Loading...
2015-02 February 5 2015 PBM Page 1 of 14 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board February 5, 2015 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, February 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 David Weaver Brad Schuler, Current Planner Jennifer Rigby, Long Range Planner Absent: Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Tamara Murphy Anthony Prinz Jordy Rawl 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 January 2015 Planning Board Minutes Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a motion to approve the January Planning Board minutes. Chairman Shipley seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to approve the January 8, 2015 Planning Board meeting minutes. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-938, 2/15) – Request by Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions on behalf of AMJB Properties, LLC to rezone 3.88 acres from R-10, Residential District, to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business Zoning District, to expand an existing RV & Boat Trailer Storage Lot at 5050 Carolina Beach Road. The property is classified as both Urban and Conservation 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 conditionally rezone 3.88 acres of a 6.93 acres parcel from R- 10 to B-2. Conditional Zoning Districts have a conceptual site plan attached to them and conditions above and beyond the requirements of the zoning ordinance may be added to the district with the applicant’s agreement. Page 2 of 14 • The zoning map of the area shows the proposed area to be rezoned is only a portion of the actual parcel. The parcel includes the adjoining Conditional B-2 Zoning District directly to the northeast as reflected on the map. That portion of the property was rezoned in 2011 to allow for an RV and Boat Trailer Storage business. • The reason for this rezoning request is to expand that business into the rear portion of the property. • A couple of rezonings have occurred in that area over the past few years, Z-914, which was approved in November of 2011, and Z-93M, which was eventually approved by the County Commissioners in December 2014. The other districts in the area included R-15 and R-10, as well as the B-2 districts. The predominant land uses are mostly residential, single-family detached dwellings and the storage uses currently shown in the B-2 conditional districts. • A Google aerial map was presented showing the first phase of the storage use, as well as the stormwater pond in the back. The proposed expansion will occur between that development and the stormwater pond and the stormwater pond will serve both the proposed development and the existing development. • The conceptual site plan shows that the expansion will increase the storage spaces by 55 for a total of 130 on the property. The site currently accesses and will continue to access Archmil Way, which is a private easement that connects directly into Carolina Beach Road. The expansion is expected to general 8 peak hour trips in both the AM and PM. • The rear of the property runs along Motts Creek and contains wetlands and an AE floodway. The proposed expansion is not within the wetlands, but it is within the flood zone. As this is a rezoning application, staff only reviewed to determine if it complies with the CAMA Land Use Plan. The Urban Conservation class is to provide for intensive development of existing urban areas, while the Conservation classification is to provide long-term management and protection of significant limited or irreplaceable natural resources, while also protecting the rights of the property owner. Generally, areas of environmental concern like coastal wetlands and lands within the AE flood zone have been classified as Conservation in our land use plan. In this case, the Conservation boundary coincides with the AE flood zone line. The Land Use Plan states that conservation areas should be preserved in their natural state; however, exceptional development preserving natural features which are designed to be in harmony with the site’s natural function may be allowed within them. Such cases minimize erosion, runoff and impervious surfaces. Specifically, the Land Use Plan states that in no case shall impervious surface be greater than 25 percent and in some cases may be required to be 15 percent or less, depending on the environmental constraint. • A map illustrating the areas that are both within the Conservation land use classification and the AE flood zone was provided. Staff has reviewed the conceptual site plan with the land use plan and is comfortable that it meets the intent of the Conservation land use classification. The Conservation classification on the property coincides with the AE flood zone so we looked closely at how this application will be affected by the flood zone. First, the specific zoning requirements stated in the Zoning Ordinance for this use prohibits the installation of any enclosures or overhead covering structures. The applicant has provided topographic data that indicates the Page 3 of 14 proposed development will be higher than the base flood elevation of 12.8. Unfortunately, this information was provided after the packets were distributed. It does confirm that the storage areas will be above the base flood elevation of 12.8. The areas below are where the stormwater is designed to flow. • This development will also be subject to any applicable sedimentation and erosion control regulations. The property itself did receive an erosion and sedimentation control permit for the first phase of the development, which actually included the area shown to be part of the expansion. This should minimize any erosion concerns. Also the stormwater runoff is designed to be collected in the existing pond, which will help control any discharge rates into Motts Creek. Finally, the development will be limited in the amount of impervious surface; specifically, the impervious surface coverage of the area of the property within the Conservation classification will be 19.4 percent, which meets the suggested maximum of 25 percent in the Land Use Plan. • Staff also feels this development will be appropriate for the Urban land use classification. Higher density and smaller lot developments are allowed in the Urban land use classification, which makes it harder for property owners to actually store their recreational vehicles. Therefore, this application will support Policy 4.3 of the Land Use Plan, which calls for having commercial uses in close proximity to the markets they serve. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of this application. • Staff also recommends six conditions be placed on the district as detailed in the Powerpoint presentation and in the staff analysis. • The first five conditions are the exact conditions placed on the conditional zoning district approved in 2011. The sixth condition was suggested by the applicant. The applicant has agreed to all the proposed conditions. Mr. Schuler concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions from the board. Chairman Shipley asked if board members had questions for staff. Hearing none, he opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions represented the applicant. Ms. Wolf stated she had been assisting Monkey Junction Self-Storage for quite a while. The applicant has a successful business and previous expansions of it have been logical and done in the same nice, aesthetic character. This expansion will be done the same way. There is an existing open RV and Boat Storage facility. Several board members were on the board when they requested the text amendment recently which actually created this type of use. It is extremely low impact. There are gravel lots with no structures so it has a low impact on what’s going on around it. She reported to the best of her knowledge, the current storage facility had not had any complaints from the adjacent residents. The residences are across not only a thirty-foot drainage ditch, but also a buffer yard that will be required around the entire area. Ms. Wolf was not aware of any issues that have ever come up with that type of situation. As far as the floodplain is concerned, Mr. Schuler provided the exhibits. All of that area has been graded to a point where there is no part of this development area that is currently below the flood elevation so no part of this development would be below the flood elevation. Once gravel is added, another six to eight inches will be added above that point. However, we did provide some narrative of how they manage it such that during a flood situation they have the ability to move those vehicles and trailers, etc. that are down there if they Page 4 of 14 find that that is a necessity due to a huge storm event coming our way so management-wise we have addressed that issue also. Ms. Wolf stated the applicant agrees with staff that this request would be consistent with the county policies and visions for the future, even though it is near the Conservation land classification and yet outside of the actual reason for the land classification. It is all gravel. It certainly would serve to infiltrate the stormwater in addition to the supplemental stormwater management provided by the pond. We’d appreciate your recommendation for approval and would be glad to answer any questions. Chairman Shipley inquired if board members had any questions for the applicant. Hearing none, he opened the opposition portion of the hearing. No one from the public spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. Chairman Shipley stated the board would forego the rebuttal period and closed the public hearing. He then opened the planning board discussion period. In response to the chairman’s inquiry, Ms. Wolf reported no one else was present to testify on behalf of the applicant; however, the property owner was present. Chairman Shipley entertained comments or a motion from the board members. Vice Chair Girardot asked if the stormwater pond would need to be expanded, noting it appeared to be almost full during her recent site visit. Cindee Wolf explained the stormwater pond is extended. It was designed for hopefully the future development of all the land back there. It was not constructed to the full design yet so there would be a modification to the permit and modification to the structure of the pond. It is not yet sized for the entire development area. Chairman Shipley inquired if Ms. Wolf had any comments or concerns about the six conditions established by staff. Cindee Wolf confirmed the conditions recommended by staff were satisfactory to the applicant. Vice Chair Girardot stated she noticed quite a few wetlands there as well. It empties into Motts Creek. She asked about the current status of the health of Motts Creek, noting the recent report on the health of the creeks. Mr. Schuler stated the turbidity is good, dissolved oxygen is either fair or good, and the enterococci (human fecal) bacteria are poor, but all the other parameters are good. Vice Chair Girardot commented that is washed off from impervious surface. Mr. Schuler noted he was not sure where those bacteria are generated. Page 5 of 14 Ms. Wolf stated their project wasn’t affecting the wetlands whatsoever. All the wetlands are existing and were not impacted by them on the first phase. The pond is located between the development and the wetlands. She stated she believed there are still septic tanks in some of those areas on the other side of the wetlands, and would guess that may have something to do with the fecal balances. In response to an inquiry by Vice Chair Girardot, Ms. Wolf confirmed the entire area would be gravel and there would be no pavement in the development whatsoever. Vice Chair Girardot asked if gravel was defined as impervious under the new regulations. Ms. Wolf stated gravel is considered impervious surface as far as stormwater management is concerned. Some water does infiltrate through gravel, but as far as the State is concerned, she believed gravel is considered if used for vehicular surfaces whether circulation or parking; it all goes into the stormwater calculations of how the pond is sized. But, the fact that it is gravel and not solid pavement certainly does still make a difference. In response to a question from David Weaver, Ms. Wolf explained the proposal will affect the first phase of the project that has already been done. She pointed out on the site plan that five existing spaces will be eliminated to accommodate the through circulation. David Weaver then asked if Condition #6 would be applied to the whole project. Brad Schuler explained that Condition #6 would apply only to the second 3.88 acres. Mr. Schuler explained Condition #6 states that restrictions will be provided to renters, posted around the site, and enforced by Resident Manager, no oil dumping or noxious activities, no engine flushing, no water provided. Ms. Wolf stated she thought that requirement was part of the first section also so the applicant has no objection to that condition being applied to the entire RV and Boat Storage area. Mr. Weaver commented he didn’t think the board could require that condition in this action simply because they would have to reopen the original special use permit. He only wondered if the management was going to apply that condition to the rest of the project. Ms. Wolf stated that management absolutely does apply that condition to any of the renters that are in this lot. Hearing no other questions or comments from the board, Chairman Shipley entertained a motion. Vice Chair Girardot made the following statement to explain her motion. I find the conservation areas should be preserved in their natural state; however, exceptional developments preserving natural features which are sensitively designed to be in harmony with the site’s natural functions Page 6 of 14 and provide a balance of the highest and best use of the property may be allowed within the conservation areas. Vice Chair Girardot made a motion to recommend approval, as the Planning Board finds that this request for a zoning map amendment of 3.88 acres from R-10, Residential District, to (CZD) B- 2, Conditional Highway Business Zoning District as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the “Urban” and “Conservation” land use classification in the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the proposal contains limited impervious surface near Motts Creek, and the fact that no structures or septic systems will be installed. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because it maximizes the effectiveness of commercial uses by assuring that land is available for commercial uses within close proximity to the markets they serve and by ensuring that such commercial uses do not diminish the quality of life of nearby residential areas. Conditions: 1. A privacy fence sufficient to also enhance neighborhood security shall be utilized as part of the buffering option. 2. The lot surface shall remain gravel so that the property might more easily transition back to residential use if market conditions improve and demand shifts in the future. 3. Hours of access shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. through 9:00 p.m. to avoid undue disturbance of the peaceful enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood, consistent with the intent of Section 23-34(b) of the County Code of Ordinances relating to unlawful noise-generating activities in residential areas. 4. The installation of security cameras. 5. Placement of lighting in the middle of the parking area and equipping each light with cones directing the light downward, minimizing the impacts on adjacent residential neighbors. 6. Restrictions will be provided to renters, posted around the site, and enforced by resident manager: no oil dumping or noxious activities, no engine flushing (no water provided), and no painting or varnishing. 7. Impervious surface covering restricted to fifteen percent. David Weaver seconded the motion. Chairman Shipley opened debate on the motion and asked if Ms. Wolf understood the motion. Ms. Wolf asked for a clarification of the seventh condition. Vice Chair Girardot noted staff had originally recommended 19.4 percent of impervious surface coverage. Ms. Wolf asked if the Vice Chair was suggesting that all the gravel was impervious. Vice Chair Girardot commented it was clarified earlier that gravel was impervious surface and this is a Conservation area. Page 7 of 14 Ms. Wolf asked if the project was now at 19 percent, noting she didn’t have a percentage on this area per se. She felt the State now gives gravel some credit for infiltration, while they didn’t before. All the calculations for the pond are based upon the surface area and the character of the underground soils and everything else to drain. Chairman Shipley asked if Mr. Schuler could offer any comments on that issue. Brad Schuler clarified where the 19.4 percent came from. A portion of the property that is located within the Conservation land use classification is X amount of square feet. The gravel that is within that Conservation area takes up 19.4 percent of the Conservation area. Staff was looking at that because the Land Use Plan recommends a maximum of 25 percent coverage within that Conservation area. Ms. Wolf stated if that was what they were referring to, they were fine, but as far as the amount of gravel on the entire tract of 6.93 acres, the new gravel area is only on three some of the acres. That is why she requested a clarification. She explained Mr. Schuler is referring to the amount of coverage within the floodplain or the classification. In response to Chairman Shipley, Ms. Wolf explained the impervious surface was far more than fifteen percent for the entire site. She asked them to keep in mind that the land classification is a line that was drawn for the purpose of designating the 12.8 flood elevation and that line was drawn from a mile up. The applicant can get a flood map amendment because today none of that fifteen or whatever percent they are discussing is even in that flood elevation anymore. They are not actually extending their development any longer into the actual physical flood elevation. With fifteen percent impervious surface, they wouldn’t have a project. They would only have fifty feet of it. For that reason, she wanted to clarify what the recommended condition was. Vice Chair Girardot asked staff what percentage the 19.4 percent is covering. Mr. Schuler explained that 19.4 percent is the amount of designated Conservation area on the property that is going to be covered with gravel. Ms. Wolf added the amount of Conservation designation covered by gravel physically on the project is below, but the property owner would need to get a map amendment to make that right. Mr. Weaver stated the definition of the conservation area on the ground, the actual delineation, depends upon the actual survey of the floodplain elevation, which is 12.8. Ms. Wolf is saying the conservation map used by staff to review this site was based on a pretty rough estimation of where that flood elevation really was. Ms. Wolf is saying that her surveyor has much more discreetly defined where that actual line is and that none of the impervious surface will be located in the actual Conservation area. Ms. Wolf confirmed Mr. Weaver’s statements were correct. Mr. Weaver asked if the 19.4 percent would be changed to zero percent if the applicant pursued and received a change in the floodplain map. Page 8 of 14 Mr. Schuler explained the conservation area would still be there because it is set in the Land Use Plan. It is most likely there now because it is in an AE flood zone. However, with the elevations provided by the applicant, they can technically get a LOMA to remove themselves from the flood area. That will not, however, change the actual location of the Conservation area. Ms. Wolf noted the location of the Conservation area would not be changed until the new study is completed. Mr. Weaver added a new floodplain study would be done based on the surveyed elevations. Then, the applicant could petition for a change in the Conservation delineation on the map. Mr. Schuler acknowledged Mr. Weaver was correct and noted it is a major process to modify the Land Use Plan. Mr. Weaver stated the applicant is basically saying the 19.4 percent is a meaningless number to a great extent with no substance behind it. Chairman Shipley noted the board had come to an impasse as to the percentage and inquired if anyone wished to offer any amendments to the current motion on the floor, which provides for fifteen percent to be dedicated to impervious surface. Vice Chair Girardot amended her motion to remove the seventh condition. David Weaver seconded the amended motion. Chairman Shipley entertained a motion to end debate on the motion. Lisa Mesler made a motion to close debate on the motion. David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to close debate on the motion. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-938 finding that this request for a zoning map amendment of 3.88 acres from R-10, Residential District, to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business Zoning District as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the “Urban” and “Conservation” land use classification in the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the proposal contains limited impervious surface near Motts Creek, and the fact that no structures or septic systems will be installed. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because it maximizes the effectiveness of commercial uses by assuring that land is available for commercial uses within close proximity to the markets they serve and by ensuring that such commercial uses do not diminish the quality of life in nearby residential areas. Conditions: 1. A privacy fence sufficient to also enhance neighborhood security shall be utilized as part of the buffering option, and 2. The lot surface shall remain gravel so that the property might more easily transition back to residential use if market conditions improve and demand shifts in the future. Page 9 of 14 3. Hours of access shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. through 9:00 p.m. to avoid undue disturbance of the peaceful enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood, consistent with the intent of Section 23-34(b) of the County Code of Ordinances relating to unlawful noise-generating activities in residential areas. 4. The installation of security cameras. 5. Placement of lighting in the middle of the parking area and equipping each light with cones directing the light downward, minimizing the impacts on adjacent residential neighbors. 6. Restrictions will be provided to renters, posted around the site, and enforced by resident manager: no oil dumping or noxious activities, no engine flushing (no water provided), and no painting or varnishing. Item 2: FOCUS Update - Update and status report on the regional planning initiative. FOCUS is a community-based planning consortium including New Hanover County. FOCUS empowers local planning groups, businesses, and civic organizations through data gathering and public input, helping them to zero in on new opportunities to thoughtfully grow their own communities and our region. Adrienne Cox, project manager for FOCUS, presented the following update and status report. She noted Al Sharp, Project Manager for FOCUS, was also present. FOCUS, the regional planning initiative for the tri-county region of the Greater Wilmington Area, is a unique collaborative of local governments, non-profits, and other governmental agencies. FOCUS is funded through HUD, in cooperation with EPA, DOT and USDA, to emphasize collaboration and the leveraging of resources among the public and private sectors. FOCUS was created to plan for the integration of such regional community elements as the economy, environment, health, housing, transportation, and unique opportunities into the Regional Plan for Sustainable Development (RSPD) for the tri-county region. The grant and project will operate through April 2015. Using a bottom-up approach, FOCUS staff was charged with gathering public data across the three-counties and also public input. The goals were to model collaborative behavior, actively seek input from citizens and groups within the three counties, research the areas of public concern, and analyze the data and establish a regional database, as well as define successful “complete communities” and develop a policy framework for regional development, which is the final deliverable. FOCUS was tasked with planning and integrating not only the three counties and the townships, but also thinking about livability principles, the economy, the environment, health, housing, opportunity, and transportation. FOCUS recognizes that these are not singled out or siloed. They all have impacts on one another and are interwoven. Created three years ago, the FOCUS consortium includes fourteen different agencies. Those agencies represent six local governments, four regional organizations, and four nonprofit organizations. The consortium has worked diligently to collaborate and have Page 10 of 14 some planning coordination with the concurrent efforts of the City of Wilmington Comprehensive Plan, known as Create Wilmington; the New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan, known as PLAN NHC Charting the Course; and the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Cape Fear Transportation 2040 Plan. FOCUS has also collaborated with Cape Fear Public Utility Authority as an infrastructure base. The FOCUS consortium has met regularly, set and agreed upon a planning horizon year of 2040, shared data and population projections, shared citizen input to avoid duplication of efforts and public confusion, and leveraged consultant contracts to make the most of the resources available. Population Growth has been identified as an opportunity and a challenge. The population of the region (Brunswick, New Hanover, and Pender) is expected to almost double by 2040. New Hanover County is facing an additional 100,000 people of the 300,000 people anticipated to come to this region. This population growth brings issues and opportunities. The drivers of that growth are quality of life and family linkages. There are some constraints and challenges related to transportation and commuting and crossing the bridge. Although the job service industry is very strong here, there needs to be other opportunities for economic growth. There hasn’t been a regional strategy to address these issues. Charleston has been cited often as a great example of a community that has taken this challenge and thought of itself as the regional area of Greater Charleston, rather than just Charleston. That is part of the longer range plan being considered in our framework for our future. FOCUS has reached out to many stakeholders, in cooperation with the City of Wilmington, New Hanover County, and the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization, and received a lot of responses and public input and drawn those together to identify the key strategies and how we need to think about those moving forward. A regional advisory committee has been convening over the last two months to review those and will hold one final meeting on March 5th. Issues and Opportunities the regional advisory committee has focused on are to: • Provide more transportation choices • Promote equitable, affordable housing • Enhance Economic Competitiveness • Support Existing Communities • Coordinate policies and leverage investments • Value communities and neighborhoods There is some duplication, as well as areas of inconsistency across the board. In general, people truly value their communities and neighborhoods and value choice amongst those. Some people prefer to stay in the rural communities, while others are looking for more densely populated areas. During this process, clicker technology was used very successfully to allow people to vote and tell staff what they are looking for in their Page 11 of 14 communities. People also indicated they want to see the various agencies and organizations working together and have that expectation. FOCUS has identified three general themes by approaching the six livability principles in a comprehensive manner. Those themes are: • Build livable places • Provide abundant choices • Connect voices Some of the actions support the multiple strategies found in the other reports. FOCUS has identified the top two actions for each strategy, the most critical and that can foresee achievements in the next two years, because the data will become old at some point, to develop them in our Framework for Our Future. FOCUS would also like to help organize the next steps around a short list of near term priorities. FOCUS’s final report will include an action/strategy, the desired outcome/measure and potential lead/support roles for areas across the region. Ms. Cox provided examples, noting it is very important to consider how our educational institutions, the existing organizations, and the three different counties and townships can contribute to these regional goals and solutions. They recognize that everyone together, both public and private entities, can seek these solutions. The final deliverables include several reports based upon the six livability principles. Those reports are: 1. Health & Wellness Gap Analysis 2. Catalyst Project and Complete Communities Tool Kit 3. Equitable Growth Profile For the Cape Fear Region 4. Alternative Futures Report 5. Regional Analysis to Fair Housing and Choice 6. FOCUS Framework for Our Future All of these reports will be available on the FOCUS website at www.FOCUSsenc.org/resources. Ms. Cox reported that during the process, communities were reviewed in each of the three counties and in the City of Wilmington. The Castle Hayne Community in New Hanover County was the chosen community. The regional analysis for fair housing and choice was a requirement for the HUD grant. The final report was received two weeks ago. FOCUS and its partners are discussing how this report will be brought forward. There will be a thirty day comment period on that report. The final report, which is the only deliverable actually required by the grant is the FOCUS Framework for Our Future. Page 12 of 14 During discussions with the public and the different agencies and organizations that participated in this process for the last three years, staff has found the following: 1. People want choices in how they live their lives. 2. Quality of life is extremely important to why people live here and/or come here. 3. Finding a well-paying and secure job is the greatest challenge. 4. There is a great degree of shared values and aspirations. 5. Regionalism is being recognized as a defining parameter. People are very comfortable with the region consisting of Brunswick, New Hanover, and Pender counties, along with the City of Wilmington, especially the business community as they think about bringing businesses to the area. 6. Each of the three counties and the cities and towns offer something that the others don’t offer and are very complimentary. By 2040, the three-county region is expected to almost double in population, become a regional center of new technologies, become more urban and interconnected, and continue to change at an accelerated rate. In addition, educational attainment will be increasingly defining the region’s neighborhoods and communities and small towns will strive to be “complete communities.” Ms. Cox commented it had been a catalyst project, noting it was very successful and beneficial to ensure all the stakeholders from the four larger communities were at the table. They really benefitted from the opportunity to speak with one another similar to the technical advisory committees that happened at a more local level. Ms. Cox thanked the board members for their time and attention and offered to answer questions. FOCUS will return to share the final Framework for the Future report with the Planning Board and seek a recommendation for adoption of the report. Vice Chair Girardot asked if the report would be formally presented to the elected bodies when done. Ms. Cox explained they would seek through the consortium membership the opportunity to share with leadership and different boards. In addition to the NHC Planning Board, they will also be presenting to Pender County, the City of Wilmington, and possibly the Wilmington MPO in the near future. Vice Chair Girardot congratulated FOCUS on their collaboration with other organizations and the way they are merging their report with the other reports, for example, The Garner Report, the comprehensive plans, etc. Ms. Cox thanked Ms. Girardot, noting the other benefit is that FOCUS grant does sunset. They will not be redundant as an organization. There are other groups in our communities doing good work and this data will be free for them to use as they continue their work. As an example, the Health and Wellness Gap Analysis was done for Brunswick, Pender, and New Hanover County, but the UNCW Health and Human Services took that report and expanded it to include Page 13 of 14 Columbus County so there has already been success in that one small part of the bigger picture and in the big scope of their work. Chairman Shipley asked if the board members had any additional questions for Ms. Cox. Hearing none, he thanked Ms. Cox for her presentation. Technical Review Committee Report (January) Sam Burgess presented the following TRC Report: The County’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) met twice during the month of January and reviewed 2 performance site plans. North Kerr Industrial Park: Phase III, Section 2: This project is located in the north central portion of our jurisdiction, which is near the 3000 block of North Kerr Avenue and is classified as Transitional. Two phases of the site plan have received conditional approval by the TRC, the first phase in 1996 and the second phase in 2001. An existing portion of the North Kerr Industrial Park is located to the south and also adjacent on the north side of Kerr Avenue is a PD development called Northchase, which was developed in the late 1980s. There is a smattering of older developments located on the north side of Blue Clay Road, as well as Runnymeade, which was created in the early 1990s, off Blue Clay Road. The zoning in this area is I-2, Heavy Industrial. This phase of the park consists of one lot consisting of 213,508 square feet, which will become a distribution center that will deliver and receive packages from the facility. This particular lot consists of approximately 25.3 acres, is served by public water and sewer by the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, and will be accessed via a public road network that snakes back down to North Kerr Avenue. In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the latest phase to North Kerr Industrial Park. There were a total of seven conditions placed on the project, which were included in the Planning Board package. Gable Run (aka H&H Homes) This project is located near the Ogden community, which is located in the Northwestern portion of the County’s jurisdiction and is classified as Wetland Resource Protection on the County’s 2006 adopted Land Use Plan. This project was originally approved by the Technical Review Committee back in July for a total of 73 lots. The petitioner decided to come back in and downsize the project from 73 residential lots down to a total of 45 lots. Located nearby is Grandview Ranches, which was subdivided and developed back in the late 1960s spilling into the 1970s. To the southwest and adjacent to Gable Run is a Page 14 of 14 groundwater facility known as the Nano Improvement Facility Plant shepherded by the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. Several residential neighborhoods are located nearby, including an older portion known as Brookstone, which is adjacent to Market Street. Westbay territory is also located in this particular area, as well as the Coastal Carolina Development, which is located north and west of the property itself. Site plan attributes include R-15 Residential zoning, 45 lots that are a part of the project that will be supported by eighteen acres, public water and sewer will be provided by Cape Fear Public Utility Authority with a private lift station for the sewer, and a public road network for the project that will eventually snake out to Market Street through various other public roads in the nearby area. In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the preliminary site plan for all 45 lots. There were a total of five conditions placed on the project, which were included in the Planning Board package. Mr. Burgess announced that the next TRC meeting would be held on February 11, 2015. Other Business Ken Vafier announced the first quarterly Planning Board Work Session would be held on Friday, February 13, 2015 from 9am to 11am in Conference Room 500 in the New Hanover County Government Center. Discussion will focus on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The draft future land use maps, as well as the policies adopted by the Citizen Advisory Committee, will be presented for the board’s consideration and input. In response to an inquiry by Vice Chair Girardot, Mr. Vafier confirmed the agenda package and notice for the February 13th Planning Board Work Session would be sent to board members on Friday. David Weaver suggested it might be more appropriate for one of the other board members to serve as the Planning Board representative at the March 2nd County Commissioners meeting since Ms. Mesler was unable to attend the January Planning Board meeting. Staff confirmed the County Commissioners would hold public hearings on March 2nd for the February rezoning case, as well as the cell tower case, which was continued from the February 2nd Commissioners meeting at the request of the applicant due to a technical issue. Chairman Shipley volunteered to represent the Planning Board at the March 2nd County Commissioners meeting if Ms. Mesler was agreeable. Ms. Mesler agreed. David Weaver made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Lisa Mesler seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m.