Loading...
2018-07 July 12 2018 PBM Page 1 of 23 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board July 12, 2018 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, July 12, 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 Brad Schuler, Current Planner Allen Pope Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney David Weaver Absent: 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. Approval of April and June Planning Board Meeting Minutes MOTION: Board Member Paul Boney MOTIONED, SECONDED by Board Member Vice Chair Jordy Rawl, to approve the April 5, 2018 meeting minutes and June 7, 2018 Planning Board meeting minutes. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the April and June Planning Board meeting minutes. Chairman Olds announced that David Weaver is serving at his last meeting after many years on the Planning Board. He stated the board appreciated Mr. Weaver’s dedication and valuable contribution to the board and wished him well in his future endeavors. Board Member David Weaver stated he has really enjoyed serving New Hanover County and working to make it a great community. He commented that what he has enjoyed most is the people he has worked with, noting the staff is second to none and he has nothing but respect for the integrity, expertise, and wisdom of everyone on the planning board. Page 2 of 23 Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z18-07) – Request by Paramounte Engineering, Inc. on behalf of the property owner, Eston C. Brinkley, to rezone approximately 18.1 acres of land located at the 8900 block of Stephens Church Road from R-15, Residential District, to R-10, Residential 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. Mr. Andrea stated this rezoning request is for a general map amendment so uses that would be allowed on the property are those allowed by right or by SUP in the R-10 zoning district based on the table of permitted uses in the county’s Zoning Ordinance. The property is located off Stephens Church Road off of Market Street/US Highway 17 in the northern end of the county near the Pender County line. The property is currently zoned R-15 and they are seeking to rezone to R- 10. All around the property on that side of Market Street is R-15 zoning. There’s a CUD B-2 to the north that is developed as a self-storage facility. Across Market Street is a CUD B-1 district that has been approved for a medical and retail office park, but has not yet been developed. To the north of that is an O&I conditional zoning district that partially developed including the New Hanover Regional Medical Center north campus. The property has a 45’ wide pan handle that has direct access to Stephens Church Road and then the site opens up. It’s mostly cleared of vegetation except for an area on the northern end of the parcel which has been identified as 404 wetlands. The parcel is not within any Special Flood Hazard Area or Natural Heritage Areas. Low density single family residential abuts the property to the southeast. Mr. Andrea reported he has been told that a few of those homes have historical significance. The property to the west is all virtually undeveloped. Mr. Andrea stated the R-15 and R-10 districts are both residential districts so the uses permitted within them are mostly similar with only slight variations. The primary difference between the districts is that the R-10 district allows for smaller lots and higher density. For conventional lots in R-15, the minimum size is 15,000 sq. ft., and in R-10 it is 10,000 sq. ft. Under performance criteria, there are no minimum lot sizes but there are density limits. Up to 2.5 du/a is allowed in R-15, while 3.3 du/a is permitted in the R-10 zoning district. For the subject parcel which is about 18 acres, 45 lots could be achieved under the existing R-15 zoning, and 15 more could be obtained for a total of 60 lots in R-10 under performance residential criteria. Mr. Andrea reported that traffic impacts from any development of the site will be analyzed when a specific development is proposed, and any use that trips the county’s 100 peak hour trip threshold will require a full Traffic Impact Analysis. For single family residential, peak hour trips are about equal to the number of units, so even with the 60 units possible under the proposed R- 10 zoning, that’s not enough to trip the TIA threshold. However, NCDOT may still require some improvements as they review the driveway permit request. Market Street in this area is currently operating at a volume to capacity ratio of 0.75, which equates to a Level of Service of D, which is an acceptable level of service. Within a one-mile radius of the subject site, four TIAs have been approved and one is currently under review. A full breakdown of required improvements is included in the staff summary. Page 3 of 23 Mr. Andrea stated the subject property is located in an area near the Porters Neck growth node that has been designated as Community Mixed Use. Single-family residential is one of the uses that the Comp Plan deems appropriate in this placetype. Staff finds that the densities allowed in the R-10 zoning district are in keeping with those recommended for Community Mixed Use areas and could be an appropriate transition to the development intensity envisioned for this area. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request with a recommended motion finding it is both consistent with the comp plan and reasonable and in the public interest. Chairman Olds inquired if board members had any questions for Mr. Andrea. In response to an inquiry from Board Member Donna Girardot, Mr. Andrea confirmed the property could serve as an access corridor to the land behind it and to the adjacent properties. He stated the county’s subdivision ordinance would require stubs where possible to adjacent undeveloped properties so that would be reviewed when the site plan is received and the project goes through the technical review process (TRC). Board Member Paul Boney inquired if there is a recorded easement across this property to the piece of land directly to the west. Mr. Andrea responded not to his knowledge. Board Member Boney asked if that piece of land is landlocked or how that piece of land might be accessed. Mr. Andrea responded that he didn’t know the answer to that question, but a stub to that property would need to be provided as part of the subdivision review. Vice Chair Jordy Rawl noted in regard to roadway connectivity that Mr. Andrea had said that stub roads would be needed for future development. He commented that Sidbury Road would be the most likely place to divert traffic back to. He asked if New Hanover County and Pender County communicate on subdivisions and if there is reciprocity between the two counties if there is a need for interconnectivity. Mr. Andrea confirmed that New Hanover County and Pender County have a good working relationship, noting the counties have coordinated on other subdivisions, including one off Scotts Hill Loop Road. As things come in, staff would coordinate as needed. In response to Vice Chair Rawl’s inquiry regarding current accessibility into the property, Planner Andrea confirmed the property is accessed via a signalized Michigan-style turn lane on Market Street with a right-in off Market and a signalization further down Stephens Church Road to cross Highway 17. Chairman Olds opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Jeremy Blair stated he is one of the principal engineers with Paramounte Engineering and is the engineer of record on any subdivision project for the firm. Mr. Blair introduced his associate, Clay Matthews, to give the presentation on the rezoning request. Clay Matthews of Paramounte Engineering stated he is the land planner on this project. He said he would reiterate some of staff’s earlier points. The applicant is requesting a rezoning from R-15 to R-10. Some of the uses allowed in R-10 are very similar to the R-15 district, for example, nurseries or greenhouse, primary and secondary schools, and churches. The primary goal of an R- 10 district is a single family, attached or detached product type. The property owner/developer, Mr. Brinkley, has expressed interest in only pursuing the residential portion of that as an allowable use. He also recognizes that there is nearby growth in the Kirkland/Porters Neck area, which is Page 4 of 23 primarily commercial growth, and there would probably need to be some sort of support for that so he would like to provide a higher density product of residential support. There are existing residences there that do support that area, but it’s not that moderate density he would like to shoot for. That allowable density would be 3.3 units per acre. With that and the acreage he has, he would be allowed 60 units per acre approximately. Although it isn’t a huge jump in density, Mr. Brinkley still thinks it's that much more important to go for. Mr. Matthews said that level of density allows some flexibility in terms of product type to be able to offer to the community and can also be a catalyst to connect him to the other adjacent properties and allow for them to maybe increase density down the road. Mr. Matthews stated this is going to serve the general public to offer some additional options for housing type. Since there is a growth node in Porters Neck that is all primarily commercial, this is just another way for us to have people that have homes that live and work in the same area and still be in a close-knit community. Part of the other requirement for R-10 is to have water and sewer services and both of those are definitely provided here. He said he thinks that water is available on the northbound end of Highway 17, Market Street, and sewer is on the southbound end of that or on the Stephens Church Road side. Mr. Matthews st ated that he and Jeremy Blair were available to answer questions from the planning board members. Chairman Olds asked if board members had any questions for the applicant. Board Member Allen Pope asked the applicants to address the actual property that is now the roadway and whether it is owned by the property owner or if there is an easement. Mr. Matthews confirmed that the roadway property is part of the subject parcel. Board Member Paul Boney asked Mr. Matthews to explain what he meant when he said this zoning would offer them flexibility in product type. Mr. Matthews explained there are two different options in R-10 and R-15. In R-15, you would be allowed a 15,000 square foot lot conventional, which gives you your minimum lot width and setbacks. If you do a performance development, you get to set your lot size and lot width, with the condition that you can’t go over the allowable acreage. The same thing applies in R-10. It allows you to offer some smaller lots, some larger lots, it gives you a little more flexibility. If you do conventional, it gives you 10,000 square foot lots. If you do performance, it's along the same lines as R-15 Residential; the difference is you just may be able to get more units on there. He noted that eventually, the land won't allow but for a certain amount of product type, nor will the community, so part of that is up to Mr. Brinkley and how he wants to develop the property. In response to Mr. Boney’s inquiry, Mr. Matthews confirmed it was his understanding that the Brinkley family has owned the property for many years. Mr. Boney inquired if the proposed R-10 zoning and flexibility in product type would allow for a single-wide trailer on the site. Mr. Matthews replied that he thought it would require a special use permit, noting staff could correct him on that. Planner Andrea stated that both single-wide and double-wide mobile homes would be permitted by-right in both R-10 zoning and in the current R-15 zoning. Page 5 of 23 Chairman Olds thanked staff for the clarification, noting Mr. Andrea had identified an area of wetlands. He inquired how those wetlands would affect the applicant’s ability to achieve the density and if that would effectively take that land out of the inventory. Mr. Matthews confirmed the wetlands basically take that land out of the inventory so instead of the sixty lots they would be allowed, they can really only do about 55 lots. In response to another inquiry from Chairman Olds, Mr. Matthews explained that there aren’t any concepts floating around that he would be able to discuss with the board. Vice Chair Jordy Rawl inquired in regard to wetlands delineation if the ditch system located on the property had been delineated and if the ditch was considered wetlands or would be a drainage area. Mr. Matthews stated the delineation they have only has wetlands in that tree area; those ditches are not classified. In response to Vice Chair Rawl’s inquiry, Mr. Andrea confirmed that this came through the technical review committee process as an R-15 plan. Vice Chair Rawl then asked about the width of the right-of-way where the road comes into the property. Mr. Matthews replied that he thinks that right-of-way is approximately 45 feet right now. Hearing no other questions, Chairman Olds recognized the members of the public that wished to speak in regard to the rezoning request. Speakers in Opposition Bill Golder of 9001 Stephens Church Road stated he owns property contiguous with the subject property, 400 feet just east of it. He stated he was not there to oppose the rezoning, but to make certain they are going to be good stewards of the land. He said in the past, the property owner dug a 4-feet wide, 13-feet deep channel across the parcel located across the back of his property, which had the wonderful effect of draining his property. It no longer drains into that property; it also dried up his water wells. Mr. Golder said he had more water wells drilled. He stated the 13- feet deep, 4-feet wide ditch they dug holds water and inquired what they are going to do with that ditch now. He said he can tell them for sure the folks that buy in there will be eaten alive by mosquitoes because if you have something that holds water this time of year, mosquitoes will breed in it. Mr. Golder noted that the ditch is a breeding place for mosquitoes when it holds water because it has no place to drain except into the soil, which it eventually does. When there is no water in the ditch, they don’t have a mosquito problem, but this week you couldn’t breathe hard without getting a mouthful of mosquitoes. For that reason, he would like to know if the owners are going to be good stewards of the land and do something about that 4-feet wide, 13-feet deep ditch or are going to leave it there to breed mosquitoes. At the chairman’s request, Mr. Golder was able to point out the location of his property on the aerial map, noting he has a very nice house and a garden on his property and has 400 feet that Page 6 of 23 runs across there adjacent to the proposed rezoning. He stated his address is 9001 Stephens Church Road and he owns two lots adjacent to Ms. Bunn’s property on the corner. Board Member Girardot asked Mr. Golder if that ditch runs the full length of the subject property being discussed or only behind his property. Mr. Golder stated that he didn’t know how far the ditch runs, but that it runs behind the full 400-feet length of his property, which is 400 feet wide and 400 feet deep. Chairman Olds asked the Paramounte Engineering staff to address Mr. Golder’s concerns about the ditch. Mr. Matthews stated there are some older existing ditches in this area, which in his experience, are common with flatter coastal plain properties, especially in older properties, managing the land, managing the water. He stated they will certainly through any development effort take as much good engineering practice and good judgment as they can physically provide to promote positive drainage, and any development would be subject to review by the State of North Carolina and New Hanover County for conformance with their drainage and stormwater regulations. Chairman Olds inquired if, supposing there was an engineering reason to retain some form of drainage in that position, they can safely assume it would not be 4-feet wide and 13-feet deep. Mr. Matthews replied that he couldn’t speak specifically to the plan, but he could say they would evaluate the topography of the site, including that ditch in question, and certainly modify it to the extent possible to promote positive drainage. Board Member Paul Boney asked Mr. Matthews to show where that ditch is located on the map and how far it goes. Mr. Golder stated the ditch runs the full length of his property, which is 400 feet, and appears to go on in front of Mrs. Bunn’s property, but it doesn’t appear to go anywhere and holds water. Chairman Olds commented that it sounds like it is not connected to an outfall. Board Member Paul Boney asked if the engineer had seen the ditch in question. Engineer Jeremy Blair stated he had not physically walked the property and seen the ditch in question. He could say tonight that if there are outfall opportunities through the existing ditch network through the development to clean it out, to regrade, to do things that will better promote positive drainage, that would certainly be part of the plan. Board Member Boney inquired if, when they are done and the project is permitted, that ditch would be allowed to stay on this site and be grandfathered there. He said he’s trying to look out for this man that has brought his concerns to the board so he’s trying to determine if the project will be permitted in a way that they can’t use that. He said he doubted the applicant could dig a ditch right now that is 4-feet wide and 13-feet deep anywhere in that area, but he could be wrong. Page 7 of 23 Engineer Blair noted he couldn’t envision an engineered plan that creates a big standing water area. Board Member Board that he isn’t worried about an engineering plan that creates it, but he is worried about an engineering plan that leave it on the site. Engineer Blair stated that he can’t guarantee that there’s an opportunity to make the ditch go away; it being an existing feature. He commented that all he can say is that the best engineering practice they can provide based on an approved plan is certainly what they would propose to do. Board Member Girardot inquired what the timeline for the project would be if the rezoning was approved. Engineer Blair stated it was his understanding based on the approval having already been through some levels of the technical review committee process, they would proceed immediately. He noted that typically from beginning stages to turning dirt on a project of this type, it is six months or something like that. He said it is his understanding that the owner is intending to move forward. The project will not be on hold. Board Member Girardot inquired if there would be an opportunity for the applicant to remediate this immediate problem in the meantime. Engineer Blair replied he would say there is an opportunity to evaluate it and look at it. Board Member Weaver stated he knows that the board can’t ask any details or base their decision on what the applicant plans to do with the property since this is a straight R-10 rezoning; however, he would ask if the 404 wetlands had been delineated on the property. Engineer Blair confirmed that the 404 wetlands have been delineated on the property. Board Member Weaver asked if there was a map available to show where those wetlands are located. Engineer Blair pointed out the wetlands on the map of the site. Board Member Weaver commented that when the property is developed the developer can do whatever they want with that ditch so it could ultimately be fixed when the development is put in place. Engineer Blair confirmed Mr. Weaver’s comment was correct. Chairman Olds commented that he thinks it’s clear that the planning board feels they want to get rid of that ditch. They don’t want it to be a mosquito breeding ground and don’t want it to be a trap for some kids to fall into, and to the extent that they can do anything more than that, they would like to, but they probably can’t. He thinks the applicant understands the planning board’s concerns. Page 8 of 23 Vice Chair Jordy Rawl noted the applicant is not in a position to disclose too much about the site plan. He commented in regard to the outfall, the topography on that side of Market Street looks like it falls toward the Intracoastal Waterway and Highway 17 is there with nothing more than a 45-feet wide entry into the subdivision. He said he would imagine they don't have great infiltration rates on that soil back there as that area is known as a wet part of the county. There are challenges for stormwater in coastal North Carolina counties. He noted that adding another 15 units to the property that is probably not in the best position to handle what it could by-right would be his biggest concern. Vice Chair Rawl inquired if the applicant had looked into the potential outfall of where the water would vacate the site to. Engineer Blair replied that generally, the outfall is to the northwest. He noted that a plan for development would include best management practices, detention basins, things that would alleviate any increase in runoff from the site, and it certainly would not back up water upstream beyond anything that's there now. He said that any plan for development would have to mediate additional runoff created by the development of 45 units, 50 units, or the ultimate max of 60 units. In response to Vice Chair Rawl’s comment about the private property to the northwest, Engineer Blair said it would maintain the same drainage patterns that are there now and they wouldn’t modify it in such a way that it doesn’t outfall to the place that it’s out falling now. Vice Chair Rawl stated that his concern is that they would be increasing that by putting impervious surface there and if they rezone something without understanding what the plan is for how that stormwater will be handled, it will expound on an issue that’s already a challenge, as brought before us by the gentleman who spoke earlier. Vice Chair Rawl asked if the applicant could speak to how the stormwater would be handled for the added density to address the public concerns brought before the board. Engineer Blair stated at this point their estimation is that they wouldn’t reach more than 10%-15% more in terms of units than they would in the by-right zoning. He said with smaller lots and smaller houses, they wouldn’t necessary see the same percentage increase in impervious area, but regardless, they’ll have to meet the county stormwater ordnance, which would require them to capture all of the runoff from any increase in imperious area, hold it in approved stormwater devices, and let it outfall at a similar or lesser rate than it is currently. Vice Chair Rawl explained that the board generally understands how the stormwater is intended to work, but there are site specific challenges here, and a current issue with no impervious surface on the site. He said it was his intent to figure out how stormwater will be accommodated once development begins. Engineer Blair said it would be difficult to say how stormwater would be handled without going into a full specific plan of development for the site, but any new impervious surface area will be collected, managed through new stormwater conveyance measures, be it pipes or swales, collected in basins, and then outfalled. If this existing ditch is such that the plan for development can open up the existing ditch system or they can intercept some of the existing drainage from there, route it through the development and improve the overall conveyance of stormwater through the basin, they would certainly do that Page 9 of 23 Board Member Allen Pope said based on his local knowledge, there used to be a railroad here and the railroad tracks were always built on the high ground so all the water is definitely existing back toward that managed woodland. He pointed out the locations of the ditches and noted that most of your managed woodlands have roads that have significant ditches on both sides of their roadways so he would assume this is the outfall for the property. Board Member Pope asked if there was anybody with the engineering firm present at the meeting that had walked this property and could confirm that. Engineer Blair said they have a topographical survey and that is definitely the outfall for the property and confirmed that Board Member Pope’s assumptions in regard to the outfall are correct. Board Member Pope stated there is no doubt that as they develop this property they’ll definitely have to go through stormwater permitting and they will have to address those existing ditches and their proposed drainage plans. Board Member Boney inquired given the wetlands on the site how many units could be put on the site with the current R-15 zoning if the rezoning to R-10 isn’t approved. Mr. Matthews stated the allowable units would be 40 with the current zoning, but their estimation with the rezoning is that they would come very close to getting to 45 units. Board Member Boney asked how they will get the same amount in there with the current zoning, given that the wetlands appear to take out twenty percent of the property. Mr. Matthews stated that in the current zoning they believe they can achieve the allowable density. In regard to the increase in density through the rezoning, they don’t anticipate maximizing that density given the wetlands, etc. Board Member Boney asked Mr. Matthews to provide his professional opinion on the compelling need for the increase in the zoning. Mr. Matthews stated they believe the rezoning offers a bit more flexibility and smaller lots, a marginal increase in the number of units they can get out there, and different levels of housing opportunities there. Board Member David Weaver asked if the wetlands are subtracted from the allowable acreage to be developed when you calculate the number of dwelling units that can be built in both R-10 and R-15 zoning. Planner Andrea confirmed that any 404 wetland areas must be subtracted from the gross acreage when calculating density. He noted a plan was approved in August of 2017 for the same property under the existing zoning from this same firm and they were able to achieve 42 lots. The area of wetlands according to that approved plan was 1.56 acres. If you subtract that from the 18.1 gross acreage of the site and multiply that by 3.3, which is the density allowed in R-10, they would be able to achieve 55 units so we’re looking at a possible difference from 42 for what has been approved under R-10 up to 55 based on that 1.56 acres of wetlands. Page 10 of 23 In response for the chairman’s inquiry, Planner Andrea confirmed that conditions are not allowed on a general map amendment. Chairman Olds informed Mr. Golder that he was allowed another five minutes for rebuttal. Mr. Golder said during rebuttal he would ask the developer/owner to be good stewards of the land and not abuse the land. He stated he was curious about what they will do about their sewer and water source, noting he relies on well water and that his well dried up when they dug that ditch six or seven years ago. Mr. Golder said when he spoke to the county about it, the county said it had always been there, which isn’t true, because he watched the backhoe dig the ditch. He was concerned about it then and he is concerned about it now. Chairman Olds inquired if board members had any questions. Board Member Weaver stated that given the fact that the board can’t control stormwater, he would like to move to recommend approval of the rezoning request. Chairman Olds closed the public hearing and 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? Mr. Matthews 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 David Weaver made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Donna Girardot, to recommend approval, as the board finds that this request for a zoning map amendment of approximately 18.1 acres from the R-15 district to a R-10 district as described, is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it provides for infill residential development similar to the existing pattern of the area and aligns with the density recommendation for the Community Mixed Use place type. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal would establish an R-10 zoning district in an area where public water and sewer is available. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z18-07. Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z18-09) – Request by Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner, Fred A. and Doris H. Whitman, to rezone approximately 16.8 acres of land located at the 500 block of Bountiful Lane from R-20, Residential District, to (CZD) R-10, Conditional Residential District, in order to construct a performance residential development. Page 11 of 23 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. Planner Schuler presented the following staff report. Mr. Schuler stated this is an application to establish a conditional zoning district. A zoning map of the area reflects the subject property, which is currently zoned R-20. The property is located in an area of Wrightsboro that consists mostly of the R-20 zoning district; however, properties to the north along Oakley Circle are zoned R-15 and properties within the Walnut Hills Subdivision are zoned R-10. The subject property consists of approximately 16.8 acres and is mostly wooded. It currently contains a single-family dwelling. Mr. Schuler said as shown on the current site plan for the project, the applicant is seeking to rezone the property to a Conditional R-10 district in order to construct a performance residential development consisting of 55 townhome units. The proposed development clusters the townhomes on the eastern side of the property, and as a result, will have over 10 acres of open space. The applicant also intends to preserve the trees located within most of the open space. In addition, a 20-foot buffer is required along all property lines abutting residential lots. Mr. Schuler presented a slide showing the differences between the current zoning district and what is being proposed. He noted the current R-20 district would allow up to 32 dwelling units on the property under the performance residential standards, which is a density of 1.9 du/ac , and under the proposed Conditional R-10 district the property would be permitted a maximum of 55 dwelling units at a density of 3.3 du/ac. Mr. Schuler stated in regard to traffic, the proposed development is expected to generate less than 30 trips during the peak hours. Traffic impacts will be reviewed by NCDOT during the driveway permitting process. He reported there has been one Traffic Impact Analysis approved for another project within the area. The Riverside development is currently under construction and will make improvements to the intersection at Castle Hayne Road and N. Kerr Avenue. There is also one project within the area that is included within the State Transportation Improvement Program. Project U-5863 will widen Castle Hayne Road from I-140 to Division Drive. Construction of that project is expected to begin in 2023. Lastly, there is another NCDOT project that’s not shown on this map, but NCDOT will be installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Oakley Road and Castle Hayne Road. He stated that project is expected to be completed within approximately one year. Mr. Schuler stated the Comprehensive Plan classifies the subject property as General residential which is a place type that focuses on lower-density housing and associated civic and commercial services. Overall, the application is generally CONSISTENT with the comprehensive plan because it is compatible with the density of adjacent neighborhoods, is in line with the density recommendations of the General Residential place type, and protects the site’s environmental resources by clustering the dwelling units. Chairman Olds opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Cindee Wolf stated she represented the owners of the property and also her clients, the potential developers. She explained that one of the major things that has happened in this area is Page 12 of 23 the construction of the I-140 by-pass with the interconnectivity of Castle Hayne Road and that has made this area of the county very attractive now for other housing units because of the increased fees of commuting to jobs and services. The area around the subject site is a mixture of R-20, R- 15 and R-10. Those other slightly denser zones have gone in there because of the utilities. There is water and sewer service here. Ms. Wolf commented that they were thrilled when they got the information about the signal at Castle Hayne Road because that was one of the things that came out during the community information meeting. The complaints were about the traffic on Oakley Road and Castle Hayne Road and making that turn to go towards that interchange safely. Ms. Wolf stated that policies for growth and development certainly encourage safe and affordable housing, and sustainability and the county certainly depends on sensible infill and maximizing those lands where the utilities are available. Also, in today's age, in regard to the affordability of homes, increased density allows developers to get more product, and therefore, to make prices more reasonable. Ms. Wolf stated this rezoning for a moderate density provides alternative housing opportunities, which is not typical out in this area. She noted there are a lot of large lots, small homes, and a lot of that could have been because there had to be wells and septic system. She said this clustering of the homes leaves the site with a wealth of open space and the developer is committed to not disturbing that in any way, shape, or form. Ms. Wolf offered to answer any questions the board may have and stated they believe the rezoning request is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and in the public interest because it is an efficient land use and promotes sustainability of our county. Ms. Wolf provided photos of the architectural style that is intended for the development, noting these are all two-bedroom units so it isn’t the type of housing that would generally promote large groups of people, lots of ca rs or anything like that. She added that the units are all single-story, which is typical of the area. She noted the units are more like patio homes and so are more affordable for retirees, etc. She also presented a floor plan of the units. Chairman Olds inquired if board members had any questions for the applicant. Board Member Paul Boney noted the discussion about stormwater and wetlands related to the previous item and commented that it appeared that Ms. Wolf is leaving a large piece of this property just natural. He inquired if the site had been surveyed for 404 wetlands and how stormwater would be handled. Ms. Wolf reported that a detailed topographical plan for the site yet, which will be required for the preliminary plat to go through the technical review committee process. She stated that the stunning thing about this site is that there are two ditches. They believe the banks of those ditch sides are RPW, which would be wetlands, but that would not prevent the developer from cutting across them, bringing and culverting them, and using these areas of high spots, but they didn’t want to do that. She said they thought that the product was a good idea, the clustering was a good idea, and those ditches are how they came up with the shaded area that Planner Schuler provided. She noted they have no reason to clear anything on the eastern side of those ditches to the rest of the property. She stated in regard to stormwater management, this site drains down towards that area, so that’s why she has the stormwater pond where it is on the site. She explained she has used her best management experienced guesses as far as the surface area that she is showing, but it sits up on the knoll and the obvious overflow would be some type of spillway down to the natural drainage pattern. Page 13 of 23 Board Member Boney asked if there was a Phase II or connectivity associated with this project. Ms. Wolf confirmed there would not be a second phase or connectivity associated with this project, noting they have maximized the density on this site. She commented that as long as you aren’t impacting any of those conservation resources or wetlands, you can get the entire density available for the boundary of the site. Board Member Allen Pope stated that on the site plan there appears to be some sort of road system back to Oakley Road and inquired if Ms. Wolf had an opportunity to look at that access. Ms. Wolf stated they have talked with that adjacent property owner and they may be present at the meeting. At this point, that is not a road way system; it is private property and is a drive back to some accessory buildings and perhaps a barn, so she didn’t have any opportunities with the land already being developed and no stubs to the subject property to stub. Ms. Wolf stated her design was for the tee heads so there was adequate fire service turnaround, etc. She stated they have not gone through the formal TRC process, noting that Fire Services will certainly have some say in it. She commented that they didn't get any preliminary review comments to the contrary so they were pleased about that. Ms. Wolf stated that if an emergency access was necessary, there could be the possibility through negotiations with adjacent property owners only to provide that , otherwise, they might have to redesign internally for loops or something like that. Ms. Wolf stated they believe this is a pretty solid design. Board Member Allen Pope said his biggest concern was that there is only one way in and one way out. Ms. Wolf said they have some opportunities with two turnarounds and they could perhaps offer another this turnaround and that could perhaps offer another one if that was necessary. Board Member Pope explained that his biggest concern is that if there was a problem there then everyone would be trapped. Ms. Wolf replied that this is an unusual site with those ditches creating a barrier Planner Schuler added that staff had sent the plan over to one of the county’s fire marshals, and they did not indicate that a secondary connection would be required. Ms. Wolf noted that some of that has to do generally with the number of units. Board Member Girardot said that at the recent TRC meeting, she thought the number to require another ingress/egress was thirty units or each unit would have to be sprinklered. Planner Schuler replied that is true for thirty single family dwellings. With this being a townhome development, the number might be a little different. He added he thought when i t’s a multifamily, it’s over 100 units, but generally they are sprinklered and that might be why a secondary connection is not required. Page 14 of 23 Board Member David Weaver commented that this looks like a great site design and asked for a clarification on whether the concept of two-bedroom, brick, one-story townhomes part of the site plan that will be approved. Ms. Wolf commented that they have certainly offered that in their presentation. She stated there is a certain limit by state statute on what the planning board can require, but they have offered those exhibits and that is the intent of the product. Chairman Olds asked Ms. Wolf to address the buffers on the site to ensure the adjacent neighborhood is protected, noting there is a density of trees in most of the area. Ms. Wolf reported there is a required 20-feet buffer along that boundary. In addition, there is generally a minimum of 32 feet from the property line to any of these units. She believes the footprints shown for these units includes the patio area. She stated the bufferyard will have to be planted to satisfy the opacity requirements, which is basically three rows of shrubs, staggered, and planted before occupancy. Chairman Olds asked what the distance would be at Bountiful Lane from the actual edge of the street to the face/side of the unit building. Ms. Wolf explained there would be at least twenty feet because performance residential has a 20-feet perimeter set back from it, and then Bountiful Lane has a 60-foot right-of-way in that location. If it is, it’s only a 20-foot roadway so it’s probably forty feet from the edge of the payment to the edge of the building. Chairman Olds stated that is a reasonable distance. Speakers in Support Mike Rokoski stated he represented the developer and would like to clarify Chairman Olds’ inquiry regarding the one-story and two-bedroom units. He said he was going to request that they add that commitment because he made an overt commitment at the community meeting that the developer would limit each unit to two bedrooms. He commented that part of the decision making process was that if they built by-right 32 single-family homes with four bedrooms each, they would have 128 bedrooms. They are doing 55 2-bedroom townhomes so they are actually doing 110 bedrooms, which is actually less than they could do by-right from a bedroom perspective and doing a product they think is in demand and be able to provide some affordable housing. Mr. Rokoski said they are also willing to overtly commit to the one-story structure, but they would request there be no commitment to do brick, although they do intend to do brick accents and hiring an architect to do some different materials to make them look aesthetically pleasing. In closing, Mr. Rokoski stated the developer is overtly committing to do one-story, 2-bedroom townhomes only. Speakers in Opposition Cynthia Avery stated she actually lives on Oakley Road and she and her neighbors are already pretty upset about the amount of clear-cutting of woodland that’s been going on in the Wrightsboro area in the last few years. It’s not much fun to watch wildlife on the run due to clearcutting resulting in destruction of their habitat. She said that most people that live in Page 15 of 23 Wrightsboro move there because it’s a more rural area and they like their gardens and chickens and those types of things. She commented that she doesn’t see the proposed development fitting with that idea and noted there is already a new development on Rockhill Road, which is adjacent, and they have already cut through to Oakley Circle. As soon as people are living in those houses, they will have access to Oakley Road, resulting in more traffic on the road. She explained that Oakley Road is a small road that was never intended to be a busy highway, which is what it’s becoming. Ms. Avery stated they are also concerned about flooding issues in the area. She expressed concern that heavy rains result in ditches that are full and flooded yards because a lot of that area is low. Ms. Avery stated that every time more trees are removed, they have more flooding issues. Ms. Avery also stated concerns about the schools becoming more overcrowded in that area due to all the new development. Ms. Avery said in conclusion, that if the board was wondering why she was the only person there tonight, when she spoke to her neighbors about coming to this meeting, everyone told her they had said what they needed to say at the community meeting at the fire station and that nobody wanted to hear what the citizens’ concerns are. They aren’t concerns with our quality of life; they are only listening to the developers. Ms. Avery said she thinks that’s very sad and unfortunate. She thanked the board for the opportunity to speak. Rebuttal Ms. Wolf offered to answer any questions and pointed out the capacity of Oakley Road in the staff study. The capacity for that type of suburban road, which is maintained by NCDOT is 9,500 trips per day and the volume on Oakley Road at this point is less than half of that. Ms. Wolf stated in regard to the drainage issues mentioned that they are in a unique situation where their drainage has no one downstream of it. The developer will get the water off their site with those ditches that run through their site and that Y-shape. The development will not be affecting those ditches at all so it would have no impact. She stated in regard to the clearcutting and drainage and natural infiltration, she thinks the fact that preserving over 50% of their site as natural is important for this particular development. Chairman Olds closed the public hearing and opened board discussion. Board Member Weaver pointed out that the owner and developer of this property by-right could clear almost all of the property and cut it up into single-family lots. One of the nice things about this site plan is that fifty percent of the site will be kept in its natural condition, which would help with the wildlife and the natural rural aspect of the Castle Hayne/Wrightsboro area. Board Member Boney noted that a lady had been sitting there all night and he didn’t know if she didn’t know to sign up. He asked if they could reopen the public hearing to allow her voice to be heard if she would like to speak. Chairman Olds stated if she had something important that she felt needed to be said that had not already been said, she could come forward. Linda Worrell stated the proposed units are closest to her property. She said she has no problem with it being rezoned and from what they saw at the other meeting, her only question was who would make the decision about the twenty-foot buffer and the three rows of shrubbery Page 16 of 23 required. She commented that if they go twenty to thirty-two feet, she would be concerned about the shrubbery growing onto her property. Chairman Olds stated that all of the buffer and shrubbery would be required to be located on the applicant’s property; none of it could be on Ms. Worrell’s property. Ms. Worrell asked how close the shrubbery would be to her property. Planner Schuler confirmed that the buffer and shrubbery has to be on the applicant’s property. He stated that if the shrubbery grown onto Ms. Worrell’s property, she would have the right to trim it. Ms. Worrell stated that she has developed many small properties. When someone plants shrubbery a foot on their property and it grows onto your property, if you are older and can’t afford to cut it back, you don’t have a driveway. She expressed concern about Buildings 7 and 8 being right on that 20-foot dotted line and having 3 rows of shrubbery there and who would maintain it after the lots are sold and the developer is gone. Ms. Worrell stated she would be fine with a fence in that location. She asked who would determine if there could be a fence there. Planner Schuler stated that the zoning ordinance requires that landscaping be located within that 20-feet buffer. He asked Ms. Wolf to address the landscaping standards for the buffer. Ms. Wolf stated that three types of buffers are acceptable. They are all a minimum of twenty feet wide. In regard to the distance between the property lane and the mandated buffer, those buffers can be all vegetative, which would be three rows of staggered shrubs. The spacing of those staggered shrubs depends on what kind of shrub is installed. For example, a wax myrtle has a spacing of 12 foot on center, but they are staggered so it's really only 6 feet as far as the rows go and all three rows can fit within the 20-foot buffer. She noted that a smaller shrub can be used. Ms. Wolf stated that the other opportunities are two rows of shrubs with a fence, or the use of an earthen berm. She noted that those are all cost considerations. She acknowledged there a re pinch points in two locations on the site, although there is lots of room in most areas. She confirmed that the footprint for the buildings includes all of the improvements. Hearing no other comments from the board, Chairman Olds entertained a motion. Board Member Girardot stated concern that there is an impression that the Planning Board members make their decisions in favor of developers versus the public. She stated that she personally goes out and walks every piece of property so she can see how it impacts the people that live next door, down the road, etc. She looks at each item that comes before them individually and tries to make her decision based on what she would like in her backyard or how it would affect me. At the same time, she tries to keep in mind the fact that someone owns that piece of property. They have bought it, they are paying taxes on it, and under the law, they have a right to use it as long as they use it within the law. She stated for several reasons she would like to make a motion to approve the rezoning request. First, Oakley Road is under capacity and while it seems like all of our roads are overcrowded, this is one that we’re fortunate is under capacity. The traffic signal will be implemented there within a year's time. This property is making use of existing infrastructure, which is a good thing as well. As far as stormwater, we have found a number of Page 17 of 23 times, probably the majority of the time, that when a property like this is developed with the newest regulations governing stormwater, it actually helps the adjacent properties as well. As Mr. Weaver said, this can already be approved by-right but you wouldn’t get all of this open space. With performance residential, it looks like a large part, maybe fifty percent of the property, is going to be kept as it is, which is good. The applicant has said they will preserve the existing landscaping, only removing it by necessity where they have to put a pad or a house or whatever else has to be put in, so there will be no clear-cutting for that reason. She hoped that helps dispel some of the resident’s concerns. Chairman Olds closed the public hearing and 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 applicant would like to move forward with a decision by the planning board. Chairman Olds asked Ms. Girardot to state her motion. MOTION: Board Member Donna Girardot made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl, to recommend approval, as the Board finds that this request for a zoning map amendment of approximately 16.8 acres from the R-20 district, to a Conditional R-10 district, as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it provides for infill residential development that is compatible with the existing pattern of the area, while protecting environmental resources by clustering structures and infrastructure. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the project will provide increased amounts of open space which promotes the protection of the natural environmental and wildlife habitats. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z18-09. Chairman Olds said he would echo the previous comments, adding that the planning board members take their job very seriously and are trying to make this community the best they can within the laws they have. Item 3: Rezoning Request (Z18-10) – Request by Design Solutions on behalf of the property owner, James Steele Williams, III, to rezone approximately 5 acres of land located at the 4300 block of Castle Hayne Road from R-20, Residential District, to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business District, in order to develop a landscaping business. 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 18 of 23 Mr. Schuler stated this is an application to establish a conditional zoning district. A zoning map of the area shows the subject property is currently zoned R-20 and is located in an area of Castle Hayne that has a mixture of zoning districts. In addition to the R -20 district, there is also industrial, office, commercial, and agricultural zoning in the area. The property is also located within a small commercial node. There are nonresidential uses within close proximity of the subject site. The property itself consists of 5 acres of land, and currently contains a single family dwelling. Mr. Schuler reported that the applicant is seeking to rezone the property to a Conditional B-2 district in order to develop a landscape contracting business. The existing single-family dwelling on the property is proposed to be converted into an office building for the business. In addition to the office, the business will provide a staging area for emplo yees prior to leaving for off-site jobs. He stated no retail activities are proposed, and per the applicant, landscaping material is not intended to be stored on the site. The rear portion of the property, approximately 500 feet in length, will remain undisturbed and the existing vegetation will be preserved. Mr. Schuler said in regard to traffic, the proposed development is expected to generate about 40 trips during the peak hours. Traffic impacts will be reviewed by NCDOT during the driveway permitting process. There is one project within the area that is included in the State Transportation Improvement Program. Project U-5863 will widen Castle Hayne Road south of I- 140. Construction of that project is expected to begin in 2023. Mr. Schuler stated that the Comprehensive Plan classifies the subject property as Community Mixed Use and Employment Center. The community mixed use place type focuses on small-scale and compact mixed-use development patterns, and the Employment Center Place type serves as an employment and production hub where office and light industrial uses are appropriate. Mr. Schuler explained the proposed landscaping business is generally CONSISTENT with the comprehensive plan because it is a lower-density commercial use that provides employment opportunities and is proposed at an appropriate location off a major road in a transitional area between high intensity nodes. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the application with a condition requiring the existing vegetation within the required buffer yards to be preserved. Mr. Schuler reported that the applicant had agreed to that condition. Chairman Olds inquired if board members had any questions for staff. Chairman Olds inquired how deep the lot is, noting it looks quite deep. Mr. Schuler replied that the lot is about 1,300 feet deep. In response to an inquiry by Chairman Olds, Mr. Schuler stated the two adjacent properties both have single family dwellings on them. Board Member Donna Girardot asked Mr. Schuler to confirm whether the applicant would be required to come back through the rezoning process if they wanted to put other structures on the property at a later date if the planning board were to approve the current rezoning request. Page 19 of 23 Mr. Schuler replied most likely, noting that this is a conditional zoning district so they are subject to this site plan if it is approved. He explained that if they proposed any new structures in the future, staff would have to determine whether the propose new structures would be a minor or major change to the plan. Generally, any substantial increase, for example, a new building or doubling the size of their office, would most likely be a major change and they would have to go back through the rezoning process. He noted that a small accessory structure would be considered a minor change and could be approved administratively by staff. In response to Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl’s inquiry regarding possible alternative business uses, Mr. Schuler stated right now it would just be for the landscape contracting office. Chairman Olds opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Cindee Wolf stated she represents the owners and Sweetwater Landscapes, which is a very successful business in the Raleigh and Triangle Area. They have ventured down here and our Comprehensive Plan promotes retaining and attracting new businesses. They need a place to locate as a staging area every morning for their crews to park, get in the company trucks, and then go off to the different projects. This location on Castle Hayne Road with access not only down Castle Hayne Road to a good wealth of different properties and then also up to I-140 makes it a perfect location. The building that is there was a house. She wasn’t certain if it had previously burned or flooded, but it was all redone. She reported that they held a community meeting, but no one came other than one of his brother’s friends. She noted that the current structure is a nice, amazing building. You can’t tell from the outside, but it has a good appeal for office space. It would really be used as administrative offices for the applicant and one other employee. Everyone else would be going offsite. They pick up their materials to go to the jobsites offsite and there is no reason for them to bring them back. Any debris, etc. would be disposed of elsewhere so it really is strictly a staging area. She thinks that it is, with that house and some minor signage, a good opportunity for a business to have a branch office. Ms. Wolf said this is a conditional district as proposed and they haven’t shown other buildings or more parking or anything like that; it’s not needed. She commented that if the applicant wanted more use of this land in the future, he is fully aware that he would have to go through the major modification process if it is considered a major modification. Ms. Wolf stated that the proposal is great as far as its location and its consistency with our policies. Board Member Girardot inquired what type of equipment the applicant plans to keep at this property and inquired if it would include front loaders and dump trucks. Ms. Wolf responded that the applicant doesn’t have that type of equipment. They will have pickup trucks and one or two trailers that they use to pick up pine straw and things like that. They might have two larger trucks also, but they don’t have front loaders or backhoes or those types of things from what she understands. In response to Chairman Olds’ inquiry, Ms. Wolf confirmed the applicant does landscape maintenance and installation. She commented that as it sits today, this site could be a wholesale nursery and have that type of equipment, but that is not the applicant’s business. Page 20 of 23 In regard to Board Member Girardot’s inquiry regarding the business’s hours of operation, Ms. Wolf stated it was her understanding that the business’s hours of operation are Monday through Friday. The crews arrive at work around 7:00 a.m. and are back before dark, but usually by 6:30 p.m. She said there are 25-30 employees each day and they have 8 to 10 company trucks for offsite job assignments. Board Member Allen Pope stated he noticed this is an all gravel parking area and gravel driveway and his biggest concern would be picking up that gravel and dirt with these trucks and employees coming and going. He recommended that at least a portion of this driveway should probably be paved just to keep that gravel and dirt off of Castle Hayne Road and keep from having pothole type areas in the Castle Hayne intersection. Ms. Wolf replied that she would imagine that item will come up as the project goes through the driveway permit process and she could very easily see pavement to some certain boundary. She noted that is not something that the applicant would have an issue with. She added in regard to the landscaping and buffering, they are a landscape business so that is an easy situation there. Chairman Olds commented that since this is a conditional permit, you’re going to get what you are asking for and that is really desirable. The scale of the house fits into the residential neighborhood and it's not going to change. As an office, it doesn’t turn into some other structure. He stated he was glad it won’t be a depository for material headed for the dump or plants, etc. and will be more the administrative hub for the business. Chairman Olds said he thinks it’s a nice fit and he is happy to see the plan presented this way Board Member Girardot inquired what type of signage would be used there on the roadway. While Mr. Schuler checked the ordinance for signage requirements under the B-2 zoning district, Ms. Wolf commented that on this particular use, the applicant didn’t say anything about any type of large visible signage. She noted there would certainly be addressing because there is a building and for fire services, emergency services, etc., but there are no clients coming to this location. Board Member Allen Pope inquired if under this conditional use it would be permitted for the applicant to store materials on this site, such as pine straw, small shrubs etc. Mr. Schuler responded that the B-2 zoning district does allow for outdoor storage. He also reported in response to Ms. Girardot’s inquiry regarding signage that the B-2 district would allow for a sign up to twenty (20’) feet in height and a maximum area of 100 square feet. Board Member Girardot commented that as Ms. Wolf stated previously on this property since it’s just a staging area, we don’t anticipate a twenty-foot (20’) sign. Ms. Wolf said no, not at all. She stated that she felt comfortable that she could commit to a monument sign, probably no greater than twenty (20) square feet. Vice Chairman Jordy Rawl asked in regard to storage onsite if in this zoning a structure like a Comex box or the hauler to an 18-wheeler to store pine straw would be allowed given it is in an existing residential location. Page 21 of 23 Mr. Schuler stated he believed that type of storage would be permitted. He would imagine they would probably park it in the parking lot area which would be permitted. Ms. Wolf stated if anything like that does come up, all of their parking is screened from behind, they have buffers on either side, and they have a lot of open yard back there. She explained that her client said that is not the way his business runs right now, but she doesn’t know that if they got a great deal on a load of pine straw or something that it would really cause any hassles or adverse effect to the neighbors. She added that it couldn’t be for sale so it wouldn’t be a retail situation. Vice Chair Rawl commented that it’s a matter of convenience and he can respect someone operating a business wanting to have that onsite. He noted that obviously from an aesthetic standpoint, a white rusting semi-hauler wouldn't be the most pleasing thing to the neighbors. He thanked Ms. Wolf for addressing the question. Board Member David Weaver asked if they should put a condition on this rezoning that would prevent them from bringing backhoes and heavy equipment on the site. He noted they have a commitment from the applicant that they aren’t going to do that, but it could happen very easily. Mr. Weaver stated he thinks it’s a great site for a staging area and an office use with pickup trucks, but following up on Mr. Rawl’s comments, it could morph into something more intense. For that reason, he wondered if they should put some specific conditions on an approval of the rezoning. Cindee Wolf responded on behalf of her client that this is a major thoroughfare, and if you look just 300 feet up the road, there is a huge I-1, I-2 district that is full of junkyards. Whatever the applicant would be doing, by virtue of where the building is and where the access is, is at the back of the site, and the back of the site has to be buffered. Any of the uses have to be buffered. She stated that without having her client present, she certainly doesn’t think she would be in the position to say no, they may never have a backhoe there, but it is not that kind of business. It’s not a wholesale nursery or a contractor. It is a yard landscaping and maintenance business. Chairman Olds stated he was satisfied they have a pretty significant conditional setup here, more that they would normally get, but it’s up to the board to decide. Board Member Boney said he would personally take Ms. Wolf at her word. Board Member Allen Pope commented that there are already existing buffers on the side yard and inquired if it would be acceptable to the applicant to require some type of buffer between the parking lot and the potential storage if that ever takes place or it morphs into something beyond just a staging area. Ms. Wolf asked if the purpose in the buffer would be so you couldn’t see it if you looked up the driveway, and if so, she saw no problem with that requirement. Board Member Pope said he was actually saying screened all the way across. Ms. Wolf stated that if that area was to be used, it would be screened. Page 22 of 23 Hearing no additional questions or comments from the board, Chairman Olds closed the public hearing and 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 of Design Solutions confirmed the applicant would like to move forward with a decision by the planning board. Chairman Olds entertained a motion from the planning board. MOTION: Board Member Allen Pope made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Jordy Rawl, to recommend approval as the board finds that this request for a zoning map amendment of approximately 5 acres from R-20 district, to a Conditional B-2 district, as described, is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed landscaping business is a low-density commercial use that provides employment opportunities and is appropriately located off a major arterial road in a transitional area between high intensity nodes. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed development will support business success while limiting impacts to surrounding residential areas by preserving existing vegetation. Condition: 1. All existing vegetation located within required buffer yards must be preserved and supplemented as necessary in order to provide a fully opaque screen. 2. The potential storage area shall be screened from the gravel parking lot. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z18-10 with two conditions. Technical Review Committee Report (June 2018) Current Planner Brad Schuler reported the Technical Review Committee did not meet during the month of June. Other Agenda Items - Unified Development Ordinance Update Planning & Land Use Director Wayne Clark provided a brief update on the Unified Development Ordinance. Director Clark reported that the second UDO workshop will be held on Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in Human Resources Training Rooms A & B in the New Hanover County Government Center. He stated that Ms. Girardot has been working with the staff as a member of the UDO Technical Committee. He informed board members that the materials will be provided in a much more straightforward, easy-to-read format going forward. Staff anticipates distributing the information to the Planning Board at their regular meeting in August, which will give board members the opportunity to review it prior to the work session Page 23 of 23 With no other items of business, Chairman Olds adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m.