Loading...
2016-03 March 3 2016 PBM Page 1 of 18 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board March 3, 2016 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Donna Girardot, Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director Anthony Prinz, Vice Chairman Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Tamara Murphy Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ernest Olds Sam Burgess, Senior Planner David Weaver Brad Schuler, Current Planner Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Absent: Jordy Rawl Edward “Ted” Shipley, III Chairman Donna Girardot opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Donna Girardot reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-950, 3/16) – Request by Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner, New Beginning Christian Church, to rezone 14.00 acres located at the 2900 block of Blue Clay Road from R-20, Residential District, to (CZD) R-10, Conditional Residential District, in order to develop a performance residential subdivision. The property is classified as Aquifer Resource Protection according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Current Planner Brad Schuler presented the staff report, including 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. The subject property consists of 14 acres located at the 2900 block of Blue Clay Road. It is currently zoned R-20 and is proposed to be rezoned to a conditional R-10 district in order to develop a 46 lot single-family subdivision. The property was recently included in a previous rezoning application which proposed to rezone the subject property and three additional parcels of land to a general R-10 district. That application was denied by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners; therefore, the applicant has requested the property be rezoned to a conditional R-10 zoning district, as opposed to a general R-10 district. The difference between a conditional and Page 2 of 18 general zoning district is that a conditional zoning district requires a proposed use and a conceptual site plan be attached to the district. Conditions above and beyond the requirements of the county’s development regulations may be placed on the district with the applicant’s agreement. The property is located between land already zoned R-10. The Ivy Woods and Runnymeade subdivisions located to the north of the subject property were developed in the early 1990’s and contain approximately 250 lots. To the south is a conditional R-10 district which was recently approved by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners. That district allows for the development of a 154 lot subdivision currently called Rachel’s Place. Heavy industrial zoning containing the North Kerr Industrial Park is located to the east, and residential zoning containing mostly R-20 zoning, as well as a small piece of R-15 zoning around Sandy Lane. Wrightsboro Elementary School is located nearby along Castle Hayne Road and does have access to the roadway network that runs between Castle Hayne Road and Blue Clay Road. The subject property consists of 14 acres of undeveloped land which fronts Blue Clay Road, Alex Trask Drive, and Holland Drive. It is located approximately one half mile north of the Blue Clay Road and N Kerr Ave intersection. The conceptual site plan reflects the applicant’s proposal to develop a 46 lot single-family performance residential subdivision. The proposed subdivision will provide much interconnectivity to the surrounding area, as it will access Blue Clay Road and Alex Trask Drive, and will also connect to and extend Galway Road through the development to connect into the proposed Rachel’s Place subdivision. The surrounding residents have expressed some concerns regarding the connection to Galway Road, which was dedicated as a public right-of-way in the late 1980s and was constructed to NCDOT standards during that time. However, Galway Road was never accepted by NCDOT into the state maintenance system; therefore, it is the responsibility of the property owners who live off that street to maintain it. Street interconnectivity is a requirement of the subdivision ordinance and is a very important development standard in the county. An interconnected street system allows for the convenient travel of the residents of the area, reduces the amount of travel on arterial and collector streets, and most importantly, reduces emergency response time. Staff has heard the concerns of the surrounding residents; however, staff does feel this connection will benefit the area. Due to a ditch that runs along the property line, the street’s pavement stops approximately forty (40) feet from the property line; therefore, a connection to it will require some off-site improvements by the developer. At staff’s request, the applicant has agreed to add a condition to the district which clarifies that the connection to Galway Road must be improved and extended to connect to Galway Road’s existing pavement. The applicant has also proposed to add a condition which would require some landscaping be installed. In regard to traffic, the proposed development of a 46 lot single family subdivision will generate 42 AM peak hour trips and 52 PM peak hour trips; therefore, a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required. Page 3 of 18 Mr. Schuler reported that a Traffic Impact Analysis was recently completed for Rachel’s Place, the proposed subdivision adjoining the property to the south. That TIA found that the intersections in the area, including Blue Clay Road at North Kerr Avenue and Rachel’s Place’s access on Blue Clay Road will operate at a Level of Service of B or better during the peak hours when the development of the subdivision is expected to be completed in 2018. Also, according to traffic counts conducted by the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization, the adjacent portion of Blue Clay Road is currently operating at a Level of Service of A. Staff has reviewed the rezoning application for compliance with the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan, which classifies the property as Aquifer Resource Protection. The purpose of the Aquifer Resource Protection classification is to protect the Pee Dee and Castle Hayne aquifers from diminished recharge and from contamination by inappropriate land uses. The Plan suggests two development strategies for areas within this classification. One is that they be developed with larger lots if septic systems are used, which will help prevent cross contamination of wells. The second strategy is to have water and sewer services installed in order to prevent septic system use all together. The plan goes on to state that developments in this classification that do utilize septic systems should be limited to a density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre, while urban densities are appropriate for developments that connect to a sewer service. Currently, public water and sewer services have been extended to the surrounding area, and the services would be required to be extended though the proposed development. Further, due to the area needed to accommodate septic systems and repair areas, it is not common for lots within the R-10 district to use that form of wastewater disposal. Instead, development within the R-10 district typically connects to a centralized sewer system in order to achieve the density allowed in the district. Therefore, the goals of the Aquifer Resource Protection area would be achieved with the proposed development. Staff recommends approval of the application with the two conditions as agreed on with the applicant as the application is consistent with the policies of the Land Use Plan, specifically Policy 3.28 in that it should preserve the Castle Hayne and Pee Dee aquifers in their present unpolluted state because development of the property will require the extension of water and sewer to serve the area, and because the policy further states that urban density is appropriate within the Aquifer Resource Protection Area when sewer service is provided. Mr. Schuler entertained questions from board members. In response to an inquiry by Chairman Girardot, Mr. Schuler and Ms. Wolf estimated the length of the road from Blue Clay Road to Lot 46 to be approximately 600 linear feet. In response to Vice Chair Prinz’s inquiry, Mr. Schuler confirmed the applicant would be seeking public streets for the proposal. Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Cindee Wolf stated she represented the owners of New Beginning Church. She noted there was some contention over the previous rezoning request which included this property due to Page 4 of 18 information that the church’s intention for the property may be something other than single family homes. They may have had that aspiration; however, after reviewing the land regulations, they realized it was not feasible or possible. When Rachel’s Place, the primary petitioner in that rezoning was turned down by the County Commissioners, they realized that the issue was fear of the unknown. The adjacent property owners then came forward with a performance residential conditional zoning district application, which was met favorably by the Board of Commissioners and the Rachel’s Place property was rezoned to R-10, similar to nearby developments Ivy Woods and Runnymeade. After some consideration, the petitioner opted to pursue the proposed performance residential, R-10 development, for which they will also be required to seek preliminary approval from the County’s Technical Review Committee. The intent is to petition for public streets for the development, just as Rachel’s Place is petitioning for public streets. NCDOT likely never took over Galway Road because it was stubbed out and wasn’t fitted with a turnaround. NCDOT hesitates to take over roads they can’t maintain by turnaround. Galway Road was always intended to be extended so the applicant will construct that extension to also attach into the Rachel’s Place extension. In regard to the entrance into the subdivision, the plan would propose to shut down the current church entrance into the parking lot off Alex Trask Drive and instead put in a new public street that would go all the way through to Blue Clay Road. The street will be a little curvy so it won’t justify a lot of cut-through traffic. As Mr. Schuler pointed out, good circulation will be greatly improved in the area due to the emergency services and other things that have occurred on Alex Trask and Holland Drives . There will be no reason for people to travel Galway Road to Old Mill Road because most people will be going south on Blue Clay Road, which should be an advantage for the residents on Galway Road. Ms. Wolf proposed the same conditions as suggested and agreed upon for the Rachel’s Place proposal to protect the residents across Alex Trask Drive and Holland Drive from the back yards. A green space has been provided so the lots are not double frontage and do not back up to those rights-of-way. In addition, the applicant has proposed a condition that the development would have street yard plantings to soften the view from the backs of those lots. Water and sewer is consistent with the current CAMA Plan and the envisioned comprehensive plan as far as including densities and infilling in tracts where services are available. The proposal would have all public utilities extended to it at the cost of the developer. Ms. Wolf concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions from the board. In response to an inquiry from Chairman Girardot, Ms. Wolf explained the applicant had agreed to connect to the current pavement on Galway Drive. There is a gap in the pavement so a culvert and the extra forty feet of pavement would be installed at the developer’s cost. The applicant would then petition the NCDOT to accept the part of the road that goes through New Beginning’s property, but the neighbors on Galway Drive would need to decide if they were willing to make any necessary road improvements on their eight hundred feet of pavement. The applicant has received verification that Galway Road was designed and built to NCDOT standards, but NCDOT didn’t take it over because there was no turnaround at the end of it. Ms. Wolf thought that would make it possible for NCDOT to take over road maintenance, but she would not agree on behalf of the applicant to accept the responsibility for the Galway Road Page 5 of 18 residents’ portion of the road. Ms. Wolf confirmed the applicant would ask for acceptance of all the roads within their development by NCDOT. In response to Vice Chair Prinz’s question regarding the condition of Galway Road, Ms. Wolf stated that Galway Road was not in bad condition, but the end of it had chipped away. She noted that a few people who had been active during the project information meetings and hearings had insisted that Galway Road was too narrow, etc., but she had received verification that Galway Road was designed and built to NCDOT standards for a local subdivision. The road is not intended to be a collector street, but is a connector road in a local neighborhood. Current Planner Brad Schuler provided additional information on Galway Road. Staff requested that NCDOT examine the street in order to determine what is needed to improve it to meet current NCDOT standards. Unfortunately, that information was not received from NCDOT prior to the public hearing. Mr. Schuler stated he had measured the road and found it to be eighteen feet wide from curb to curb. The subdivision roads manual requires for a curb and gutter street for the road to be a minimum of twenty-two feet wide; therefore, some potential improvements need to be completed on Galway Road before it can be taken over for NCDOT maintenance. Ms. Wolf added that the street is a rolled gutter street which technically has twenty feet of travel area. Mr. Schuler agreed, noting the road is twenty feet from the middle of the curb to the middle of the curb, but the actual pavement is eighteen feet. Vice Chair Prinz commented that NCDOT didn’t take over maintenance of the road because of the cul-de-sac and there is no terminus as it was originally intended to continue. Ernest Olds asked how the new twenty-two feet wide section of pavement would tie into the existing eighteen feet wide pavement of Galway Road, Ms. Wolf stated that generally the existing roadway would transition the last 50-100 feet to the current NCDOT standard for acceptance. In response to Mr. Old’s question, Ms. Wolf acknowledged the applicant has agreed to be responsible for placing a culvert in the ditch and building a road including curb and gutter from the development to the edge of the existing pavement. She also confirmed the ditch feature runs the entire length of the property line, and the common area to the north of Galway Road and on the other side of Blue Clay Road would be considered passive recreation area. The common area will be more defined between Lot 31 and Lot 32. Ditches are being added behind those properties on Whitewood Way now. The applicant will add their own easement on their side. Mr. Olds commented it was nice that the plan reflects a recreation area off the Alex Trask entrance road, which would be available to everybody. In regard to Lot 39, he asked Ms. Wolf to explain the issue with a buffer or setback between that area and the New Beginning parcel that fronts Blue Clay Road. Ms. Wolf explained when the church builds a fellowship center it will not be considered a church, but will be considered an assembly hall so a special use permit will be required. At that time, a site plan will be presented for approval by the planning board and county commissioners. It would be the church’s responsibility to provide the required buffer from that lot whether they sell it or still own it. She confirmed Mr. Olds was also correct that the protection to Lot 39 will occur when New Beginning Church does something with the parcel other than leave it as a piece Page 6 of 18 of farmland. She added there would also be sidewalks along one side of all of the public streets, as far as access to those recreation areas. Chairman Girardot opened the opposition portion of the hearing. Laura McLean stated she has no quarrel with the church and would like to see low income people and the elderly get housing. She said it took 250 years for Wilmington to get to a population of 125 thousand. It is proposed that 60,000 people might come in the next decade. She asked board members to raise their hands if they thought that math seemed smart with dwindling water; the traffic seen every day in Leland and on Kerr Avenue , as well as at Porters Neck at 5pm. She said the town has become, for lack of a better word, crap and asked if it made sense or was fair to add one third more people in one sixth of the time it took to get to a 120,000 plus population. Vice Chair Prinz responded that was not really the Planning Board’s decision to make. Ms. McLean commented that the planning board had a hand in the decision. Board members are rezoning machines now. Every time you take a little project like this and rezone it for more people you are saying to the people here in our town that they don’t matter. You are going to cram so many people in here that the town is going to get worse and worse. We’re fine where we are; we’re going to move. She completed her remarks noting none of the board members had said yes and that was the point. No one from the public elected to speak during the rebuttal period. Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the planning board discussion period. Chairman Girardot read the procedure and appeals statement. Ms. Wolf confirmed the applicant would like to proceed with a vote on the rezoning and agreed with the conditions as suggested by staff. Tamara Murphy made a motion to recommend approval, as the Planning Board finds that this application for a zoning map amendment of fourteen acres from R-20, Residential District, to (CZD) R-10, Conditional Residential District as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the proposed performance residential subdivision must install water and sewer service, and thus it should not diminish the recharge of surrounding aquifers, thereby, complying with the development strategies of the Aquifer Resource Protection land use classification and Policy 3.28 of the Land Use Plan; and 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because it provides for increased density in areas best suited for development while not impeding the quality of life of the existing residential communities. With the following conditions: Page 7 of 18 1) Streetyard plantings for the non-residential use in a residential district will be installed along the Holland Drive and Alex Trask Drive frontages; and 2) The street connection to Galway Road shall be improved and extended to connect to Galway Road’s existing pavement. Chairman Girardot explained her reasons for voting for the rezoning. First, the applicant is installing water and sewer, which will create no adverse effect on the recharge of the surrounding aquifers and will support the change in the land use classification from R-20 to R-10. Second, the R-10 land use to the north, Runnymeade and Ivy Woods, is consistent with its surroundings. Third, the traffic impact generated from this site will be minimal, resulting in an LOS of B and an LOS of A on one of the roads surrounding it. Fourth, the project will provide the type of work force housing that is very much in demand in our county and we don’t have enough of at the present time. Fifth, the proposal is consistent with this county’s new draft comprehensive plan currently under development. David Weaver asked Ms. Murphy to consider amending the motion to state “…and thus, it should not significantly diminish the recharge of surrounding aquifers.” He noted anytime there is development, there is an impact of some kind and he wouldn’t want anyone to challenge the project because it may somewhat diminish the recharge of the aquifers. Tamara Murphy accepted the proposed amendment to the motion to state “… and thus, it should not significantly diminish the recharge of surrounding aquifers.” David Weaver seconded the amended motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-950 as the Planning Board finds that this application for a zoning map amendment of fourteen acres from R-20, Residential District, to (CZD) R-10, Conditional Residential District as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the proposed performance residential subdivision must install water and sewer service, and thus it should not significantly diminish the recharge of surrounding aquifers, thereby, complying with the development strategies of the Aquifer Resource Protection land use classification and Policy 3.28 of the Land Use Plan; and 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because it provides for increased density in areas best suited for development while not impeding the quality of life of the existing residential communities. With the following conditions: 1) Streetyard plantings for the non-residential use in a residential district will be installed along the Holland Drive and Alex Trask Drive frontages; and 2) The street connection to Galway Road shall be improved and extended to connect to Galway Road’s existing pavement. Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z-951, 3/16) – Request by Barry Amos of College Road Development Partners LLC, property owner, to rezone 8.05 acres located at the 2600 block of N. College Road from B-2, Highway Business District, and R-15, Residential District, to Page 8 of 18 (CUD) R-10, Conditional Use Residential District, in order to develop a high density development. The property is classified as Transition and Conservation according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Current Planner Brad Schuler presented the staff report, including 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. This application would establish a conditional use zoning district. A conditional use district requires that every use within the district obtain a Special Use Permit. Because of this, there are two separate actions that the Board must take in order to make a recommendation on the application. One is on the rezoning of the property to the Conditional Use District (CUD), and the second is on the companion Special Use Permit (SUP) for the proposed use. As for the process, the rezoning request must be acted on first. If it is approved, the Board can then act on the Special Use Permit. If the rezoning is denied, no action will be needed for the Special Use Permit, and the application will be processed with a recommendation of denial from the Planning Board. If the rezoning is approved, but the Special Use Permit is denied, the application will be processed with a recommendation of denial from the Planning Board. The rezoning request to a Conditional Use District is considered to be a straight or general rezoning; therefore, no conditions can be added to the zoning district. If the board does wish to recommend conditions be placed on the development, those conditions must be added to the Special Use Permit. The property proposed to be rezoned consists of approximately eight acres of land located at the 2600 block of North College Road, which is currently zoned B-2 and R-15. It is proposed to be rezoned to a Conditional Use R-10 District in order to develop a high density development consisting of 88 dwelling units. The zoning in the area consists mostly of the R-15 district, although there is some commercial zoning that runs along North College Road, which is part of a commercial node located at the intersection of North College and Murrayville Road. To the north, there is a Planned Development district, which is the Northchase Planned Development. Land uses in the area consist of a mixture of single-family, retail, and institutional uses. Directly adjoining the property to the north is Laney High School. The subject property itself consists of three parcels of land totaling approximately eight acres. The property is currently undeveloped; however some improvements have been made to it as part of previous development proposals. A driveway has been installed on the property connecting to North College Road. That driveway will serve the proposed high density development and also currently serves a Taco Bell fast-food restaurant that was constructed this past year on the adjoining property to the south. Per the site plan, the development will consist of four buildings containing 88 dwelling units with a separate clubhouse and a swimming pool. The 88 dwelling units equate to a density of 10.9 units per acre, which is well below the maximum density allowed for high density developments in the R-10 district of 17 du/ac. Page 9 of 18 Portions of the property are within an AE Special Flood Hazard area. Most of the flood area runs along an existing perennial stream that goes through the property. The buildings and impervious areas have been mostly located outside of the flood areas. The applicant has also identified a small area in the very eastern portion of the property that may contain regulated wetlands, however, the buildings and impervious areas are located outside of it. In regard to traffic, the proposed development will generate 45 trips in the AM peak hours and 55 trips in the PM peak hours; therefore, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not required. A TIA was conducted for this property in 2013 for a previous development proposal. That proposal included a four story mixed-used building consisting of 120 dwelling units and office/retail space. The TIA also included the Taco Bell, which was recently constructed next to the subject property. The improvements required as part of that traffic impact analysis have already been made to the nearby area and included the extension of a two-way left turn lane along North College Road. The TIA stated with the installation of the required improvements, the proposed street access will operate at a Level of Service of E during the AM peak and a Level of Service of D during the PM peak. This is an improvement from the Level of Service of F, which the site access was experiencing when the TIA was originally completed. Because the improvements have been installed and because the proposed use will generate less trips than the previous proposal, a new or updated TIA was determined to be unnecessary by staff, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The Wilmington/New Hanover County Comprehensive Greenway Plan proposes that a greenway network be installed in this area. The plan suggests that a greenway be installed along the west side of North College Road and continue on the east side of the road from Northchase Parkway NE to the southern portion of Laney High School, where it would then head east to Olsen Park. The exact location of the proposed greenway does not cross the subject property; however, the New Hanover County Technical Review Committee (TRC) has recommended the greenway be extended to do so. Due to Laney High School being located directly north of the subject property, the area is currently subject to increased pedestrian travel generated by the students attending the school. The extension of the greenway would allow for safe pedestrian travel of those students and for the residents of the proposed high density development. It would also give the residents of the proposed high density development access to the proposed greenway connecting to Olsen Park. Therefore, staff recommended that a condition be added to the Special Use Permit which would require the installation of a ten feet (10’) multi-use path in front of the subject property along North College Road. The multi-use path would be located within the right- of-way and be maintained by the County. The applicant has agreed to this condition and has added the multi-use path to the site plan. Staff has reviewed the rezoning and Special Use Permit application to determine if it complies with the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. The plan classifies the property as Transition and Conservation. The purpose of the Transition classification is to provide for future intensive development on lands that have been or will be provided with necessary urban services. The purpose of the Conservation classification is to provide long-term management and protection of significant, limited or irreplaceable natural resources while Page 10 of 18 also protecting the rights of the property owner. The conservation areas on this property coincide with the Special Flood Hazard Areas. Conservation areas should be preserved in their natural state, however, exceptional developments preserving natural features may be allowed. The plan further states that impervious surfaces shall be limited in Conservation areas. In no case shall impervious surface coverage exceed 25%, and in some cases, impervious surface coverage may be required to be as low as 15% or less, depending on the environmental constraint. Staff has reviewed the preliminary site plan and is comfortable that it meets the intent of the Conservation classification. On the site plan, the proposed buildings and impervious areas have been positioned to be mostly located within the Transition classification. Only a small portion of the development’s parking and driveway is located within the Conservation classification. Specifically, only 4.3% of the conservation area is covered by impervious surfaces, and thus it complies with the recommended guideline of limited surface coverage to 15-25%. In conclusion, staff recommended approval of the rezoning application to the Conditional Use R-10 District and of the Special Use Permit for the high density development. Staff’s recommended motions for the rezoning and Special Use Permit are detailed within the staff summary. Chairman Girardot inquired if board member had any questions for staff. Vice Chair Anthony Prinz stated the proposed density of the new project seemed lower than the proposal on the parcel heard in 2012, which he thought received a favorable recommendation from the planning board. Mr. Schuler said the 120 units on the eight acres would equate to 14.9 dwelling units per acre and the current proposal of 88 units would be 10.9 dwelling units per acre so i t is essentially four dwelling units per acre less than that 2012 proposal. Vice Chair Prinz commented that was a sizable reduction in his mind. Upon confirmation by Mr. Schuler that the traffic improvements had already been installed, he made the point that the developer of the Taco Bell had gone over and above their obligation and in doing so had gone over and above what would be required for the proposed development, assuming the previous higher density development warranted those improvements that the Taco Bell installed. Therefore, those traffic improvements would be in excess of what would be needed for a development of the scale proposed. In regard to the trail, Mr. Prinz stated he understood that the greenway master plan says we should consider a ten foot wide multi-use path in this area, but he was concerned that there is a sidewalk across the street. He explained that if you build a trail that isn’t going to connect to a larger facility for an extended period of time, it is always better to build it out of concrete instead of asphalt, which deteriorates if it isn’t used. We have a good plan to create this elaborate network of greenways in that area, but at this point it may be an isolated section of asphalt which will crack and become overgrown with vegetation in 5-7 years. Given the county will be taking over the trail maintenance and recognizing the long term goal is a trail, h e recommended the easement for the trail be set aside, but then build the sidewalk out of concrete to minimize the county’s future maintenance Page 11 of 18 obligations. If in the next 10-15 years, the county obtains funds from NCDOT or another source, they can remove the sidewalk and build the trail. Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions stated she is an authorized agent for the applicant, Barry Amos, for the purposes of this meeting. She noted Mr. Amos would have an attorney with him for the quasi-judicial portion of the hearing by the Board of Commissioners. She noted she had worked on the project for many years and had also done the previous proposal that never went forward. Ms. Wolf stated in regard to the rezoning, the front corridor of the parcel is zoned B-2 so at any time the developer could put in a Bojangle’s, a Dunkin’ Donuts and something else beside that Taco Bell. They didn’t think that would be in their best interest in terms of the traffic it would create so the owners think it would be appropriate for a residential development and are willing to forego the existing business zone in exchange for the minor change to the rear R-15 area to R-10. Ms. Wolf explained that the owners felt in 2012 that perhaps a four-story, different type of multi-family product was what they’d like to pursue and they had a good site plan, although it required circulation all the way around it due to the size of the building. While the building was not in the flood plain, the impacts were greater for the parking areas. She reported that the alteration from 120 units to the current 88 units and the fact that impervious surfaces have been reduced has resulted in a win-win situation with this project. She stated shifting preferences suggest high density is logical in this location, noting the nearby facilities and businesses, including Dollar General, Taco Bell, McDonald’s, the large church facility across the street, and the Lowe’s Foods at the Murrayville intersection, which also support the concept that mixed use is appropriate in this community. Having a middle school and high school beside the proposal also adds to that concept. Ms. Wolf reported in regard to the board’s previous comments about the access and traffic improvements, the owners of this parcel also owned the Taco Bell property at that time and installed all of those improvements with the view that eventually something would be built on the left side of that entrance road and that would be an advantage to complete all of those improvements at that time. With the current plan, there are a variety of building heights due to the code regulations for fringe buffers and setbacks for heights, etc. The applicant has worked with the Technical Review Committee and the Zoning Administrator to verify that the proposal is a valid site plan in regard to the code, but it would still be required to go through the permitting process for review by all the agencies, including NCDOT due to the modification of the use, which is currently only the Taco Bell. Ms. Wolf stated as always, traffic circulation with the schools has come up as traffic on North College Road is problematic in the mornings. The applicant feels this is the best proposal they can expect for the development of this property, rather than having two accesses and additional business uses. She noted it would be nice if the Taco Bell or the back of the property could connect to the Dollar General, but that is not possible because their retention Page 12 of 18 pond is located behind their building, which is the only other access possibility to Long Ridge Road. That wouldn’t have helped; anyway because Long Ridge Drive doesn’t have a traffic signal. Many people thought when the McDonald’s was built, it was a perfect opportunity to install a signal at Long Ridge Drive, but that didn’t happen. At this point, human nature will take over and people will know when to come and go, and when they will have to take a right out of the site and find a place to change direction. The applicants believe the proposal is a great use for this particular property. It meets the County’s policies for growth and development and encouraging safe and affordable housing where services are available. Water and sewer utilities are available, along with schools, food services, and everything else you could want. Ms. Wolf concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions. She stated the applicants support the minor change from R-15 to R-10 simply because the proposal has buildings with eight units per floor. The applicant could have built 82 units in the R-15 zoning, but that wasn’t supported as a divisible of the eight unit concept. The applicant is bumping up to R-10 simply for the efficiency of design. Chairman Girardot inquired if board members had questions for the applicant. In response to Ernest Olds inquiry, Ms. Wolf confirmed there are three three-story buildings and one two-story building on the site plan because of the 200 feet fringe buffer. Within the code, any fringe buffer within single-family, residential uses only allows the applicant to have three times the base density in performance residential. In that 200 feet fringe, the applicant is allowed to have 9.9 units per acre. The building to the upper left of the site plan is disregarded, but the applicant considers there are basically sixteen units in the fringe buffer. Only 27 units are permitted in the fringe buffer. Had the applicant added another floor, there would have been some parking issues. This proposal is a fine balance between the parking and the units. Mr. Olds commented it would have been nice from a site standpoint if the corner unit on the lower right hand side had been the shorter unit. In relation to the buildings on the south side relative to Taco Bell, he inquired if Ms. Wolf had any concerns about buffering eit her the noise or smell of the Taco Bell for the neighbors who would occupy those units and whether any consideration had been given to landscaping the strips between the Taco Bell and the residential building. Ms. Wolf stated they have the ability to landscape as the private access easement is 45 feet and the driveway is 24 feet. There is room along the left hand side and also in the fee simple property under that access easement, which also belongs to the developer. She noted they knew the Taco Bell was going to be there so if they were concerned about it, they would have provided either more space or requirements for Taco Bell. She didn’t think they would want to put large shrubs like Leyland Cypress there because the residents would be nose up to that suggested planting wall if they were on their back balconies. If someone rents a property on the back of these buildings, there will be a certain expectation that you won’t have the nicer view of the units on the other side. Page 13 of 18 Mr. Olds stated that was why he thought the B-2 was compatible at the time; everybody would have been the same. Normally, a restaurant would be forced to build a buffer against the neighborhood anytime those two uses are brought together. Ms. Wolf stated they would certainly have foundation plantings along those walls and she could see them also installing some larger shrubs in that extra nine to ten feet to at least mitigate the view and any noise that could occur. She acknowledged Mr. Olds was correct that the buildings couldn’t be moved any further north due to the floodplain line on the site. Mr. Olds complimented Ms. Wolf on doing a nice job making all the items fit on the site plan within the legal limits, noting that made her job tough and probably fun at the same time. In response to Vice Chair Prinz’s questions about how the Taco Bell operates in regard to traffic and whether there is any queuing onto the road or the existing driveway, Ms. Wolf stated she is not out there on any regular basis, but traffic could queue and drive-thru patrons exit via the rear one-way out access. There is also an escape lane there so if there were any queuing, and if the proposal is built, that queuing could occur for the Taco Bell patrons. She noted a similar situation at The Forum across from Mayfaire where traffic going to the Dunkin’ Donuts is waiting at the light, and vehicles in the front parking area either wait until someone is courteous enough to let them in or travel around the parking lot and get in line. In regard to the trail, Ms. Wolf reported that the trail would be located in the NCDOT right-of- way and she had coordinated with NCDOT on that issue. Whether the trail is a concrete sidewalk or asphalt path, she felt it would be used. The path would be installed by the developer and there would be a three party agreement for future maintenance by the County. Until the rest of the trail is put in, it would behoove the complex developers to maintain it for use by their residents and for the aesthetics of the front of the property. Vice Chair Prinz expressed concern about the activity on the Taco Bell property binding traffic and preventing residents from getting to where they live. He inquired if there was any discussion with NCDOT about lining them up and making one a full access. Ms. Wolf stated there was initial discussion with NCDOT about lining then up and making one a full access, but the district engineer was against it because of the stem length. Although it appears to be a nice long stem length, because the department had so much right-of-way, they insisted that stem lengths were measured from the right-of-way, not from the pavement. The developer’s desire for an intersection there was negated by the NCDOT. Bill McDow of the Wilmington MPO noted the greenway plan calls for a greenway on this side of North College Road. Trask and Laney schools have petitioned many times for Safe Routes to Schools funds and people use that footpath every day. The New Hanover County Schools will be redeveloping Laney High School and Trask Middle School and are agreeable to the possibility of putting a walking trail in front of the high school. Students walk from this site to Murrayville Road on a daily basis. Mr. McDow noted if this proposal is built and the sidewalk is installed, it would benefit by connecting to that trail and then north to Northchase Parkway. Mr. McDow noted the District Traffic Engineer was adamant about making sure the stem length was there. Page 14 of 18 Future development at Northside was also discussed. Currently, there isn’t enough traffic there to require a traffic light at that intersection. Chairman Girardot opened the opposition portion of the meeting. Lawrence Bass of Long Ridge Drive stated his major concern is the traffic. With the current people on Long Ridge Drive and those leaving the McDonald’s and the church at certain times of the day, you can’t make a left-hand turn. He noted as he left home to attend the public hearing traffic was backed up from Murrayville Road past Laney High School. In the morning, traffic backs up from 7:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. or 10:00 a.m. with traffic going to Laney High School, the industries at Northchase, Cape Fear Community College, and Trask Middle School. The traffic situation is also horrible in the afternoon. Mr. Bass felt that adding 88 apartments whose residents will enter College Road there would result in a traffic fatality. He pointed out that Long Ridge Drive doesn’t have a traffic light. A light was proposed, but is not there. The information received for the community meeting stated there was a light on Long Ridge Drive, which gave him the idea that the developers are not looking at the whole picture because they think things have been done that were never actually accomplished. Mr. Bass commented that he had to take a private road to get out onto Murrayville Road to reach the traffic light in order to get to the public hearing, noting he was really trespassing, but otherwise, he couldn’t have made a left turn up Long Ridge Drive. He asked if a buffer would be located from the back of the apartments to the back of the neighbors along Long Ridge Drive and if so, how big the buffer would be. Ms. Wolf stated the buffer would be twenty feet, but it actually varies because in one section there will be a forty feet buffer, in another section there will be a twenty feet buffer, which would have to be fully opaque. She apologized for the incorrect information in the cover letter for the community meeting notice explaining she mistakenly thought a light had been installed at the McDonald’s. She was notified of the mistake at the project community meeting. Ms. Wolf reported the developers had made the improvements to the road. Traffic is an issue, but she felt if the property was developed in a combination of business across the front and even a small density of residential across the back, which is available to it today, the board would be discussing the same issues. The applicant felt the proposal would be better for the overall community than the alternative. Ernest Olds asked what the traffic count would be for a Taco Bell because presumably two other Taco Bells could be placed on the property. He also asked how that traffic count would compare to the traffic count for the proposed apartment complex. Ms. Wolf explained the traffic count from the 88 residential unit apartment complex would be nowhere near the traffic count for a fast food restaurant. It would also depend on whether the restaurant serves breakfast and has a drive-thru. She noted if there were two additional fast food restaurants built on the site, there would still be the possibility of some R-15 residential being built at the rear of the property. The traffic for those uses would be more than the current proposal. Page 15 of 18 Mr. Olds stated he shared the pain of the speaker because he lives off Marsh Oaks in the northern part of the county and traffic is bad there also, but he’d rather have residential traffic than all-day fast food traffic. Chairman Girardot entertained additional questions and commented she agreed that traffic is a problem. Priscilla Trite of Long Ridge Drive stated the apartments would be located behind her home. She expressed concern about the serious traffic problem, noting even the people in the apartments would have the same problems as the current residents getting out onto Highway 132. The speed limit has been reduced to 45 there, which has helped the situation. She felt the apartments would make the traffic problem worse. Her family has lived in their home forty years in what was a quiet neighborhood, but they realize progress goes on. Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and entertained questions or comments from the board. Chairman Girardot stated the board understands traffic is a problem, but unfortunately, there isn’t anything the planning board can do about getting enough money from the state or federal government to build those roads. She felt the proposal was probably the best plan for the neighbors in that location because the property is currently zoned as business, which would generate more traffic. Vice Chair Prinz stated the only way to fix the traffic problem is to construct a four-lane divided highway there, but unfortunately, that is a very expensive proposition. The Wilmington MPO is responsible for seeking funds to make that a priority. There is no question the proposal will add more traffic due to the additional residents, but it would be much worse if another Taco Bell was built there. The trip generation from a Taco Bell or McDonald’s, etc. far out shadows the traffic that will be generated by the proposed residential development. Traffic generated by fast food businesses is very concentrated and has intense peaks, including in the morning; whereas, residential traffic has small peaks in the morning and in the afternoon. He agreed the proposal is probably the best alternative in that location from a trip generation standpoint because it’s already zoned relatively high density and commercial as well. Mr. Prinz stated his support of the proposal, noting hopefully money could be obtained to make the necessary road and bicycle/pedestrian improvements. He thought the traffic signal issue had been resolved when the McDonald’s was approved as part of a much larger development at Long Ridge Drive several years ago. He felt as the area is developed there will eventually be a traffic signal at that location. Planning & Inspections Director Chris O’Keefe stated it was also his recollection that the traffic signal issue was resolved during the McDonald’s approval process. He will review the Northside Baptist Church application file to determine what else was required, if anything. He recalled there had been a great deal of discussion about a light at that intersection and that the McDonald’s was required to line up their access with Long Ridge Drive for intersection considerations. Page 16 of 18 Vice Chair Prinz asked Mr. Bass to follow up with Mr. O’Keefe and the planning staff as he imagined the next time something is developed on that side of the road, there will likely be a traffic signal installed simply because of the daily traffic volumes on College Road. Chairman Girardot told Mr. Bass his concerns had been heard, noting Mr. McDowell of the Wilmington MPO was taking notes. She thanked him for attending the meeting. Chairman Girardot commented the notes indicated that Ms. Wolf had voluntarily agreed to leave the existing vegetation around the pond opaque and also to leave the vegetative buffer on the northern boundary between the project and the existing neighborhood also. Ms. Wolf confirmed she had shown on the site plan the varying widths of the buffer required depending on the building heights, etc. and had specifically put on the plans also that the existing vegetation is to remain and be supplemented as necessary to provide that opacity. By virtue of that note, it is a requirement that the existing vegetation remain in those buffer areas, regardless of their width. In response to Chairman Girardot’s inquiry, Ms. Wolf confirmed she would have no objection to the board adding those vegetative buffers as written conditions as long as the wording is similar to the wording on the site plan that the existing vegetative buffer would remain undisturbed around the tract perimeter and be supplemented with plantings as necessary. She felt it seemed onerous to have a requirement to install three rows of evergreen shrubs when they have good, thick existing vegetation. Chairman Girardot then asked Ms. Wolf if the applicant agreed with the staff’s findings and with the conditions proposed to be added to the special use permit. Ms. Wolf stated the applicant was in agreement with the staff’s findings and the conditions proposed to be added to the special permit. Chairman Girardot read the procedure and appeals statement. Cindee Wolf stated the applicant would like to proceed with the rezoning, and then subsequently with the vote on the special use permit. Chairman Girardot announced two votes were required for the item – a vote on the rezoning and a second vote on the companion special use permit. Chairman Girardot entertained a motion from the board. Vice Chair Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend approval of conditional use zoning district application Z-951 to the Board of Commissioners, as the Planning Board finds that the request for a zoning map amendment of 8.05 acres from B-2, Highway Business District, and R- 15, Residential District, to (CUD) R-10, Conditional Use Residential District, as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the “Transition” classification allows for intensive development on lands that have been provided with Urban Services. The property is located on an arterial street and is in close proximity to public water and sewer services. The proposal is also consistent with the “Conservation” classification because impervious surfaces will be limited Page 17 of 18 within the areas of the property classified as “Conservation”, and because no structures or septic systems will be constructed within those same “Conservation” areas. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because it provides increased density in areas best suited for development and because it provides for alternative modes of transportation by installing a multi-use path in accordance with the Wilmington/New Hanover County Comprehensive Greenway Plan. Ernest Olds seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-951. Chairman Girardot entertained a motion on the associated special use permit for Rezoning Request Z-951. Ernest Olds made a motion to recommend approval as the Planning Board finds that this request for a Special Use Permit complies with the four required Findings of Fact, and that the following conditions be met: 1. A 10’ multi-use path shall be installed along North College Road in accordance with the Wilmington/New Hanover County Comprehensive Greenway Plan. The multi-use path shall be constructed to the adjoining properties and shall include any necessary crosswalks, boardwalks, or bridges. 2. Existing vegetation must remain within the rear buffer and be supplemented as necessary to provide the 100% visual opacity requirement. David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit for Rezoning Request Z-951 with two conditions. Technical Review Committee Report (January & February 2016) Sam Burgess presented the TRC Report: The County’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) met four times during the months of January and February and approved six residential site plans. Four projects were preliminarily approved for a total of 619 lots in the northern portion of the county. In the southern portion of the county, two projects were approved for 166 lots. This represents a grand total of 785 lots approved in the unincorporated portion of New Hanover County. Specific details for each project can be found in the planning board package. The next TRC meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 9, 2016. Four projects are slated to be reviewed and voted upon at that time. Page 18 of 18 Other Business Planning Manager Ken Vafier requested the planning board vote on changing the date and time of the April meeting to Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. given the board had adopted an annual meeting schedule. Chairman Girardot entertained a motion to change the April planning board date and time due to the Azalea Festival and the anticipated case load. David Weaver made a motion to change the April meeting date to April 14, 2016 beginning at 4:00 p.m. due to the large number of items anticipated and the Azalea Festival. Tamara Murphy seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to approve the motion. David Weaver commented that the purpose of the public hearing is to provide public input on a specific planning case before the board, not to delve into philosophical discussions. For that reason, the planning board didn’t answer the question posed by a speaker during the first public hearing. Vice Chair Prinz commented having served on the planning board for six years, he couldn’t disagree more with the statement made during the first public hearing regarding the community. If the statement was accurate, the county wouldn’t be growing at such a tremendous pace. He felt the reason there had been congestion and issues with growth in the past was because not all of those developments came through this process where issues can be discussed and ironed out and the right decision can be made for the county. He commended everyone for volunteering their time to participate on the board and for doing great work to make the community a great place to be. Chairman Girardot announced that the planning board would hold a work session on Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Plan on Monday, March 14, 2016 from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Hearing no other business, Chairman Girardot adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m.