Loading...
03-02-2023 PB MINUTES 1 | P a g e Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board March 2, 2023 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on March 2, 2023, at 5:00 p.m. in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina. Members Present Staff Present Donna Girardot, Chair Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning Jeff Petroff, Vice Chair Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Colin Tarrant Robert Farrell, Senior Current Planner Hansen Matthews Zachary, Dickerson, Current Planner Clark Hipp Julian Griffee, Current Planner Pete Avery Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney Kevin Hine Chair Donna Girardot called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Planning Manager Ken Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Girardot welcomed the new Deputy County Attorney Karen Richards. Approval of Minutes Minutes from the February 2, 2023, Planning Board meeting were presented to the members. No changes or amendments were identified. Vice Chair Jeff Petroff made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Colin Tarrant, to approve the minutes as drafted. Motion to approve minutes carried 7-0 NEW BUSINESS Rezoning Request (Z23-03) – Request by James Yopp with River Road Construction, LLC and Hoosier Daddy, LLC, applicant and property owner, to rezone 29 parcels totaling approximately 42.10 acres of land, including 5741 Carolina Beach Road and 18 unaddressed parcels on Shiloh Drive north of Manassas Drive, from R-15, Residential to (CZD) R-5, Residential Moderate High Density for 10 single-family residential lots and 327 residential townhomes with associated open space and amenity center. This item was continued from the February 2, 2023, meeting. Senior Planner Robert Farrell provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation, and zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area and gave an overview of the proposed application as referred to in the staff report. Mr. Farrell stated that the request was to rezone approximately 42.10 acres from R-15 to a CZD R-5 district. He stated that site was originally zoned R-15 in the 1970s and at the time the purpose of the district was to ensure housing densities remained lower due to the need for private wells and septic systems, but since then public water and sewer had become available to the area. He stated that the applicant’s concept plan included 10 single-family lots with 327 single-family attached dwellings in the form of quadraplexes, triplexes, and duplexes and could be broken into two interconnected portions. He stated that the southern portion at Shiloh Drive and Manassas Drive would include 24 quadraplex residential units, 2 triplex units, and 1 duplex for a total of 104 dwelling units. He that the southern portion of the project would connect with existing road stubs at Sweet Gum Drive, Sand Ridge Avenue, and Black Ash Run in the existing Tarin Woods Subdivision providing multiple points of ingress and egress through the development. Mr. Farrell stated that Shiloh Drive was also proposed to extend north and connect to an adjoining commercially zoned parcel on Carolina Beach Road owned by the applicant. He stated that while not under consideration as part of the proposed rezoning, future commercial services on the adjacent parcel would be accessible by vehicles through the connection. He stated that the concept plan also showed 2 | P a g e the attached single-family units situated perpendicular to the rear of existing houses to reduce potential visual impacts which had been included as a condition of the project. Mr. Farrell stated that the northern portion of the project included 10 single-family residential lots that transitioned from Tarin Woods to the south into 23 quadraplex units, 40 triplexes, and 1 duplex for a total of 224 single-family attached residential units. He described the roadway network, including an easement connection to the eastern end of Rosa Parks Lane that would allow for the potential for future access, and the road that continued north to the new proposed roadway connection onto Carolina Beach Road. He stated that the new proposed access road would provide a continuous connection from Carolina Beach Road, through the proposed development and existing Tarin Woods, south to Manassas Drive and back to Carolina Beach Road with additional access east to Myrtle Grove Road. Mr. Farrell stated that the placement of the proposed attached housing on the Ironwood Drive extension was designed to reduce the number of individual driveways to ensure the road served as a connector through street between Carolina Beach Road and Tarin Woods. He stated that under the proposed R-5 zoning district sidewalks would be required on both sides of the roads in the development. Mr. Farrell stated that access was proposed at Manassas Drive, a NCDOT-maintained secondary road from Carolina Beach Road, a NCDOT-maintained Urban Principal Arterial highway, and a new proposed access road into the northern portion of the site parallel to Rosa Parks Lane. He stated that access at Manassas Drive was right-in/right-out with a stoplight on Carolina Beach Road and that the new proposed access to the north of the site would be right-in/right-out. She stated that the proposed northern access road was currently under review by NCDOT and would increase internal circulation for existing developments and help mitigate additional traffic on Carolina Beach Road between The Kings Highway and Manassas Drive. He stated that the proposed development would generate approximately 170 AM peak hour trips and 200 PM peak hour trips, and that new developments that were anticipated to generate more than 100 trips during any peak hour were required to submit a Traffic Impact Analysis as part of the rezoning application. He stated that the approved Traffic Impact Analysis was for more dwelling units and more peak hour trips than the development under consideration, resulting in a reduction of 33 AM and 54 PM peak hour trips. He stated that while the intensity of the proposed development is less than what was analyzed by the TIA, the applicant had included a condition guaranteeing the construction of all roadway improvements required by the TIA. He stated that the proposed development would be built over three phases with several roadway improvements including a new access road, turn lanes, and a U-Turn Lane on Carolina Beach Road. He stated that the TIA also required the developer to construct a future third access into the site meeting NCDOT roadway standards. Mr. Farrell stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated the property as General Residential and Urban Mixed Use and because of the general nature of place type borders, sites located in proximity to the boundaries between place types could be appropriately developed with either place type, allowing site-specific features and evolving development patterns in the surrounding area to be considered. He stated that the subject parcels were located between existing lower density residential neighborhoods to the east and the Carolina Beach Road commercial corridor to the west, which was envisioned for the more intensive Urban Mixed Use place type. He stated that the proposed attached housing type increased housing diversity in the area and acted as an appropriate transition between existing commercial and residential development. He stated that roadway additions and improvements proposed as part of the development increased connectivity and opportunities for vehicles to exit Caroling Beach Road sooner to reach their destinations. Mr. Farrell stated that staff found the request generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval because the proposed density, housing type, and increased interconnectivity were in line with the recommendations of both the General Residential and Urban Mixed Use place types and the proposed development acted as an appropriate transition between existing commercial and residential use in the area. He stated that the applicant and staff had proposed the following conditions related to reducing visual impacts on adjacent properties, roadway improvements, access, and stormwater: 3 | P a g e 1. Attached residential dwellings on the east side of Shiloh Drive shall be sited perpendicular to neighboring single- family residential lots. 2. The improvements required as part of each phase of the approved 2022 Traffic Impact Analysis must be completed by the end of the build out year listed in the TIA for each phase. Planning staff is authorized to accept changes to the timing provided such changes are approved by NCDOT and the WMPO. While not shown on the proposed development, the TIA required future third access into the site meeting NCDOT roadway standards for Phase 2 must be completed by the build out year of 2026 unless otherwise approved by NCDOT and the WMPO. 3. Existing trees shall be retained, or another appropriate traffic prevention measure shall be established at the eastern terminus of Rosa Parks Drive to prevent vehicular ingress and egress until such time a written agreement is reached to provide connectivity. An access easement shall be recorded on the final plat from the edge of pavement to the property line with Rosa Parks Drive to ensure the possibility of future access. 4. Any portion of the proposed development that utilizes any portion of the existing stormwater management system for Tarin Woods Subdivision that is not accepted into the Tarin Woods property owners’ association, must enter into a stormwater maintenance agreement with the Tarin Woods property owners’ association. Mr. Farrell stated that if the rezoning were approved it would be subject to the Technical Review Committee and zoning compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. In response to questions from the board about additional emails that were received in opposition to the project, Mr. Farrell stated the comments the board received earlier that day were in addition to comments received since the last meeting that had been provided in the agenda packet. In response to questions of the board about the TIA requirements for access to Carolina Beach Road, Mr. Farrell stated that the proposed access road located just above Rosa Parks Lane was included in the concept plan and was being reviewed by NCDOT, and that a future third access road would be required but would have to be identified at a later date. He stated that the new road by Manassas would be one connection and the new road north of Rosa Parks Lane would be the second connection. In response to questions of the board about the road stub shown on the south end of the project being part of the plan, Mr. Farrell stated that the road stub was part of the conceptual plan and that the stub would end at the property line. He stated that the applicant did own the adjacent property and showed the stub extending through for any future development. He stated that the applicant’s intent was to install the proposed access road first allowing construction traffic to access the site from the northern end. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Mr. James Yopp, applicant, provided a summary description and history of the proposed project. He stated that the proposal was a revision to a rezoning request submitted previously and now reflected 43 acres with additional open space and buffers to the adjacent residential properties. He stated that the change in density was reduced from 499 homes to 327 homes limited to 4 homes per dwelling. He stated that access would be provided along Shiloh Road and that improvements had been made along Manassas Drive with dual right turns exiting out of the site. He stated that a leftover from their initial Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) had been added at the Harris Teeter Shopping Center and that the initial TIA had covered all of the density proposed at this time. He stated that after going before the County Board of Commissioners for the previous proposal, it was suggested that an additional means of ingress and egress be requested in order to receive approval. He stated that they moved forward to acquire access north of Rosa Parks Drive and then received a new TIA study. He stated that the connectivity worked in harmony with Duke Energy, AT&T, Spectrum and Piedmont Natural Gas. He stated that CFPUA has a current proposal asking for a cost share agreement to increase water capacity for future development and easements along the access along Carolina Beach Road. Mr. Yopp provided information on the plan for traffic flow along Rosa Parks Drive, and access points to school districts. He stated that the proposal was consistent, reasonable and in the public’s best interest. Mr. Don Bennett, Senior Transportation Engineer for Davenport, stated the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared according to the NCDOT’s Congestion Management Guidelines as well as NCDOT’s Division 3 Supplemental Guidelines 4 | P a g e which tend to remove capacity in the analysis. He stated the actual density of the rezoning request was much less than what was proposed in the TIA, and the capacity modeling for the surrounding network was also constrained. He stated that improvements required by the TIA accommodate the traffic impacts of the development. Mr. Bennett stated that the study identified improvements that were necessary to address the impacts of the proposed project, and those improvements would be a requirement of the NCDOT driveway permitting process in accordance with the TIA approval letter. Mr. Howard Resnick, Engineer, CSD Engineering, stated that all of the existing stormwater control measures on the Tarin Woods II site were designed to meet the New Hanover County’s stormwater management requirements which included attenuating the 25-year storm and ensuring it could handle the 50-year storm. He stated that from past community meetings they had received positive feedback on how the stormwater management control managements were functioning. In response to public comments received, Mr. Yopp gave brief responses to each question. Chair Girardot opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Prior to opposition, Chair Girardot allowed a speaker in support. Mr. Joseph Franchetti, 1116 Short Leaf Way, spoke in support of the project and expressed his approval of Mr. Yopp’s proposal and intent to create a project that would be beneficial to the community. Ms. Vivian Radecsky, 6001 Appomattox Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern with the decrease in value of her property, the increase in traffic on the proposed road. She stated that she felt that the double land would be a safety hazard. She expressed her concern with the high density of the project. Ms. Chass Hood, 777 Liberty Landing Way, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern about the increase in traffic and high density building in the area. She stated that the quality of life is changing but not for the better. She expressed her concern regarding hurricane season and no way out of the area based on the impact of the increase traffic. Ms. Brenda McCombie, 1150 Kings Highway, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern with protecting the schools and keeping the students safe both regarding traffic and the proximity of other structures. She asked the requirement of Hoosier Daddy having a third access to the site in addition to the proposed egress point parallel to Rosa Parks Drive and where it would be located. She opposed it being located along Kings Highway. She also inquired about the final 12.8 acres that backed up to Coastal Christian High School. Mr. Charles Williams, 6110 Shiloh Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with the increased density of the project, and stated that they did not need any more ghettos in that part of town. He expressed his concern that it appeared that traffic would be coming out of Manassas Road. Ms. Michelle O,Brien, 5949 Appomattox Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern with the density of the project. She stated the applicant was not using a current traffic count for the project and did not include seasonal traffic. She stated that the proposal has one extra additional access to US 421 and some extensions of u-turn lanes and deceleration lanes. She stated that adding additional burden and traffic conflict to same highway was not interconnectivity. She expressed concern about issues not addressed in the staff report and the starting price point was not considered affordable housing. Mr. Shawn Bungey, 6119 Tarin Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with safety concerns within the New Hanover County School system and the addition of at a minimum 327 new students and added traffic count within the subdivision. He stated the proposal was not congruent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. He expressed his concerns about increased traffic during evacuation. Mr. Chris Birkmeyer, 6149 Sweet Gum Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with the developer’s conditions of improvement are not being in writing and that the R-7 zoning would be more appropriate for the project. 5 | P a g e Ms. Gayle Tabor, 6130 Shiloh Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern with the increase in the volume of traffic and the crowding of the neighborhood schools. In rebuttal to the opposition, Mr. Yopp stated that the items that they were committed to provide private funding within the community and not by county taxpayer dollars. He shared information about the number of vacant parcels located from Monkey Junction south to Snows Cut. He stated that they were trying to improve the connectivity between these areas. He stated that conditions have been planned and added to assist in the community to provide diversified housing, housing affordability in connections to commercial and retail services as the county grows. Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened for Board Discussion. Board Member Clark Hipp stated that there was too much density of the proposal. He stated that rezoning from R-15 to R-5 would be too much of a drastic change and would have too much of a significant impact on the existing neighborhoods. Vice Chair Petroff agreed with Mr. Hipp and stated that from a planning perspective, the northern portion of the project combined with the southern portion of the project made it unobtainable for this area. Board Member Pete Avery agreed that the transition to R-7 would make more sense. Chair Donna Girardot stated that the stacking lanes on Carolina Beach Road were inadequate. She stated that there was an evacuation issue in the southern part of the county as there was only one way in and one way out. She stated that when the new traffic study was received the applicant was welcome to submit a new rezoning application based on new information. Based on Board member discussion which focused on the added density, traffic capacity and the 78/proposed R-5 zoning request, Mr. Yopp requested a continuance to the March 30, 2023. Board Members expressed their concerns with having another public hearing or community meeting for the same plan as the original concerns had not been addressed and that there were no significant changes. Board Member Pete Avery made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Colin Tarrant, to DENY a CONTINUACE of the proposed rezoning to (CZD) R-5. The MOTION to DENY a CONTINUANCE of the proposed rezoning to (CZD) R-5 carried 7-0. Board Member Pete Avery made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Colin Tarrant, to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the proposed rezoning to (CZD) R-5. The Board found it to be INCONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density of the development exceeds the density recommended for the Community Mixed Use place type. The Board also found recommending DENIAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal is not consistent with the desired character of the surrounding community and the density will adversely impact adjacent neighborhoods. The MOTION to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the proposed (CZD) R-5 rezoning request carried 7-0. Rezoning Request (Z23-06) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Vlacancich, property owners, to rezone approximately 4.65 acres of land located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residential to (CZD) RMF-M, Residential Multi-Family – Moderate Density for a maximum 72-unit multi-family development. Senior Planner Robert stated that the applicant had requested to rezone approximately 4.65 acres from R-15, residential district to (CZD) RMF-M, Residential Multi-Family – Moderate Density district, but on the advice of the county attorney’s office, before the public hearing there was an item the board would need to consider and act on before proceeding. He stated that the applicant had previously held a community meeting for another multi-family project on this property. The applicant withdrew that application and had submitted the multi-family project under consideration this evening. He stated that community meetings were typically held before submitting conditional rezoning applications. He stated that Section 10.2.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance allowed applicants to submit an application without holding a community meeting; however, applicants were required to submit a report documenting the reasons why they did not hold the meeting. Mr. Farrell stated that before proceeding with the public hearing, the Planning Board should make a determination on the adequacy of the report and make a motion to either accept the report submitted with the application or find the report 6 | P a g e was not adequate and require the applicant to hold a community meeting before holding a public hearing at a future date. Chair Girardot requested guidance from Deputy County Attorney, Karen Richards in making a determination as to whether the reasoning for not holding the Community Information Meeting was adequate. Chair Girardot recognized the applicant. Ms. Cindee Wolf, applicant, provided a summary of the purpose of a Community Information Meeting and stated that its purpose was to inform owners and residents of nearby land about the proposed application and to provide the applicant an opportunity to hear comments and concerns about the development proposal as a means of resolving conflict and outstanding issues where possible. She stated that a public meeting was held back in August and the people that were appealing that the public meeting was not held were at the meeting and on the original sign in list. She stated that the initial proposal was withdrawn, and the alternative plan was submitted. She stated that all of the particulars of the original application remain the same; however, the difference is solely the size, height, style and now the multiple buildings. She stated that a letter and plan was sent out and published on the New Hanover County website at least 10 days before the February 1 submittal deadline. She stated that it explained the updated plan and provided her contact information and had not been contacted. She stated the questions indicated in the appeal had all been covered in the past and could certainly be readdressed in her presentation this evening. She requested that the hearing proceed on schedule, but if the justification in support of the petition was found lacking, then a continuation of the decision was always an option. Chair Girardot opened the floor for Board discussion. Board member Clark Hipp expressed his concern with the new application not going through the Community Information Meeting process for such a significant change in design. He stated that he did not believe that a the 4-story building as originally proposed had the same impact that six smaller buildings would have. He stated that the significance of the change suggested to him that a community meeting was warranted and that he had concerns about proceeding with the application without a formal community meeting. Vice Chair Jeff Petroff agreed with Mr. Hipp’s concerns. Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Jeff Petroff, to NOT ACCEPT the applicant’s request to waive the Community Information Meeting for the proposed request to rezone approximately 4.65 acres of land located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residential to (CZD) RMF-M, Residential Multi-Family – Moderate Density for a maximum 72-unit multi-family development. The MOTION to NOT ACCEPT the applicant’s request to waive the Community Information Meeting for the proposed request carried 4-3. Vote: Yes – Jeff Petroff, Donna Girardot, Hansen Matthews, Clark Hipp; No – Pete Avery, Colin Tarrant and Kevin Hine. The applicant was directed to hold a Community Information Meeting and then the public hearing would be rescheduled at a later date. Rezoning Request (Z23-07) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Ernest Faison II, property owner, to rezone approximately 0.96 acres of land located at 6505 Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residential to (CZD) B-2, Regional Business to convert an existing single-family home for a contractor’s office with an accessory structure and outside storage and other limited commercial uses. Current Planner Julian Griffee provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation, and zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area and gave an overview of the proposed application as referred to in the staff report. Mr. Griffee stated that the proposal was to rezone 0.96 acres from R-15 to CZD B-2 to convert an existing single- family home for a contractor’s office and other limited commercial uses with an accessory structure and outside storage. He stated that the applicant had indicated the use was for a plumbing contractor’s office but had also requested other uses as part of the request. He stated that the applicant proposed to limit future uses to Business Services, Offices for Private Business and Professional Services, Services & Studios, and Personal Services, and that the applicant had delineated bufferyards from the existing structure and the abutting residential uses, associated parking, and a stormwater basin. 7 | P a g e Mr. Griffee provided information depicting the estimated trip generation for the site. He stated that the proposed development was estimated to generate a slight increase in the number of trips than the current use and that the trips were dependent on the type of use of the parcel. He provided information on the requested uses with their estimated peak hour trips, based on the approximate size of the existing Single-Family dwelling. He stated that the subject site was located along Carolina Beach Road, a major arterial roadway. He stated that there was residential and commercial zoning within the general vicinity of the subject site with established residential uses to the south and east and commercial to the north and across the roadway to the west. He stated that the development could serve as a transition between these areas and that there was an anticipated gradual conversion of residential properties into commercial along the Carolina Beach Road corridor. He stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classified the area as Community Mixed Use which recommended a mixture of uses that include low moderate intensity retail and services that could support nearby neighborhoods. He stated that the subject site was located along Carolina Beach Road, between established residential uses and commercial establishments where transitional commercial uses could be appropriate, and the proposal was in line with the uses recommended within the Community Mixed Use place type. Mr. Griffee stated that staff found the request to be generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest, as the project provided for the types of uses recommended for the place type and could serve as a transition between the roadway, adjacent commercial uses, and the abutting residential uses and that staff recommended approval of the request with the applicant’s proposed conditions: 1. Permitted uses of the site are limited to Business Services, Business & Professional Offices, Instructional Services &Studios, and Personal Services. 2. The existing access drive to Carolina Beach Road will be upgraded to a commercial driveway with permitting by NCDOT. 3. Streetyard landscaping will be installed along Carolina Beach Road to meet current landscape requirements. 4. Any free-standing sign(s) on the site shall be monument style with landscaping around the base of the sign. No pole signs shall be permitted. 5. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged, or shielded so as not to cast illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to the ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that light spillage and glares are not directed to adjacent property(ies), neighboring areas or motorists. Light posts shall be no taller than twelve (12) feet. Mr. Griffee stated that if the rezoning were approved it would be subject to the Technical Review Committee and zoning compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Ms. Cindee Wolf, applicant, agreed with the information provided by Mr. Griffee and provided a summary description of the proposed project. She stated that the proposal included an existing house located on Carolina Beach Road just south of Heathcliff Drive. She stated that this would be an opportunity for adaptive rehabilitation of older housed along this corridor to become businesses. She stated that the existing building would be used as offices. She stated that the additional possible uses proposed were added if eventually the business were to move on transition, it would allow for other appropriate uses. Ms. Wolf stated that the applicant’s intent would be to build a garage in the back and have a laydown yard towards the back since he is a contractor. She stated the property would be buffered to the house that is to the south and that the laydown yard itself was proposed to be screened with a solid wood screened fence, and that the applicant had no intention of disturbing the wooded area at the rear of the site. She stated any use of the rear of the site would require the applicant to return for medication of any approval of the rezoning. She indicated that there were a few trees that would need to be removed to allow for the driveway onto the site. Ms. Wolf stated that the project was consistent, reasonable and in the public’s interest because it designates the land as proposed for the Community Mixed Use place type which promotes fostering sustainable growth through sensible infill and location efficiency. She stated that adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of existing building facilitate re-development 8 | P a g e options that will enhance an area’s character and required building code and ordinance upgrades, while approval by Conditional District ensures compatibility and minimization of impacts on adjacent residences. She stated that the proposal provided an orderly and acceptable transition between the busy Carolina Beach Road corridor and properties beyond the busy roadway. In response to questions from the Board about outside storage area lighting, Ms. Wolf stated that because it would be fenced in there would just be the customary wall lighting but no tall security lighting. In response to questions from the Board about equipment being seen from the road, Ms. Wolf stated that the existing building, the garage and the proposed screening fencing would prevent any visibility from the road. Chair Girardot opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. With no one signed up to speak in opposition or with questions, Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. Vice Chair Jeff Petroff made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Colin Tarrant, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to (CZD) B-2 district with the following conditions: 1. Permitted uses of the site are limited to Business Services, Business & Professional Offices, Instructional Services & Studios, and Personal Services. 2. The existing access drive to Carolina Beach Road will be upgraded to a commercial driveway with permitting by NCDOT. 3. Streetyard landscaping will be installed along Carolina Beach Road to meet current landscape requirements. 4. Any free-standing sign(s) on the site shall be monument style with landscaping around the base of the sign. No pole signs shall be permitted. 5. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged or shielded so as not to cast illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to the ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that light spillage and glares are not directed to adjacent property(ies), neighboring areas or motorists. Light posts shall be no taller than twelve (12) feet. The Board found it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project provided for the types of uses recommended in the Community Mixed Use place type. The Board also found recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal allows service-oriented uses that could serve as an appropriate transition between the residential uses and the commercial uses along the heavily traveled roadway, the proposed use types allowed for services that are relatively low traffic generators. The motion to recommend Approval of the proposed (CZD) B-2 carried 7-0. Rezoning Request (Z23-01) – Request by David Long with Castle Hayne Development Group, LLC, applicant, on behalf of James Stone with Ashton & Avery, LLC, property owner, to rezone four parcels totaling approximately 11.5 acres of land located at 3400 Castle Hayne Road from R-20, Residential, to (CZD) B-2, Regional Business for general retail and outdoor display. Current Planner Zach Dickerson provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation, and zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area and gave an overview of the proposed application as referred to in the staff report. Mr. Dickerson stated that the proposal was to rezone five parcels totaling 11.5 acres at 3400 Castle Hayne Road to a CZD B-2, Regional Business district in order to develop an intended Tractor Supply store. He stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a 22,000 sq ft retail building with a 4,000 sq ft garden center and 13,000 sq ft fenced outdoor display area. He indicated that the concept plan showed the proposed street yard along the southern boundary of the site, adjacent to the utility easement with power lines. He stated that access to the site was proposed from Castle Hayne Road, an NCDOT maintained minor arterial roadway. Ingress and egress would be full access, with a northbound right turn lane required by NCDOT as part of the driveway permit review process. He stated that State Transportation Improvement Project U-5863 planned to widen Castle Hayne Road but that there 9 | P a g e had not yet been a final determination on whether there would be a median or a center turn lane on this section of Castle Hayne Road. If there was a median, future site access would be limited to right-in/right-out. Mr. Dickerson stated that under the site’s current zoning, the development would generate approximately 10 AM and 13 PM peak hour trips. He stated that using the ITE code for a farm supply store, the retail development would generate approximately 0 AM and 55 PM peak hour trips, and for general retail use under the B-2 zoning with similar building square footage, the site would generate approximately 61 AM and 169 PM peak hour trips. If the site were developed for a general retail use other than farm supply, it would exceed the 100 peak hour trips which would trigger the ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis. He stated that the property was located on Castle Hayne Road, near the I-140 interchange, and because of its proximity to that interchange, this area was likely to transition to a service node in the coming years, serving both local and highway traffic. He stated that the site features, including the utility easement, reduced impact on neighboring residential uses. Mr. Dickerson stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classifies this area as both Community Mixed Use and General Residential. He stated that because of the general nature of place type borders, sites located in more than one place type could be appropriately developed with either place type, and that this project was generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations for the Community Mixed Use Place Type. He stated that staff found the proposal was consistent with the recommended uses for the Community Mixed Use place type and with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the proposed zoning district and use was compatible with this area, which over time was likely to transition into a commercial node. He stated that staff recommended approval with the following conditions proposed by the applicant: 1. No development shall occur within the existing utility easement, as shown on the proposed Conditional Rezoning Site Plan. This constitutes an additional, undisturbed buffer of 172.5’ wide adjacent to the existing residential uses on Gladiolus Road. The required secondary street yard will make the total separation between the proposed development and Gladiolus Rd 178.75’ wide. 2. Site access is restricted to Castle Hayne Road. Vehicular ingress and egress to the site from Gladiolus Road is not permitted. Mr. Dickerson stated that if the rezoning were approved it would be subject to the Technical Review Committee and zoning compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. In response to questions from the Board about the traffic impact analysis requirement should the business type change, Director of Planning, Rebekah Roth stated that the Planning Board nor the Board of Commissioners were able to condition any improvement for a specific brand of store. She stated that because this type of store fell under the general retail use description that is what is allowed; however, the intent was to have the project as a Tractor Supply store. She stated that if this was to ever change, the necessary traffic study would be required at that time but was not currently required. She stated that this would be considered a change of use by the NCDOT and WMPO and would not fall on the Planning Board Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Mr. Mike Nichols, representative for the applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed project and agreed with the information provided by Mr. Dickerson. Mr. Nichols stated that at the December 12, 2022, Community Meeting there were no concerns with the exception of a request to put a traffic light on the corner of Chair Road and Castle Hayne Road. He stated he had to inform them that the request was not part of this proposal, but that NCDOT was currently looking at that corridor. He stated that the lower 34 percent of the site would not be disturbed as it is an easement for two different easements for power companies and is considered to be the additional buffer for the project. He stated that they were proposing 120,500 square feet of impervious surface and water and sewer being available to the site and located within 2000 linear feet from the interchange at I-140. He stated that they proposed to provide spacial buffers between the existing residential on Gladiolus Road, restricting site access from Castle Hayne Road and not allowing any access from Gladiolus Road, and having little impact on wetlands by raising the site for stormwater to ensure it stays above the wetland area. 10 | P a g e In response to questions from the Board about the deceleration lane, Mr. Nichols stated when submitted to NCDOT for preliminary review, they were informed that would have to put in a deceleration lane. In response to questions from the Board about an existing house under the power lines, Mr. Nichols stated that there was a house that was located just to the north of the power lines and a well pump that was there that would be demolished. Chair Girardot opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Mr. Emerson Whitted, 3502 Emerson Drive, spoke in support of the project and stated that he welcomed the project but did want to ask for the speed to be reduced on Castle Hayne Road and to extend the lane at the intersection of Chair Road where the development would be located. Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to Board discussion. Board Member Colin Tarrant made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Jeff Petroff, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to (CZD) B-2 for general retail and outdoor display with the following conditions: 1. No development shall occur within the existing utility easement, as shown on the proposed Conditional Rezoning Site Plan. This constitutes an additional, undisturbed buffer of 172.5’ wide adjacent to the existing residential uses on Gladiolus Road. The required secondary street yard will make the total separation between the proposed development and Gladiolus Rd 178.75’ wide. 2. Site access is restricted to Castle Hayne Road. Vehicular ingress and egress to the site from Gladiolus Road is not permitted. The Board found it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it provided for the types of uses encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place type and was compatible with projected commercial nodes. The Board also found RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest because it provided for the types of uses that serve the surrounding community, and the site was designed to create a visual transition from adjacent residential areas to the south and east. The motion to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning to (CZD) B-2 carried 7-0. Rezoning Request (Z23-08) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Bayshore Estates, INC, property owner, to rezone approximately 2.74 acres of land located at 7620 Market Street from R-15, Residential to (CZD) B-1, Neighborhood Business for a two-story commercial structure and to remove the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD) from the property and other limited commercial uses. Current Planner Julian Griffee provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation, and zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area and gave an overview of the proposed application as referred to in the staff report. Mr. Griffee stated that the proposal was to rezone 2.74 acres from R-15 to a CZD B-1 to develop a 2-story commercial structure and to remove the Special Highway Overlay District from the property. He stated that the subject site was bounded to the west by the Market Street right-of-way with commercial and institutional uses fronting the roadway, single-family residential existed to the south and east, and a vacant commercial property to the north. He stated that the applicant had provided a conceptual plan, which depicted the proposed 2-story, 20,800 square feet commercial structure, associated parking, site access, and bufferyards from residential-abutting parcels. He stated that an underground stormwater system was proposed underneath the parking lot. He stated that the applicant had requested the following uses be allowed as part of the development: Bank and/or financial institution, business services, restaurant (no drive-thru permitted), offices for private business & professional activities, instructional services and studios, personal services, general (no tattoo parlor permitted), and retail sales, general. He stated that the subject site was located within the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD) which was established to ensure consistency of development and scenic beauty along specific roadways within the County. He stated that the Special Highway Overlay District contained regulations pertaining to larger frontyard setbacks of 100 feet for 11 | P a g e non-residential structures, outdoor storage, parking and loading, lot coverage, and signs. He stated that the applicant was seeking to remove the Special Highway Overlay District designation; however, the applicant had conditioned the request to develop the project in accordance with all current Special Highway Overlay District requirements aside from the 100-foot frontyard setback. This setback was to allow for future widening of the corridor. Mr. Griffee stated that access to the property was proposed to be provided from a new right-in, right-out driveway access onto Market Street which was subject to NCDOT permitting. He provided information depicting the current estimated trip generation for the site along with typical development under the current zoning and stated that the proposed project would generate approximately 49 AM and 94 PM peak hour trips. He stated that the property was located along Market Street, a major commercial corridor, between the Porters Neck growth node and the City of Wilmington. He stated that much of the surrounding land to the North and West is used or zoned for commercial purposes along the heavily traveled roadway, while parcels to the South and East are residentially zoned properties and that the development could serve as a transition between these uses. Mr. Griffee stated that it was expected that traffic would be alleviated within the general area upon completion of the Military Cutoff Road extension and Market Street Improvements, which were scheduled for completion this year. He stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classified the property as Community Mixed Use, which was intended for compact, mixed-use developments that support more density along major roads and that developments could serve as a transition to lower densities when adjacent to existing lower intensity residential neighborhoods. He stated that the project was generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it would provide for the types of uses recommended for the Community Mixed Use Place Type. He stated that staff found the proposal was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and was in the public interest as the project provides for commercial and office uses along a major corridor, possesses uses consistent with those recommended within the Place Type, and could serve as a transition between the heavily traveled corridor and lower-intensity residential uses. As such, staff recommended approval of the request with the applicant’s proposed conditions: 1. The permitted uses will be limited to Bank and/or Financial Institutional, Business Services, (no drivethru), Offices for Private Business & Professional Activities, Instructional Services & Studios, Personal Services (no tattoo parlors), and General Retail Sales. 2. Development of the site will be subject to all applicable standards of the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD) described in Section 3.5.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance with the exception that the front property setback shall reflect the minimum setback of 25 feet as currently prescribed for the B-1 zoning district. 3. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged or shielded so as not to cast illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to the ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that light spillage and glares are not directed to adjacent property(ies), neighboring areas or motorists. Light posts shall be no taller than twelve (12) feet. 4. Tree protection fencing shall be installed along the proposed fence line prior to onset of any clearing or grading, and the area behind shall be left totally undisturbed. Mr. Griffee stated that if the rezoning were approved it would be subject to the Technical Review Committee and zoning compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. Chair Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Ms. Cindee Wolf, applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed project and provided visual information of the proposed development to the site. Ms. Wolf stated that the applicant was proposing the elimination of the Special Highway Overlay District as part of the rezoning was because their choices with the location of the powerline would be to put the parking in the front and the building in the back; however there is residential to the rear of the site and it made more sense to place the building in the front not only screened for aesthetic purposes, but also to provide additional 12 | P a g e mitigation of effects on the adjacent residential property. She stated that they were proposing that the back 30 feet setback be a buffer. She stated that at the Community Information Meeting it was agreed that tree protection fencing would be installed prior to the onset of clearing and grading along a 10 foot offset from the back of the parking; no disturbance of vegetation would be permitted and prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy and completion of construction, an 8-foot high screening fence would be along a 5-foot offset of the parking lot which would provide for the vegetation that is already along the back of the site to be preserved. She stated that the types of proposed uses were all 6-to-7-hour types of uses, were appropriate to the request, and would be adequately buffered. Ms. Wolf stated that the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this area along Market Street. In response to questions from the Board about the applicant’s request to remove the Special Highway Overlay District, Ms. Wolf confirmed that it would not make a difference because all of the other Special Highway Overlay District’s standards, with the exception of the 100-foot setback would apply because of the Market Street expansion. In response to questions from the Board about development in the area to the southwest, Ms. Wolf stated at this point there was no development to be made at that location; the applicant would have to return before the Planning Board for a modification for further development. In response to questions from the Board about outdoor seating, Ms. Roth stated there were no restrictions in the Unified Development Ordinance. In response to questions from the Board about the number of parking spaces, Ms. Wolf stated that there were 92 parking spaces. She stated that the bottom floor was intended to be commercial and that there were 5 parking spaces per thousand and for the top floor there were 4 parking spaces per thousand. Chair Girardot opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Mr. Scott O’Berholzer, 7623 Lost Tree Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with the safety of his family and having a parking lot behind their home, high illumination of lighting onto his property from the parking light, and removal of the buffer in which he would now be able to see Market Street. He also spoke about the increase in traffic on Market Street. Mr. Joseph Davis, 7722 Lost Tree Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with increased light illumination into neighboring properties and property damage to owners. Ms. Elizabeth Sites, 7604 Lost Tree Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern with underutilized properties and vacant buildings that could be an opportunity to be used for the proposed business. She stated that the ongoing development in the Ogden area was an intrusion on residential quality of life. She expressed her concern with the increased light illumination in the neighborhoods along with the increase noise from Market Street. She expressed her concern with the types of businesses that would be backing up to their neighborhood and the fence line. She spoke about the continued demolition of natural areas being replaced with businesses that are already available locally and excessive signage in the Special Highway Overlay District. In rebuttal to the opposition, Ms. Wolf stated that the applicant’s plan specifically addresses lighting limited to the 16- foot height and directional controls as part of their conditions. She stated that the parking lot was positioned against the powerline so that the bufferyard beyond that area would be in excess of what would be required. She stated that at the community meeting the applicant agreed that they would put in the fence protection and would not grade in the buffer so that the existing vegetation could remain. She stated that in regard to the security of the neighborhood, the applicant was providing in excess of the size of buffer that was required and leaving the vegetation but also an 8-feet fence. In response to Ms. Wolf’s rebuttal, Mr. O’Berholzer stated that he agreed with Ms. Wolf in regard to development in the area; however, that it was getting too close to neighborhoods and that they just need to meet somewhere in the middle where a parking lot wasn’t going to be located right up against residential. He stated the parking lot in the back could be dangerous after hours. In response to Ms. Wolf’s rebuttal, Mr. Davis stated that the proposal does not fit within the neighborhood. He stated it was zoned residential and is being converted to business. He stated that there was not nearly enough buffer to protect the neighborhood. 13 | P a g e In response to Ms. Wolf’s rebuttal, Ms. Sites stated that as she stated earlier that there were more than enough vacant properties for the types of uses being proposed. Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. Board discussion focused on the requirements of removal of the Special Highway Overlay District for the area and potential excessive noise and lighting illumination affecting the neighbors. Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Jeff Petroff, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed (CZD) B1 and the removal of the Special Highway Overlay District with the following conditions: 1. The permitted uses will be limited to Bank and/or Financial Institutional, Business Services, Restaurant (no drive thru), Offices for Private Business & Professional Activities, Instructional Services & Studios, Personal Services (no tattoo parlors), and General Retail Sales. 2. Development of the site will be subject to all applicable standards of the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD) described in Section 3.5.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance with the exception that the front property setback shall reflect the minimum setback of 25 feet as currently prescribed for the B-1 zoning district. 3. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged or shielded so as not to cast illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to the ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that light spillage and glares are not directed to adjacent property(ies), neighboring areas or motorists. Light posts shall be no taller than twelve (12) feet. 4. Tree protection fencing shall be installed along the proposed fence line prior to onset of any clearing or grading, and the area behind shall be left totally undisturbed. 5. No outdoor amplified music is allowed at any time. 6. Outdoor seating would be placed between the front of the building and Market Street. The Board found it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it was located in an area designated as Community Mixed Use, is located along a major roadway corridor between the City of Wilmington and the Porters Neck growth node where transitional uses would be appropriate, and provided for the uses that are recommended within this area. The Board also found recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal provided neighborhood-serving commercial development. The motion to recommend approval of the rezoning to CZD B-1 carried 7-0. OTHER ITEMS No items to discuss. Chair Donna Girardot adjourned the meeting at 8:44 PM. Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.