Planning & Zoning Commission

MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 22, 2016 City of High Point Municipal Office Building City Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Walsh, Chairman Jim Armstrong Ozzie Hough Tom Kirkman Andrew Putnam Ed Squires Marie Stone MEMBERS ABSENT: John McKenzie STAFF PRESENT: Lee Burnette, Planning & Development Director Heidi Galanti, Planning Services Administrator Bob Robbins, Development Services Administrator Herb Shannon, Senior Planner Gina Lindsey, Recording Secretary Vickie Embry, Transportation Engineer Andrew Edmonds, Transportation Technician John Hanes, Transportation Planner Brent Cole, Assistant City Attorney 5:00 p.m. Commission Dinner Session Third Floor Conference Room The meeting began at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. A. Call to Order and Determination of Quorum Mr. Walsh called the meeting to order and it was determined that a quorum was present.  Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 22, 2016 Page 2 of 9 B. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of the February 23, 2016 Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Mr. Armstrong made a motion to approve the February 23, 2016 minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hough. The minutes were approved by a vote of 7-0. Mr. Walsh made a motion to amend the agenda for the March 22, 2016 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to add an action for the January determination of merit for the street renaming case involving Montlieu Avenue. Mr. Kirkman seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0. Mr. Walsh made a motion to resend the request calling for the public hearing for the street renaming case involving Montlieu Avenue to be set for April 26, 2016 due to an area plan forthcoming. Mr. Armstrong seconded the motion. The motion to resend this previous action was approved by a vote of 7-0. C. Continued Public Hearing Items 1. New Development Ordinance A request by the Planning and Development Department to adopt a new development ordinance. Ms. Heidi Galanti, planning services administrator, gave a brief presentation of the new development ordinance. She noted the following key points:  The request is to adopt a new development ordinance that governs zoning, environmental and subdivision standards, which would replace the city’s current development ordinance.  The public hearing draft of the development ordinance and other supporting documents are all available on the Planning & Development Department Website.  A revised February 23, 2016 Addendum was presented to the commission, which included changes that were made after the packet was mailed. The changes made are as follows: o further refined the definition and standards for a truck stop o changed the requirement for a front porch and pocket neighborhoods from a shall to a should o revised the definition of terms may, can and should to clarify that they are not mandatory o removed the requirement for an administrative adjustment for the expanding or enlargement of non-conforming uses as long as they meet the standards in the nonconforming use section  Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 22, 2016 Page 3 of 9 o allowed for non-conforming, single-family and duplex dwellings to be expanded beyond the current 25 percent o added non-conforming schools to the non-conforming section and allowed them to be expanded or enlarged with the same standards as market showrooms.  Anticipate a delayed effective date of approximately six months before the new development ordinance would become effective after adoption to allow time for the remapping process.  Recommended that when the new ordinance goes into effect there will be a one- year period when applicants can opt to use the zoning standards in the new development ordinance or the old development ordinance. The purpose of this is to provide options in case some unforeseen circumstances arise in the new development ordinance that would unintentionally delay an applicant from moving forward with a development project. Speaking in favor of the request: Speaking in favor of the new development ordinance was Judy Stalder on behalf of Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition (TREBIC), 665 N. Main St., High Point, N.C. Ms. Stalder presented a memo from TREBIC to the Planning and Zoning Commission dated March 21, 2016. She then proceeded to note concerns that TREBIC still has with the development ordinance draft. She said while TREBIC supports the Pocket Neighborhood ordinance, it cannot support aesthetic design requirements for single family and two family dwellings as prohibited by NCGA Session Law 2015-86. Ms. Stalder further stated that staff has suggested an amendment using the word “should” instead of “shall”, creating a suggestion within an ordinance. She said TREBIC believes in its experience that the word “should” is confusing, often misinterpreted and mistakenly enforced. She requests that all references to aesthetic design for single family and two family dwellings in conflict with state law be removed. Ms. Stalder added that TREBIC would like to encourage staff to review the ordinance and remove any other non-ordinance phrasing, generally the use of “should” and “encouraged” throughout the ordinance draft. She also stated that TREBIC requests that staff work with them to craft language for the Street Access ordinance, (Section 5.2.23). She said the concern is that staff could interpret the wording to be more restrictive than it is. Based on Ms. Stalder’s comments, Assistant City Attorney Brent Cole suggested that city staff remove the terms “should” and “encourage” in regard to design aesthetics for the one and two-story family dwellings as presented in TREBIC’s March 21, 2016 memo to the Planning & Zoning Commission.  Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 22, 2016 Page 4 of 9 Commissioners discussed if there would be an advantage to continuing the public hearing until April or May. However, after discussing it with staff, it was determined that moving it along to City Council will still allow staff time to work with TREBIC on potentially revising areas of concern within the ordinance draft. Speaking in opposition of the request: No one spoke in opposition of the request. Mr. Walsh made a motion to recommend approval of the November 2015 public hearing draft of the development ordinance as amended, the February 9, 2016 addendum, the revised February 23, 2016 addendum, and based on the direction from Assistant City Attorney Brent Cole. Mr. Armstrong seconded the motion. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request by a vote of 7- 0. D. Public Hearing Items 1. 4008 Mendenhall Oaks, LLC. Plan Amendment 16-02 A request by 4008 Mendenhall Oaks, LLC and the Planning & Development Department to change the Land Use Map classification for approximately 17 acres from the Restricted Industrial classification to the Local Convenience Commercial classification. The site is lying along the east side of Eastchester Drive, to the north and south of Mendenhall Oaks Parkway. Plan Amendment Case 16-02 and Zoning Map Amendment 16-02 were presented together. 2. 4008 Mendenhall Oaks, LLC. Zoning Map Amendment 16-02 A request by 4008 Mendenhall Oaks, LLC to rezone approximately 12.85 acres from the Agricultural (AG) District, within Guilford County’s zoning jurisdiction, and a Conditional Use Light Industrial District to a Conditional Zoning General Business District (CZ-GB) District. The site is lying along the east side of Eastchester Drive and south of south of Mendenhall Oaks Parkway (2760 & 2756 NC 68 and 4006, 4008, 4010 & 4012 Mendenhall Oaks Parkway). Approval of this rezoning request is contingent upon City Council approval of a voluntary annexation request. Ms. Heidi Galanti, planning administrator, presented Plan Amendment 16-02 and Mr. Herbert Shannon, senior planner, presented Zoning Map Amendment 16-02 as outlined in the staff report. Staff recommended approval of these requests. Ms. Galanti noted the following in her presentation:  The land use plan amendment has been requested to allow for a mix of office and business service uses.  Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 22, 2016 Page 5 of 9  The applicant has requested the amendment for an area consisting of six parcels totally 12.8 acres. The bank, just to the north, was added, so the area now encompasses 15.8 acres.  The restricted industrial land use classification is primarily intended to accommodate office, warehouse, distribution and assembly uses on larger sites. The local convenience commercial classification includes moderate intensity, convenience, retail or service uses, generally serving local areas.  Allowing local convenience commercial classification will reflect the uses that have already been established, and it will enable a limited amount of new commercial service uses along with offices to be developed. This change does not and should not encourage the commercial uses found and targeted in the city’s adopted policies for the community regional commercial land use classification that is designated in the area to the south. Mr. Shannon noted the following in his presentation:  The zoning area is smaller than the land use plan amendment, encompassing 12.8 acres.  The applicant proposes to establish a business or service center at the intersection to cater to those people working in the Piedmont Center Business Park.  The applicant has included in their rezoning application a conditional zoning ordinance that would prohibit higher intensity retail or automotive-related commercial uses. They have limited the size of retail uses and restricted access to the site.  The applicant proposes a reduction in the setback standards along Eastchester Drive from the required 75-foot setback to 40 feet subject to parking being located at the side or the rear of the structure. There would be no change to the landscaping standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission is under no obligation to accept that proposed reduction in standards. Speaking in favor of the requests: Speaking in favor of Plan Amendment 16-02 and Zoning Map Amendment 16-02 was the applicant’s engineer, Mr. Chuck Truby, president of CPT Engineering and Surveying, 4400 Tyning Street, High Point, N.C. Mr. Truby stated the request to reduce the setback would allow parking to be placed behind the building so that it is not visible from the road. He said it will still be in harmony with other development, because the two banks that are the closest in proximity and still much further up the road, so it won’t be as noticeable. Furthermore, Mr. Truby stated that the requested CZ-GB district, with the restriction noted in their conditional zoning ordinance, allows a few more additional uses then the LI District, which would allow a few more retail users, but not a big box store or anything that would be unattractive. Speaking in opposition of the requests:  Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 22, 2016 Page 6 of 9 No one spoke in opposition of the requests. Mr. Putnam made a motion to approve Plan Amendment 16-02 as recommended by staff. Mr. Walsh seconded the motion. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request by a vote of 7-0. Mr. Putnam made a motion to approve Zoning Map Amendment 16-02 as recommended by staff. Mr. Walsh seconded the motion. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request by a vote of 7-0. The request will be heard by City Council on Monday, May 2, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. 3. Wynnefield Properties, Inc. Zoning Map Amendment 16-05 A request to by Wynnefield Properties, Inc. to rezone approximately 7.85 acres from a Conditional Use Planned Unit Development-Residential (PDR) District to a Conditional Zoning Residential Multifamily-18 (CZ RM-18) District. The site is lying north of W. Hartley Drive and west of Ingleside Drive (700 W. Hartley). Mr. Herbert Shannon, senior planner, presented Zoning Map Amendment 16-05 and recommended approval of the request as outlined in the staff report. Speaking in favor of the request: Speaking in favor of Zoning Map Amendment 16-05 was the applicant, Craig Stone, 5614 Riverdale Dr., Jamestown, N.C. Mr. Stone said he hopes the application can be approved and he made himself available to answer questions. Speaking in favor of Zoning Map Amendment 16-05 was Michael McNair, director of Community Development and Housing. Mr. McNair stated that the City has partnered with Wynnefield Properties, Inc. previously. He said this is the company’s fourth development that has come before City Council for consideration. Three have been approved, and of those, two have been built and the third will be getting underway this summer. On March 21, 2016 City Council approved moving forward with an application for funding. Mr. McNair then made himself available for any questions from the commissioners. Speaking in opposition of the request: Speaking in opposition of Zoning Map Amendment 16-05 were the following: Michael Ray Roseman, 2704 Westgate Dr., High Point, N.C. Lea Harvin, 825 Hartley Hill Ct., High Point, N.C. Sandra Dill, 815 Hartley Hill Ct., High Point, N.C. Gary Price, 820 Hartley Hill Ct., High Point, N.C. Clifton Scott, 784 Avalon Springs Ct., High Point, N.C.  Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 22, 2016 Page 7 of 9 Those in opposition of the request had the following comments and concerns:  The density is too high, especially if the developer builds 84 units utilizing only two-thirds of the property  Too much additional traffic exiting via W. Hartley Drive and at the intersection of Westover Drive.  Potential negative impact on nearby properties from increased gang activity. Residents of the Avalon community say they have already noticed gang activity and related thefts around their homes. They feel gang activity would increase with a new residential development to plunder. Ms. Stone made a motion to approve Zoning Map Amendment 16-05 as presented by staff. Mr. Kirkman seconded the motion. The motion was defeated by a vote of 3-4. The request was unfavorably recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The request will be heard by City Council on Monday, May 2, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. 4. High Point University Street Abandonment 16-02 A request by High Point University to abandon the eastern portion (approximately 72 feet) of the North Avenue right-of-way. The portion of North Avenue to be abandoned is lying west of N. Centennial Street. Herbert Shannon, senior planner, presented Street Abandonment 16-02 and recommended approval of the request as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Shannon noted the following in his presentation:  The University owns the abutting parcels to the north and to the south of this section of North Avenue. They have proposed abandonment and they are proposing to remove the pavement along this portion of North Avenue and to incorporate this 72-foot area into the landscaping or green area that they have established along this west side of North Centennial Street.  There is currently a four-way intersection at this location. The city of High Point transportation department has not identified any traffic safety issues at this location with the current configuration.  Property owners along North Avenue would still have access to their properties. However, if abandoned, they would no longer have access via North Centennial. They would have to use abutting streets to the north or to the south.  The University also submitted a conceptual sketch plan depicting the installation of a cul-de-sac or T-turn around to serve the property owners on the remaining public portion of North Avenue. However, with street abandonments, the Commission cannot condition an approval. It can only retain easements over utilities. Speaking in favor of the request:  Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 22, 2016 Page 8 of 9 Speaking in favor of Street Abandonment 16-02 on behalf of the applicant was Barry Kitley, 4114 Ponce De Leon Dr., High Point, N.C. Mr. Kitley stated that prior to submitting an application for the request, he worked with CPT Engineering and Surveying and Jamestown Engineering to study various options and alternatives. He said this particular intersection is at one of the entrances into High Point University and it helps to simplify the intersection by reducing it from a 4-lane to a 3-lane leg. He said only about seven residents will be impacted by the abandonment of the right-of-way. Furthermore, he said the street abandonment will delay residents by about 30 seconds as they exit their neighborhood via an alternate route. Speaking in favor of Street Abandonment 16-02 on was Judy Stalder who spoke on behalf of her property management clients, Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Ammons of 509 North Avenue, High Point, N.C. Ms. Stalder said her clients; the Ammons currently rent their property at 509 North Avenue to an High Point University employee for $600 per month. She said that having this street become a dead-end street would make the property easier to rent and potentially increase the rent potential in the future. Speaking in opposition of the request: Speaking in opposition of Street Abandonment 16-02 were the following: Melvin Parker, 719 Forrest St., High Point, N.C. Constance Archie, 406 North Ave., High Point, N.C. Doris Byers, 510 North Ave., High Point, N.C. Michael Sawyer, 513 North Ave., High Point, N.C. Those in opposition of the request had the following comments and concerns:  Reduced access to their homes on North Avenue and adjoining streets;  The street abandonment provides no benefit to North Avenue property owners;  Property owners who rent their homes state the convenient access via North Centennial is a key marketing point to potential renters;  It’s an inconvenience to use alternate routes to exit the neighborhood;  It will delay emergency response times;  High Point University has already had detrimental impacts for property owners along North Avenue who are disrupted by the loud parties and disruptive behavior of college students living nearby; and.  The North Avenue residents are merely in the way of the University’s progress and they feel like they are getting steamrolled by a powerful institution that doesn’t have their best interests in mind. Vickie Embry, transportation engineer for the city of High Point, responded to a commissioner’s question regarding if there were any safety concerns at that  Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 22, 2016 Page 9 of 9 intersection now or expected in the future. She stated that in the last five years there were only two crashes, both of which were rear-ends, and that problem was addressed with the installation of left-hand turn lanes. Ms. Embry also added that she would not want to see North Avenue abandoned in the name of safety concerns, because it would set a bad precedent for other streets to be closed for that reason. Mr. Putnam made the comment that in his time on the board, it seemed unprecedented that a street be closed in this manner. Mr. Shannon responded that it’s not necessarily unprecedented, but rather the City doesn’t often receive requests to abandon streets on existing improved streets. Mr. Putnam made a motion to deny Street Abandonment Case 16-02. Mr. Squires seconded the motion. The motion to deny the request carried with a vote of 6-1. The request was unfavorably recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The request will be heard by City Council on Monday, May 2, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. E. Director’s Report Active Projects  UPDATE High Point—Development Ordinance Rewrite: Under consideration by P&Z Commission; after the Commission’s recommendation, the next step in the process will be a public hearing before the City Council. Other  Next Regular Meeting: April 26 – 3 zoning map amendments, 1 text amendment and 1 special use. Being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.