Loading...
2018-01 January 11 2018 PBMPage 1 of 29 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board January 11, 2018 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, January 11, 2018 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: Ernest Olds, Chairman Wayne Clark, Planning & Land Use Director Thomas “Jordy” Rawl, Vice Chairman Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Paul Boney Brad Schuler, Current Planner David Weaver Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Absent: Donna Girardot Allen Pope Edward “Ted” Shipley, III Chairman Ernest Olds opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing. Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Ernest Olds reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Technical Review Committee Report (December 2017) Current Planner Brad Schuler reported that the New Hanover County Technical Review Committee did not meet during the month of December due to the lack of agenda items. Other Business Planning & Land Use Director Wayne Clark provided a brief update on the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) process. The first phase draft includes the zoning districts, the permitted uses in those districts, the standards for the uses, and the definition section of the code. Staff is under final reviews of that section and is trying to coordinate with the City of Wilmington on timing for rolling out. Where the City and County ordinances can be made similar, staff is working on doing that. Mr. Clark will meet with the County Manager to obtain official approval on a procedure to distribute the information to planning board members for review. When that happens, the draft will be provided to the board, as well as a brief overview of the highlights and changes. The document is approximately 150 pages. A workshop would then be held, which would be the formal beginning of the public input process. Staff anticipates workshops would be conducted in the next 2-3 months. Page 2 of 29 Approval of the 2018 Planning Board Meeting Schedule MOTION: Board Member Paul Boney MOTIONED, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl to approve the 2018 Planning Board Agenda Review and Regular Meeting Schedule as presented. The motion was APPROVED unanimously (4-0). Board Member Paul Boney volunteered to serve as the Planning Board representative at the February 5, 2018 County Commissioners meeting. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z17-11) - Request by the Lee Law Firm, on behalf of the property owner, Lloyd C. Brinkley, Jr. et al, to rezone 2.5 acres of land located at 106 Oak Ridge Lane from (CUD) B-1, Conditional Use Business District, to (CZD) B-1, Conditional Business District, in order to develop an automobile service station. This item was continued from the December 7, 2017 Planning Board meeting. Current Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Schuler presented the following staff report: This is an application to establish a conditional zoning district. Conditional zoning districts have an attached site plan, which the property must be developed in accordance with, if approved, and conditions can be added provided the applicant agrees with the conditions. The subject property is located in an area along Market Street that has a mixture of residential and commercial uses. Single family dwellings are located on all sides of the property and a church is located next door directly northeast of the property. The subject property is 2-1/2 acres and is currently zoned as a Conditional Use B-1 zoning district that requires the property to be used as a retail nursery, which is still in operation on the site. The property currently accesses both Greenview Drive, which is a state maintained road, and Oak Ridge Lane, which is a private dead end road that provides access to 13 residential lots. The application proposes to rezone the property to a Conditional B-1 district in order to develop an automobile service station. The most recent site plan for the proposed development reflects a service station, consisting of an 8-bay shop, office and retail center, and an automated car wash containing an exterior vacuuming and cleaning area. Per the County’s requirements, automobile service stations are allowed to provide for general maintenance of vehicles such as oil changes, tire rotations, and state inspections. Major repairs like body work would not be permitted at this facility. The site plan was updated after the planning board packets were sent out due to an error on where the plan illustrated the existing Market Street right-of-way line. The right-of-way is actually located farther east, which when corrected on the site plan allowed the buildings to be moved closer to Market Street, resulting in the addition of two vehicular stacking spaces for the car wash. The development will have a total of three driveways to the adjacent roads. NCDOT has reviewed this plan and provided preliminary comments to the applicant regarding the improvements that will be required with the driveway permit. The applicant has illustrated those improvements on the site plan, which include the installation of a center concrete median on Greenview Drive. Page 3 of 29 The landscaping plan submitted by the applicant illustrates all the trees that will be removed and planted on the property. The applicant has agreed to a condition that wi ll require the existing vegetation be preserved within the rear buffer and a 6-foot tall solid fence be installed along that buffer. Lastly, there are a couple of significant trees located along Oak Ridge Lane that will remain. Protective fencing will be installed around the trees during construction. In addition, if a significant tree is destroyed or substantially damaged as a result of the construction or negligence of the property owner within three years after completion of construction, the trees must be mitigated in accordance with county standards. The proposed use is not anticipated to increase the number of trips during peak hours by more than 100 trips; therefore, a traffic impact analysis was not required to be completed. The recent and planned transportation improvement project for the area include the Aldi and the Middle Sound Market Place, which includes the Publix grocery store have been constructed. The transportation improvements for those are summarized in the staff report. There are also two major state transportation projects planned for the area. The U-4751 project will extend Military Cutoff Road from Market Street to I-140. Construction is expected to begin early this year on that project. The U-4902D project will install a center median sidewalk and multiuse path along this portion of Market Street and construction is expected to begin early next year. Staff has reviewed the rezoning application to determine if it is consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. The plan classifies the property as Community Mixed Use. This place type is appropriate for a mixture of commercial and residential uses that serve all modes of travel. Overall, the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it provides a commercial service to nearby residents. The proposed commercial use is also appropriate due to its location off a major arterial street and because it is located between two Urban Mixed Use nodes. Because of that, staff is recommending approval with the condition previously mentioned, which has been agreed upon with the applicant. Planner Schuler concluded the presentation and offered to answer any questions the board may have. Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl stated the access off Oak Ridge Lane is listed as a private road and inquired if there was a roadway agreement for that lane. He asked staff to explain the ingress/egress off that right-of-way and if anyone had spoken with the neighboring property owners. Current Planner Schuler explained the applicant is aware that is a private road and can likely provide information on what the maintenance responsibilities are. He noted the site currently has a driveway and is using that road for access. Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl stated he was familiar with the site and the proposed AAA will probably generate a few more trips than the current use there now. In regard to the Market Street right-of-way, he noted there is an almost one to two slope on that drainage easement and inquired if the applicant would pipe it and create a contiguous grade or if the existing ditch will remain on the site. Current Planner Schuler stated he was unaware of the applicant’s plans, but the NCDOT project might impact that as well. The NCDOT is taking some right-of-way for the median and sidewalk, which will potentially impact that swell, but it will have to be constructed in accordance with NCDOT standards. Vice Chairman Rawl commented that it would be nice if it was already embedded in the site plan to have that ditch piped because that slope is pretty tight at the existing edge of pavement into the NCDOT’s right-of-way. Chairman Olds agreed the board should bring Page 4 of 29 up that issue and said he also wanted to ensure that everyone was clear about the differences in the previous plan and the current site plan, noting those items could be discussed with the applicant. Hearing no other questions from the board, Chairman Olds opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Attorney Michael Lee of Lee Law Firm stated he represented the applicant, noting staff had provided a thorough presentation so he would answer some of the questions and give an overview of the transition of the site plan from the plan originally submitted and continued to the current site plan. He reported that Project Engineer Todd Simmons, architects John Ellis and Denny Gatkins, and AAA representative Brett Jarrett were also present at the meeting. Attorney Lee stated the request is a modification of an existing B-1 Conditional Use district. The staff report essentially answered the three questions of how is it consistent with the County’s policies for growth and development, how it would be consistent with the property’s classification on the land classification map, and what neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate or the land use unsuitable. Attorney Lee provided a brief history of the site, presented the project and progression, and addressed the ordinance requirements. He explained the site was zoned B-1 Conditional about 27 years ago. The current use is a landscaping nursery and garden center. The new project will be a AAA car care center, which will have a car wash and some retail, which will be a travel agency that will serve AAA members. There will likely be an insurance desk as well. He provided an illustrative picture of what a AAA facility looks like and some elevations. Attorney Lee stated the applicants had continued the application from the first meeting in order to rework the site plan based on comments received from residents at the community meeting. The original plan would have put the vacuum cleaners almost right in the front yard of the residents adjacent to the church on the back side of the parcel. There were also some issues raised regarding two significant trees. The applicant had planned to use their best efforts to ensure the trees would survive, but it would have been less likely as one of the trees was adjacent to the building, and the other tree was almost in the private right-of-way. Attorney Lee explained that the site plan was flipped to address those items and there were some issues to work through with NCDOT. He reviewed the revised site plan, noting the car wash was moved to the bottom of the site plan and the car care center was moved to the top of the site plan to ensure that tree could be saved. He pointed out the properties immediately adjacent to this are the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and two homes that are accessed from the opposite side of where this property is so there is a buffer on the back side where the vacuum cleaners will be. Attorney Lee stated the applicants then realized there was an error in the survey, which provided them with the ability to do two things – push the building up a little on the site to create another area for stacking to make sure there wasn’t a backup on the access drive on the back, and to tweak the entrance as a right in, right out knowing there still won’t be a leftover from Market Street because of the raised median. Attorney Lee stated those are the main differences between the original site plan and the revised site plan. He provided exhibits of the revised landscape plan and concept elevations for similar AAA car care centers. He commented that the elevations are not set in stone, but are typical of other developed centers and noted this is a relatively new prototype and is one example. Page 5 of 29 Attorney Lee stated to answer the three questions in regard to the modification, it is consistent in that it encourages projects to revitalize commercial corridors and provide a mix of uses, it’s consistent because this site is designated as Community Mixed-Use and we are proposing a AAA Car Care Center and carwash. Small-scale office and retail development is preferred, which this proposal is. In regard to what has changed, there have been significant infrastructure improvements and will continue to be along Market Street in this area, there is continued commercial growth, and because this is a conditional use, it can be nothing else other than a retail landscaping designation unless we come back and modify it. The Future Land Use Plan is Mixed- Use, and this is a small scale, compact mixed-use within this corridor. Attorney Lee stated in response to Vice Chair Rawl’s earlier inquiry, he doesn’t think there are any plans to address the drainage ditch because NCDOT is coming forward with the corridor improvements. The applicant is currently working with NCDOT on a right turn lane within the right-of-way and possibly a leftover. Noting there was an NCDOT representative present at the meeting who could provide more information on the corridor project, Attorney Lee stated there will be a median along Market Street in the near future when these corridor improvements are made. He stated the applicant team has been in discussions with NCDOT about a leftover and also about a right turn lane within the right-of-way. He noted the applicant would be willing to fund those improvements. He stated it is not finalized yet because the NCDOT is still working through some of the design issues. Attorney Lee stated those improvements are not part of this conditional use modification, but he wanted to inform planning board members because they had asked questions about the right-of-way earlier. Chairman Olds asked if board members had questions for the applicant. Vice Chair Jordy Rawl thanked Attorney Lee for the explanation on the right-of-way and inquired if he had any information on the private right-of-way along Oak Ridge Lane. Attorney Lee stated another lawyer is performing the title work, but he had asked about that right-of-way, which is privately owned. He noted one of the homeowners was present and would probably address it with the planning board. Attorney Lee stated that moving forward in the future, the applicant is probably going to talk to some of the homeowners because AAA has a significant interest in making sure that stretch of the road is maintained appropriately. However, he will need to speak with the title attorney and work through some of those logistics. Attorney Lee stated that currently that right-of-way is privately owned by Mr. Brinkley. Vice Chair Rawl inquired if the applicants were required by the county ordinance to include a sidewalk from the car care center that is labeled “ADA Accessible Route to Right -of-Way” on the site plan. Attorney Lee asked the engineer, Todd Simmons, to address that inquiry. Engineer Todd Simmons of Freeman & Coughman of 209 West Stone Avenue, Greenville, SC stated the sidewalk was added to meet the current code so when NCDOT adds sidewalk adjacent to the proposal as part of their plan, the ADA codes would require the applicants to connect from the facility to that sidewalk. For that reason, the applicants proceeded with adding those accommodations now, knowing they will be able to connect to that future sidewalk. Vice Chair Rawl stated appreciation for the explanation, noting he didn’t realize that NCDOT’s plans included a sidewalk down the right-of-way. Page 6 of 29 Board Member Paul Boney asked what the finished floor elevation of the development would be relative to the finished elevation of the NCDOT project on Market Street, noting he was trying to determine how the applicant would achieve ADA compliance for that sidewalk. Mr. Boney inquired how much fill would be needed for the total site. Engineer Todd Simmons explained they have not reached the point of developing the final grading plan yet, but he would envision they will be bringing in approximately two feet of fill for the site to make drainage/stormwater improvements so relative to Highway 17, the site will probably sit a couple of feet above it, but he doesn’t think it will be anything drastic like five feet . Engineer Simmons reported that currently it is pretty level across that area. Board Member Boney expressed concern about the elevation of the site and encourage the applicants to err on the side of raising the site because it’s their only chance to do it. He noted his rule for this area is to elevate a site two feet higher than the civil engineer’s determination of finished floor height. Board Member David Weaver commended the applicants for going through the effort of changing the site plan based on conversations with the neighbors. Noting that stacking areas for car washes tend to have noise impacts, for example, idling cars, loud conversations, etc., Board Member Weaver inquired if the car wash could be flipped end to end so that the stacking area would be out toward Market Street. Attorney Lee explained that the applicants had tried to rework the site plan every way to accommodate the various issues and this plan was the final solution because it is internal to the center of the site and pulled back against the 6 -foot fence. They put landscaping on the other side of the fence to soften that as well, and there seems to be a significant buffer there. Attorney Lee stated in regard to the car wash that there will always be an attendant at the car wash and when an attendant isn’t there, the car wash is closed and there will be no vacuum cleaners used or anything like that either. He noted that was also something the residents had expressed concern about. Board Member Weaver stated if the residents are happy with the changes, he would commend the applicants for working with them and altering the site plan. Attorney Lee said the residents can tell you if they’re happy, but the applicants have done as much as they possibly can to be good neighbors and they have actually enjoyed working with the neighbors. One of those neighbors who is present tonight has been very good to work with as well. Board Member Paul Boney inquired if there was any consideration to extend the fence a little way down Oak Ridge Lane to help with the problem Mr. Weaver had pointed out with regard to some of the houses that back up to Oak Ridge Lane. Board Member Boney suggested extending the fence where the angled parking is located to seal that area off from the neighbors, noting it would help address that noise problem. Attorney Lee replied that site distance might be an issue, but that’s something the applicant can definitely look at between now and the county commissioners meeting if the planning board recommends approval. Chairman Ernest Olds commented in regard to trees on Market Street that Publix had done a nice job preserving the landscaping and he would even credit Walmart with trying to retain many trees. He inquired which existing trees onsite along Market Street would be removed and which trees would remain on the site. Chairman Olds stated he doesn’t want to lose more trees on He noted he doesn’t want to lose more trees than are absolutely necessary. Page 7 of 29 Engineer Simmons stated from the applicants’ standpoint, there is a 75-foot building setback and a 37-1/2-foot parking setback and they will be saving whatever trees are there because they aren’t planning on doing anything in that area. He noted that NCDOT will impact those trees with their project, but the applicant doesn’t have any plans to impact the trees adjacent to Market Street. Chairman Olds thanked the applicant and opened the opposition portion of the public hearing. Carol Murchison of 200 Oak Ridge Lane stated she is not really in opposition to the proposal, but would like to have a few changes made to the site plan. She noted that most of her changes had been addressed by the applicants. Her main concern is to have a larger private property sign at the entrance/exit to the carwash side going onto their street, to stop any traffic from going down Oak Ridge Lane, and have everybody turn back out onto Market Street. She noted that Attorney Lee had mentioned paving the street to the original condition, which was another concern she had, and she would like to confirm the location of the vacuum cleaners on the site plan. Ms. Murchison stated their neighborhood has a homeowners association so she would like to know if the AAA facility would be included in the homeowners association (HOA), and if so, would they need to revise anything to have the AAA included in the HOA. Chairman Olds stated he isn’t a lawyer so he wouldn’t want to give advice on that issue. He noted it doesn’t seem likely, but he inquired if anyone had a different opinion. Ms. Murchison reiterated that to protect the residents from traffic going down their street, they would like more visibility of a private property sign on Oak Ridge Lane. Chairman Olds asked if board members had any questions for the opposition. In response to Board Member Boney’s inquiries, Ms. Murchison confirmed that the current owners of the subject property are members of the neighborhood homeowners association (HOA) and explained that the homeowners association pays for the upkeep of the road, the electricity and trash pickup. She stated that the current owners of the subject property are making a monetary contribution to the HOA, but she doesn’t know if they are paying fees based on their other rental property or not. Board Member Boney stated that may have some bearing on whether the existing property owners are actually helping for that now, but Ms. Murchison’s group will need to discuss the issue with their own lawyers and work that out. Ms. Murchison stated that her final concern was to ensure that the facility has low lighting after the facility is closed so there won’t be bright lights down the street. Chairman Olds thanked Ms. Murchison and opened the rebuttal period and asked Attorney Lee or Engineer Simmons to address Ms. Murchison’s comments and specifically point out the location of the vacuums on the site plan. Attorney Lee stated in regard to the sign, the applicants can get together with the Ms. Murchison and the neighbors after the meeting to work on that issue. He pointed out the location of the vacuums on the site plan, which is adjacent to the CFPUA property and the two lots that back up to the road that have their access from a different neighborhood. Engineer Simmons stated Page 8 of 29 the vacuums are on both sides of the diagonal parking lot and will be screened by masonry walls to help mitigate any sound. Attorney Lee stated in regard to lighting that the site will have some level of security lighting when they are closed. The ordinance provides some restrictions on lighting and keeping the lighting onsite. Chairman Olds entertained questions from planning board members. In regard to Vice Chair Jordy Rawl’s inquiry regarding how stormwater will handled for the site, Engineer Simmons explained that stormwater will be handled through an underground system, noting that all of the tests for hydraulic connectivity versus seasonal high water table are being done and they will meet all the required state and county regulations. Chairman Olds closed the public hearing and opened the planning board discussion period. Vice Chair Rawl offered kudos to the applicant, noting it sounded like there were some challenges with the site plan that weren’t quite conducive with the neighbors' desires and they have modified it and taken the time to work hand in hand with the neighboring property owners to come up with a plan that works for everybody. There is a lot going on in the Market Street area and it looks like they have made all the necessary accommodations to fit this plan into the future NCDOT improvements. They have also adhered to all of the requirements for the land use, so he is in favor of the proposal. Vice Chair Rawl stated his opinion that this is a good site for something of this nature. He noted there really isn’t anything on that Market Street corridor for car care and service, but we all seem to utilize it frequently so it is kind of a necessary part of our daily lives. Chairman Rawl stated in regard to the two monument signs shown on the site plan, he would prefer a condition requiring a brick monument sign without red or highlighted lighting on that roadway if the applicants were amendable to it. He pointed out that a neon or scrolling sign would be distracting on that roadway. He thought that type of sign would also be in keeping with the neighbor’s concerns. Board Member Boney stated agreement with Vice Chair Rawl’s comments. He also commented that flipping the site plan had made the proposal much better. He said he appreciates the neighbor’s concerns and knows that Mr. Lee will listen intently to those and react to them; therefore, he would be in favor of the proposal. Board Member David Weaver stated that Mr. Boney’s suggestion to extending the fence further down Oak Ridge Lane would probably help screen the vacuums if it was a hundred feet long, but it didn’t sound like the neighbors were interested. Board Member Boney said it was he had suggested extending the fence a bit to block the vacuums from the neighbors, but he wasn’t expecting a fence to go all the way across given there is a large tree in the way. Mr. Boney said he would leave it up to the applicants and the neighbors to work that out. Mr. Weaver commented that the engineer had also stated that masonry walls would be installed around the vacuum areas to mitigate sound. Mr. Boney said that extending the fence was a suggestion to make the project one step better, which would be easy to do it now and harder to do later. Page 9 of 29 Chairman Olds agreed, noting this is an example where working with the neighbors and taking a little extra time has really refined the site plan and resulted in a much better product than the original plan. He applauded the applicants and the neighbors for contributing to make it a better project. They have done everything we asked. He added it’s also important to note this is a conditional use and is not going to be anything other than what is proposed so it really protects the neighborhood in the future. This is the only thing it can be and it has to be done in this way. Chairman Olds the conditional use provides a higher level of protection and if he were a neighbor, he would feel more comfortable knowing it’s a conditional use. Chairman Olds entertained a motion from the board. MOTION: Board Member Paul Boney MOTIONED, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl, to recommend approval of Zoning Request Z17-11, as the Planning Board finds that this request for a zoning map amendment of 2.5 acres from a Conditional Use B-1 district, to a Conditional B-1 district, as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the low-density commercial use is appropriate due to its location off a major arterial in a transitional area between major intersections and two Urban Mixed Use areas where higher density mixed uses are desirable. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed development will support business success and provide commercial services to the surrounding residents, while limiting impacts to the surrounding residential area by preserving existing vegetation and installing a fully opaque buffer along the rear property line. Conditions: 1. All existing trees located within required buffer yards must be preserved and supplemented as necessary in order to provide a fully opaque screen. In addition, a six-foot tall solid fence must be installed along the rear buffer yard. 2. Flashing, animated, and digital signs shall be prohibited on the property. 3. A sign indicating that Oak Ridge Lane is a private road shall be installed along the right-of-way of Oak Ridge Lane, west of the proposed driveway access to the subject site. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED unanimously (4-0). Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z17-13) - Request by Right Angle Engineering, on behalf of the property owner, McCormick Ventures, LLC, to modify the conditions of the Northchase Planned Development to allow for an additional driveway access to N. College Road from property located at 4616 Coddington Loop. Current Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Schuler presented the following staff report: Page 10 of 29 This is an application to modify the conditions of the Northchase planned development. Similar to conditional zoning districts, planned developments are approved with a master plan which the property must be developed in accordance with. Minor modifications to master plans can be approved by staff; however, major changes like this application must follow the same review process as a new rezoning application, and that is why this request is being considered by the planning board tonight. The Northchase planned development, which consists of approximately 700 acres, was approved in 1985. The development is essentially split in half by North College Road. The western portion of the development was constructed for residential purposes, while the eastern portion was developed for commercial and industrial purposes. As part of the approval for Northchase, the development was limited to a total of six (6) access points at four (4) locations on North College Road. The six (6) access points then connect to an internal street network, which provides access to all the properties within Northchase, including both the residential and commercial portions of the development. The applicant is requesting to modify the conditions of the Northchase planned development to allow for an additional driveway access to North College Road from a 1.15-acre parcel located at 4616 Coddington Loop. That property is classified as Commercial on the Northchase master plan, which would allow for it to be developed with land uses permitted in the B-1 and B-2 zoning districts. The applicant states that a driveway at this location would improve business visibility, access, and deliveries by large trucks. When the subject property was first created through a subdivision plat in 1999, access was permitted by a 30- foot access easement where a driveway was previously installed connecting to Northchase Parkway. In 2007, a document was recorded in the Register of Deeds office that abandoned that easement and dedicated a new 50-foot easement on top of Coddington Loop, which allowed the subject property and adjacent properties to utilize Coddington Loop for access and utility purposes. Those adjacent properties, a child care center and a Fedex warehouse, already utilize Coddington Loop as their sole access. The proposed driveway is located about 300 feet north of the intersection of North College Road and Northchase Parkway. The proposed driveway would be designed to only permit right in, right out movements. There is an existing driveway stub to the subject property from Coddington Loop. The property and its surrounding area are located just south of the Cape Fear Community College North Campus, which has been identified as a growth node in our comprehensive plan and North College Road is a key arterial street that provides access to the campus and to that node. After considering this proposal and the potential impacts it may have on the surrounding area, staff is recommending denial of this application. Overall the proposed driveway will only provide benefit to the subject property, while increasing the opportunities for traffic congestion in the area. Limiting the number of driveways to North College Road allows for a better flow of that road by reducing points of conflict that motorists will have to face while traveling on it. This is a planned development that was designed to reduce conflict points on North College Road by providing a sufficient and effective internal roadway network that provides access to all of the properties within the development. The proposed driveway will not improve the access or vehicular circulation to the neighboring properties as they already utilize that internal roadway network. Lastly, staff has concerns that allowance of an additional driveway at the subject property could start a precedent for adjacent property Page 11 of 29 owners to seek the same request. Staff requested input from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding this application. NCDOT staff support County staff's recommendation of denial, and also stated concerns with increasing the number of conflict points on one of the county's major corridors. NCDOT’s full position statement is included in the planning board packet. Current Planner Schuler announced that Ben Hughes, the County’s District Engineer, was present should the planning board have any questions specifically for him. Planner Schuler concluded the presentation and offered to answer any questions the board may have. Chairman Olds asked if board members had any questions for staff. Hearing none, Chairman Olds opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Shane Lippard of Right Angle Engineering stated he represented the applicant, and staff had done a good job presenting the case; however, the applicant is not in agreement with their determination. Engineer Lippard stated he started working with Mr. McCormick several years ago. Mr. McCormick currently operates a small engine and tractor shop that is located in the Northcha se development on Enterprise and Trademark Drives. Mr. McCormick’s business has grown and he needs more exposure. He purchased the property on Highway 132 and approached our company to develop a site plan. Engineer Lippard said the first thought in our minds was if you want connection to Highway 132, we better engage with the NCDOT. We then approached NCDOT, developed a conceptual plan, and took that plan to them. At the time, there may not have been a full understanding of the site and the components within the site or the master plan that had been approved in 1985, but the initial response from NCDOT was that they would be in favor of a right in, right out to the property from North College Road. The proposal is not a high volume traffic generator; it’s a small business within Northchase that needs more visibility and accessibility to thrive. Engineer Lippard commented that they like to think the County would like to help small businesses in our area thrive and this move up to Northchase and the connectivity to North College Road would provide that for this small equipment manufacturer. Engineer Lippard stated that the proposal’s traffic generation does not exceed the hundred trips per day that would trigger a traffic impact analysis. This is a small volume business so he doesn’t see a large or even considerable impact to traffic other than the master plan dictated back in 1985 that this property was in that. He noted that the master plan had been revised before. The large apartment complex that built Coddington Loop came in to modify the master plan. The plan isn’t written in stone that it can’t be modified so they are here tonight to petition the planning board to make consideration for that subject property for Mr. McCormick. Chairman Olds asked if board members had any questions for the applicant. Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl asked Engineer Lippard to explain the request and the site plan presented with the application, noting the site plan shows a body tract that appears to only host a connection point from Highway 132 back to Coddington Loop with no other improvements on it. Engineer Lippard explained they had developed a conceptual site plan that they took to NCDOT, which they were in agreement with at that time. When the applicant submitted a full site plan to Page 12 of 29 the County for a site plan review and the planning and zoning approval process, the flag went up that the subject parcel was within the master plan. For this package, the applicant is only asking for a conditional zoning change for a driveway connection that is a fixed portion of the original conditional use. He stated they had actually taken off all the site elements for that purpose because they are not under consideration with this modification of the site plan. Engineer Lippard stated he has the site plan and has submitted it to the County and to NCDOT. Planner Schuler clarified the use the applicants are proposing is already allowed as it is currently zoned. This request is just to allow that additional driveway on North College Road because the current master plan wouldn’t allow it by right. Mr. Schuler stated that if this driveway is denied the applicant can still develop that property for the business. Vice Chairman Rawl stated it seemed odd to him that this would be a use type that would come before the planning board. It seemed more pertinent for the board of adjustment. Current Planner Schuler explained that technically this application is amending the master plan of the Northchase Planned Development, which was conditionally zoned. Board Member David Weaver noted the application states that having the driveway there would increase their visibility and inquired how the increase in visibility would occur for the business in such a way that it could not be met by th e signage that's allowed along College Road there. Engineer Shane Lippard said it’s the visibility aspect that you would put your equipment and signage along that road, but it would also provide the visibility for his clientele that come in there, they can see his business and get right in the driveway, increasing their potential for using this business. In response to Board Member Paul Boney’s inquiry, Engineer Lippard explained that the business is equipment and tractor sales and repair services for small engines and equipment like chainsaws, etc. He stated he wasn’t certain if there was a limit on the size of tractors they sell. Engineer Lippard confirmed they will have the equipment displayed along the road frontage so when someone rides by they will know there is a tractor and equipment shop there. Board Member Boney stated he would like to hear from the owner why he was making this request. Attorney Greg Katzman of Shipman and Wright located at 575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106, Wilmington, stated that the modification request is before the planning board because staff had classified it as a major change to the master plan. He stated that in his mind this request would not be a major change, but there is a difference of opinion. Attorney Katzman stated there are only four shops in Wilmington that provide these types of services. There are large box stores that don’t offer the same type of services because if you buy a lawnmower there, they aren’t going to service it. He stated what makes their client so unique and needed in the community is one of the long- standing smaller engine repair shops just suffered a tragic fire in the last 3 months, so the need for his business to expand is part and parcel to that new need that there are less active small engine repair shops locally that can sell and service equipment. His client is a Toro and Stihl dealer and there aren’t many in this area. Because he is close to Castle Hayne, which is more rural in nature than Wilmington, he can also serve that area as well. Being able to have the tractors out in front of his facility is how he operates right now. You can see it when you go into the Food Lion; you can see the tractors available out in front. His business has gotten too big for where he is right now. When you have these deliveries, and the deliveries are not impacting the TIA report. If it becomes Page 13 of 29 necessary that we need to provide our own traffic impact analysis on that, we have made some communications as to the analysis that needed to be brought forward, but based on the initial analysis, his business is not like Food Lion, which serves thousands of people. Attorney Katzman stated if it became necessary that the board wanted to put a condition on the plan that this is a special permit that we wouldn’t be allowed to change our operations from the type of operations that we are doing at this point, the applicant would consider that as well. The reason we’ve heard mainly from the County on this is because of the amount of traffic this is going to be an issue and we don’t believe that there is an impact from the traffic that would necessitate this being called a major change. Attorney Katzman stated they were open to answer any questions the board may have and Mr. McCormick would be happy to answer any specific questions as to his business. Board Member Paul Boney said that no one was questioning whether this business is needed as a business or whether he can expand and do what he wants out there. He understands being able to see what kind of tractors are out there when you ride by for two years and then say you want that one and come back and get it. Mr. Boney commented that his concern is someone driving out there with a truck and trailer and their equipment on the back and pulling out of this driveway onto North College Road where we’re not trying to add more traffic. From his viewpoint, it would be a lot safer to go back down Coddington Loop to get back onto North College Road like you’re doing now. Mr. Katzman commented that if we were doing that, we would be blending in with all the traffic, which he thinks would result in more of a backup there, with tractor-trailers coming on here. When you have a designed lane and if it needs to be extended longer it can be so that they can blend into traffic when they are up to speed rather than starting from scratch and having to blend in with all the other traffic at that time, especially with deliveries not only f rom vendors, but also deliveries from customers. Board Member Boney explained that he was fifteen minutes late because he was coming from the middle part of the state and he was blending with a whole bunch of huge trucks with trees on them and they had no qualms about pulling out in front of him and going 20 miles per hour until they could increase speed up to 70 miles per hour. He commented that he has a problem with that explanation and wants to believe that what he is telling him is right, but his personal experience has been that on North College Road there is a lot of traffic going to the community college site, and if it were that great and was what they wanted to do, that access would have been in the master plan. Attorney Katzman commented that the master plan of 1985 had been changed countless times. Board Member Boney asked for a definition of countless and inquired if the driveways had been changed. Attorney Katzman replied that he didn’t have the number in front of him for how many times the master plan had been changed and confirmed that the driveways had not been changed, but the use of them has been. He noted if he were a driver on Highway 132 and had the option of a lane that someone could use to get up to speed he would rather have that person getting on the highway and having a chance than from a right angle. He noted that Cape Fear Community College has a tractor-trailer school there and none of the neighbors came to the community meeting with any opposition and no one from the community is present today in opposition to this request. Attorney Katzman stated that the plan being changed for the whole area has no opposition at this time other than from the staff. Board Member David Weaver inquired if it would be appropriate to have the NCDOT representative provide his perspective on what would be the best option in regard to traffic. Page 14 of 29 Chairman Olds asked NCDOT Engineer Hughes to provide an explanation regarding NCDOT’s determination letter included in the planning board package indicating they would not be in support of the amendment to the planned development. Ben Hughes, District Engineer with the NC Department of Transportation, stated one thing they look at when providing access to developments is the balance of access with mobility. Each and every additional conflict point on our roadways in North Carolina is one more potential point of conflict. Using rough numbers, on average yearly there are 15,000 accidents related directly to driveways with 100 fatalities and each one of those accidents is approximately $24,000 and there is a cost to the traveling public for that. NCDOT staff are always looking at how much access is necessary for development. In this case seeing it was part of a larger master plan that we would look to see this site served internally. Chairman Olds inquired what sort of driveway spacing would be typical on a road of this amount of traffic. Engineer Hughes replied probably three to four hundred feet minimum, that would give you enough room to put in a proper deceleration lane. In response to another inquiry from Chairman Olds, Engineer Hughes stated that the proposed driveway is approximately 200 feet from the intersection. Vice Chairman Rawl noted during the presentation it looked like there was an argument that cars wanted to travel up here and accelerate, but it looks like existing pavement with a right turn lane. He noted it doesn’t make any sense for someone to accelerate in a deceleration lane, which sounded like the best rationale of what the applicants were talking about this proposed driveway cut for. Engineer Hughes replied that there is a proposed turn lane for the next driveway to the north so NCDOT staff would not suggest any vehicles get into that turn lane to accelerate into traffic. He noted it is actually safer to come to the intersection and then make a right turn. The speed limit is 45 miles per hour there. Board Member Weaver inquired which option would be the least dangerous between granting a driveway cut there versus the statements from the applicant’s engineer in terms of added traffic and possible danger. NCDOT Engineer Ben Hughes replied that he would 100 percent recommend internal connectivity as recommended. Chairman Olds inquired if there was sufficient turning width in that intersection driving south from Castle Hayne to make a U-turn with a pickup truck pulling a trailer. NCDOT Engineer Ben Hughes replied that you would actually make a left into Northchase Parkway into the signal and then connect back through the roadway so you wouldn’t need to make a U-turn. Mr. Olds said his concern was that if there was a driveway available someone might try to do that and he wouldn’t want to see that happen at the speeds that cars are traveling at in that area. Vice Chair Rawl commented that there is a 200-foot wide right-of-way there off that roadway which seems pretty excessive and inquired if that is for future roadway improvements. It might not be in the immediate plan for NCDOT, but with a 200-foot wide right-of-way, he can only assume at some point more lanes are going to be added, which may change how this plan is going to come together in the future. NCDOT Engineer Hughes stated Mr. Rawl was correct. They usually don’t have that much right-of-way, especially in Wilmington. He noted that Market Street has only 100 feet of right-of-way so it's a challenge. NCDOT doesn’t have plans to widen that roadway today, but with the growth slated for Wilmington, he can definitely see North College Page 15 of 29 Road going to a four lane divided highway in the future and that right-of-way already being there would make it much easier to do. Chairman Olds asked if the property owner would like to address the planning board. John McCormick, owner of the subject property, stated in regard to the danger of the roadway, that Engineer Lippard has proposed a right in, right out only. He inquired if Mr. Hughes' concerns about safety were so extreme at the time why he gave the applicant written permission to connect to the driveway initially. Mr. McCormick stated that based on the initial permission from NCDOT to have the driveway, his engineer had reverted the whole site plan, which cost him thousands of dollars. If traffic went right in only and exited out the back of the property, coming out Coddington Loop to Northchase Parkway at the intersection, traffic could go north or south and get into traffic safely. Whether a tractor-trailer pulls out here or there, you are still going to be behind the tractor-trailer. In response to an inquiry by Board Member Boney, Mr. McCormick confirmed the applicant had received permission from an NCDOT engineer under Engineer Ben Hughes to connect a driveway to Highway 132. Then, when county staff got involved and threw in a map from 1985 for Northchase, NCDOT staff wanted to back up to 1985 and throw in master plan that has been revised at least four times. He noted that the master plan did not even give Northchase permission to hook up those apartments that they hooked up, which weren’t part of the master plan, yet they had no problem revising it then. He also noted there is already a deceleration lane for you to turn in because NCDOT gave the apartments access to Highway 132 and Northchase, but they want to deny him a 20-foot driveway because of their so-called 1985 master plan. He stated that the visibility is very crucial to his business. He noted he was the first tractor dealer in town and sells tractors up to 300 horsepower. They are an outdoor equipment business so they are going to have construction equipment there. onsite. He stated that he needs the green space and the visibility and noted that NCDOT does not maintain that right-of-way area adequately. He commented that there is a lot of drug traffic out there, and that's why he cut the property down so you can see. Mr. McCormick reiterated that he needs the driveway and that NCDOT is not going to maintain the road right-of-way area adequately. Board Member Boney asked if he was driving down the road with his tractor on a trailer and missed the entrance at Northchase Parkway where he would be able to turn around. Mr. McCormick explained that his property isn’t located on the corner, but if a driver missed the entrance, the driver could go down across the bridge and take a left or right on Blue Clay Road to turn around. It would be up to the driver. Board Member Boney explained he had asked that question to figure out the safety impacts of the proposal. Mr. McCormick said that in the worst case scenario Mr. Boney could go down to the traffic circle at Castle Hayne and come back south or if he’s headed south already, he could turn around at the shopping center. Mr. McCormick said if his business had the space availability and you could see it from the road better, someone might not miss the business and need to look at a cellphone for directions. Board Member Boney said he was looking for a rationale to put this driveway where the applicant wants to put it. He understands that if you miss that turn, you at least see the tractors, you see the turn in, and you go, but that has to be weighed against how many vehicles are backing up in a 45 miles per hour zone. Mr. McCormick said he didn’t think that would happen especially Page 16 of 29 with a tractor-trailer and noted that the other rationale would be that an entrance in and an exit out would provide you a circular path. Board Member Boney said he understood that also. In response to another inquiry from Mr. Boney regarding the initial request to NCDOT, Mr. McCormick confirmed the applicant had requested the driveway access on North College Road. Mr. McCormick stated that they had a verbal agreement and NCDOT staff had emailed them with permission for the driveway permit on North College Road. Mr. McCormick commented that Engineer Lippard has that email and could print it for the planning board members. Engineer Lippard then reverted the site plan access to Highway 132, which cost him thousands of dollars. Board Member Boney commented that it would seem that Engineer Lippard would show up at this meeting with the email from NCDOT staff giving he applicant permission for the driveway access on North College Road. telling us he had permission to do this. Mr. McCormick stated that DOT Division Engineer Ben Hughes and his subordinate engineer had given them permission for the driveway access to North College Road. NCDOT District Engineer Hughes confirmed that NCDOT staff did provide preliminary comments in an email prior to knowing that the parcel was part of the 1985 master plan development. When NCDOT staff were given that additional information, they rescinded those preliminary comments. Board Member Boney asked Mr. Hughes to clarify if the preliminary information was based on looking at the facts of whether the request was okay or not okay in NCDOT staff’s opinion and the initial thought process was that it was okay, which is what NCDOT sent to the applicant. NCDOT District Engineer Hughes stated that technically the request was denied completely; however, after a meeting at NCDOT’s district office and the applicants agreed to install concrete medians and a right in, right out, NCDOT staff was more amenable to the driveway, but had we known it was part of the master plan, we wouldn’t have been. Board Member Boney expressed concern about hitting those concrete medians with a truck and a trailer. He asked Mr. Hughes to address what the applicants were told when they started this process and how they then got to a denial. NCDOT District Engineer Ben Hughes stated the request for a driveway was initially denied. Then, the applicant asked for a meeting where they worked through a possible right in, right out with a concrete median, which was okay with NCDOT staff at that time. After that meeting, NCDOT staff learned the additional information about this parcel being part of a master planned development so that changed the dynamics of it where the parcel needed to be served internally. Board Member Boney stated he was conflicted about the request, noting his attempts to balance the information provided by Engineer Hughes on the history of how this situation unfolded and what Mr. McCormick was told that resulted in him proceeding forward with a whole business plan based on that information. In response to Board Member David Weaver’s question, NCDOT District Engineer Ben Hughes confirmed that NCDOT staff was aware that the applicant had access to Coddington Loop Page 17 of 29 and the internal network in Northchase when they made the decision that it would be okay to do the right in, right out access to Mr. McCormick’s site on North College Road. Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl stated it is an unfortunate situation for the applicant, County staff and NCDOT. He noted that to spend the money to look at the possibility of getting a driveway cut in and spending engineering dollars is unfortunately the cost of doing business. It sounds like NCDOT was in a predicament where they didn't have the full background on the history of the project and, he thinks what it comes down to is public safety. NCDOT is saying we can’t approve a driveway permit and he’s not sure how this governing body is in a position to make a determination that is superior to NCDOT’s recommendation for the greater good of the public safety. Mr. Rawl said he feels it is a bit out of their subject matter jurisdiction with this board trying to approve something that NCDOT has given full recommendation against. He sympathizes with the property owner because he believes in capitalism and this is a free country and the applicant is trying to make money and do what he can to support his business. He didn’t want to get into his business plan, noting it sounds like he wants the visual component of having that roadway traffic. Mr. Rawl said he didn’t necessarily know if a driveway is directly pertinent to that, but Mr. McCormick is the business owner and he makes those determinations. He said he wouldn’t comment on the emails sent back and forth, but he empathizes with all parties involved because he doesn’t think it's directly anybody's fault and there isn’t really blame to be placed on anybody for this. Seeing no other witnesses, Chairman Olds inquired if the board members had any other questions for witnesses who could provide testimony. Hearing none, Chairman Olds closed the public hearing and opened the planning board discussion period. Chairman Olds stated the question before the board is a change to the master plan, not whether or not this is a good thing to do for NCDOT or a bad thing to do or whether they followed their procedures right. He isn’t a traffic engineer and is really just using his common sense and isn’t so sure that is fair. What he might think is right might not be what Mr. Boney thinks is right. Chairman Olds stated that for him, the primary question is whether or not we can change the master plan. He said he doesn’t see any reason why they should. There are no other driveways that are connecting and if we start with one, we’re opening it up to every single lot on the road. He added knowing that College Road is as traveled as it is, we’ve had plenty of cases before us where neighbors have said, whatever you do, please help us make the traffic better. He said there’s not much we can do. Chairman Olds stated he is not inclined to be in favor of this request because he doesn’t believe this is our question. Board Member David Weaver stated he agreed with Chairman Olds that this would be opening the door to any other lot along there to also request a driveway. He expressed his regret that the applicant didn’t have all the information and know that he would be required to come before the planning board and commissioners to get a change in the master plan. Board Member Paul Boney stated he doesn’t like the process that the applicant had to go through and there seems to be a lot of uncertainty about how the situation unfolded. In his opinion, it wouldn’t be the safest choice to put a driveway where the applicant wants to put a driveway. Page 18 of 29 Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl commented that the board members are echoing the same thing. It comes down to what this board is in place to do and that’s make a determination on a master plan from 1985 and whether a change to that master plan would be in the benefit of the public interest. He stated it doesn’t feel like it’s really within this board’s determining power to be able to make that judgement call. Chairman Olds entertained a motion from the board. MOTION: Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl MOTIONED, SECONDED by Board Member Paul Boney, to recommend denial, as the Board finds that this request to modify the conditions of the Northchase Planned Development to allow for an additional driveway access to North College Road, as described is: 1. Not consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed driveway will contribute to more traffic conflicts on a key arterial street to an anticipated growth node. 2. Not reasonable and not in the public interest because the proposed driveway will add an additional conflict point on North College Road, thereby increasing the opportunities for traffic congestion and decreasing the overall safety of the road. In addition, the proposed driveway will not improve the access or vehicular circulation to neighboring commercial properties within Northchase as they are already served by an existing internal roadway network. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED unanimously (4-0). Board Member David Weaver stated he would be concerned about the applicant being able to achieve visibility to make his project sustainable, and would ask staff if they feel the signage availability for someone who pays a high price for a lot along College Road in that area is good enough for them to achieve visibility to people driving by on College Road. He noted he was not familiar with the regulations. Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea responded that the zoning ordinance does allow for a sign to be placed along that section of the parcel. One thing that didn’t come up in that conversation about visibility is that there’s not a buffer that would be required along North College Road there, so the landscaping that would be required would be merely streetscaping and wouldn’t need to be an opaque buffer so it seems that visibility would still be attainable. In response to another inquiry from Mr. Weaver, Mr. Andrea confirmed that the applicant would also be able to park equipment in the area along the front of his lot. Item 3: Special Use Permit Request (S17-04) - Request by Design Solutions, on behalf of the property owner, CWEST, LLC, for a special use permit for a camping and travel trailer park on 3.6 acres of land located at 9533 & 9617 River Road. Current Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Schuler presented the following staff report: Page 19 of 29 This is an application for a special use permit for a camping and travel trailer park. The zoning map of the area reflects the subject property, which is located in an area along River Road zoned for residential purposes. Adjoining the property to the north is an existing camp ground, the Carolina Beach Family Campground, and to the south is Snows Cut and Snows Cut Park. Directly next door to the subject property is a single family dwelling. Subject property consists of two parcels of land totaling 3.6 acres. The northern parcel is currently undeveloped and the southern parcel contains an existing mobile home park and a single family dwelling. As shown on the current site plan, the campground will consist of 44 camping sites. The applicant is proposing to develop the site in two phases. The first phase will consist of the northern portion of the property which will contain 26 camp sites and a bath house. The second phase will be the southern portion of the property which will contain the remaining camp sites and will convert the existing single family dwelling into a management office and bath house for the campground. The campground is expected to connect to Aqua Utilities for water services. Waste water services for the bath houses will be provided by a private septic system, which will have to be installed in accordance with the county's health department standards. Also, a sewage dumping station is required for the RV and travel trailers and will have to be installed with accordance with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality standards. As for traffic, the proposed use is not expected to generate more than 100 trips during peak hours; therefore, a traffic impact analysis (TIA) was not required to be completed. Mr. Schuler presented a map reflecting the recent and planned transportation improvements for the area, noting there have been no recent TIAs completed in the area, nor are there any projects included within the STIP. The Wilmington-New Hanover Greenway Plan does recommend a greenway be provided along this portion of River Road. Mr. Schuler provided a photo of the existing trees along the corner of River Road there, noting they are actually located within the right-of-way and there are no plans to remove them with this proposal. The Comprehensive Plan classifies the subject property as General Residential. This place type focuses on low density housing and associated civic, commercial, and recreational uses. Overall, the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it provides for recreational opportunities. It is also not estimated to generate a large amount of traffic on the nearby roadway network and it is located next to an existing campground in an area containing few single family homes. Because this is a special use permit application, the planning board must make the following four conclusions in order to recommend approval on the application. Those conclusions should be supported with findings of fact based on substantial and competent evidence. Staff has created preliminary findings of fact that support each of the conclusions are included in the staff report. The Findings of Fact prepared by staff are: 1. The use will not endanger the public health or safety. Page 20 of 29 2. The use complies with all the conditions and specifications of the zoning ordinance. (Staff reviewed this site plan with the NHC Mobile Home and Travel Trailer Park Ordinance and it does comply with the standards of that ordinance). 3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. (The proposal is located adjacent to an existing campground). 4. The use will be in harmony with the area and be in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. Staff suggests two conditions: 1. No camping activity of any kind can occur in the required buffer yard or in the 15-foot wide access easement that runs along the northern portion of the property. 2. A 20-foot wide easement be dedicated to New Hanover County along River Road for the purpose of installing a future multi-use path in accordance with the Wilmington-New Hanover Greenway Plan. Current Planner Schuler concluded his presentation and offered to answer questions from board members. Chairman Olds inquired if board members had any questions for staff. Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl noted the use doesn’t generate the peak hour trips to require a traffic impact analysis (TIA), and inquired if any additional traffic study would need to be conducted for the proposal. He cited the instance of a large vehicle traveling with perhaps a tow behind it like a 45 to 50-foot camper and wondered it that would put the project in need of a traffic generation study. Current Planner Schuler responded that a study would have to be generated based on the number of trips at the site. Driveways will require a driveway permit from NCDOT so there is still some review by the NC Department of Transportation and with that review they would require improvements to those driveways including turn lanes. He explained that would occur during the overall permitting of the development should the special use permit be approved. Hearing no other questions from board members, Chairman Olds opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions stated she represented the owner of the property, Mr. Westbrook, who has the opportunity to buy the lot above it. She stated the Comprehensive Plan promotes more access to water sports, our parks, and recreational activities in the area that the project is located. As shown previously by Mr. Schuler, there are several mobile homes currently on the site. Everything in Phase 1 would be located in the wooded area to the north. In regard to the site plan, Ms. Wolf stated that one of the things that was important to him was that he didn’t displace the people that are already living there and for that reason, the project will be phased. The other priority was to maintain the heritage trees that are throughout the site. Several of the trees are already in the right-of-way and those won’t be disturbed whatsoever, but the applicant also Page 21 of 29 worked the circulation pattern around the trees that are there. They also stubbed to the adjacent property line, which is a common requirement, and worked with staff on that because there is that potential. The potential travel trailers are one of the prescribed conditions of the special use permit for RV and trailer parks so they are just showing on some of those smaller lots. Every lot in an RV park has to be a minimum of 2,000 square feet, but that doesn’t mean that it has to be totally usable. It’s not like a subdivision, but she had to approach it that way on some of the narrower or smaller lots. Every lot is a minimum of 20-feet wide so two vehicles can park side by side. Some of them have buffers. On some of the smaller or more encumbered lots, she wanted to show that the common 45-foot RV motor homes or travel trailer if it’s a fifth wheel could fit on any of these smaller lots. Ms. Wolf stated the applicants agreed with staff’s findings of fact and appreciated their thorough presentation. She offered to go over the findings of fact if necessary and answer any questions the board may have. Chairman Olds asked if board members had any questions for the applicant. Vice Chair Rawl noted Mr. Schuler had indicated there would be a septic disposal area on the site and inquired how that septic disposal system would work given the close proximity of the site to the Snows Cut water body. Ms. Wolf stated they had not gotten into those details yet, but those are all restricted and worked through the Health Department. This proposal is not going to be a campground; the owners’ intention is to develop an RV and travel trailer park. Most of them have their own internal facilities, but they also require waste pump stations so the site would have one of those incorporated, but it has not been detailed at this point in the process. Mr. Wolf pointed out that the site in not in the floodplain, which is also one of the requirements. The Health Department dictates they be double-enclosed tanks, which are monitored and waste would be pumped out and removed from site via a contracted service. Ms. Wolf confirmed that the bath house would be required to be on a septic system. Vice Chairman Rawl inquired if the roadways within the site would be paved. Ms. Wolf replied that the site would have gravel roadways. The applicant is not intending to install any impervious surfaces other than the slabs that are customary for this type of site. There will be parking and electrical hookups, and users will put up a canopy, etc. The applicant intends to have a very nice, high-class facility on this site. In response to Vice Chair Rawl’s inquiry about stormwater management, Ms. Wolf stated they would look at stormwater management, but said she believed the amount of impervious surface to be installed will be limited at 25 percent so the applicant will work with the county for some attenuation, but the State will regard the proposal as a low density project. Ms. Wolf said in regard to the project possibly being within a half mile of SA waters and the impervious surface being reduced to 12-1/2 percent, she didn’t know if that would apply because that is the river primarily there; however, the applicant’s engineer will attend to those details during the permitting process. Chairman Olds asked Ms. Wolf to describe the activity of the travel trailer park and asked how it would differ from a camping activity. Ms. Wolf explained that much of that information would be in the management plan. The applicant would not preclude people from longer term rental of the spot, but it isn’t intended to become a trailer park. Page 22 of 29 Curtis Westbrook, Sr., of 701 E. Chatham Street, Cary, NC stated he is the owner of the property and has many years of experience in the mobile home business in Cary. The travel trailer business is an evolving business. You have the mini homes that are now travel trailers so you have people moving around who will stay a week here and a month there, so they expect based on what they see and hear from the Carolina Beach area and from people moving around, it will be primarily almost a hundred percent people who may live in their home, but they move around. They will come by, visit, and use their own facilities, and use our dump station, which we will maintain. We’ll have weekend visitors and weekly visitors and we may have some monthly visitors, but it will vary. Mr. Westbrook confirmed the activity would be seasonal, but there has been more and more movement year round because a lot of people have sold their homes, purchased travel trailers, and decided to just move around. Mr. Westbrook stated they hope to accommodate those kinds of people. He said he has looked at the new construction for recreational vehicles in this area, and there are a lot of new, nice-looking vehicles on the road. There are also a lot of good people that have gone camping. Board Member David Weaver stated admiration of the applicant’s concern for the transition of the existing residents in the mobile home park. He’s heard horror stories of people living in mobile homes getting booted out and their mobile home being in such bad shape that they can’t pull it out without it falling apart. Mr. Weaver inquired if there was a way to assure the mobile home park residents in writing that they can stay there for a specified period of time. Mr. Westbrook assured Mr. Weaver that was the first thing that crossed his mind, noting he had gone through the process of moving 144 residents out of a mobile park in the past and didn’t want to go through that process again, even with the 15 units that they have there at the current mobile home park. He stated he knows every resident. Six of them reside onsite year round and the other nine live somewhere else and come down for the summer. He has already assured the unit owners that it was not his intent ever and told Ms. Wolf at the beginning that he didn’t want to have anything to do with moving the residents out. He noted as the residents transition out or if someone passes away, then the applicants will transition into the RV side of it, but the current residents can remain there as long as they want to remain there. Mr. Weaver inquired if Mr. Westbrook would provide the residents with a letter stating that to provide them with some assurance. He noted moving residents out can be traumatic to them because they lose everything they have. Mr. Westbrook replied that the residents truthfully don’t have any place to go so he would be happy to provide them with a letter. Board Member Boney pointed out that all of these residents reside in the Phase 2 portion of the proposal. Ms. Wolf confirmed that Phase 2 would not be initiated until all of those issues with the current residents are resolved. Vice Chair Rawl asked Ms. Wolf if she thought it might be necessary to have a crosswalk or bollard to allow adequate pedestrian access to the water, given the hairpin turn on River Road and the park located on the water side of the road. He noted that he would imagine that anybody that utilized the proposed RV site is going to want to make their way down to the water’s edge at the park at some point and it may be nice to delineate an area for them to cross River Road. He asked that the applicant take it under consideration. Page 23 of 29 Cindee Wolf stated they had discussed the driveway location with staff and took photos from both directions. Even though those significant trees are there you can see from both photos that there are more than adequate sight lines. They could talk to NCDOT about the issue, but this is not a particularly heavily traveled road with constant traffic and there is good sight distance. That would be crosswalk type of situation that for 45 people is probably a little overboard. She agreed it would be fair to say that once actual permitting begins, there could be adjustments with NCDOT and they could have the discussion. She noted that one of the things shown on the master plan is was that extra driveway on River Road would go away and the in, the out, and how the driveway would work would be more formalized. Chairman Olds asked if anyone present would like to speak in support or in opposition of the proposal. Boyd Knapp of 9641 River Road stated he has a campground adjacent to the subject property. He explained he is not pro or con in regard to the request. He explained that he has a bath house, a swimming pool and a playground and would like a 6-foot wooden fence installed between his property and the new development. He noted the other issue he has is that in this county it has always been a hassle about not permitting mobile homes on a travel trailer park nor travel trailers on a mobile home park. He inquired what the project will be called and if it will be half mobile home park and half travel trailer park. He stated that over and over he had talked to people that had been moved out who had big travel trailers in mobile home parks. An enforcement officer would around. Mr. Knapp commented that those things don’t concern him necessarily. His priority is to have a fence so the children don’t come across from the new development into his facilities, which are located on the long, undeveloped 11-acres tract just adjacent north of the subject property. Chairman Olds inquired if anyone else would like to speak in favor of the application. Hearing none, he opened the opposition portion of the hearing. Troy Slaughter of 705 Princess Street, Wilmington, stated he represented Winner Enterprises of Carolina Beach, LLC. Mr. Slaughter said in full disclosure his company has an RV park, Winners RV Park, in Carolina Beach, which has been there for a number of decades, but he is not here to discuss that particular aspect. Mr. Slaughter said his concern is that his property is sandwiched in between Mr. Knapp’s property and this applicant’s property. The 15-foot wide easement that runs across that northern portion of the site plan is his main concern. He noted they own three parcels that are directly to the west of this particular park that are addressed as 9415 River Road, 9417 River Road, and 9421 River Road. All three of these parcels are landlocked parcels, but for this particular easement across the northern portion of the subject property. The only way we can get to our three parcels is across this 15-foot easement. He noted one of those parcels is owned by him and his ex-wife and the other two parcels are owned by Winner Enterprises. He noted there would probably be some dispute with Mr. Westbrook about the validity of this easement, but that is an issue for another day and another forum. He asked how the proposed site plan will affect their three parcels if the 15-foot easement that was put in place many, many years ago is not sufficient and they need a 20-foot easement for whatever reason, emergency vehicles, ambulances, fire trucks, etc. to get in there. Mr. Slaughter stated he was here to address the planning board about that possibility and he is very concerned about his three landlocked parcels and the 15-foot access easement, which may have been sufficient many years ago, but may Page 24 of 29 not be sufficient in 2018 for the purpose of emergency vehicle access, etc. Mr. Slaughter also asked if each space is supposed to be 2,000 square feet, and this easement goes to 20-feet wide, what would that do to the 2,000 square foot requirement? He said he wasn’t necessarily opposed to the RV and travel trailer park, but he is concerned about access to his three acres and what the proposal could potentially do to his access. Mr. Slaughter stated that their properties total three acres and the only way he can access the property is across the dedicated 5-foot easement, which is on the deed. Board Member Boney pointed out that Mr. Slaughter would also have to cross another piece of property that he doesn’t own to access his three lots. Mr. Slaughter confirmed that is correct and noted those property owners do not dispute in any way the validity of the 15 -foot easement, but there are so many nice big trees right in the middle of the easement that he’d rather not cut down. In response to Mr. Boney’s inquiry, Mr. Slaughter stated he doesn’t currently access his property because Mr. Westbrook has stated that they can’t come on his property and so he doesn’t. In response to Chairman Olds inquiry, Mr. Slaughter stated it is his understanding that the easement is not on Mr. Knapp’s property and is located fully on Mr. Westbrook’s property. Chairman Olds asked Ms. Wolf, the applicant’s representative, to respond to the concerns expressed by Mr. Knapp and Mr. Slaughter during the public comment period. In response to the inquiries made during the public comment period, Ms. Wolf stated that there is no requirement for a buffer between like uses, like the campground and this RV park. At this point, the applicant is showing that 15-foot access easement on their site plan and has agreed to a condition that no activity will take place on it, so if Mr. Slaughter needs to improve it at some point in time, it can be improved. She stated if it were to be widened, she was sure there would be some negotiation to change the easement that is there, but it would not impact the size of the applicant’s RV sites. In fact, the applicant is improving about 100 feet or so of that easement so if Mr. Slaughter still wants a driveway that would go further down. Ms. Wolf commented that she doesn’t know if the applicant has any reason to build a fence specifically to keep the separation there, and at this point the 15-foot easement is extremely wooded. She noted if it were to cease being wooded and there was a driveway there, the applicant may want a fence there, but these are like uses and the applicant is acknowledging the easement and that they can’t use it or impede the easement in any way. Board Member Weaver inquired in regard to the stub road going to the west of those three lots with the private gravel drive if there would be a possibility of giving up the 15-foot easement in return for being able to get access rights on that gravel drive going through the travel trailer park. Mr. Weaver noted that would be a wider access for them and it would actually be a maintained access. Ms. Wolf stated that would certainly be feasible; however, everyone should keep in mind that what the applicant is stubbing out to is not Mr. Slaughter’s property so he would have to get back up and the applicant is required to have a buffer up there because that is a residential use. She explained that there are options, but at this point she is not aware that Mr. Slaughter has expressed interest in improving this driveway, but at whatever point he does, her client is ready to talk about it. Board Member Weaver said it sounded like Mr. Slaughter was in some kind of cooperative communication with the owner of that other eastern lot. Ms. Wolf agreed there were certainly possibilities. Page 25 of 29 Board Member David Weaver stated he would hate to see property get landlocked because of access, but at the same time, he would hate to see Mr. Westbrook have to suffer providing a wider easement along that line. He noted it would be nice if something could be worked out using the applicant’s preferred site plan if that could be worked out between the two parties. Ms. Wolf commented that a 15-foot wide easement is not uncommon for a private driveway. In response to Chairman Olds’ inquiry, Ms. Wolf explained that today’s standard is a 30- foot easement. These are some older situations, but the applicants also have a 20-foot gravel drive so with cooperation from the Lewis’s, it could be relocated and the applicant could recover the extra fifteen feet. Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl inquired if that does convert to an easement that’s being utilized whether it be gravel or pavement or just cleared easement area, whether it would affect the square footage of the subdivision of those lots. Ms. Wolf replied that it would not affect the square footage, noting the buffer yards, that easement would not be an impediment to creating the 2,000 square feet of necessary area. In response to an inquiry from Board Member Boney, Ms. Wolf confirmed that a car and travel trailer were depicted on Lot #18 on the plan because it’s one of the lots that is a little squeezed because of the buffer to the west and the 15-foot easement to the north. Board Member Boney commented that he was looking for another way to solve that access easement issue because the applicant is building such a nice road and stubbing it out and who knows when that would ever go in to the west. Mr. Boney said he was trying to determine if Ms. Wolf could get the 15-foot easement across within that 20-foot buffer if the county would let you. Ms. Wolf agreed that was also a possibility. Mr. Boney commented that by being creative about it, the applicant could retain all of the fifteen feet behind all of this and never have to worry about Mr. Slaughter coming back to put another road through there and whacking down all the trees. Ms. Wolf stated that just needs to be a future negotiation. Ms. Wolf, Chairman Olds, and Board Member Boney agreed that it was important they don’t preclude those future options. Ms. Wolf noted that was why they left it like that. She noted for example in regard to Lot #15, it was a request of the staff that we could in fact connect to the campground if that were ever something that somebody wanted to do and it would create an intersection of the gravel. Everyone given the opportunity to be heard, Chairman Olds closed the public hearing and opened the planning board discussion period. Board Member Weaver inquired what the subdivision regulations say about the width of access to a subdivision with a certain number of lots. Current Planner Schuler explained that the subdivision ordinance states that a minor subdivision with an access connecting to three lots would require a 30-foot access easement and wouldn’t have any roadway improvements for that easement. Once a fourth lot is added, the ordinance would require compliance with the private road standards, which would be a minimum of a 45-foot right-of-way with a road essentially built to NCDOT standards. Current Planner Schuler also confirmed the three lots are lots of existing record so Mr. Slaughter could essentially pull a building permit on those lots and he has legal access through the 15-foot access easement. If he chose to redevelop that property and intensif y the use, he would have to meet the County’s current access standards. Page 26 of 29 Chairman Olds commented that goes to Item #3 regarding injuring the value of adjoining or abutting property in some way or another. We have to make sure we take that into account in our findings. Ms. Wolf reported that the application meets that requirement as long as they have the condition that the easement is shown on the plan and we cannot utilize that area. Chairman commented that he is generally in favor of the special use permit request as long as the options are open for future connection and you have Mr. Knapp, Mr. Westbrook and Mr. Slaughter in the same room. It might be a good time to go out in the hall and figure it out. He stated that he doesn’t think the board has precluded anything and that is what’s important; we have allowed the future for whatever is negotiated. He thinks it’s a pretty solid use of the land and is very compatible with the neighbors. Board Member Weaver stated he was concerned about basically saying that a 15-foot wide easement is sufficient to serve those 3 lots. He noted that with a 15-foot wide easement it isn’t possible for a car and emergency vehicle to pass each other. Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea explained that the access easement is existing. The sufficiency of the easement isn’t up for debate by this board tonight. The 15-foot access easement is in place and would be in place whether or not this project came to this board tonight so the widening of that easement may not really pertain to the proposal under consideration. Board Member Weaver commented that when we approve a subdivision, we try and ascertain that sufficient access is provided to landlocked parcels adjacent to it. you are providing sufficient access to land locked parcels next to it. But having an adequately sized easement or stub road going to it. In this case, if we approve it the way it's designed, that 15-foot access easement will not be sufficient. Vice Chair Rawl noted that issue would be considered at the technical review committee (TRC) level when it comes in for a more intensive use. These are already lots of record with an existing easement in place. To Planner Andrea’s point, they are already lots of record with access to them and we can't really make comment on whether that's sufficient for vehicular access or not because it’s already there. Board Member Boney commented that the easement is there and if the Slaughters want to develop those three lots, then that will put them into another category and they will need more right-of-way. We can’t impose that on Mr. Westbrook because Mr. Slaughter has no idea what he might be doing in the future. Mr. Slaughter would also need additional access through Ms. Lewis’ property and we wouldn’t be making Ms. Lewis provide a 15-foot wide easement so as long as we acknowledge the fact that the 15-foot wide easement is there to provide access to Mr. Slaughter’s property and there is nothing on the proposed site plan that makes that circumstance any different after tonight, we have met our responsibilities in that regard. Board Member Weaver commented that when we look at a proposed subdivision we do consider that aspect, but we're looking at this application and we're not considering that and he can’t quite understand why we are ignoring that easement in this aspect. Page 27 of 29 Vice Chair Rawl explained that in those scenarios, it’s when there’s not any sort of prescribed or recorded access to those adjacent properties so you make the measure to say we need to provide a stub road for future access to this road, but in this scenario, the access is already provided and is already in place. Chairman Olds added that there isn't a justification for why that access should be different necessarily. If it were, it would be a different case and it would come before a different body. Board Member Boney explained that the difference is that the easement is already there. If it were not there, it would be the recommendation from the County, but they haven't made that recommendation. He said Mr. Slaughter would have a different problem than he's got right now because at least he has a 15-foot access, and at any point, he can activate that access. He said he's not activating it now. When he does activate that it would seem that then he should talk to Mr. Westbrook and they would have to come to an agreement. Chairman Olds stated that the easement is not germane to the matter. It is thoughtful conversation and a bit of a dilemma, but it really doesn’t matter one way or the other in this case. Board Member David Weaver again expressed concern about the lack of an adequate access easement for a future subdivision on the Slaughter property. Hearing no further discussion by the board, Chairman Olds asked Ms. Wolf to approach the podium. Chairman Olds stated that a special use permit which is denied may only be resubmitted if there has been a substantial change in the facts, evidence, or conditions of the application as determined by the Planning Director. At this time, you may ask to either continue the application to a future meeting, or to proceed with this Board deciding whether to recommend approval or denial of the application. What do you wish to do? Cindee Wolf confirmed the applicant would like to proceed with a decision by the Planning Board. Chairman Olds inquired if the applicant was in agreement with the Findings of Fact and the proposed conditions. Cindee Wolf confirmed the applicant was in agreement with the Findings of Fact and the proposed conditions. Chairman Olds entertained a motion from the Planning Board. MOTION: Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl MOTIONED, SECONDED by Board Member Paul Boney, to recommend approval, as the Board finds that this application for a special use permit meets the four required conclusions based on the findings of fact included in the Staff Summary, and with the conditions as recommended by staff. Findings of Fact Finding 1: The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. A. The site is accessed from River Road, a minor arterial street that is operating at an acceptable Level of Service. Page 28 of 29 B. Water services must be provided and designed in accordance with Aqua’s standards. Wastewater services must be provided and designed in accordance with DEQ Division of Waste Management’s and NHC Environmental Health Services’ standards. C. The subject property is located in the New Hanover County South Fire Service District. D. The site is not located within any Special Flood Hazard Area. E. The proposed development is not estimated to generate enough traffic to require a Traffic Impact Analysis be conducted. F. A driveway permit must be obtained from NCDOT. Staff Suggestion: Evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed. Finding 2: The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. A. The site is zoned R-15, Residential District. B. Travel Trailer Parks are allowed by special use permit in the R-15 zoning districts. C. The site shall comply with the landscaping and buffering requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. D. A site plan has been included as part of the special use permit application and demonstrates that the requirements of the Mobile Home and Travel Trailer Park Ordinance will be met. Staff Suggestion: Evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use meets all of the required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. Finding 3: The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity. A. The surrounding land uses include an existing travel trailer park and low-density residential. The subject property is not located adjacent to residential neighborhoods. B. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease the property values of adjacent or nearby properties. Staff Suggestion: The evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use will no t substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. Finding 4: The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. A. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan classifies the area proposed for the development as General Residential, and the proposal aligns with the intent of this land use classification. The proposal provides recreational opportunities, will have few impacts on existing residential neighborhoods, and is generally compatible with the existing residential and recreational development pattern of the area. Page 29 of 29 B. The proposal includes a 20-foot-wide pedestrian and non-vehicular access easement for a future multi-use path, consistent with the Wilmington/New Hanover County Comprehensive Greenway Plan. Staff Suggestion: Evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use is general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. Conditions: 1. No camping activity of any kind can occur in any required bufferyard or in the 15-foot access easement that runs along the northern property line of the subject site. 2. A 20-foot-wide easement shall be dedicated to the County along River Road for the purposes of installing a future pedestrian facility in accordance with the Wilmington/NHC Comprehensive Greenway Plan. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED 3-1. (Ayes: Boney, Olds, Rawl; Nay: Weaver) Approval of Minutes MOTION: Board Member Paul Boney MOVED, SECONDED by Board Member David Weaver approve the December 7, 2017 Planning Board minutes as written. Upon vote, the MOTION PASSED unanimously (4-0). With no other items of business, Chairman Olds adjourned the meeting at 8:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Wayne Clark, Planning Director