Loading...
2018-04 April 5 2018 PBM Page 1 of 15 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board April 5, 2018 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, April 5, 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 Jordy Rawl, Vice Chairman Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Paul Boney Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Donna Girardot Rebekah Roth, Senior Long Range Planner Allen Pope Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Edward “Ted” Shipley, III David Weaver 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. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z18-04) – Request by Design Solutions, on behalf of the property owner, Thelma A. Moore, to rezone 1.1 acres of land located at the 7640 Market Street from R-15, Residential District, to B-2, Highway Business District. Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea 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. Andrea presented the following staff report. Planner Andrea stated this is a request to rezone 1.1 acres from R-15, Residential district to B-2, Highway Business district. Because this is a general map amendment and not a conditional rezoning, uses that would be allowed on the property are those uses allowed by right or by Special Use Permit in the B-2 district based on the Table of Permitted Uses in the Zoning Ordinance. Planner Andrea stated the property is located at 7640 Market Street, just north of Bayshore Drive and consists of 1.1 acres. It is mostly undeveloped, but currently has a single family residence on it that was constructed in 1960. To staff’s knowledge, there are no conservation resources or wetlands on the property. There are a mixture of land uses surrounding the subject property, including a car dealership, small engine repair, boat repair, and contractor offices. There Page 2 of 15 is single family residential to the south along Lost Tree Road in Bayshore Estates. The parcel to the southwest is undeveloped. Planner Andrea explained that zoning was applied to the area in 1971, including the 6.51- acre B-2 district that surrounded the subject property. The subject property was zoned R-15, along with the majority of the other land in the area. In the late 1980’s, the B-2 district was expanded to the north by another 11 acres through a few rezonings to bring the district size up to 17.5 acres and 12 parcels. Other zoning in the area includes O&I across Market Street and a conditional B-1 district at Market and Greenview that was recently approved for the AAA car care center. Worth noting is that the subject property lies completely within a Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD), which extends 500’ in both directions from the right-of-way of Market Street. Areas of parcels within the SHOD are subject to additional regulations for site design per Section 55.4 of the County Zoning Ordinance. Planner Andrea stated in regard to traffic, there have been a number of TIAs completed within a 1-mile radius of the subject site; a summary of the improvements required or recommended by those TIAs is included in the staff summary. Construction for STIP project U- 4902 is expected to begin next year; that project will install a center median along Market Street, along with a sidewalk on the western side and a multi-use path along the eastern side of Market Street. Traffic impacts from development of the subject site will be analyzed at the time a development is proposed. Any use that exceeds 100 AM or PM peak hour trips will be required to have an approved TIA prior to development. Even if a TIA is not required, improvements may be required when any proposed use is reviewed by the N.C. Department of Transportation during the driveway permitting process. Planner Andrea presented photos of the area reflecting the contractor offices on the northern adjacent property, as well as the abutting single family residential lot to the southeast, which shares a property line for about 50 feet with the subject property. Planner Andrea stated the request is to rezone the subject property of 1.1 acres from R-15 to B-2. The uses allowed on the property would be the uses allowed by right or by special use permit in B-2 based on the table of permitted uses in the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the B- 2, Highway Business zoning district is to provide for the proper grouping and development of roadside business uses which will best accommodate the needs of the motoring public and businesses demanding high volume traffic. Since there is not a site plan to consider with the rezoning request, site design would be based on the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The building setback required along the southern property line that is adjacent to R-15 zoning would be a minimum of thirty feet (30’) or 2.75 x Building Height, whichever is greater. The building setback along the northern, eastern and western property lines would be a minimum of twenty-five feet (25’) per the SHOD requirements. The buffer required along the southern property line that is adjacent to R-15 zoning would be a minimum of twenty feet (20’) wide and must provide 100% opacity using vegetation, vegetation with fencing, or vegetation with a berm. Buffers would not be required along the three sides of the property that abut the existing B-2 zoning. All lights must be shielded in a manner so that light from the fix ture does not directly radiate onto adjacent property. Page 3 of 15 Planner Andrea reported the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan classifies the subject property as Community Mixed Use, which focuses on small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve all modes of travel and act as an attractor for county residents and visitors. Types of appropriate uses include office, retail, mixed use, recreational, commercial, institutional, and multi-family and single-family residential. Staff finds that the requested B-2 zoning district would allow for the types of lower-intensity commercial services appropriate for a transitional Community Mixed Use area. Planner Andrea stated staff concludes that the rezoning is generally CONSISTENT with this place type because the B-2 district allows for the types of services for nearby residents recommended in the comprehensive plan. Although the applicant currently plans to use this property to extend the existing auto sales use, the range of commercial uses permitted in the B-2 zoning district are appropriate on the subject property due to its location off a major arterial in a transitional area between major intersections and higher density Urban Mixed Use areas. Development regulations in the zoning ordinance would require landscape buffers along residential properties, visually separating and mitigating effects for the adjacent neighborhood. A suggested motion for approval is included on the script for this case. No conditions can be added to the rezoning because it is a general map amendment request and not a conditional rezoning request. In conclusion, Planner Andrea offered to answer questions from the planning board. Chairman Olds inquired how the single family dwelling on the property is accessed. Planner Andrea replied the access to the single family dwelling is provided via a driveway that comes off Market Street and leads back to the house. He pointed out the location on the map. Mr. Andrea also confirmed there is currently no property accessibility from the single family neighbor. In response to the chairman’s inquiry about the setback, Planner Andrea clarified there is a thirty- foot building minimum setback from the R-15 and the twenty-foot buffer, which are both measured from the property line. Planner Andrea stated that the property depth along that parcel line is about 190 feet. Chairman Olds opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions stated she represents the property owner, Mrs. Moore, and as a practical matter is present on behalf of Mr. Balkcum, who owns the auto store. She commented that in this day and age, it’s a little unusual to come with a conventional map amendment, but the applicants believe in this particular case it really did result as a remnant simply because Mrs. Moore has lived there all these years and that with its three-sided proximity to other B-2, it was reasonable to move on through with a conventional rezoning. She noted they were pleased that staff agreed with that. She stated that Mr. Andrea was very thorough in his summary. She pointed out there is that very small proximity or adjacency to the residential actual uses. Ms. Wolf stated she thinks everybody is convinced that this will probably become some type of commercial use at some point due to its frontage along the main road and noted the buffers, setbacks, etc. are built into the ordinance to protect that small area of residential and will be addressed during the site plan review. She noted that although it is just a thirty-foot minimum setback, that setback is still based on the height of any type of building Ms. Wolf stated unless you have a ten-foot high building, there will be a setback in excess of thirty feet and the buffer is half Page 4 of 15 of that setback or a minimum of twenty feet. She noted again that staff’s summary was very complete so she, Mrs. Moore, and her representatives would be happy to answer any questions. Chairman Olds asked if board members had any questions for the applicant. Board Member Weaver inquired if the access on the southern parcel is currently a dirt driveway. Ms. Wolf confirmed Mr. Weaver was correct, noting there is an old road, but the applicants don’t have any specific right-of-way to that old road that is referred to in a deed, but there is a utility easement that actually goes there so that utility easement has been kept clear and is being used as the access. She stated, as a practical matter, it’s Mr. Balkcum that intends to take advantage of this should it be zoned commercial successfully so he has all kinds of possible access points that would be feasible. Board Member Weaver stated he is all for the property being rezoned to B-2 and thinks that is a good use for it, but he always looks at the negative and is concerned about access if Mr. Balkcum gets run over by a bus tomorrow and it’s still two different parcels. Ms. Wolf explained there is still legal access to the parcel along that line there, which varies in width from 30 to 35 feet wide. Board Member Donna Girardot asked staff to clarify if the 20-foot wide buffer that is adjacent to that R-15 area would be required to be 100 percent opaque to protect the neighbors. Ms. Wolf confirmed the ordinance would require a 100 percent opaque 20-foot wide buffer between the B-2 and the R-15 parcels so the neighbors would be well-protected by the ordinance requirements. Ms. Wolf stated as an aside that as long as this stays R-15, they would have the buffer requirement to that lot also. Chairman Olds inquired if anyone present would like to speak in support of the rezoning request. Ms. Wolf reported that the other speakers signed up in support of the rezoning were present to answer questions if needed so time did not need to be set aside for them. Chairman Olds opened the opposition portion of the hearing. Opposition Patrick Wright of 7625 Lost Tree Road stated he owns the property that will be most affected by the proposed zoning change. He had some questions regarding the criteria for the approval of the rezoning. First, in regard to the proposal’s consistency with the property classification on the land classification map, the applicant states that the 2006 Comprehensive Plan applied a transitional land classification along this corridor of Market Street. Its purpose was to provide transitional uses between busy commercial corridors and more established residential neighborhoods beyond. He stated his question is doesn’t the subject property already establish a significant buffer, and how will the addition of Balkcum affect that buffer. He questioned whether the setbacks, buffering, and things of that nature that have been discussed are adequate enough to shield that business from his house. He also asked how would rezoning this property to B-2 provide a different transitional use that is equal to or better than what the existing use has already established. Mr. Wright said he thinks there is an obligation that to the change the use, it is not to affect the values of his property in any kind of bad way. Third, in regard to what significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate or how the land involved is unsuitable for uses permitted under the existing zoning, the applicant has stated the Page 5 of 15 subject property is a remnant notch of residential zoning almost surrounded by highway commercial district. He stated he thinks the “almost” is somewhat of a clever adjective, noting we can define and discuss that, but his question is how can the applicant suggest the property should be rezoned based on highest and best use when it only benefits the applicant. Is it not more appropriate of a statement that the zoning provides a benefit to the applicant, but at significant expense to the adjacent homes? He asked, for example, would you buy a house next to a used car lot? Not many people would. Mr. Wright said he had several licensed brokers offer him an opinion of the devaluation of putting a business of auto sales behind his house of a 10 to 15 percent reduction. Mr. Wright stated he is also concerned about security, noting right now they do have a buffer. Mrs. Moore's house has been there forever, as long as he and his family have lived there. it provides a natural buffer between his home and his neighbors’ homes. He stated they all have children and they play in their back yards. By allowing access to people who look at cars and look at cars in the evenings when there are no salespeople, it provides them an opportunity to come into their backyards that didn’t exist prior to the rezoning. Mr. Wright stated he is also worried about the forfeit of the right of enjoyment. He commented that they all travel down Market Street and see these very, very tall lights shining bright beams of light to showcase the cars. Noting they had talked about a buffer, he asked what’s to prevent those lights from shining in the back of his house? Mr. Wright also expressed concern about additional noise, noting commercial property is going to bring some noise. He stated he had additional pictures he thinks are relevant of the outparcels; however, he wasn’t sure of the protocol to provide the pictures. He noted Ms. Wolf had made some mention of the outparcels and briefly touched on it, but there are ample cars that are dilapidated and damaged and broken windshields that populate this whole outparcel along this area. Mr. Wright inquired where are those cards going to go if this parcel is rezoned? He stated they’re not going to go in the front; they're going to go in the back so he will see all those abandoned cars when he looks out of his back door. Mr. Wright stated he felt it was significant to inform the board members that all of the homes in that area are serviced by wells. They’ve heard about GenX, coal ash, etc. because it’s in the newspapers and on the news, but who is he going to call when the gas, diesel, and detergents get into his well and he can’t use his well to provide water for his family? He noted automobiles will leak that material, which will leak into leach beds. He said he doesn’t know what the answer is there, but he is concerned about that issue. Mr. Wright noted they talked about the house, and it being vacant property. The applicant has said the infill of vacant property, but they know it’s not an infill because there actually has been a house there. He stated he isn’t sure how that weighs in the board’s decision, but with the level or extent of home sales in New Hanover County and the lack of available homes, he questioned why this home is not marketable. It’s been there forever and has been well maintained. He stated he also had pictures which conveniently have not been shared of some beautiful azaleas and heavy nature area that shields this house from the other business districts. Mr. Wright stated the home could certainly be leased or sold. Mr. Wright asked, in conclusion, how can the applicant claim a better efficiency of land use be accomplished by expanding a used car lot holding more cars, having more traffic in an already congested area, having more lights shining into our homes, having more noise from cars and motorcycles revving their engines, having more abandoned cars and motorcycles stored behind his house? He asked how is it a better use or efficiency of land when we have potentials of security Page 6 of 15 issues for our children and families, and most importantly, how can we ensure that the chemicals that come off all these cars are not going to end up in my well and make my well unusable? Bob Bell stated he lives at 7621 Lost Tree Road, which is behind and adjacent to the subject property. He stated his main concern if this parcel becomes business is how that will affect the easement that runs between the business zoning and Bayshore Estates property and the homes and then turns into the land that will be affected. He inquired if, given it is a Cape Fear Public Utility easement for sewer, it could be turned into a public easement or public right-of-way that would allow people to walk from Market Street down into Lost Tree Road. Mr. Bell noted that sewer easement turns into Mr. Wright’s yard and connects into Lost Tree Road so he is concerned about that easement becoming available for other people to use. Gayle Bell stated she also resides at 7621 Lost Tree Road and her main concern is how it will affect her property. She noted most of her concerns have already been mentioned – losing their buffer, the runoff for their wells, and the light deflectors - but she knows that they already are impacted by noise pollution from the car lot. They unload cars in the middle of the night and you can hear that noise, and sometimes the car alarms go off in the middle of the night and it takes a while for them to get those shut off, which is disruptive. Ms. Bell stated she is also concerned that if this property is rezoned commercial and in the future Balkcum is not there, what else can go there. She noted they certainly don’t want a bar behind their house or some other commercial thing that’s going to be right up on their property. Scott Oberholzer stated he lives at 7623 Lost Tree Road between the Bells and the Wrights and he has the same concerns they have. He said he has two young daughters and he is concerned about their safety being affected by bringing the business closer to his property and his backyard, with the high volume of people coming in, as well as their drinking water being affected based on having wells, noise, lights, and the easement. Mr. Oberholzer said he is just trying to keep the volume of folks down for the protection of his children. Chairman Olds asked the applicant representative, Cindee Wolf, to address the concerns expressed by the residents during the rebuttal period. Cindee Wolf stated in regard to the statement that a business is in the back yard is somewhat semantics in this particular case if you look at the zoning along the corridor of Market Street and the Bayshore development, which was tucked back behind a corridor along Market Street. Any resident that looks out the back door of an adjacent property is protected by the land development code by setbacks and buffer yard requirements, and opaque visibility is guaranteed. Ms. Wolf reiterated that there is really a very small adjacency to those lots. The CFPUA easement is for the purpose of serving Bayshore and takes the sewer or water into Lost Tree Road so the easement will have to remain clear. It is the driveway for Mrs. Moore, but that access would just be for those types of uses because it is, in fact, over the adjacent property, which was developed by the same people that developed Bayshore. Ms. Wolf said there are certainly rules and regulations for any type of dumping as far as oil, etc. If the neighbors suspect things like that are going on, there are avenues to enforce those regulations and agencies that would be more that would be more than happy to investigate. Ms. Wolf stated the Comprehensive Plan has identified the corridor and roughly along that line, which is the back of Bayshore, as being appropriate for businesses. This site extends about 25 feet further, but there is more B-2 behind it so every lot along Lost Tree Road Page 7 of 15 on the north side is adjacent to those businesses and they have coexisted for quite a long time without any issues. Ms. Wolf stated she believes that the ordinance itself has the provisions in it to protect these folks from the things they are validly concerned about, but this p articular zoning filling in that gap is not something that should cause as much heartburn as they are concerned about. Ms. Wolf stated in regard to noise control and lighting control, those items are enforceable as there are rules and regulations within the codes so if the residents are having those issues, they can call the enforcement groups at the County and those things can be dealt with. Opposition Rebuttal Patrick Wright stated during opposition rebuttal that he would like to clarify that the CFPUA easement is actually a sewer easement, not a water supply easement. He reported again that all of the water for the residents comes from wells dug into the earth. Seeing no others wishing to speak, Chairman Olds closed the public hearing and opened the planning board discussion period. Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl inquired if Ms. Wolf had any information regarding how the T-shape property to the north of the subject parcel came to be and inquired if it is a public easement that comes down off Market Street. Ms. Wolf explained that no properties to the north are easements; they are just subdivision lots, and she takes it that there are probably private access easements for the two parcels behind the subject property through the Cape Fear Boat Repair property. Vice Chair Rawl commented that the prior parcel boundaries have to him the illusion that there was almost a corridor or roadway that was intended to come in where this parking lot was and then there is this T-shaped parcel that ties back in and it almost looks like a power line that separates what looks to be intended to be in the business corridor down Market Street and the residential there on the western part of the subject parcel. He noted that these conventional rezonings are less popular because they don’t give the general public and the planning board any description of what they can expect the property to ultimately look like. Vice Chair Rawl stated he was trying to come to grips with the smattering of parcels with non-geometric shapes that really resemble anything that looks like boundary parcels of any coherent shape and figure out some history on the B-2 parcels where the boats and stuff are located. Ms. Wolf stated she doesn’t have that history for those parcels. She said what Planner Andrea showed early on for the historic map when the B-2 was started just had a couple of those parcels and then it all got filled in. She noted she couldn’t say why the T-shape and some of those awkward shapes are there. They just perhaps built around whatever was being used; it’s hard to say. Vice Chair Rawl responded that he had asked Ms. Wolf because she studies subject properties when identifying a parcel for rezoning, noting he was tr ying to figure out why on Market Street there is a property line that takes a non- linear shape back into the vegetation and then this T-shaped parcel, which looks like at one point there was some intent to have access in off Market Street and have it “T” off both ways. Ms. Wolf replied she wouldn’t have thought that necessarily because this has been the Moore property and has been this way for quite a long time. She would guess that the reason for that “T” is so that each of those lots had an amount of frontage and then they needed more land so they had their frontage and then went out behind the other two parcels. Vice Chair Rawl commented that they both have their theories and he thought they would have been a little more alike. He then asked if in the future the Moore property will have access up towards that boatyard or if the only accessibility will be to Market Street. Ms. Wolf stated there had been no conversation of access between the Moore Page 8 of 15 property and those properties to the north. She noted there is nothing mapped and there has never been any deeded property. She stated that the access to the Moore property has always been that old roadbed referred to in the deed. In response to an inquiry by Vice Chair Rawl regarding stormwater requirements if the subject property is rezoned, Ms. Wolf confirmed that the subject property would be subject to stormwater requirements if they disturb an acre or put down more than 10,000 square feet of new surface. Board Member Paul Boney asked Ms. Wolf to clarify if the applicant disturbs more than an acre or puts down 10,000 square feet of pavement if they would then have to bring both parcels up to current stormwater requirements. He noted he thought the vice chairman’s inquiry was in regard to both parcels. Ms. Wolf apologized for not hearing that part of the inquiry and clarified that nothing would be required to happen on the front parcel regardless of what the applicant does on the back parcel. She explained that as long as they retain the properties as two separate parcels, they would not be required to. In response to another inquiry from Board Member Boney, Ms. Wolf stated that because this is a conventional rezoning request, she could not say if the intent was to retain the properties as two separate parcels. Ms. Wolf asked the board to keep in mind the aerial photograph is two years old and the NCDOT has taken a lot of right-of-way. She pointed out the new right-of-way line, noting there are absolutely going to be some changes to the front parcel. Board Member Boney noted that east of the house that is directly affected by the little corner piece are six or so other homes. He inquired when the B-2 to the north was done and what was the history of issues that may have arisen between the residential and that B-2 zoning. Board Member Boney commented that the property two over to the east may have a fence, but he can’t see it. It looks like it bleeds over into that B-2 area and is just open. Ms. Wolf noted it’s not green backyard, but she doesn’t have the history. Board Member Boney said his quest ion goes to the resident’s comment that the little corner piece is going to devalue his property by ten to fifteen percent according to a couple of realtors; however, he had not seen any evidence that an appraisal was done. He asked if those other people to the east had experienced that same thing and if there were any facts that we have that would confirm the neighbor’s statement. He wondered if the neighbor’s house in its current configuration is worth more that the residence three lots to the east. Board Member Boney noted it seems like they have coexisted with those businesses for years so he would like to get a more information on that. Chairman Olds invited Mr. Wright to come forward to address Board Member Boney’s inquiry. Mr. Wright stated that has changed over the years, noting there is a gentleman present that may wish to speak who had spent a lot of money on a privacy fence because the business kept encroaching and encroaching. That area was all very heavily vegetated buffered behind those four homes there. It has been devalued over time and now because of some of the businesses, a lawn mower repair facility and a boat repair facility, that has changed a lot over the last five to ten years. He asked again who wants to live behind a used car lot? We all agree we don't have a land plan on this so we don’t know the impact. Mr. Wright stated there is supposed to be a buffer, but how is that land plan going to be affected with the lights, the cars, and things of that nature. Board Member Boney asked if Ms. Wolf would explain how the County would help during the design process if the property is rezoned. Ms. Wolf explained that whatever this use is, whether it is a pre-owned car dealership or other business uses that are permitted, the applicant will have Page 9 of 15 to submit a site plan to be reviewed by zoning compliance, stormwater will be reviewed by engineering, and they must obtain all of the appropriate permits before they can begin any type of clearing or installation of new surfaces. Part of that development plan is verifying the setbacks, which are based on the height of any building so the setback would be a minimum of thirty feet. Ms. Wolf noted in her experience the setback is generally in the range of 35 to 40 feet because of a 16-foot average one-story, commercial building height. She explained that the buffer yard cannot be cleared whatsoever and has to remain in its vegetated state. There is also a slew of other rules and regulations in actually decorating any new development in our community. For example, if this is a car lot, that is still considered a parking lot and there are requirements for interior landscape of a parking lot. Any new building would be required to have foundation plantings if it faces any drive aisles or parking areas. In this case, they wouldn't have a street yard so that wouldn't be impacted. Ms. Wolf stated that in that buffer if the existing vegetation is not satisfactory to provide the 100 percent opacity that is supposed to be provided, it will have to be supplemented either by a solid wood fence or by additional rows of evergreen shrubbery. All of that will be reviewed and approved by the County before the permit is issued. At Board Member Boney’s request, Ms. Wolf confirmed that before any permits are issued, the applicant would have to go through all of those steps to ensure that the proposed development does not endanger the neighbor’s property. Board Member Boney asked if the neighbors had any way to see what was happening with that property during the development process. Ms. Wolf explained that in a straight rezoning the site development plans aren’t available until the project is submitted for permitting and at that point, those plans become public information and the project can be tracked by the neighbors and any other interested parties. Mr. Boney asked if the neighbors could at that point go to the agencies and voice an opinion or obtain information on the rules and regulations on that corner piece. Ms. Wolf confirmed that county staff will answer any questions from the public or adjacent property owners as they are reviewing any type of plan. Staff is concerned about what the neighbors are concerned about and their job is to make sure everything is up to code. Board Member Boney asked if the B-2 district to the north happened sometime before the buffer requirements came into effect. Ms. Wolff responded that based on the looks of the vegetation that is there, the districts were probably required to have buffer yards when those sites were developed. She said they tend to creep and that’s where zoning enforcement comes in. She stated belief that if the residents in those homes were to complain about the lack of buffer, code enforcement staff would address their concerns. Board Member Boney commented that is the takeaway tonight for those folks to the east that they have the right to question if the proper buffer is being maintained on those sites and if it isn’t, request that the situation be corrected. Chairman Olds asked Ms. Wolf to respond to an important question from the audience regarding drainage. Ms. Wolf responded that any type of construction on this site would presumably exceed 10,000 square feet and the probability of disturbing an acre would be there too so stormwater management is required by the County for attenuation of any rainwater that hits surfaces and that would include the rooftops, any pavement, and sidewalks. All of that runoff has to be directed into a stormwater facility of some type and that facility must have an outlet to a normal drainage pattern. Ms. Wolf apologized, noting she isn’t totally familiar with everything at this point, but stormwater items are handled not only by the County Engineering Department, but also by the N.C. Department of Water Quality because that would require a water quality permit for the pond, in which the sediments in the water settle out. There is also an overflow or spillway. Ms. Wolf said she would guess that the site normally drains toward where the utility easement is Page 10 of 15 located because it was probably a low spot in the basin, but it could come back out to the Market Street stormwater system. Chairman Olds stated he thought it was fair to say that the age of the development that surrounds the site probably predated rather significant changes in stormwater management over the last ten to twenty years Ms. Wolf commented that Bayshore was definitely built before the stormwater management requirements and the businesses around the top might have been a bit of hit and miss in regard to stormwater requirements. The business with the paved parking lot definitely has some type of stormwater management. Board Member David Weaver stated he had earlier commented that he was fine with the site being a B-2 use, but he was having second thoughts. He noted in an ideal world B-2 Highway Business districts are buffered from residential uses by B-1 Neighbor Business or by O&I, Office and Industrial uses, which reduce the intensity of the impact of a business on residential property by having that transition. He said this is a weird case because of the way this jigsaw would be filled in with this parcel becoming B-2. He then asked Ms. Wolf to comment about the lighting standards and noise standards for a B-2 zoning use. Ms. Wolf explained that Planner Andrea would probably read the lighting requirements from the zoning ordinance, but those requirements are the same for all commercial districts in that light cannot stray across the property line so directional lighting is required and noise is covered by the entire county code with certain decibel ranges. Planner Andrea stated that is correct as there is not a provision in the zoning ordinance that addresses noise itself, but noise would be covered by the noise ordinance administered by the Sheriff’s Department. Mr. Andrea stated in regard to lights, the zoning ordinance says that all lights must be shielded in a manner so that light from the fixture does not directly radiate into adjacent properties. Lights need to be downcast, not shining out towards the adjacent properties. Board Member David Weaver commented that answered his concerns and he personally felt that the opacity buffer would be sufficient to shield the neighbors from cars and the other items that would be in use for a used car lot. In response to Mr. Weaver’s inquiry regarding the easement that has access to this parcel, Ms. Wolf confirmed that the easement does extend along the entire length of the southern property boundary. Board Member Weaver then inquired if a commercial access driveway could theoretically be built all along that easement right up against the back of those residential properties if the conventional B-2 zoning was approved and Mr. Balkcum, his heirs, or whoever decided to sell this property to someone else. Ms. Wolf responded no, but if they did build a driveway along the easement, the buffer would still be there and would not change whatsoever. It would come into here, but this area would have to remain buffered. Board Member Weaver asked staff to confirm whether an access easement built along the entire southern boundary of that property for whatever reason would be able to go through the buffer area for access to the commercial property. Planner Andrea stated it could if it was approached in a perpendicular manner, but he was just conferring with Bill McDow of the WMPO about the project and how it would affect this area of the county. He stated as Ms. Wolf had mentioned, NCDOT has acquired a right-of-way in some areas around this area and the curve on the drawing is a bulb for a U-turn so there is going to be a U-turn here. What that means for the existing driveway is that NCDOT is going to require that curb portion be controlled access so that driveway is not going to be able to remain with the Market Street project. Balkcum is going to continue to have two driveways entering his site, but the plans for the Market Street project would not maintain that existing driveway, nor would it be permissible due to the controlled access nature of that turnaround. Board Page 11 of 15 Member Weaver thanked Planner Andrea, commenting that information took care of a lot of his concerns about the proposal. Board Member Donna Girardot commented that the subject property is classified under the new Comprehensive Plan as Community Mixed Use, but one small parcel of R-15 just sitting by itself doesn’t make much sense, especially with the accessibility challenges of getting in and out of the parcel if it’s further developed into another R-15 parcel. She said in regard to the alarms in the middle of the night, she sympathized with the neighbors. It's very distressing and must be awful. Unfortunately, that’s something the neighbors would have to take up with code enforcement or with the Sheriff's office. Ms. Girardot stated as far as leakage from the vehicles, she thinks the EPA and DEQ are pretty strict and there are a number of regulations on that type of thing that the applicants will have to comply with. She noted the buffer does have to be opaque and has to have fencing. Per staff, the lighting must meet code and cannot leak over onto the residential properties. Board Member Girardot stated that if any of these things happen, the neighbors have the ability to complain and go to code enforcement to have something done about it. She remarked in conclusion that to her this is a good project and she would find herself having to support it. Hearing no other comments from board members, Chairman Olds stated he agreed with Board Member Girardot. He commented that anybody that has seen what the development regulations do on new development sites should be fairly happy with how things come out. With the amount of landscaping, lighting control, access control, and stormwater management required, sites are generally made much better by development than they are and he doesn’t see any reason to feel it would be different here. He stated the quality of this development will certainly be superior to all the perimeter B-2 development that is in place now and existed before the regulations were so stringent. Chairman Olds asked the applicant to come forward. He stated that the applicant may continue the application to a future meeting or proceed with the planning board deciding whether to recommend approval or denial of the application. What do you wish to do? Cindee Wolf confirmed the applicants would like to move forward with a decision by the planning board. Chairman Olds entertained a motion from the planning board. MOTION: Board Member Donna Girardot made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Ted Shipley, to recommend approval as the board finds that this request for a zoning map amendment of 1.1 acres from R-15, Residential District to B-2, Highway Business District, as described, is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the commercial uses permitted in the B-2 zoning district are appropriate on the subject property due to its location off a major arterial in a transitional area between major intersections and higher density urban mixed use areas. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the rezoning provides a reasonable extension to an existing B-2 zoning district while protecting adjacent residential areas through zoning ordinance site design requirements for any use proposed in the district. Page 12 of 15 By a show of hands, the Planning Board voted 5-2 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z18-04. (Ayes: Olds, Girardot, Pope, Shipley, and Weaver; Noes: Rawl and Boney). Board Member Jordy Rawl stated he is actually against it for the record. He noted they did see the AAA come in across the street as a conditional zoning, which took a lot of scrutiny and a couple of redesigns. He hates to go against the grain of the board, but we may want to rename Market Street to Park It Street because traffic never goes anywhere. He acknowledged that this will not hinder or make that issue worse, but he does think that in the future it will take some careful thought as to what is approved along this corridor. As far as the conventional rezoning, it's tough for the general public, less so the board, to understand what will become of these parcels up and down these districts. He stated he certainly respects everything Ms. Wolf brings in front of this board, but unfortunately he can’t support this one. Technical Review Committee Report (March 2018) Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea reported the TRC met twice during the month of March and reviewed several projects, some of which were courtesy reviews for projects that haven’t been formally submitted. The courtesy reviews provide a good opportunity for folks to get some feedback from the TRC prior to a formal submittal. He noted that the TRC approved a project called Riverside located in the 2500 block of Castle Hayne Road. That project was originally approved ten years ago for 166 single family units and 72 multi-family units. There were no changes to the original approval; however, the project validity had expired and as such, required re-approval by the TRC. Other Items: Distribution of DRAFT Unified Development Ordinance - Phase 1 Board Member Donna Girardot stated this is the beginning of a long-awaited UDO process. The UDO Technical Committee has been meeting weekly since the beginning of February. She explained the committee includes a planning board representative and the board had asked her to serve in that capacity. Other members on that committee include New Hanover County staff from various departments, including planning and land use, engineering, parks, soil and water and fire, as well as representatives from the WMPO and the CFPUA. Others including NCDOT staff will be added as the committee gets to specific code sections. Board Member Girardot reported the schedule for the UDO process is Phase I, which we’re looking at this evening and is being presented to you this spring. It includes zoning districts and the table of permitted uses and definitions. Section II which will get to the planning board tentatively this summer will have development standards, signs, parking, landscaping, etc., dimensions, setbacks, buildings heights, etc., and use standards, by right uses with additional conditions, subdivisions, and stormwater. She stated they tentatively hope to have Phase III to the board this fall, which will include those procedures. Board Member Girardot reported they are tentatively looking at winter of 2019 for the adoption hearings for the entire document. She explained the planning board is the official public input process and will include discussion of input received from the web site and any other meetings or sources. Staff will meet with individual groups as requested and citizen groups, Page 13 of 15 business, and organizational groups if requested. This document will be posted on the county's web site tomorrow morning for the public to view. The Commissioners will be updated on our progress on a regular basis throughout this process and on May 1st the Planning Board will conduct a workshop that board members have agreed to from 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. As done with the SUP, the first 15 minutes will be a public comment period during which the board will receive input from the public. At that workshop, the planning board will be given a brief summary of the meeting agenda, a compilation of public input comments, recommendations received by way of the county's website or from citizen, business and organizational meetings. The planning board will then receive a presentation on Phase I from the consultant, which will be followed by board discussion. Board Member Girardot reported that additional workshops will be scheduled on Phase II if needed at the board’s request. There will be no official adoption process as the planning board finishes each phase. Upon completion of the workshops, each section will remain open so that changes, updates, and editing can be made as circumstances demand since each section of the UDO is linked and part of the whole. She noted even after the board completes Phase III and considers a final adoption of the UDO, it may be necessary to revisit previous phases for consistency and accuracy. Board Member Girardot stated in conclusion that the UDO Technical Committee will continue to move forward with Phase II and this process will be repeated, followed by the same process for Phase III to ensure that we have heard from the public and other interested parties. Ms. Girardot turned the presentation over to Planning and Land Use Director Wayne Clark and his staff to quickly go through the draft document with the planning board. Chairman Olds thanked Planning Board Member Girardot for serving on this really important committee for the community, noting he looked forward to hearing what staff had to say. Planning Director Clark stated appreciation that the planning board had appointed a member to serve on the UDO Technical Committee because having a planning board member be part of the process is a great way to have more success by having a member of the planning board be a part of it throughout the process. It lends validity and provides a champion on the board. He thanked the planning board for being willing to serve as the public input phase because there will be a number of meetings so he appreciates their time and commitment. Director Clark stated that Board Member Girardot had covered extremely well how the UDO process is formatted and structured in front of the board. He would add that the material distributed includes some notes to help explain how the document is a draft and what parts of it are a draft so it helps you read through it. As Ms. Girardot said, we expect that parts of it will be modified as we move forward. He said one of the things he would draw attention to is the dimension tables because of how they are structured in the document, the existing zoning dimensions are still in there. He explained the dimensions are going to be part of Phase II so no changes have been made to them. Those are all the dimensions that currently exist for the existing zoning districts. As we move forward, some of those may change if people believe they need to change so right now you see them, but again those are subject to change. Page 14 of 15 Director Clark stated probably the highlight of what’s in this document is the reorganization of the use table, which is a 25 to 30-year-old table that looks like a giant spreadsheet. Across the top are the 16 zoning districts and down the side are the 250 or so uses. We are proposing in the draft going to 23 or 24 zoning districts, which would add zoning districts and clarify the uses. A lot of this is reorganizing the table so that if you are trying to find where you can put something, it’s a lot easier to find, is much more clearly defined, and we’ve added a definition for every use so if you aren’t sure whether you fit that use or not you can go to the definition and find it. There is also a procedure written in there that if you are not one of the specifically listed uses, how do we classify you and the closest use in the list. A lot of this is simplifying the process of how that table functions and how to find where you can go and it will be followed up with simplification of all the dimensions and any kind of standards. Director Clark explained that now if the box is blank in the table that means it is not permitted in that zoning district. If there is a “P,” it is a permitted use and similar to what we just finished discussing with a standard rezoning, there are setback requirements, parking requirements, etc. that go with every project. What is proposed in the UDO is a “U” category where there are uses in addition to. One of the examples we use to explain that is, if you have a child day care in a residential district. It's a use permitted but it would have standards like how many square feet you have to have or a fence for the children. What you are trying to tell the person reading the code is to think of it in three tiers. If it’s a “P” it is the easiest, straight forward, by right. If it’s a “U” it will still be approved by staff at a staff level, but there are more conditions to it than simply setbacks, parking, and stormwater; there is more that you have to do. If it’s an “S”, it’s a special use permit, which means it will go before the planning board and county commissioners for approval. The table will let you understand what level of approval is necessary to put that use in that zoning district. Director Clark stated that the other part of Phase I that they had really hoped to get further along is the new zoning districts. He stated the Comprehensive Plan calls for a different development pattern, a little more mixture of uses, more flexibility, and some more density to be allowed in the residential categories, but those districts simply didn’t exist; in fact, the County doesn’t even have a multifamily zoning district. You have to go to a high density special use permit or some creative use of performance residential to get anything other than single family, which can be a challenge. People who live next to something R-15 expect it to be single family and you can technically find a way to build an apartment complex. Director Clark said it works both ways to the landowner’s certainty and to the neighbor’s certainty to clarify that. He stated they have the framework of those districts put in there, but not the details. He explained they had simply reached a point where they need input from more people than staff, and so putting these out there for the planning board and others to see, comment on, and think through gives us many more minds telling us how to get this right. Director Clark said these are laws. It’s not a philosophical planning document on the ideal future of the community; it’s a law that states for example that this doctor’s office has to have this building height, this setback, this many parking spaces, etc. so we have to get it right because you aren’t interpreting opinion here; you are actually following a rule book. Director Clark stated staff really appreciates the opportunity to give this UDO document to the planning board in this shape. He noted there are a number of landowners who we hope will utilize these new zoning districts. If we get this wrong, they simply won’t rezone to that new Page 15 of 15 district and people who live around it would simply like to know what’s expected for them if it gets rezoned. Mr. Clark stated the table of uses is a lot further along with the organization and the clarity so that should be good to work forward. Staff will be working with the planning board and whoever is willing to participate to tighten up all of those new zoning districts and hope to make them useful and as good as they can be. Director Clark stated he would be happy to answer any questions the board may have or Board Member Girardot could help. Chairman Olds thanked Director Clark for providing an update on the Unified Development Ordinance and inquired if board members would like any specifics. Hearing none, he stated they looked forward to giving staff their input. With no other items of business, Chairman Olds adjourned the meeting at 7:08 p.m. Please note: The above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board meeting.