2012-10 Oct 4 2012 PBM
Page 1 of 29 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board October 4, 2012 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, October 4, 2012 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: Richard Collier, Chairman �
� Dan Hilla, Vice Chair Shawn Ralston, Planning Manager Andy Heath Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Lisa Mesler Sam Burgess, Senior Planner Tamara
Murphy Nicole Dreibelbis, Current Planner Anthony Prinz Ken Vafier, Senior Zoning Compliance Official David Weaver Chairman Richard Collier opened the meeting by welcoming the audience
to the public hearing. The Wolf Den from Pack 732 chartered by Peace Baptist Church led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Collier reviewed the procedures for the meeting.
Item 1: Special Use Permit Request (S-609, 10/12) -Request by Jonathan Yates, Optima Towers, on behalf of Carolyn B. Parrish to obtain a special use permit to establish a telecommunications
tower. The property is located within a B-2, Highway Business District at 7238 Market Street. This site is classified as Transition according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan and is within
the Middle Sound Small Area Plan and the Market Street Corridor Plan. Chairman Collier announced the applicant had submitted a request to continue the item to the January 2013 Planning
Board meeting. Scott Holmes, of Murchison Taylor & Gibson on behalf of Optima Towers, stated they had submitted a continuance request asking that the item be postponed until the January
meeting. Chairman Collier asked how many people were present for the item. A show of hands revealed many people were in attendance for the public hearing on the item. Mr. Holmes stated
he had submitted the continuance request a week prior and an article had been printed in the local newspaper informing the public of the continuance request. He noted staff had also
made an effort to inform everyone. stated it was his understanding the intent of the petitioner was to ask for a continuance in order to hold a community meeting
to receive feedback from the community. Mr. Holmes confirmed a community meeting because they had
not received any feedback on the project until last week.
Page 2 of 29 Chairman Collier inquired how the board wished to address the continuance request. He stated in his opinion it would be better for the two parties, the residents and Optima
Towers, to come together to discuss the proposal and address the concerns prior to the planning board hearing the case. Anthony Prinz agreed, noting it would give residents the opportunity
to become more informed about the proposal and the applicant the opportunity to adjust their plans as necessary based upon the feedback received. He felt the board would be able to make
a better decision on their recommendation to the commissioners if the item was continued to January. Anthony Prinz then made a motion to continue the item until January. Dan Hilla seconded
the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to continue Special Use Permit Request S-609 until January.
opposed to the proposal, Chairman Collier advised him to submit the signatures
to Planning staff prior to the January meeting. Item 2: Special Use Permit Request (S-610, 10/12) -Request by Cindee Wolf, Design Solutions, on behalf of Gordon Road Development Partners,
LLC to obtain a special use permit to establish a high density residential development. The property is located within a CD (O&I) Conditional Office and Institutional District at 8703
Stephens Church Road. This site is classified as Transition according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan and within the Porters Neck Small Area Plan. Sam Burgess presented the staff presentation
and provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning. Mr. Burgess also showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the property
and the surrounding area. The petitioner proposes to construct 192 apartment units consisting of eight (8) three-story buildings and a club house on approximately 19.76 acres in a CD
Conditional Use (O&I) Office and Institution and R-15 Residential Zoning District. The CD district was originally approved in March, 2002 for a campus style, commercial development;
however, the project was not started due to certain dynamics taking place in the area. The zoning ordinance allows high density project proposals in the O&I zoning district with a special
use permit. Density is limited to 10.2 units per acre.
for future intensive urban development on lands that have been or will be provided with the necessary urban services, such as public water and public
sewer. With the exception of the O&I zoning district that encompasses most of the subject property along Stephens Church Road, property along the western corridor from the I-140 exchange
with U.S. Highway 17 Market northeast is primarily residential. A mixture of light and heavy commercial zoned property is sprinkled within the R-15 residential district and lies along
the eastern corridor of the Market Street right-of-way. The Level of Service (LOS) along this section of Market Street is E, meaning the road is functioning at capacity; however, traffic
data received last week from the MPO indicates the LOS is F between Futch Creek and Creekwood roads, meaning there is a breakdown in traffic flow at peak �
�ransportation Impact Analysis (TIA) indicates the LOS is lower specifically near the intersections along this corridor segment.
Page 3 of 29 There are two ingress and egress points onto the project from Stephens Church Road. Density will be 9.7 units per acre and the project will be served by public water and
sewer. Mr. Burgess stated staff concluded two Findings of Fact were not positive: Finding 1 indicates the proposed project is not consistent because adding additional traffic to a road
that is already at capacity may jeopardize public health and safety. Although the traffic impact analysis adequately addresses ingress and egress to Market Street and the intersections
within the project scope function at an acceptable level of service, no construction improvements are proposed for the Highway 17 road segment adjacent to the project which is already
at capacity. At the present time, NCDOT has noted the segment of road just beyond Porters Neck and Market Street up to the Pender/New Hanover County line has a design capacity of approximately
31,900 trips. Based on data received several days ago, there are approximately 35,185 trips on the segment between the intersections of Futch Creek Road/Market Street and Creekwood Road/Market
Street. Of the County schools serving the proposed project, Blair Elementary is slightly over capacity, Holly Shelter Middle School is under capacity, and Laney High School is over capacity
by over 500 students. Finding 2 indicates that the proposed use is not consistent with the intent of the Office and Institutional District since no O&I use is proposed for the entire
district; however, staff recommends that the 19.76 acres for the proposed project be rezoned to CD (R-15), which would be consistent with the existing R-15 zoning district that encompasses
the area, as well as the nearby Kirkland Community; and would allow the desired density with the proposed special use permit and the buffers and setbacks proposed. Mr. Burgess noted
staff had received a few phone calls from nearby residents, who expressed concern about inadequate schools located in the area, air pollution as a result of increased and heavy traffic,
continued excessive wear of Stephens Church Road, an increased risk of traffic accidents, increased noise, and destruction of trees and other plant life which may lead to a decrease
in air quality. Mr. Burgess reported on September 26, 2012, the TRC discussed the proposed site plan. There was no vote on the plan; however, most agencies were receptive to the site
plan based on the technical requirements. He noted County Fire Services had indicated it would be extremely challenging to execute a left hand turn from the first superstreet going into
Stephens Church Road due to the elevation difference between Highway 17 and Stephens Church Road and the tightness of the radii. Chairman Collier opened the public hearing and recognized
the applicant. Tom Johnson of Nexsen-Pruett Law Firm in Raleigh spoke on behalf of the applicant and introduced Cindee Wolf, the planner; and Dan Cumbo, the traffic engineer. He acknowledged
the applicant had no -15). In regard to
traffic, the level of service on the superstreet is B or C rather than the LOS of E or F mentioned by staff. He noted Mr. Cumbo with Davenport Transportation would address traffic at
the appropriate time and asked Ms. Wolf to present a brief overview of the project. Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions stated she had worked on the site for approximately ten years and
was involved with the original rezoning to O&I created in 2002. The added lanes and interchange with I-140 were just a vision at that time. Land acquisition had occurred, but very little
construction had taken place. With the creation of an interchange and bypass for easy access to downtown Wilmington and by-pass around Wilmington to Brunswick County, it was obvious
this area of Porters Neck was going to be a hotbed for development. At the time, the developer thought Office & Institutional zoning was logical for
Page 4 of 29 that area and probably wanted some type of business or big box store; but the commissioners were not agreeable. Stephens Church Road originally ended in a cul-de-sac where
the curve is now. When NCDOT acquired the land along the old railroad bed, they extended Stephens Church Road around to the temporary cul-de-sac and abutted it into a wealth of vacant
property behind the site so it only goes to reason that NCDOT had the foresight then that Stephens Church Road would eventually become a collector road. Collector roads are generally
the place for higher density development and certainly for multi-family development like the proposed project, which is a logical transition from the highway interchange to the future
lower density residential development in the Cameron tracts and the tracts behind the p
major infrastructure would have to go in first, she expressed belief NCDOT had the foresight to put that curve in
Stephens Church Road and extend it for the future. Ms. Wolf reported the site is laid out in a fairly compact manner with three-story buildings and more than adequate parking. In comparison
to the 2002 plan, the proposed plan has reduced the impervious surfaces by 10% and currently has 30% impervious surface. There is substantial buffering to the northeast where some existing
residential development is located, as well as buffering along Stephens Church Road for the protection sound-wise and view-wise of the proposed complex residents. Two community meetings
were held during which the subjects and comments presented by Mr. Burgess were discussed. The most important issue tended to be traffic, which will be addressed by the traffic engineer,
Dan Cumbo. Ms. Wolf offered to answer questions, noting overall, the proposed plan is the most logical, reasonable, and sensible type of development for this location as development
extends into the northern areas of New Hanover County with all of the services that are available to it. Mr. Johnson asked Dan Cumbo to explain the details and differences between the
levels of service determined in his report versus what NCDOT has provided as the planning level of service. Mr. Cumbo was responsible for preparing the traffic impact analysis (TIA).
He reiterated the MPO had accepted the TIA without recommending any improvements because of the existing improvements already at that location. Dan Cumbo of Davenport Transportation
stated there is a difference between the E and F level of service and the level of service of B determined in the traffic impact study he conducted. County staff information is determined
based on planning level methods and not on engineering modeling software. The numbers are provided by NCDOT. He reported in regard to those differences, the NCDOT engineer �
�that
your TIA results were different. Your study is much more specific and detailed based on peak hour turning movement traffic counts at actual intersections. My capacity figures are just
a generalized Mr. Cumbo explained these are two very different methods to determine level of service. The planning
level estimate could be described as a broad brushed look at what is happening there in regard to traffic, but it is not meant to be a functional, operational capacity of US 17 in this
area and at the intersections. He reported two modeling and analysis software programs were used and both determined the level of service of B. Software included synchro and sim traffic
modeling software and the highway capacity manual software, which are both detailed and scientific software programs used by traffic engineers across the state and the country to determine
operational and functional levels of service for roadways and intersections. Morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes are utilized, not the daily traffic volume, which is used
for planning traffic methods. Using peak hour traffic volumes generates more accurate results and the models take in the specific characteristics of the roadway, including the number
and width of lanes, clearances along the highway, grades, heavy vehicle percentages, intersections, driveways, signalizations, and specific traffic signal timings.
Page 5 of 29 Mr. Cumbo
models that were used because it is a superstreet design, which is relatively new to the state of North Carolina. These are 2-phase signals in comparison to the traditional 8-phase
traffic signals and allow for much more capacity. A typical 8-phase traffic signal gives the main road 30% of the green signal time along the corridor for that cycle. Superstreet traffic
signals give efficiencies to the main road so the main thoroughfare receives 70% of the green signal time. He stated belief that was creating the differences in these values and was
resulting in the disparity in the LOS results. In conclusion, Mr. Cumbo stated the results of the traffic study show the proposed project would have minimal impact on US Hwy 17 and the
roadway and intersections are operating at a functional, operational level of service of B, and not E or F. Mr. Johnson stated Mr. Cumbo ran the computer models two ways. First, he used
a segment approach, which is basically the planning level of service method and second, he conducted an analysis of the intersections, which are operationally the most significant part
of a roadway and where conflicts occur. Mr. Cumbo confirmed the required traffic study performed looked at specific intersections along the corridor, which is typical because problems
and bottlenecks occur at intersections. A good level of service at an intersection indicates there will not be any problems with the road segment, so that was not part of the original
study. Because of the differences, he also ran a segment analysis with the highway capacity manual software, which confirmed the same results as the TIA, that the level of service is
B. Tom Johnson reiterated that the TIA using the more specific, generally accepted software used by traffic engineers shows there is not a traffic issue there. The planning level of
service is based on a very generalized determination, not on a superstreet. There is little experience with superstreets in this area. He asked the board to consider that the MPO accepted
the TIA, which determined a level of service of B. Chairman Collier opened the public hearing for opposition comments. Maeola Murray of 8787 Stephens Church Road stated opposition to
the request due to inadequate public schools in the area currently and planned for the future; the increase in the number of school buses turning off Market Street onto Stephens Church
service road, which is already a disaster because the superstreet is not working; and the increase in other traffic, which would raise tremendous safety and security issues for
Jacqueline Greer Adair of 8937 Stephens Church Road stated she is totally agreeable to progress
in the community, city, county, state and country, but is opposed to the proposed complex for several reasons. She noted the Scotts Hill community is a wholesome, close-knit, religious,
loving, friendly, people-oriented community with living, breathing human beings that do not wish to be taken advantage of by smooth talking business professionals who are seeking a profitable
venture. She has no problem with making money, would love the opportunity to make money herself, but not at the expense of an entire community of people who will be sacrificing their
lives at this intersection and the service road of Stephens Church Road. She stated several homeowners and two churches will be directly impacted by the additional traffic generated
by the project. The road is currently used by children and adults mornings and evenings for fitness walks, riding their bikes, and leisurely strolls without worry about an influx of
speeding vehicles, motorcycles, four wheelers, etc. travelling up and down this road creating a potential tragedy, which ultimately could end in death. Ms. Adair also cited the potential
potential effect of traffic congestion created by the apartment complex on the many, varied events held at the two churches located on Stephens Church Road, St. Stephens and First Baptist,
and at the community center located just before the proposed site. She also pointed out that a cemetery is located at the north end of the road. Ms. Adair then stated she and other residents
experience the horrendous traffic every day. They have
Page 6 of 29 none of the studies have relieved the traffic. She cited an example of a lengthy, well-attended funeral service on a Tuesday afternoon at one of the churches, after which
the attendees proceed to the cemetery. Because of limited parking, vehicles must park up and down both sides of the road, which has a drainage ditch on one side and a steep drop-off
on the other side. Adding vehicles from an apartment complex would result in the road being completely congested. Ms. Adair also described how difficult it is to travel back and forth
on Highway 17 from Stephens Church Road to Creekwood Road to visit relatives. The residents are not against people moving into the neighborhood, but they need to be able to exit the
superstreet onto the service road safely. The engineers �
�afety problem must be addressed. Pam Latter of 8915 New Forest Drive spoke in opposition to the request, reiterating all of the issues cited by Ms. Adair, particularly
traffic, and commented about how computer programs can be manipulated to provide whatever traffic results we want. Noting she had driven over the traffic counters dozens of times, Ms.
Latter commented the . There is a traffic problem on the superstreet. While she loves the superstreet over in Brunswick County, it was in place before
the development happened. She noted the superstreet is not working for the residents of her neighborhood, Plantation Landing. Ms. Latter
neighbors. Larry Mattheny of 8830 Brantwood Court
in Plantation Landing stated he was present to support his neighbors and noted the commissioners had recently denied an EDZD rezoning petition for Futch Creek primarily based on the
traffic. That proposal was located directly across the road from the project being proposed. He explained the residents are not opposed to development, but are asking for reasonable
development. He has lived in the neighborhood for six years and is an expert on the traffic in that area, which is extraordinarily dangerous on a good day. The addition of 195 apartments
to the area will result in a really congested situation, exacerbating the problem; therefore, he asked the board to give his neighbors the same consideration the commissioners gave his
neighborhood by turning down this proposal based on traffic or require the developers to make the improvements with NCDOT before the project goes forward. Chairman Collier closed the
opposition portion of the hearing. During rebuttal, Tom Johnson, stated traffic was obviously the primary issue. The applicant would agree
R-15, which would change the landscape in terms of the uses of the property. Much more intensive uses can be done
in an O&I district that would lead to more traffic in the area. Mr. Cumbo conducted a detailed analysis as a traffic engineer, recognized by law as an expert in his field. Engineers
must testify during a quasi-judicial hearing. The applicant did what was required by the ordinance, prepared the traffic impact analysis, and used the software accepted by traffic engineers,
NCDOT and the MPO. The MPO reviewed the TIA and accepted it without recommending the need for improvements. That tells him the superstreet is functioning in the way it is intended to
function. Certainly it requires additional time for traffic to move off and onto Market Street just like interchanges on a freeway create additional time to get on and off the freeway.
On a superstreet, those intersections with the improvements are intentionally done in a way to help give priority to the main road and help traffic from the side roads move on and off.
Mr. Johnson stated Stephens Church Road was improved to serve as a collector road to allow these more intense uses in a more safe way to move onto the main thoroughfare. NCDOT designed
it so that this type of project could go in without having to enter directly onto a major thoroughfare, to enter in an orderly way. The actual specific figures based upon what lights
are there, the design of the superstreet, and what
Page 7 of 29 intersections are in that segment confirm the road is functioning operationally at a level of service B, with no improvements required by the MPO. Mr. Johnson stated if
the board accepts that fact and the applicant accepts the R-15 as requested, they concur with the staff on every point. This is a good project that should be approved. He stated he and
Mr. Cumbo would be happy to answer questions and asked the board to recommend approval of the request based upon their concurrence with staff with the TIA that has been accepted by the
MPO. During opposition rebuttal, Matt Palese of 8905 Plantation Landing Drive remarked that at the September 2012 Commissioners meeting, Chairman Davis �
�(meaning the superstreet), I begin to curse like a sailor. In addition, Commissioner Catlin had indicated in an
email response to their organization that the superstreet is a fatality waiting to happen. Mr. Palese said the superstreet and the Michigan turn are obviously the problem. NCDOT will
have to address the increase in traffic that was never anticipated on the superstreet. He reported vehicles coming off I-140 travelling at 70-75 mph trying to make the stop at Futch
Creek and vehicles coming from Hampstead racing from one traffic light to another to avoid stopping on the way to work. The superstreet and Michigan turn are not working. The traffic
engineer can use all types of studies, but New Hanover County Planning staff uses a traffic analysis that indicates that section is currently operating over capacity as an F schedule
street. The planning staff has no prejudice. Mr. Palese stated residents are anxious to find out what they can do to prevent someone
from becoming a statistic to be grieved over while waiting for a school bus. He also stated residents are worried that portion of property
is creating tremendous friction
between the City and the County that has to be resolved. He stated the residents intend to go to the legislature again this year to try to influence the legislature to prohibit voluntary
annexation, noting except for one vote during the last legislature it would have already been stopped. He asked the board to consider what that issue is doing to their community, noting
that kind of backbiting between builders, developers and community residents is not needed. Residents want to live in a great county that is growing, but as long as we are arguing about
voluntary annexation and high density �
�his neighbors are very concerned that Stephens Church, Creekwood, and Futch Creek Landing roads will be impacted so negatively that
people will use utilize Porters Neck Road to get out onto Market Street. He also reminded them that the Commissioners had voted 5-0 to deny the Futch Creek complex located directly across
the street from this proposal. Chairman Collier closed the public portion of the hearing and asked if board members would like the MPO representative, Tara Murphy, to address the Traffic
Impact Analysis, level of service, computer modeling, etc. The board members concurred. Tara Murphy of the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization stated the MPO agreed with the
NCDOT engineergeneralized
segmental analysis certainly than the highway capacity model software will generate. She reported based on a conversation with a NCDOT engineer earlier that afternoon, the NCDOT has
Congestion Management looking at this area for review of the existing level of service and that a traffic feasibility study is currently underway for this section of road. Ms. Murphy
acknowledged the MPO had worked with the County, NCDOT, and the applicant in reviewing the traffic impact analysis and two recommendations were given in the TIA approval letter. Both
recommendations were fairly minor and were not physical improvements, but rather looked at optimizing
signal timings once the project came online.
Page 8 of 29 Ms. Murphy explained the review by NCDOT Traffic Congestion was being conducted in
response to a letter from County Commissioner Chairman Ted Davis around the time the Futch Creek EDZD project was under consideration. Anthony Prinz asked Ms. Murphy to clarify the level
of evaluation provided by the MPO and explain the equation used to determine the level of service for a particular roadway. Mr. Murphy explained the level of service is a straight volume
to capacity ratio using the volume of traffic (trips collected) and the day it was collected, obtaining the capacity number from the NCDOT engineer (31,900 for this segment of road)
and dividing those numbers to obtain a ratio, which is applied to the adopted thresholds the MPO has. Mr. Prinz clarified the process is a simple division exercise. Ms. Murphy stated
it is important to note that NCDOT does perform counts in odd years in our county so their count has a factor that is applied to it for seasonal variation whereas MP
count with pneumatic tubes taken over a three-day period. She noted traffic counts may be increased by events or activities in the community on those days
that may affect the actual traffic count gathered on any particular day. The MPO tries not to collect traffic data on days when school is not in session for that reason. Mr. Prinz commented
there could be a wide amount of variability in the actual number given on any given day from that highway. Ms. Murphy affirmed for that reason they were in agreement it is a fairly broad
brush look at that segment capacity. Mr. Prinz stated complete agreement with Ms. Murphy and asked her to provide a brief overview of the scope of the traffic study, noting the parameters
of the stactually provided to the developer by the MPO and NCDOT. Ms. Murphy explained that
a group consisting of staff from NCDOT, WMPO, New Hanover County, and the applicant has a scoping meeting to decide what intersections need to be analyzed, what adjacent developments
need to be taken into consideration, any planned roadway improvements, projects that have been approved, but not yet built, and also determine if the study should be done at off school
times, during AM or PM peak hours, or other peak hours depending upon the potential use. Mr. Prinz asked if it was fair to say the traffic study is a much more involved and thoughtful
process of evaluating traffic performance at any given location than the volume to capacity ratio calculation. Ms. Murphy responded affirmatively, noting she is a transportation planner
looking at a volume to capacity ratio and Mr. Cumbo is a traffic engineer who is willing to put his seal on that document. David Weaver asked if a typical O&I use built on the site would
generate more or less traffic than the proposed apartment complex or about the same. Ms. Murphy stated that was not a question she could answer, but perhaps Dan Cumbo could answer it,
noting it would depend on the type of office use which may generate different volumes during peak hours. Mr. Weaver stated
n O&I use could be built on that site without coming through this entire process.
Page 9 of 29 Chairman Collier correct because the property is zoned Conditional District O&I, which would require a
site plan to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board and the Commissioners. He thanked Ms. Murphy and asked if the board had questions for the applicant or staff. Dan Hilla inquired
Church Road. Ms. Wolf stated
it was certainly her opinion, but when the NCDOT transected the large tracts in the back with I-�
�those tracts which are residentially zoned, but contain some wetlands and currently have no septic
or sewer. In response to a question from Mr. Hilla, Ms. Wolf confirmed the TIA did not use figures for future development of those tracts because no projects have been approved. Mr.
Hilla stated he was on Stephens Church Road earlier that day approaching Highway 17 in a pickup �
�it requires you to turn all the way over to the second lane of traffic. He asked if any consideration had been given to improving that intersection
to improve that situation. Cindee Wolf replied that decision would be made by the NCDOT, which is why projects of this size require a traffic impact analysis and go through the scoping
process. She reported the recommendations from the MPO and NCDOT made as part of the TIA approval included providing potential signal adjustments at the Stephens Church Road/Market Street
left-over intersection and at the left-over from Futch Creek, no road improvements at the specific intersection, but site access to be designed with the driveways. Mr. Mr. Hilla asked
Ms. Wolf to describe the density if the site was zoned R-15. Ms. Wolf replied R-15 without a high density special use permit would be 2.5 units per acre. The tract is also in the Transition
land classification so it would also be eligible for R-10, at 3.3 units per acre. Later tonight, the board will consider a new R-7 zone, which would offer up to 6 units per acre. There
is a lot of versatility in what this site could become. Mr. Hilla �
�-15 zoning on the site. Ms. Wolf clarified the current O&I zoning permits high density development at 10 units per acre so the applicant originally
felt there was no reason to go through the rezoning process in addition to the special use permit process; however, staff has stated they would prefer the property be zoned back to R-15
residential to be consistent. Anthony Prinz asked for an explanation of the finding by staff that the request is not consistent with the intent of the Office & Institutional district,
given the fact it is a permitted use with a special use permit. stated the Office & Institutional intent is to protect land for office and institutional uses.
Residential uses are allowed as a special use, but that is actually to supplement office and institutional
existing offices on that tract, an apartment complex might be complementary
because employees might reside there. Staff feels it would be inconsistent to consume an entire O&I district with a residential use.
Page 10 of 29 Mr. Prinz asked if staff felt the ordinance should be amended to address that issue of inconsistency. stated an amendment
was needed because it is in line with some of the mixed-use development efforts and is a well-meaning section of the ordinance. The goal is to create a development pattern that can conserve
itself and has some internal continuity. Tom Johnson
from O&I to R-15 because they could build the same project and it would overcome the consistency issue. Dave Weaver asked Mr. Burgess to clarify
the concerns expressed by Fire Services regarding one turn being so tight it could affect emergency vehicle access. Sam Burgess explained Fire Services had expressed concern about the
difference in the elevation grade between executing a left turn into Stephens Church Road versus the grade in the ditches that exist along and running parallel to Stephens Church Road
based on the length of their emergency fire apparatus. Mr. Weaver if it could be corrected as an alteration in the site plan for the project. Mr. Burgess stated it would need to be discussed
with NCDOT, but NCDOT is fixed on the design based on the superstreet constructed several years ago. He noted it may be problematic for elongated fire service vehicles executing that
turn. Mr. Weaver inquired about the possibility of adding the construction of a pedestrian-bike path along Stephens Church Road as a condition on the permit, given it may serve as a
collector road for the vacant property behind it and the residents had expressed concern about the dangerous conditions that would be created by a tremendous increase in traffic. Mr.
Burgess confirmed a condition could be recommended by the board. Tom Johnson agreed it may be possible to consider constructing a pedestrian-bike path, but noted a path would end at
their property line Seventy percent of the traffic for the project would never
reach the church because they will be turning toward Wilmington and using the first exit onto Market. He stated the proposed t the issue of
emergency access by fire trucks, which should have been addressed by Fire Services and NCDOT during the superstreet design process. Andy Heath asked Dan Cumbo if the traffic analysis
software took into account the strange configuration of the service road and the southbound lanes, which really have no stem, and require a very sharp, nearly U-turn, onto Market Street.
Mr. Cumbo confirmed the traffic analysis software took into account the exact dimensions of the road configuration, noting the roadway is laid out exactly as it exists over an aerial
photo. Ms. Tamara Murphy stated she was mainly concerned about the lack of a stem onto Market Street resulting in morning traffic queuing to make that tight turn into Wilmington, noting
it appeared that traffic would be extremely backed up on Stephens Church Road. Mr. Johnson confirmed the TIA took that situation into account and still showed a level of service of B
at that location given the traffic volumes.
Page 11 of 29 Ms. Murphy asked if there was no requireany
space there for any other movements. Mr. Johnson stated �
�at that location. Chairman Collier asked Mr. Palese and Ms. Adair as residents on either side of the superstreet how they would improve the traffic situation.
Ms. Adair stated she would improve the superstreet and provide better access to Stephens Church Road because the problem is the superstreet and the Michigan turn, noting making the turn
is very difficult because vehicles are travelling at a high rate of speed on the superstreet. Mr. Palese stated Ms. Adair was absolutely right, the superstreet needs to be re-engineered.
NCDOT high rate of speed of vehicles coming off I-140. Many vehicles are trying to make the first light
at Futch Creek Road and are blowing prepared to slow down or stop coming off I-140. NCDOT and the County
need to work together on the issue. That will probably happen when the Hampstead by-pass is completed. There needs to be some control over the density of traffic between that intersection
and Porters Neck. Chairman Collier stated everyone seems to agree the issue is how the superstreet is tied into the intersections on each side and not the superstreet itself. He �
�that NCDOT Congestion Management review and address the situation. very
well and he agreed with Ms. Murphy that the s calculations are a very basic understanding of the level of service on the road. There are are issues at both intersections; unfortunately,
the NCDOT would have to address the superstreet issue. He expressed support for the project as a whole in that location short �
�the busy thoroughfare. While he
level of service is F, he does believe it is very difficult to make those turns on both sides of the street during most times of the day. Chairman Collier concluded by
stating he liked the project and felt it had many merits, including the reduction in the impervious surface and wonderful buffering; however, the issue with the intersection needed to
be resolved. Mr. Prinz
very efficiently. He drives Highway 17 every day and rarely gets stopped at one of the traffic signals, but ne of the side streets. He d�
�density on an intersection that looks like this one, noting it is two intersections directly
adjacent to each other. He was concerned about the current residents and the additional residents that would be added by this project given the fact that County Fire Services had expressed
concern about their ability to access the road with fire trucks. He felt re-aligning the intersection so that one movement was more prevailing over the other would resolve that issue
and could be done given no other improvements are being required. He would be more supportive of the project if a stem could be created. Mr. Johnson stated he coulunderstand
how the board could be against the project when the developer had no control of the superstreet, which was designed by NCDOT and will be there regardless of whether their project is
built. He pointed out the question about fire vehicle access was not specific and was yet to be determined. Hir project should hinge on measures NCDOT
took to address traffic that may or may not be functioning adequately. Mr. Johnson felt the applicant had met the burden of the ordinance with the traffic impact analysis and believe
it was under the standards the board could consider under the ordinance and the conditional use district. Chairman Collier stated he
was correct in that the board canproject based on the opinion that NCDOT did a poor job. The board does, however,
Page 12 of 29 have the authority to turn it down based on the health, safety and welfare of the public and it is his responsibility to do so. He acknowledged that he is an engineer and
could also design the intersection. He commented if Congestion Management is involved and the County Commissioners recently turned down a similar, better designed, more environmentally
friendly project, it is because there is a traffic issue there that needs to be addressed. Chairman Collier stated he b
ut cin good conscience recommend approval of the issue at that intersection. Dan Hilla agreed the project was well-designed and a great transition to the R-15 that will
eventually be developed beh
Mr. Weaver inquired what the developer could do with the property if the Planning Board turned down the proposal, which he also felt was well designed, and wondered if any O&I development
would be turned down there because it would increase traffic. stated the project Ms. Wolf brought forward a number of years ago was for an office complex. The
ordinance states that after 24 months, the special use permit for that project became null
valid special use permit would need to come forward in order for the project
to be built. Mr. Weaver asked if it was likely the property could be rezoned back to R-15 if the old special use permit was null and void and the board was not able to reach agreement
on a new special use permit. confirmed it was likely because it would be consistent with the zoning around the property. Chairman Collier asked for a motion from
the board. In response to a question from Ms. Huffman, he confirmed he was using the original script for the item. Chairman Collier then made a motion that the project as presented be
denied because the project will endanger the public health and safety for the following reason: the intersection of Stephens Church Road and Highway 17. Tamara Murphy seconded the motion.
The Planning Board voted 7-0 to deny Special Use Permit Request S-610. Chairman Collier announced the Planning Board would take a 5 minute recess at 7:18 p.m. The meeting resumed at
7:27 p.m. The meeting resumed at 7:27 p.m. Approval of the September Planning Board Meeting Minutes Dan Hilla made a motion to approve the September Planning Board meeting minutes. Andy
Heath seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the September Planning Board meeting minutes. Item 3: Text Amendment (A-404, 10/12) -Request by Staff to amend Section
53.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify district procedures, standards, standards, and requirements of the Exceptional Design Zoning District (EDZD). Shawn Ralston presented the following
staff report noting the amendment was brought before the board last fall; however, a few changes had been made to the draft since then. The EDZD was initially designed with the intent
to encourage mixed use and high density opportunities that are close to existing urban
Page 13 of 29 features, prevent water quality degradation through low impact development techniques, and preserve habitat biodiversity. The key components are also captured through the
core requirements of the EDZD. There are several elective requirements that promote energy efficiency and green building, diminish the use of automobiles and promote healthy lifestyles
by creating mixed-use type scenarios where people can walk to services as opposed to getting in their cars to drive. She explained to create a sense of community we are opening up some
of the open space requirements and allowing more flexibility with the open space requirements with the gathering spaces. The EDZD is also the most flexible zoning district in the ordinance.
EDZD is an elective district so rezoning would be required. Six core criteria would have to be met. There are currently 10 Additional Criteria to choose from to achieve 12 additional
points. 26 points are available. She noted there are other mixed use options in the ordinance, ordinance, such as the PD and RFMU. The other high density options are HD and the new R-7
district being proposed later in the meeting. EDZD allows a base density of 6 units per acre and bonus density of up to 20 units per acre depending on the number of points accrued. Ms.
Ralston reviewed the density that may be achieved through the EDZD and compared the zoning districts, noting EDZD allows the highest density of all of the zoning districts. R-10 allows
17 units per acre and R-15 and O&I allow 10.2 units per acre. The EDZD differs from High Density in that there is no road classification requirement, it is allowed in all Resource Protection
Areas because of the environmental components that protect the resource, it is not allowed in Conservation, must meet other EDZD requirements, and has a maximum density of 20 units per
acre. Ms. Ralston presented the time line of development of the EDZD ordinance, explaining it was created throughout 2009 with much stakeholder input and many work sessions and was adopted
in November 2009. After a couple of projects were proposed, staff realized some changes were needed and those amendments were subsequently adopted in April 2010. In June 2010, the first
proposal, Middle Sound Village EDZD, came through. That project included 48 townhomes at 4.8 units per acre on 10 acres off Middle Sound Loop Road. In July 2010, the Amberleigh Shores
project off Military Cutoff, consisting of 281 apartments at 16 units per acre on 17.5 acres, was not approved by the Commissioners. In October 2011, staff brought forward another amendment
to the EDZD ordinance that received a split vote by the Planning Board and was not sent forward to the Commissioners. In August 2012, the Futch Creek Village EDZD Project, consisting
of 269 apartments on 37.2 acres at 7 units per acre, came forward, but was not approved by the Commissioners. Ms. Ralston reported the only EDZD project approved was the Middle Sound
Village project, at 4.8 units per acre. One of the things that differentiated that project from the other two was the developer did a good job of showing how they would connect the project
with the school. Ms. Ralston explained the proposed amendment to the EDZD ordinance includes Procedural Refinements, edits to Core Requirements, edits to Additional Requirements, and
edits to the Definition Section. Procedural Refinements include the following: 1. Procedures for Establishing EDZD 1. All references to community meetings are directed to Section 111-2.
2. A map is required to be provided by the applicant showing existing water and sewer lines, roadway classifications, bike and ped facilities, parks, schools. Employment Centers are
being added to the list of required items shown on the map. 3. An evaluation of traffic impacts prepared in accordance with a scope of work established by the Wilmington Metropolitan
Planning Organization, NCDOT and New Hanover County and signed by a licensed professional engineer. 4. A Narrative explaining how the project meets the required elements & intents of
the EDZD
Page 14 of 29 5. The Phasing Schedule must indicate when each EDZD element will be met. Dan Hilla �
�schedule and is never built would be addressed in the phasing schedule. Ms. Ralston explained the phasing schedule
is actually a generalized schedule indicating when each of the elements will be met. 2. District Regulations: 1. Authorization to Construct shall not be issued until unified control
is established 2. A district may not extend across any major or minor arterial roadway having three or more lanes of vehicular traffic unless the district proposes multiple, unified
development phases of mixed uses having safe, signalized vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities to connect the projects, such as crosswalk signals, pedestrian overpasses, refuge
islands, etc. 3. Removal of Floor Area Ratio language 4. Progress report must be submitted after each phase with timeline of completion of elements 3. Underlying Standards: 1. Connected
and Open Community: In order to promote projects that have high levels of internal connectivity and are well connected to the community at large, gates may not be utilized on roads entering,
exiting or within the development. (Bike lanes must also be public). 4. Effect of Approval 1. Extensions will be clarified in another text amendment heard later in the evening. Core
Requirements: 1. Smart Location Option 1: Locate project on an infill site or previously developed site. 2. Wetland and Water Body Conservation and Preservation Create a long-term management
plan for on-site water bodies and wetlands and their buffers, and create a guaranteed funding source for management. Additional Requirements: Mixed Uses: �
�building square footage. Design
or locate the project such that at least 50% of the dwelling units are within 1/2 mile walk distance of at least three (3) of the diverse uses in the Diversity of Uses List in Section
53.6 of this Ordinance. At least one use from two of the three diverse use categories within the diversity of uses list is required. *For a project to qualify for more than six (6) units
per acre, the mixed uses requirement must be satisfied. Additional Requirement 2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access: Design and/or locate the project to meet at least one of the following
two options*: Option 1: A planned bicycle network of at least 5 continuous miles in length is within ¼ mile bicycling distance of the project boundary. For planned bicycle networks,
the network must be listed in a plan adopted by the Board of Commissioners. (2 points) Option 2: An existing bicycle network of at least 5 continuous miles in length is within ¼ mile
bicycling distance of the project boundary and connects to either a school, employment center or commercial center that contains at least seven (7) of the uses in the Diversity of Uses
List. (4 points)
Page 15 of 29 (*Points will be awarded based on which option is selected, however points will not be awarded for both options.) Additional Requirement 4: Transit Facilities: Locate development
within ¼ mile of an existing or planned transit route. The transit agency must certify that it has an approved budget that includes specifically allocated funds sufficient to provide
t
otal building square footage. Additional Requirement 6: Minimum Building Energy Efficiency: For non-residential buildings, mixed use buildings, and multifamily residential buildings
four stories or greater, new buildings must meet at least three of the additional requirements listed in the NC Energy Conservation Code for Commercial Buildings. For new multifamily
residential buildings three stories or fewer and new single-family residential buildings, 90% of new buildings must meet the HERO option listed within the Energy Conservation Code of
the N.C. State Building Code. Additional Requirement 7: On-Site Renewable Energy Sources: 7. On-Site Renewable Energy Sources Incorporate on-site nonpolluting renewable energy generation,
such as solar and geothermal energy with production capacity of �
�(exclusive of existing buildings), as established through an accepted building energy performance simulation tool. 9. Native Landscapes: Complete a comprehensive inventory of
existing trees and vegetation on site and identify vegetation that is native, nonnative or invasive. Create a landscape plan that preserves and enhances native landscapes and eradicates
or prevents the spread of nonnative and invasive species. All noninvasive significant trees in good or excellent condition shall be maintained as part of this plan. Definitions: Walk
Distance: For the 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 mph without
signals or stop signs at crosswalks. (This definition is referred to in Smart Location: Options 3 and 4; in the Mixed Uses additional requirement; and in the Housing and Jobs/Commercial
Opportunity Proximity requirement). Bicycle Network: A continuous network consisting of any combination of physically designated in-street bicycle lanes at least four (4) feet wide,
off-street bicycle paths or trails at least eight (8) feet wide for a two-way path and at least five (5) feet wide for a one-way path, and/or streets with low traffic volumes designed
to carry neighborhood traffic (bicycle through-streets). Refer to AASHTO AASHTO bicycle and pedestrian standards for appropriate design and construction. Affordable Housing: For rental
units, affordability must be priced for households earning 80% 60% of the area median income (AMI). Rental limits are calculated annually based on the HUD Standard Income and Rent Limits
table. (Tax credits offered only at 60% AMI). Ms. Ralston reviewed the new recommendations for the points table, noting a project could accrue 2 points for Mixed Uses, 2 or 4 points
for Bicycle and Pedestrian Access, 2 points for Minimum Building Energy Efficiency (originally 4 points), 2 points for On-site Renewal Energy Sources, 2 points for Native
Page 16 of 29 Landscapes, and 4 points for Affordable Housing (originally 2 points). Previously, projects could accrue up to 26 points. With the proposed changes, project could accrue
up to 26 points, which equates to 22 units per acre. David Weaver recommended the removed from Line 56 of the proposed amendment regarding
a ½ mile radii since a radius is a line from the center of a circle, and not from a boundary. He suggested simply stating �
�Regarding a guaranteed funding source for significant water management, he asked for clarification on acceptable funding sources and if a homeowners association would satisfy that
requirement. Ms. Ralston confirmed an HOA would satisfy the requirement, noting deeding the area over as a conservation easement to a non-profit would also be acceptable. She noted in
most circumstances, this requirement would be met through a homeowners association. Mr. Weaver asked if s
Ms. Ralston stated she had met with Mr. Mancuso that week to address his comments. Several editorial comments, such as numbering have been incorporated into the amendment version distributed
earlier in the evening to board members. Staff felt the change to Core Requirement #1 was needed in order to clarify infill sites, and adding the previously developed language as well.
Mr. Weaver asked if the intent should be modified to include the renewable energy, etc. Ms. Ralston stated staff had discussed modification of the intent, but felt that while it is a
great point, it is not a required element so the intent really captures what the core requirements are with the intent. It is an option and would not be a requirement each project must
meet. Andy Heath asked Ms. Ralston to explain Option #2 of the Smart Location options contained in Core Requirement #1. Ms. Ralston explained pre-project connectivity is is also defined
in the Definitions section. 25% of the boundary must be adjacent to previously developed property; and connectivity of the site and adjacent land must have at least 90 intersections
within a square mile as measured within a ½ mile distance of a continuous segment of the project boundary. It sounds more complicated that it is. She noted staff had not received a project
to date that had been able to meet those criteria, which would be near a heavily developed area, for example near the City of Wilmington limits. Mr. Heath commented he read it as to
locate the project on an adjacent site, noting it seemed confusing. Actually, the adjacent site must have the connectivity. Ms. Ralston noted the adjacent area must have the connectivity.
The requirement is not to locate the
section. Dan Hilla noted under the Additional Requirements, in Mixed Uses, he felt the change from ¼ mile walk distance to ½ mile
walk distance was great and will include more property where this district can be used. He expressed concern that it was still ¼ mile walk distance under Transit Facilities and asked
if it would be more consistent to keep both requirements at ½ mile. He noted the transit stop would be located at the existing mixed use.
Page 17 of 29 Ms. Ralston explained the ¼ mile walk distance had made sense with the Diversity of Uses component as opposed to the Mixed Uses component; however, if the board chose to
accept the ½ mile radius, the walk distance could be changed to ½ mile for the Transit Facilities as well. She noted staff had a difficult time changing the walk requirement from ¼ mile
to ½ mile because many studies going to walk more than ¼ mile generally speaking. Ms. Ralston commented it does make sense to
have the continuity in the requirements. Chairman Collier stated with the inclusion of an R-7 zoning district which will be considered later in the meeting, he supports the mixed use
because we will have a component now to achieve a higher density up to 6 units per acre without having to go through the minutia of EDZD, which he felt had hurt many projects that have
come forward previously. He likes the EDZD district, but it is only right for certain locations. He stated he will support the change to add in the mixed use component, which he was
against when it was originally proposed. Anthony Prinz
component of this district when it was previously considered. Staff was asked to look at adding higher density residential options to our toolbox to supplement and bolster
this district. We struggled with employment centers on the last EDZD application. He asked if the component should be better defined. He also recommended Line 344 be changed to reflect
a speed limit of 35 mph because without signs, the speed limit is automatically 35 mph. On Line 405, he recommended dropping one-path is generally
a sidewalk. Chairman Collier opened the public comment portion of the hearing. Gerry Mancuso stated he had submitted a letter recommending some changes to the amendment and had met with
Ms. Ralston on Monday to share his comments and has been informed the formatting errors identified have mostly been corrected. He was concerned about the lack of a definition for Mixed-Use
what is and is not acceptable for mixed-useis an acceptable
density for their project. The key items that affect density are the traffic, the mixed-use �
�He felt the process should be laid out based on If traffic becomes a governor
on how many units an area �
�likes the idea of the bonus points, but questioned if some of them were really appropriate, for example points for facing a building south. Energy
efficiency is great, but adding more points for that has an impact on the adjacent properties. It is appropriate to offer more points for job opportunities, multi-use, and traffic. Traffic
is very important in the process. Z-EDZD
account �
� Mr. Mancuso asked if the base site area calculations in the ordinance must be used in the EDZD.
stated the base site area calculations will not be used in the EDZD. Mr. Mancuso expressed concern that the project can get the density based on the total site,
but can then sell that property later. He felt the base site area calculations should apply. Chairman Collier asked if Mr. Mancuso had made notes on the revised ordinance during the
review earlier in the meeting, noting Ms. Ralston stated she had revised the amendment to incorporate the changes.
Page 18 of 29 Mr. Mancuso stated Ms. Ralston had made some, but not all of his recommended changes to the amendment. He asked about the public process and stated his objection if he
was expected to make changes on the fly. Chairman Collier �
�Mr. Mancuso had made any notes based on the information presented earlier in the meeting. He asked the county attorney to provide some direction. Assistant
County Attorney Huffman stated the script suggested that those in favor and in opposition of the amendment be given 15 minutes to speak just as all other petitioners and opponents. She
suggested the chairman give the gentlemen five more minutes and then give others the opportunity to speak in support of the ordinance given the gentleman appeared to be in opposition
to the amendment. Chairman Collier asked Mr. Mancuso if he would cooperate with the offer of five additional minutes. Mr. Mancuso �
�public review and last minute changes were made to expect him to catch
up at the meeting. Chairman Collier stated the board had spent 45 minutes reviewing the amendment during the meeting. He gave Mr. Mancuso five more minutes to offer input. Mr. Mancuso
stated concern about there was no mechanism to stop a developer from building an EDZD apartment complex that was approved with a commercial component and then later rezoning the commercial
property as was the case with the Three Oaks apartments. He felt an infill site is something to the adjacent
residents. In regard to jobs, it was unclear what job opportunities in option 2 there would be. He asked why some of the bonus points warranted density. He proposed proposed there should
be a reasonable test to get density, noting the traffic impact analysis, the job opportunity analysis and the mixed use analysis, etc. should be used to determine the ceiling of how
much density can happen in an area and then leave it up to the applicant to choose which bonus points to use to get there. He noted every proposal is failing because of traffic. He stated
he wanted to offer solutions to those problems. Chairman Collier asked if anyone was present to speak in support of the amendment. Mr. Matt Palese stated the residents of the greater
Porters Neck area had been dealing with EDZD and high density projects and have had the opportunity to work with the Planning staff for several months. They have found the staff to be
courteous, kind and patient during the process. He noted they had had some success because of the assistance of staff. He stated the citizens of New Hanover County should be proud of
the Planning and Zoning staff. Dan Hilla made a motion to recommend approval of the changes submitted with several additions: 1) Changing the transit facilities to ½ mile from ¼ mile;
2) Changing line 344 to 35 miles per hour from 25 mph; 3) Taking out the reference of a one-way path in line 405; and 5) Removing
56. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of Text Amendment A-404. Chairman Collier asked Mr. Mancuso to submit his comments directly
to Shawn Ralston, noting she would take his comments into consideration.
Page 19 of 29 Item 4: Text Amendment (A-405, 10/12) -Request by Staff to amend Section 112-6 of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify the process for obtaining a formal extension of an approved
planning action. stated the amendment seeks to clarify and consolidate the validity period and subsequent process for extending that validity period during
which a site specific development plan remains active. The 24-month validity period is the same for all of the conditional-style zoning tools, including special use permits, conditional
use district, EDZD, conditional district, and riverfront mixed-use development, but it is stated differently in each district ordinance. Staff wanted to make the language consistent,
placing it in one place and referring to that language in each of those ordinances. The unzoning of invalid zoning districts is also addressed in the amendment.
highlighted the following changes to Section 112-6: Failure to Proceed in a Timely Manner 1) If within 24 months from the date of approval of the petition for a special use permit, conditional
use district, conditional district, exceptional design zoning district, or riverfront mixed use district, a building permit has not been issued for the subject tract(s), the Planning
and Inspections Director shall consider an extension if a request is submitted in writing to the New Hanover County Planning and Inspections Department prior to the expiration. 2) The
Planning and Inspections Director will consider whether an extension may be granted based on whether active efforts are proceeding. 3) If it is determined that active efforts are not
proceeding, the Planning and Inspections Director may recommend that the Board of Commissioners revoke the approved zoning map change and rezone the subject tract(s) to the classification
prior to approval. 4) The total vesting period may not exceed five (5) years. He reported the language had been changed to remove the phras. Chairman
Collier asked if board members had questions for staff. Dan Hilla wondered if active effortshould be defined, noting the current Planning & Inspections director is reasonable,
but a future director may not be. Mr. explained there could conceivably be a host of things that people might consider to be an effort. Currently, an active effort is
characterized in the EDZD district as construction activity, in the conditional use district as a building permit, and in the special use permit as construction or occupancy so there
are already three different activities that could be considered active effort. He stated the chain of responsibility from the Planning & Inspections director to the county manager to
the county commissioners provides measures to address an unreasonable interpretation. In addition, the Planning & �
� Anthony Prinz asked if staff had considered putting that decision on consent instead
of putting that responsibility on the Planning & Inspections director, noting the decision to extend a project is a heavy burden. He also expressed concern that if the director determines
a project is not active, he would make a recommendation to the commissioners potentially against the will of the property owner to revert the property back to a previous zoning. �
� confirmed the property would be required to go through the rezoning process hearing before the planning board and then the county commissioners. Chairman Collier commented that the
process would only apply to projects with special use permits, additional density, etc. with a site plan attached and not to a straight rezoning.
Page 20 of 29 Anthony Prinz reiterated his concern was rezoning the property against the will of the property owner, explaining he had
without a signed application form. stated from a policy standpoint,
each of the conditional-style districts are designed for projects considered certain to be constructed with firm development plans and a schedule to complete the project. The two year
vesting period established by statute may or may not be reasonable, but desire is to offer a means to extend that vesting period and a methodology of doing so to accommodate
the developer who for one reason or another may not have been able to complete a project. Anthony Prinz agreed a more efficient way to extend a �
�against their will because it has been deemed
inactive. He noted regardless the special use permit would expire in two years and the owner would be required to request an extension or update from the county.
confirmed Mr. Prinz was correct in regard to a conditional use district or a special use permit; however, there is no special use permit for the conditional district, the river front
mixed-use district or the exceptional design zoning district. Shawn Ralston commented that applying for a building permit would truly vest a project. Vice Chairman Hilla �
� Ms. Ralston
the
building permit. Mr. Prinz noted the proposed amendment would basically apply only if there was no activity. David Weaver said on line 3 the amendment states a building permit has not
been issued for the subject tract. He noted there is a major difference between issuing a building permit and applying for a building permit, he asked for clarification on which would
be considered an active effort. Mr. explained applying for a building permit would be considered an active effort; whereas, obtaining a building permit would provide vesting
through statute. Mr. Weaver asked the attorney to clarify if there was a differ
�
� Assistant County Attorney
Sharon Huffman felt otherwise.
Chairman Collier opened the public comment portion of the hearing. Cindee Wolf, a land planner, spoke in support of the ordinance amendment with some clarification
�
�in which a former Planning
staff member said they could just revoke it. Ms. Wolf spoke in opposition at that time based upon the need to provide due process, which would include notifying the property owner and
holding public hearings before the planning board and county commissioners. Ms. Wolf stated in her
Page 21 of 29 opinion the proposed amendment would not be unfair to the property owner because it would require due process to be followed. �
�process, she has no problem with it. She noted Ms. Huffman verified two years ago that
due process must be followed. Ms. Huffman confirmed due process would be required, which included notifying the owner and giving the owner the opportunity to express their consent or
opposition at the public hearings; however, the consent of the owner was not required. Ms. Wolf stated appreciat�
�concerns. Mr. Prinz said he still questioned the value of that exercise, noting we seem to be creating work for no
purpose. The special use permit and rezoning was obtained for a responsibility to change it if the permit expires.
He understand why the County needs to change the zoning for the owner. offered some insight, noting the O&I property considered
earlier is a good example. The rezoning was approved in consideration of a specific project that was well done and excellently presented by Ms. Wolf, but as time went on, proved not
to be a viable project. The zoning in that area without that project is consistent with the rest of the zoning only if it is R-15; it is really an island in the middle of R-15 zoning
so perhaps another O&I use would not be appropriate. Whereas, as a CD (O&I) it may be discouraging residential development on that very parcel. Mr. Prinz stated he still �
�it should be the burden of the property owner
to address the issue. added that the language states staff may recommend that the board of commissioners revoke the approved rezoning so if did appear that it
was not appropriate and there was some compelling reason then the hearings would take place and due process would be followed. Mr. Prinz stated they simply had a philosophical difference
of Tyler Newman, of Business Alliance for a Sound Economy, s
support of the amendment and noted the benefit was that it sets up a process; however, to Mr. point about active efforts, in this economic
climate some developers would say that arguing with the bank counts as active efforts and may take up to a two year period. He reported their attorney felt there should be some guidance
and criteria for what are because of the potential outcome and it should not be left up to the discretion of staff. Mr. Newman recommended rather than
developing examples and definitions at 9pm on the fly, it should be discussed in the interim and the amendment should be brought forward at the next Planning Board meeting.
congratulated Mr. Newman on his new job with the City of Wilmington and expressed appreciation for his assistance with County issues through the years. He then noted
he felt it would be difficult to write language to it is presented as
someone has the discretion to consider the developers statement and determine if it is an active effort. Vice Chair Dan Hilla agreed with Mr. Newman that some language would be appropriate
and the decision �
�bankers or other things that could constitute an rtaking a project work. Mr. Hilla stated
Page 22 of 29 Richard Collier made a motion to postpone the item to the November Planning Board meeting so that staff can have an opportu
to make the amendment more clear and include some definitive terms to solidify
it. Dan Hilla seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to postpone Text Amendment A-405 to the November Planning Board meeting. Item 5: Text Amendment (A-406, 10/12) -Request
by Staff to amend Section 111-2.1, 112.1 and 121-3 to provide clarification to community meeting requirements and notification requirements. Shawn Ralston stated the amendment was brought
forward in response to a request from the County Managers and County Commissioners to clarify the community meeting requirements. During a recent case heard by the Commissioners, a question
arose about whether a tenant should have been notified about a community meeting that was held. She explained Section 111-2.1 of the zoning ordinance sets out the requirements for a
community meeting, which is held before an application is actually submitted to Planning staff; therefore, staff has no input in what goes into the notification or in the content of
that community meeting. The proposed amendment would require that: 1) a pre-application conference occur with Planning & Inspections staff before the community meeting is held to provide
staff with the opportunity to discuss the community meeting requirements with the applicant before they have the meeting; 2) notice will be provided via mail or other agreed upon measure
at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the community meeting; 3) notice will be provided to each owner of record of land (including tenants) within 500 feet of and on the property
for which development approvals are sought; and 4) notice will be provided to the Sunshine List, which includes anyone signed up to receive public notifications from County Planning.
(200+ people are currently signed up to receive notices) Ms. Ralston reported that after discussions with several board members prior to the meeting, staff had determined it may be unnecessary
to require the applicant to provide a list of those that were not able to be contacted and reason(s) why contact was not successful in the community meeting report submitted to Planning
& Inspections. Ms. Ralston stated staff was also seeking to amend the notification process for zoning classification changes and special use permits found in Section 112 and for the
Board of Adjustment in Section 121. Staff is proposing in addition to the statutory requirement of notifying the adjoining property owners, to notify all owners and tenants of the subject
tract and parcels within 500 feet where practicable, which is in line with the community meeting notification. Chairman Collier concurred with the deletion of 111-2.1 (2), the list of
those unable to be contacted and the reasons
why because he sees it as overkill and a a very subjective effort of someone providing a list of names
David Weaver asked if requiring a sign to be posted be considered overkill. Ms. Ralston
commented staff had determined that a sign at the community center would have been helpful in notifying the tenants for the most recent case so the pre-application meeting would be helpful
in determining the best means of notifying the tenants within the area. She noted many tenants receive newsletters via email or some way other than mail.
Page 23 of 29 Mr. Weaver offered the example of an EDZD project in Porters Neck where people that live more than 500 feet away might benefit if they saw a community meeting sign as they
drove by the proposed project. Ms. Ralston
during the pre-application conference. In response to a question from Chairman Collier regarding the potential for applicants to borrow signs from the County, Ms. Ralston
Rezoning. She noted staff had recently purchased signs similar
to political signs in order to advertise a Bicycle and Pedestrian meeting. Chairman Collier opened the public comment portion of the hearing. Tyler Newman, of BASE, stated concern about
the identification of tenants, noting language from an attorney regarding basically posting a notice inside a community, such as an apartment complex because of the transient nature
of tenants and trying to identify them especially with the previous section that required applicants to identify everybody they .
The combination of those two things is especially problematic, but removing one takes away part of the concern. He commented the notification of tenants individually would be a tall
order. Chairman Collier stated there had been discussion about placing notices for apartment complexes at clubhouses, the management office, and other common areas to avoid direct mail
and door to door notification, which would be difficult. Tyler Newman stated he had language that would speak to those options he could forward to staff. Cindee Wolf stated doubt there
were many situations when notifications to apartment complexes would be required in the county. She liked the idea of posting a sign because it would be more logical and people have
become familiar with seeing the public hearing signs. For other situations, the key would be to send a letter to the owner and to the situs address also
address. David Weaver �
�applicant shall provide written notice by mail or other agreed upon measure and noted those measures to post a sign, etc. could be determined
at the pre-application meeting. Mr. Prinz stated the purpose of the pre-application meeting is to deal with all of the unique circumstances of each case, rather than nailing down those
details in the code. He noted there is language stating the Planning Board will consider whether those efforts were adequate at the meeting. Tamara Murphy made a motion to accept the
amendment for Item #5 with the changes as recommended by the chairman on the deletion of number 2 under the requirements for the report. David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning
Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of Text Amendment A-406. Item 6: Text Amendment (A-407, 10/12) -Request by Staff to amend Section 111 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow petitions
to be resubmitted within twelve months if substantial changes are made. Shawn Ralston stated Section 111 of the zoning ordinance addresses the submittal procedures, which currently require
that if a final action has occurred on any petition or if there is a withdrawal of a petition
Page 24 of 29 after public notice, there must be a twelve month waiting period before the petitioner can come back with a change or a resubmittal of any kind. Staff proposes the following
changes: 1) If a final action has occurred, a petitioner can come back with a resubmittal within twelve months if a substantial change has occurred. 2) If a withdrawal has occurred after
the notification period, a petitioner can resubmit a request within twelve months if a substantial change has occurred. Ms. Ralston stated substantial change is discussed elsewhere in
the ordinance. Section 71, the special use permit section of the ordinance, states a substantial change includes circumstances affecting the property that is the subject of the application
that have changed since the denial and new information is available that could not have with reasonable diligence have been presented at a previous hearing. Ms. Ralston
After a final action has occurred on a petition, a new application
may be accepted if a substantial change has occurred. This would restate the language in a positive manner, rather than a negative manner. Chairman Collier asked for comments from
the board on the amendment. David Weaver s suggested language, with the clarification that a new application
may Ms. Ralston stated substantial change is defined in two ways in
the ordinance. Chairman Collier was agreeablAfter a final action has occurred on a petitio�
�nly if a substantial change has occurred. Mr. Prinz stated the opinion the amendment would be a positive and would provide better flexibility
for applicants. He noted the board had struggled with the requirement for the last three years. Chairman Collier opened the public comment portion of the hearing. No one from the public
spoke on the item. The chairman closed the public hearing and requested direction from the board. Andy Heath made a motion to recommend approval of the rewrite of the amendment in a
more positive fashion. Chairman Collier asked the County Attorney if the language was specific enough for the motion. County Attorney Sharon Huffman recommended more specific language
be used in the motion. Andy Heath amended the motion to recommend approval of the amendment with Section 111-3, paragraphs 4 and 5 rewritten in a more positive manner that reads �
� has been
-0 to recommend approval of Text Amendment A-407. Item 7: Text Amendment (A-408, 10/12) -Request by Staff to add Section 53.1 to the Zoning Ordinance
to create a by right R-7: Medium Density District.
Page 25 of 29 explained the only change to the amendment since the September work session was to make the district eligible in the Community land classification,
as well as the Urban and Transition land classifications as originally proposed. The ordinance provides a tool for people to build up to 6 units per acre on 7,000 square foot lots, which
is fairly common in mostly urbanized areas like New Hanover County. It is a provision to promote higher quality, affordable housing for a greater range of lifestyles. These communities
should be in close proximity to commercial and employment centers. It is consistent romote density in those areas where it
is appropriate, where there is some commercial activity, where infrastructure is already in place, and where there are either similar or complementary development styles nearby. The
district would not be available to development where the land use plan further limits density. stated the lot sizes are described as: 1) minimum 7,000 square
foot lot; 2) minimum lot width of 50 feet; 3) minimum front yard of 25 feet; 4) minimum side yard of 8 feet; 5) minimum rear yard of 20 feet; and 5) maximum height of 35 feet. The lot
sizes are consistent with other districts in the ordinance. Performance residential standards are available to all residential districts and in this district up to 6 units per acre could
be built. There is a thoroughfare requirement that the district be on a major or minor arterial or on a collector street or a street built to collector standards. There are setbacks
and buffers required only if the project will include attached residential units. Several district improvements are required, including CFPUA Water and Sewer, maximum impervious surface
ratio for gross site area of .50, and sidewalks along all roads within district. reviewed the proposed Table of Permitted Uses. Because of increased density in
R-7, a special special use permit will be required for Residential Care Facilities, Elementary and Secondary Schools, and Libraries & Churches. Duplexes will be a permitted use in R-7;
duplexes require a special use permit in R-10. No high density option will be available with special use permit in R-7. He reported if the Planning Board felt it was appropriate, they
may want to add Special Fundraising for Non-profit Organizations as a permitted use in the R-7 district. In response to a question from Chairman Collier, stated
each residential district in the ordinance can be built to performance standards, which allow lots to be clustered on the piece of property most suitable for development and allows greater
flexibility to avoid wetlands or provide open space. He clarified the performance residential provision would require a developer to meet the density requirement, but not the lot size
requirements; thereby, allowing smaller lot sizes and reduced setbacks of 10 feet between structures. In response to a question from Anthony Prinz, Shawn Ralston clarified that Residential
Care Facilities is a home with support and supervisory personnel that provides room and board, personal care, and rehab services in a family environment for no more than six people,
like a group home. Anthony Prinz stated it was odd to require a special use permit in R-7 for Residential Care Facilities, Elementary Schools, and Libraries, noting he felt it was inconsistent
with everything else around it. Dan Hilla inquired about the reason a special use permit was required for those uses. explained the reason for the special use
permit was the significant impact of those large uses on the community around them. He agreed Mr. Prinz had made a good point so to changing
Libraries and Schools to a permitted use. Mr. Weaver felt this would most likely never come up because these would be new applications. EDZD has it permitted by right because it is already
planned into into the site plan. In this case, the special use permit
Page 26 of 29 requirement requires that the church, school, library or residential care facility be planned into the site so he could see the need for a special use permit.
stated the trend in churches is toward the mega-church concept, which staff feels needs a heightened review so the impacts can be considered. Chairman Collier agreed with Mr. Weaver,
noting the higher density of R-7 and that fact that the facilities
Mr. Prinz to offer some transportation language in the thoroughfare requirements, possibly referencing a map.
Per a question from Mr. Prinz, clarified the language was similar to the thoroughfare requirement section of the ordinance; however, it was different in that staff
wants to allow flexibility on that collector street so that a new collector street can be constructed. Staff would like to make it clear that �
�shown on the collector street map to satisfy the requirement. Mr. Prinz felt that was a good idea, but voiced concern about aligning regulations with a document
that is approved by an advisory board that consists of people from other jurisdictions. He suggested pointing to the NCDOT Functional Classification Map because it is a document set
by the Federal Highway Transportation Board. He noted adding the flexibility to allow development on roads constructed to collector street standards would accomplish what is needed.
development shall have direct access to and from a major or minor arterial
as indicated Chairman Collier -7
should only be accessed from major or minor arterials, but wants the flexibility for the developer to build a new collector street to attach to the arterials. After some discussion regarding
language and intent, Mr. Prinz suggested simply as identified by the NCDOT Functional Classification Map Chairman Collier asked if the board was in agreement that
Special Fundraising should be a permitted use and Residential Care, Elementary Schools, Libraries and Churches should remain as allowed with a Special Use Permit. It was the consensus
of the board. Chairman Collier opened the public comment portion of the hearing. Cindee Wolf, a land planner, stated a medium density zone has long been needed in New Hanover County
so she applauded the staff for their efforts. She then addressed the infill item, stating she strongly believed R-7 is appropriate attached to collector streets, regardless of how you
define them. She explained having to have direct access through the thoroughfare definition has been a nightmare for high density projects just because there has been some interpretation
to it. The R-7 is a medium density intended for infill so it does need to be allowed to connect to collector streets. She commented it may not be appropriate to go through a residential
community with a lot of local streets and put an R-7 at the back of it; however, if it has a collector road system, she did believe R-7 should be permitted. Mr. Wolf asked the board
to consider allowing R-7 on a collector road system. Ms. Wolf stated there are no R-7 zones currently so every R-7 will come in as a rezoning. She felt any R-7 application would most
likely come in as a R-7 CD so there would be an opportunity to micromanage the type of product being introduced and where it is. It must also meet the traffic impact criteria. R-7 is
Page 27 of 29 only appropriate for urban areas that already have the characteristics that are going to support medium density. Ms. Wolf stated setbacks are her biggest concern. The setbacks
introduced are pulled from another high density part of the ordinance. It has always been a nightmare as a planner to deal with setbacks based on �
�before you can get
the setback. As an infill zoning district, you will find it is in a suburban category and will be small and limited sites. She noted a normal 2-�
�
purpose of infill infill development with those setbacks. Ms. Wolf asked the board to consider removing the multiplier and to simply require attached
housing to have a setback of 35 feet around the perimeter of the tract and then the minimum buffer yard is 20 feet, protecting the adjacent properties. Mr. Hilla asked if it would also
be appropriate to have a maximum building height. Ms. Wolf stated the maximum building height could still be 35 feet. Performance residential is not dedicated to product so six units
on 6 acres could become 36 lots at 7,000 square feet or 36 lots clustered at 5,000 square feet or a 3-story, 36 unit apartment building. That is wherein staff will probably want to be
able to condition everything and review the project. She felt a 50 foot setback would be exorbitant, but a 35 foot perimeter setback would be appropriate. If the project was determined
as a 3-story building, a larger setback could be a condition established during the hearing process. She suggested the setbacks be set around the perimeter so the county does not hamstring
itself into bad development because we have a multiplier that might result in a 96 foot setback with a 48 foot buffer. Ms. Wolf commented for attached housing in an R-7 district, there
would be a specific building height based. stated
a 35 foot setback may be appropriate as she suggested; however, staff would want to research it to determine a reasonable setback. Ms. Wolf
explained she had encountered that situation fairly typically for this type of division of uses and densities. She noted there is still a 20 foot buffer yard to protect adjacent properties.
Dan Hilla commented Ms. Wolf had a good point about the setbacks especially on infill sites, which is appropriate for R-7. The setbacks could make it prohibitive to build on infill sites.
He felt staff was not comfortable establishing a number for the setback if it is not tied to height and wondered if that one item should wait until next month or maybe address the setback
issue next month. stated the board could adopt the item and direct staff to look at setbacks and bring a recommendation back next month for the amendment. Anthony
Prinz stated concern that the thoroughfare requirement language was not clear. He agreed that a project like this should be allowed to be developed on a collector street and that should
be very clear in the ordinance. It should be located on a major or minor arterial or a collector street. stated in addition to that it can be located on a collection
of collector streets. Richard Collier made a motion to suspend Item 7 until the November planning board meeting to allow staff to go over the items discussed by the board; modify the
Table of Uses; add in the ; work on the transportation because
the planning board is more comfortable with having major and minor arterials and collector roads as being the access to R-7 properties; and look at the perimeter setbacks for attached
housing. David Weaver seconded the
Page 28 of 29 motion, but admitted he had concerns about reducing the setbacks and the potential impact of a fairly high building on adjacent properties. The Planning Board voted 7-0
to suspend Text Amendment A-408 to the November Planning Board meeting. Chairman Collier extra
work sessions for board members related to the amendments. Technical Review Committee Report -September Sam Burgess announced that the Technical Review Committee met
twice during the month of September and reviewed three (3) plans one performance residential project, a street right-of-way dedication, and one high density project. Wildflower (Performance
Plan) Wildflower is located in the central portion of our jurisdiction and is classified as Urban on the
intensive development of land based on the availability of public infrastructure. The developer for the
project requested TRC to consider a 57 lot division located near the western end of Albemarle Road. Albemarle Road is just north of Market Street near Judges Road. Project particulars
include public streets, public water & sewer, and good street inter-connectivity between Wildflower proper and Crestwood subdivisions. In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the performance
preliminary site plan for Wildflower with the following conditions: no gates or obstructions along the street network and a new unduplicated development name. Shoals Drive (R/W Dedication)
Shoals Drive is located in Bayshore Estates subdivision near the Ogden Community. The �
�northern portion of Shoals Drive was designated and eventually constructed for public use but never
formally dedicated as a right-of-way. The developer for Bayshore Estates, Inc. requested TRC to approve the right-of-way dedication of the northern portion of Shoals Drive so it would
be considered by NCDOT for placement on their highway maintenance system. In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved preliminary right-of-way dedicated for the northern portion of Shoals Drive.
No conditions were placed on the plan. Stephens Pointe (High Density Plan) Mr. Burgess noted the project had been discussed earlier; therefore he would not review the TRC Report. Sam
Burgess reported that he had received information from the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority indicating that their Long Range Planning Committee had recommended adjusting their certificate
for final plats. The current CFPUA certificate is located in the appendices of the Subdivision regulations. The CFPUA certificate is placed on the final plat, is signed by an official
of the CFPUA indicating that the water and sewer construction drawings or as-builts meet their approval, and does not require any type
Page 29 of 29 of approval by the Planning staff. The new certificate adds information indicating the person that is offering for dedication water and sewer along with any common area
or easement will be bound to that particular dedication and in the last sentence is basically stating that approval of the plat does not guarantee the availability of public water and
sewer services. Mr. Burgess stated the revised certificate was basically a policy issue, but welcomed any comments or suggestions from the Planning Board before the item is sent to the
County Commissioners for approval. Vice Chairman Hilla asked why someone would dedicate property to the Cguaranteeing services on.
commented the certificate change was most likely a simple disclaimer that services were not guaranteed. Mr. Prinz asked if the County had any choice in the matter. If we indicated we
wanted to keep the current certificate, would CFPUA agree and sign it. Chairman Collier Collier �
�simply covering itself as the rest of us would have to do. Mr. Weaver
sewer, but he would be concerned if he was a developer about the broad nature
of the statement that the blic water and sewer purposes of
common areas, and rights-of-way shown on the plat. In response to a question from Dan Hilla, Mr. Weaver stated this statement could be attached to a plat for a subdivision with
septic tanks and individual wells. He noted the certificate enables the CFPUA to plan for the future. When there is a subdivision in an area with no public water and sewer availability,
the CFPUA would still review the plan to determine what their future plans may be in that area and what they may need for easements, etc. commented the County
may need to recommend the language be changed to clarify the intent. Following a short discussion, Chairman Collier stated it was the consensus of the board to request CFPUA clarify
the certificate language so that CFPUA is not obtaining access to all easements, common areas, and rights-of-way shown on the plat. Andy Heath
statement. announced a new staff member,
Ken Vafier, had been hired as the Senior Zoning Compliance Official. Sam Burgess reminded the board one public hearing item, Three Oaks, is scheduled for the October 15th Commissioners
meeting beginning at 9:00 a.m. and asked for a volunteer to serve as the Planning Board representative. Chairman Collier volunteered to attend the meeting. The Planning Board voted 7-0
to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m.