go very, very deep into the waterward areas where established
communities have already created a character for themselves. Those residents attend public hearings when special use permits are requested in those areas and will most likely do so if
a purely residential EDZD, which is an easy bar to meet, incurs deeper into those creek areas. She asked board members to consider the compatibility and impact of a purely residential
EDZD project on the established neighborhoods around it, as well as the infrastructure required to support such a project in some of the deeper areas. With the requirement for proximity
to commercial, there is the assurance projects will concentrate in areas more capable of handling handling them. Ms. Ralston added that the last high density project was denied due to
traffic concerns. If an applicant can show they are alleviating traffic concerns by locating their project within walking distance of services, it might be beneficial and more persuasive
when the project is considered for approval. Richard Collier made a motion to approve the amended EDZD Zoning district #A-392 with the exception of changing 53.6-1 under the intent changing
the word and back to or in the first sentence on the second line, also 53.6-3paragraph 1(C)iii “and signed by a licensed Traffic Engineer” be rephrased by saying “…signed by a licensed
Professional Engineer”, and on the Diversity of Uses List add a notation similar to “This is not an exhaustive list of uses and others may be entertained on a case by case basis” and
for the others as written to be approved. Tamara Murphy seconded the motion. During discussion, Chairman Gott stated she would be voting against the item based upon the inclusion of
the Mixed-Mixed-Uses including the six units per acre requirement and the sentence mentioned on Page 12 which states, “The Mixed-Uses criteria must be satisfied in order to accrue those
bonus points,” and also based upon the inclusion of the prohibition against gates. Dan Hilla expressed his agreement with Chairman Gott’s objection to the Mixed-Use component and stated
he would also be voting in opposition to the amendment. The Planning Board voted 3-3 to approve Text Amendment A-392. Tamara Murphy, Richard Collier, and Troy Barboza voted in favor
of the amendment. Melissa Gott, Anthony Prinz, and Dan Hilla voted against the amendment. Jane Daughtridge stated that a tie is a fail; therefore, the text amendment had failed. Chairman
Gott asked if there was an alternative motion for some of the administrative changes to the EDZD text amendment A-392. Dan Hilla stated he was fine with all of the clerical changes being
made. Chairman Gott noted the large number of clerical changes and asked about the exclusion of changing changing the term from or to and.
Page 28 of 28 Mr. Hilla replied that he preferred the term or rather than and. Chairman Gott asked if it would not include the six units per acre requirement for mixed-use. Mr. Hilla
stated it would not include the six units per acre requirement for mixed-use. Richard Collier stated the base line density is six units per acre. The way it’s written today is to get
more density than that, you must meet the mixed-use standards as well, which means you must have the ½ mile radius for walking and the surfaces. He asked if the suggestion was to strike
the base density of six units per acre or strike the Mixed-Use additional requirement to exceed six units per acre density. Chairman Gott clarified in regard to Page 10 under the Additional
Requirements section, they would not be voting to include the change which reads, “For a project to qualify for more than six units per acre, the Mixed-Uses requirement
must be satisfied” or the statement on Page 12 under the Bonus Awards which reads, “The Mixed-Uses criteria must be satisfied in order to accrue bonus points”. She asked Mr. Hilla to
confirm that other than those changes, he was making a motion to pass the amendment along to the Commissioners. Mr. Hilla confirmed his motion to send the amendment forward to the Commissioners
except for the items listed by Chairman Gott. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve Text Amendment A-392 as recommended with the exception of changing
the term or to and in the intent and without the statements regarding meeting the Mixed-Use requirement to earn additional bonus points. Technical Review Committee Report (September)
Jane Daughtridge reported there was not a TRC report for the month of September; however, there would be a TRC meeting on Wednesday, October 12, 2011, at 3pm. With no further business,
Chairman Melissa Gott adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.