Loading...
2015-03 March 5 2015 PBM Page 1 of 15 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board March 5, 2015 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the Historic County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Edward “Ted” Shipley, III, Chairman Kenneth Vafier, Planning Manager Donna Girardot, Vice Chair Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Lisa Mesler Sam Burgess, Senior Planner Tamara Murphy Brad Schuler, Current Planner Anthony Prinz Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Jordy Rawl Bill McDow, Wilmington Metropolitan Planning David Weaver Organization Chairman Ted Shipley opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Ted Shipley reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of February 2015 Planning Board Minutes Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a motion to approve the February Planning Board minutes. Chairman Shipley seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the February 5, 2015 Planning Board meeting minutes. Chairman Shipley then announced a change in the order of the hearing items on the agenda, explaining that Planning staff had received a request from the applicant to continue Rezoning Request Z-939 to a later date based on information gathered during agency comments on the application. Item 3: Rezoning Request (Z-939, 3/15) – Request by Design Solutions on behalf of multiple property owners to rezone 12.77 acres from B-2, Highway Business District, and R-15, Residential District, to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business Zoning District, to develop a commercial shopping center at the 7100 block of Market Street at the intersection of Middle Sound Loop Road. The property is classified as Transition and Watershed Resource Protection according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Chairman Shipley entertained discussion and/or a motion from the board to continue the rezoning request. David Weaver made a motion to continue Rezoning Request Z-939 to the April Planning Board meeting. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to continue Rezoning Request Z-939 to the April Planning Board meeting. Page 2 of 15 Item 1: Special Use Permit Request (S-625, 3/15) – Request by Keresa Anderson-Young to operate a child care center at her residence at 7245 Savanna Run Loop. The property is zoned R-10, Residential District, and is classified as Wetland Resource Protection according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Schuler presented the following staff report: This is an application to allow a child care center to be located at 7254 Savanna Run Loop, which is within the Park Ridge at West Bay Estates subdivision. The parcels immediately surrounding the site contain predominately single-family residential with many subdivisions within the area. South of the property is Ogden Park. The property is classified as Wetland Resource Protection in the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. A child care center, as defined by the zoning ordinance, is an arrangement where, at any one time, there are three or more preschool-age children or nine of more school-age children receiving child care. Currently, the applicant is seeking to provide care for up to 10 preschool-age children. The county’s zoning regulations on child care facilities were amended in 2013 to make them more consistent with the state’s requirements. As a result, two uses were created: child care centers and family care homes. The main difference between the uses is the number of children that can be cared for, and typically were they are located. Family care homes are limited in the number of children they can care for, and are located within a residence. While child care centers can care for more children and can be a more commercially-oriented facility. That being said, child care centers can also locate within a residence provided they do not care for more than 12 children, which is a state requirement. The State, specifically the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, also regulates child care facilities and imposes additional standards that address a variety of safety and health related issues. So in addition to obtaining the SUP, the applicant must also obtain approval from the Department of Health and Human Services prior to operating a child care center. Please note too that the state may further restrict the number of children allowed to be cared for depending on the design of the residence. Some general information on the state’s building requirements for this use was included in the Planning Board packet. The required parking improvements for these facilities were also addressed when the zoning ordinance was amended. Previously, the same parking improvements for commercial businesses were required for these facilities. However, the amendment Page 3 of 15 reduced those required improvements after the county received consistent concern from the adjacent property owners. What staff found was that generally the neighbors supported the business, but they did not support the parking improvements, which can reduce the residential quality of a neighborhood. Since the amendment, staff has allowed the required parking to be located within the driveway of the subject property. In this application, the applicant is required to have four parking spaces. Two spaces are required for the single-family dwelling, and two spaces are required for the child care center. Two spaces are generally a sufficient amount as the parking is very short term and staggered during the pick-up and drop-off times. The applicant has provided pictures, and staff prepared a site plan in conjunction with the applicant illustrating that four parking spaces are available within the existing driveway. Staff is recommending approval of this application finding that it meets the required Findings of Fact. Chairman Shipley asked if board members had questions for staff. In response to a question from Jordy Rawl, Mr. Schuler confirmed that Savanna Run Loop is a private road. Hearing no other questions, Chairman Shipley opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Mrs. Keresa Anderson-Young stated she was applying for a special use permit for a maximum of ten children. She reported she had met all requirements for a child care in a residence. She has worked with children for twelve years in a residence and loves it. Since she moved into the neighborhood in 2014, there has been a big need for child care in the area. There will be no changes on the outside structure of her residence. There will be minimum traffic as all parents have different drop-off and pick-up times. The harmony will remain in the neighborhood and will not be affected. Ms. Anderson-Young stated belief that the expansion of her in-home child care expansion will be great for the neighborhood. She thanked the board for their consideration of the request. Chairman Shipley inquired if board members had any questions for the applicant. Hearing none, he opened the opposition portion of the hearing. Donna Hogan of 447 Putnam Drive stated she owns the home behind the residence proposed for the child care. She has tenants in that home that often work nights and are caring for a mother with Alzheimer’s, who suffers from the associated Sundowning Syndrome which causes her to be awake and roam during the night. Her tenants are against the proposed day care center for those reasons. She is also against the request because she contacted CAMS to see if there were any restrictive homeowners association covenants against it and there are. No one is supposed to use the home for anything, but residential purposes. The covenants also state that no noxious or offensive activity shall be carried out on any lot, nor shall anything be carried on which may be an annoyance to the neighborhood. She would interpret that as having ten children in a day care Page 4 of 15 center with people coming in and out of the neighborhood for ten different children. While she respected the applicant for trying to have their own business, she felt the proposal would turn into a situation where there would be fines against the homeowner because she bought a home in a community that has rules and regulations. She commented that she also has her own business. Ms. Hogan stated she had a copy of highlighted parts of the homeowners association covenants if the board would like to review them. Chairman Shipley asked which HOA declarations were provided and asked for a summary. Ms. Hogan summarized the rules and regulations were for the neighborhoods at Westbay. Even though the community is considered Park Ridge, CAMS told her that the restrictive covenants for Windsor Place and Garlington Heights at Westbay Estates are the restrictive covenants. She stated she is a realtor and these were the covenants attached to the online listings for properties currently for sale in the community. She printed page one and highlighted that as the restricted covenants and then printed page 23 that addresses residential purposes, noxious activities and nuisances. She also had the rules and regulations. Diana Johns of 451 Putnam Drive stated she resides next door to Ms. Hogan’s home. Her husband works at General Electric and works often at night so he obviously sleeps during the day. That is the biggest issue she has with the request. She doesn’t have anything against caring for children, but ten children, mostly school-aged, will want to play outside. Traffic is already horrendous on Putnam Drive, and residents are also dealing with the issue of the highway coming in the next few years. The neighborhood is constantly putting in speed bumps so people will slow down. The proposal is located on the next road over and will add more traffic on an already congested road. Ms. Johns reiterated her husband works nights and likes to sleep during the day and with ten kids that will be a problem. Chairman Shipley opened the rebuttal portion of the hearing and recognized the applicant, Ms. Anderson-Young. Ms. Anderson-Young stated she purchased her home in April 2014 and explained that a special use permit isn’t required for the eight children, five preschool and three after school, she has been providing childcare services for during the last year. She has never had any problems. She reported when she purchased the home she had also contacted Westbay and was told that as long as there are no signs in the yard and no changes to the structure of the house, there would be no problem. She hasn’t made any changes to the structure of the house and doesn’t have a sign. With that information, she moved forward with the special use permit request. She reiterated she isn’t required to have a special use permit for the eight children she has provided childcare services to for the last year. Chairman Shipley entertained a motion to close the public hearing and enter the board discussion period. Anthony Prinz made a motion to close the public hearing and enter the board discussion period. Chairman Shipley seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to close the public hearing and enter the board discussion period. Page 5 of 15 Chairman Shipley asked for confirmation from the county attorney that the Planning Board is not allowed to enforce HOA covenants or restrictions. Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman confirmed the chairman was correct in the opinion that the board could not enforce HOA covenant restrictions. That would be a litigation matter by the homeowners association. The board could certainly take into consideration that information in determining if the request was in harmony with the community if there was a violation of the community rules and regulations; however she would not suggest that it would rise to the level of competent material and substantial evidence necessary to rebut the presumption that the applicant has reached at this point. In response to an inquiry from David Weaver, Brad Schuler and Ms. Anderson-Young confirmed the fence in the backyard is opaque and approximately six-feet high and meets the requirements established by the State of North Carolina. She also confirmed the fence, as well as the drainage easement located behind her property serve as a buffer between her property and the neighbors. Vice Chair Girardot commented she had seen Ms. Young’s house, which is fenced and on a cul- de-sac. She asked in regard to parking, if people would be dropping off and picking up in a staggered manner. Ms. Anderson-Young confirmed the parents of the children she cares for have different drop-off times and pick-up times so the number of cars there at one time is limited. She has a high school aged child and a preschooler and is currently providing care for six children. She is licensed for eight children, five preschoolers and three after-schoolers. She has been providing childcare services at her home since she obtained her license in March 2014. In response to Vice Chair Girardot’s inquiry, Ms. Anderson-Young confirmed the special use permit would allow her to expand to ten children and essentially provide services for two additional children. In response to Vice Chair Girardot’s inquiry about hours of operation, Ms. Anderson-Young stated the current hours are 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Vice Chair Girardot asked in regard to comments about the HOA rules and nuisances, if there were any specific rules against a day care facility, noting Ms. Anderson-Young is currently licensed. Ms. Anderson-Young confirmed she is currently a licensed child care provider and reported she had gone to the homeowners association regarding operating a child care facility and was told not to change any structure on the property or post signs in the yard. In regard to concerns about the use being a nuisance, she has never had any problems with any of her neighbors. They all received notifications of the special use permit request and had contacted her. Many of them didn’t even know she operated a child care until they saw the notice. She also noted there had never been any problem with traffic because no one knew she had a child care facility. Page 6 of 15 Chairman Shipley commented in regard to noxious and offensive activities, generally he would consider that a child care facility doesn’t rise to the level of noxious and offensive. In shopping center leases where that language, although vague, is often applied, it refers to something far more egregious than a child care center. He inquired if Ms. Huffman agreed. Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman agreed with the chairman’s comments and asked if that was the language used in the covenants. She commented most folks would agree that a child care center is typically not noxious or offensive. Chairman Shipley noted that the rules provided state that no noxious or offensive activity shall be carried out upon any lot and also refers to an activity which may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. The language is incredibly vague, but noxious or offensive activity is usually something pretty egregious. He simply wanted to clarify that issue. Anthony Prinz expressed agreement with the Chairman’s comments, noting his son currently attends child care and he would hope he’s not considered an annoyance and the daycare is not considered a noxious type of use. He personally felt that these types of things are very consistent with residential types of uses. Noting it happens all over the country, he would hope that neighbors are willing to accept children playing in the backyard as part of their community. Mr. Prinz asked Ms. Anderson-Young if she had talked to the management company that currently administers the homeowners association when she talked to the homeowners association and who her point of contact was at that time. Ms. Anderson-Young stated she had spoken with a woman, but didn’t remember her name. She simply contacted the association and asked them the questions. She reported she had also personally reviewed the handbook. Mr. Prinz explained he asked that question because the connection is not really clear, noting there are two completely different documents being presented as documentation that this use is against the homeowners association covenants. He also couldn’t track how those documents are connected to Ms. Anderson-Young’s parcel as described by Ms. Hogan. Mr. Prinz asked Ms. Anderson-Young if she was convinced that the homeowners association is okay with her child care business. Ms. Anderson-Young confirmed she was sure, reiterating their instructions to follow the rules regarding no signs and not altering the structure of her house. She has obeyed all of the rules. She was never told she couldn’t operate a child care and it is not stated in the handbook either. Ms. Anderson-Young also confirmed she had not received any complaints from her other neighbors. Vice Chair Girardot asked Ms. Johns to clarify whether the neighborhood her property is located in shares the same homeowners association as the applicant’s neighborhood. Page 7 of 15 Ms. Johns confirmed it is the same; it is CAMS. She noted Ms. Hogan had actually spoken with the manager there earlier that day and she was not aware of a daycare. She pointed out that Item One in the homeowners association covenants states that no business in a residential community is allowed. This would be considered a business. Vice Chair Girardot stated she was confused about whether they were talking about the same homeowners association. Ms. Johns stated it is CAMS; it is the same homeowners association. Vice Chair Girardot commented that CAMS is the name of an overall management corporation. She asked for clarification on the homeowners association and whether the opposition and applicant residences are located in different subdivisions. Ms. Johns explained that her home and Ms. Hogan’s property are located in the Putnam Run subdivision and Ms. Anderson-Young resides in Park Ridge subdivision. These subdivisions are adjacent so their properties back up to each other. In response to Vice Chair Girardot’s inquiry, Ms. Johns confirmed the subdivisions have different homeowners associations, but both are managed by CAMS. When they called CAMS, they said they were all the same. . Vice Chair Girardot commented that the subdivisions could have two different sets of covenants. Ms. Johns acknowledged that Donna Hogan would be the best person to answer that question because she actually spoke with CAMS. The covenants in Westbay Estates, Putnam Run, and Park Ridge are all the same. David Weaver commented he felt it was the planning board’s duty to deal with county regulations and county planning documents and the board should not be involved in adjudicating homeowners association disputes. Chairman Shipley agreed with Mr. Weaver, noting if the item moves forward to the county commissioners, it may be advisable for the proper person from the homeowners association to appear before that board to address that issue if they are so inclined. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Shipley entertained a motion from the board. Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-625 finding that all Findings of Fact as stated in the staff report are positive. Tamara Murphy seconded the motion. Vice Chair Girardot asked if Mr. Prinz was agreeable amending the motion to include hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Page 8 of 15 Anthony Prinz offered an amended motion to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-625 finding that all Findings of Fact as stated in the staff report are positive with one condition: 1) Hours of operation be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Tamara Murphy seconded the amended motion. Ms. Anderson-Young confirmed support for limiting hours of operation to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. David Weaver made a motion to close debate on the motion. Chairman Ted Shipley seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to close debate on the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit Request S-625 finding that all Findings of Fact as stated in the staff report are positive with one condition: 1) Hours of operation be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Item 2: Special Use Permit Request (S-626, 3/15) – Request by Darek Huckbody on behalf of New Hanover County to operate an indoor recreation use at 1817 Hall Drive. The property is zoned AI, Airport Industrial, and is classified as Transition according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Vice Chair Girardot stated for the record that she is a member of the Airport Authority Board; however, she had consulted with the County Attorney and Assistant County Attorney and it had been determined that because she will have no personal financial benefit from this item, she will not have to recuse herself from considering the special use permit request being brought forward this evening. Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Schuler presented the following staff report: This is an application to allow an indoor recreation use to be located at 1817 Hall Drive. The site is zoned AI, Airport Industrial, and is located on the same parcel as the Wilmington International Airport, which approximately 1,300 acres in size. The surrounding land uses are mostly airport operations. The closest residential property is approximately 1,750 feet from the proposed location of the indoor recreation use. The site is accessed from both Hall Drive (SR 1386) and Trask Drive (SR 1312). Hall Drive connects directly into Blue Clay Road, approximately one half mile north of 23rd Street. The indoor recreation use being proposed is a laser tag business, which is currently proposed to occupy 10,263 square feet of a 20,600 square foot building. The use will consist of approximately 9,000 square feet of recreation area and 1,500 square feet for Page 9 of 15 administrative purposes. The business plans on using a maximum of around 40 parking spaces to accommodate both staff and customers. While the current proposal is seeking to use just a portion of the building, the applicant has requested that the SUP application include the entire building so that the business may expand into the remaining portions of the building without having to modify the SUP. As SUPs run with the land and not with the applicant, if this application is approved, any indoor recreation use would be allowed to occupy the building. Staff recommends approval of the application with the following condition, as it meets the required findings of fact as detailed in the case analysis. Staff is recommending this condition be placed on the permit to clarify that any initiation or expansion of an indoor recreation use must still undergo an official review to verify compliance with the applicable standards of the zoning ordinance. Condition: Prior to any initiation or expansion of an indoor recreation use, a zoning review must be conducted to ensure compliance with any applicable regulations in existence at that time. Chairman Shipley asked if the condition applied only to the 10,000 square feet or to the 20,000 square feet of the entire building. Mr. Schuler confirmed the condition would apply to the entire building. David Weaver inquired if approval of the special use permit would allow any indoor use in the building and asked about other indoor uses. Mr. Schuler confirmed approval of the special use permit would allow any indoor recreation use in the building, for example, a bowling alley. With any application, you must use the Table of Permitted Uses and classify the proposed use. In the current Table of Permitted Uses there is an indoor recreation use so any type of indoor recreation would fall under that use and have to meet those requirements. In response to Mr. Weaver’s question about an indoor shooting range, Ken Vafier, Planning Manager, explained that an indoor shooting range is a separately listed permitted use and would not apply in this instance. Mr. Weaver asked if the board could place a condition on this permit that limited the use to Laser Tag use, noting he isn’t familiar with all the different kinds of indoor recreation uses. Brad Schuler confirmed the board could limit the use to an exact use; however, the zoning ordinance classifies uses based on their impact on the surrounding properties. If there is a particular indoor recreation use that the board might have concerns with, the ordinance should classify that use as its own use and have specific standards for that use similar to the indoor shooting range. Page 10 of 15 Mr. Prinz stated maybe before the board makes a determination on whether that is appropriate, they could hear from staff on what would be allowed as an indoor recreation use. Mr. Vafier explained there was not a simple answer because within the Indoor Recreational Use there are not sub-categories broken down to list a bowling alley, batting cage, etc. so staff would have to interpret whether a use would be an indoor recreational use or another use that is covered in the Table of Permitted Uses or if staff feels the use is outside the category of an indoor recreational use. Essentially, if a proposal was received for the remainder of the building or for a new use of the building altogether, it could be a use that becomes subject to interpretation by the Planning staff. Tamara Murphy commented that the recommended condition appears to prevent the situation of the applicant changing the use because it requires them, prior to any initiation or expansion, to come back for a zoning review. Mr. Vafier confirmed it is the intent of the proposed condition to provide review by staff to determine if a proposed change of use would be allowed within the purview of the current special use permit or would require another review by the board for revision. The proposed condition will also give the applicant the flexibility to utilize the existing special use permit for what it is granted for, not limiting them just to one type of operation or a certain area within the building. David Weaver commented board members should be aware they are considering a special use permit for an indoor recreation facility, not a special use permit for an indoor laser tag facility. Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor, suggested that if there was a type of indoor recreation use that the board didn’t feel comfortable including in this potential approval, it wouldn’t be uncommon for the board to restrict a particular use. Chairman Shipley opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Darek Huckbody of 525 Tanbridge Road, the applicant, stated he had no comments at that time about staff’s presentation and offered to answer questions from the board. Chairman Shipley inquired if anyone else was present who wished to speak on behalf of the applicant. Jim Morton of the New Hanover County Airport Authority stated the applicant is somewhat part of the county, as the special use permit is proposed on county-owned property. The County signed the application to request the special use permit from the County. It is an unusual situation, but the Airport Authority is very supportive of this venture and hopes to get the board’s approval. In response to Chairman Shipley’s inquiry, Mr. Morton clarified that technically the County owns the land, which is leased by the Airport Authority, and the building is owned by the Airport Page 11 of 15 Authority so there are no other parties. The request involves only the County, the Airport Authority and Mr. Huckbody. Seeing no one present to speak in opposition to the special use permit request, Chairman Shipley stated the board would forego the rebuttal period and asked for a motion to close the public comment period. Anthony Prinz made a motion to close the public comment period. Chairman Shipley seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to close the public comment period. Chairman Shipley opened the planning board discussion period. Anthony Prinz commented that given the location of the building on the airport property, regardless of what the indoor recreation use is, he didn’t feel it would have an impact on the surrounding area. While he appreciated the information provided that there are other recreation opportunities if the laser tag isn’t a long-term tenant, he stated his full support of the staff recommendation allowing for a general indoor type of use. David Weaver stated agreement with Mr. Prinz’s comments. Chairman Shipley stated his questions were in regard to signage and the outward appearance of the building because there were no proposed pictures in the application package. He noted some family entertainment centers can be loud in terms of signage colors and aesthetics. He asked the applicant to address those issues. Mr. Huckbody stated the proposed logo colors are black and gold. They will follow whatever the regulations are in regarding to signage and aren’t planning anything too flashy. Mr. Schuler reported the ordinance requires signage for indoor recreation uses to be limited to one ground sign not to exceed 32 square feet and requires a minimum setback of 25 feet from the right-of-way. He noted there are more restrictive standards on signage for these uses. Jordy Rawl asked if the applicant had tentatively established any hours of operation. Mr. Huckbody confirmed they were considering summer hours and winter hours. Winter hours will focus on the after school timeframe depending on the customer base, possibly lunch time until 9:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m. at the latest on Friday and Saturday nights, but nothing past midnight. Chairman Shipley closed the planning board discussion period and read the required statement regarding the consequences of a denial of a special use permit. A special use permit, which is denied, can only be resubmitted if there has been a substantial change in the facts, evidence, or conditions of the application as determined by the Planning Director. At this time, you may ask to either continue the application to Page 12 of 15 a future meeting or to proceed with this board deciding whether to grant or deny the application. Darek Huckbody confirmed the applicant wished to proceed to a vote by the board. Chairman Shipley entertained a motion from the board. Anthony Prinz commented being an Appalachian State grad, he fully appreciated the black and gold motif. Anthony Prinz then made a motion to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-626 to the County Commissioners with the finding that all Findings of Fact included in the staff report are positive. Donna Girardot seconded the motion. During debate, Ms. Murphy asked if Mr. Prinz’s motion included the recommended staff condition. Anthony Prinz offered an amended motion to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-626 with the finding that all Findings of Fact included in the staff report are positive to include the condition in the staff report, which is: 1) Prior to any initiation or expansion of the indoor recreation use, a zoning review must be conducted to ensure compliance with any applicable regulations in existence at that time. Vice Chair Girardot seconded the amended motion. Tamara Murphy made a motion to close debate on the motion. Chairman Ted Shipley seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to close debate on the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-626 with the finding that all Findings of Fact included in the staff report are positive with one condition: 1) Prior to any initiation or expansion of the indoor recreation use, a zoning review must be conducted to ensure compliance with any applicable regulations in existence at that time. Technical Review Committee Report (February) Sam Burgess presented the following TRC Report: The County’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) met once during the month of February and reviewed five (5) site plans. Parsons Mill (Performance Plan Second One Year Extension) Parsons Mill is located in the northern portion of our jurisdiction (4500 block N. College Road) and is classified as Aquifer Resource Protection on the County’s 2006 adopted Land Use Plan. Site plan attributes include:  CD (R-10) Conditional District Zoning – Residential  354 units (blend single & multi-family)  107.17 acres Page 13 of 15  Public water & sewer (CFPUA)  Private Roads (with inter-connectivity to Parmele Road) In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the second one year extension of the project for 354 units ending February 25, 2016 with five (5) conditions, which are included in the TRC Report as part of the Planning Board package. In response to an inquiry from Vice Chair Girardot, Mr. Burgess explained the postal service has shared with staff that they would prefer a cluster box system in multi-family developments to save time for the carriers. The TRC made that recommendation to the developer, who embraced it; however, cluster boxes are not required by New Hanover County. River Bluffs: Phase 2 (Revised PD- Planned Development) River Bluffs is located in the northern portion of our jurisdiction (western end Chair Road) and is classified as Wetland Resource Protection of the County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. The River Bluffs Master Plan and rezoning from R-20 Residential to PD Planned Development was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in March, 2008 and amended in January, 2014 to include a commercial marina. A total of 738 units are allowed for the entire project. To date, Phase 1has received approval by TRC for 223 units. The revision to Phase 2 represents 198 units with road design width modifications. Other site plan attributes include:  PD Planned Development Zoning District  198 units  84.05 acres  Public water & sewer (CFPUA)  Private Roads (sole access from Chair Road) In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the revision to Phase 2 of River Bluffs with six (6) conditions, listed in the TRC report included in the Planning Board package. In response to Vice Chair Girardot’s inquiry regarding the reason for the waiver for the reduced pavement width, Mr. Burgess explained it was largely due to the LID components included in the project and because County Fire Services found the pavement width reduction would not impact emergency service delivery. Tidalwalk (R/W Dedication) Tidalwalk is located in the southern portion of our jurisdiction (7900 block Myrtle Grove Road) and is classified as Conservation on the County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. In order to legally meet the access requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to serve five (5) lots in the project, the developer for the project requested an extension to the existing right-of-way near the eastern end of the project. Nearby are the Intracoastal waterway, located east of the project; an older established residential development known as Seaview, which was developed in the early 1980’s; and the Old Chimney subdivision, which is adjacent to the south and fronts off Carolina Beach Road, which was developed in the late 1970’s. There are plans to elevate the causeway, which serves lots 417-419, to Page 14 of 15 mitigate any flooding issues and plans with the State to provide a retaining wall in the event of an unusually high tide or tropical system. In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the right-of-way extension to Tidalwalk subdivision along with the five (5) lots with six conditions involved with the right-of-way dedication, which are detailed as part of the Planning Board agenda package. Abbington Cove (High Density) Abbington Cove is located in the central portion of the County’s jurisdiction (4700 block Carolina Beach Road) and is classified as Urban on the County’s 2006 adopted Land Use Plan. Nearby is St. Andrew’s Drive, the Johnson Farm Hollow project developed in the late 1990’s, and several other high density projects in the general area and abutting Carolina Beach Road. Several areas have been voluntarily annexed by the City of Wilmington. If approved by the Board of Commissioners, this project may eventually become annexed by the City. Primary access will be Carolina Beach Road and also Sikes Drive, which is a designated public road. Site attributes include:  CD (B-1) Conditional District Light Business & R-15 Residential  80 units (apartments)  6.96 acres  Public water & sewer (CFPUA)  Private Road(s) with exception Sikes Drive In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved Abbington Cove for 80 units with nine conditions, which are included in the planning board agenda package. Abbington Cove is a high density project that will require a special use permit so the planning board will see the item again in the near future. Pumpkin Creek Village (Performance Site Plan) Pumpkin Creek Village is located in the northern portion of the County’s jurisdiction (4300 block of Blue Clay Road) and is classified as Transition and Conservation on the County’s 2006 Land Use Plan. Several different types of land uses in the area include the Northchase subdivision to the South-Southeast and Cape Fear Community College North Campus to the Northeast. I-140 runs by, but will not connect with the project. Primary access will be provided from Blue Clay Road. Site plan attributes include:  R-15 Residential Zoning  62 single family lots  24.8 acres  Public water & sewer (CFPUA)  Public Roads In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved Pumpkin Creek Village for a total of 62 lots with six conditions, which are detailed in the planning board package. There are no items scheduled for the March 11th TRC meeting so the next meeting will be held on March 25, 2015. Page 15 of 15 Other Business Chairman Shipley reported staff had asked the board to consider changing the date of the April Planning Board meeting from April 2nd to April 9th due to the Good Friday holiday. He expressed concern about April 9th, pointing out possible issues with parking due to the Allen Jackson concert associated with the Azalea Festival taking place downtown. He wished to ensure good attendance by the public and the board members at the meeting. Mr. Vafier proposed Wednesday, April 8th, noting Ogden Marketplace may come back for consideration at the April meeting, as well as Abbington Cove, and a proposed text amendment. Mr. Prinz stated no preference, noting parking may be needed for the Ogden Marketplace item. Vice Chair Girardot reported the Airport Authority meets on the first Wednesday of the month. She was unsure if that meeting would be rescheduled due to a conflict with the Azalea Festival. In response to Vice Chair Girardot’s suggestion, Mr. Vafier agreed to research other organization meetings in conflict with the proposed dates and email the options in a poll to board members. With no additional items of business, Chairman Shipley entertained a motion to adjourn. David Weaver made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Chairman Shipley seconded the motion. By unanimous vote, the meeting was adjourned at 7:14 p.m.