November 21, 2017

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that staff is recommending to deny the waiver, also adding an alternative motion to temporarily approve. The recommendation to deny the findings are on pages 2 and 3.

Ms. Beeman

stated there is a motion to temporarily approve based on the alternative findings but subject to the specific conditions of approval.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that page 2 are the findings to denial, and page 3 is the recommendation for temporary approval.

Commissioner Hafen

stated under finding #5 in support it states “unknown”, so there is no finding?

Ms. Beeman

stated correct, she doesn’t have a finding for that.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if they would need to make a finding under #5.

Ms. Beeman

referred to the DA’s office. Page 2 of 8

Commissioner Hafen

stated it is his understanding that the board must find all 5 findings, in the affirmative for them to approve. Unknown is not an acceptable finding to him.

Commissioner Lee

asked if the property owner and applicant have discussed how to remedy the violation of the code in terms of the entertainment venue. The zoning of NC doesn’t support that use.

Ms. Beeman

stated no we haven’t had any discussions related to that.

Commissioner Lee

asked if the application is approved, and the applicant fails to meet the time frame specified in the conditions of approval, and how do they propose to stop them from operating.

Ms. Beeman

stated it would go through our code compliance department. They would bring it back under a show cause hearing.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that PW does not support this application.

Ms. Beeman

stated that is correct

Commissioner Adams

asked for clarification on the parameters of the RPC. NCC 17.04.915 states they can waive strict interpretation. But the RPC is being asked to completely waive the code and on the parking, to reduce or eliminate accessible parking spaces are prohibited.

Ms. Beeman

stated correct, they would still be required to provide proper accessible parking. Whatever waiver you could grant would not be a waiver of that requirement.

Mr. Lacy

stated what they are taking about is just the ADA parking.

Commissioner Fowler

asked what PW’s justification for not supporting the waiver is.

Ms. Beeman

stated that PW is working on a project called the Development Design Corridor that affects a large part of Hwy 160 and this property is located within that corridor.

Commissioner Adams

stated there is a problem with an ingress and egress especially with the existing driveway. They will be creating a new driveway and it is located on another lot and is dirt, which is a concern.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they are defining an Urban Corridor that goes along Hwy 160 and Hwy 372. In this Urban Corridor there will be no waivers granted for things like this. Ronni Boskovich stated for clarification that findings 1 through 3 are required and you can find either 4 or 5.

Dr. Peter

J. Shield, lease holder, stated he plans to have a first class tourist venue. He is requesting a temporary waiver for 1 year. He has provided a hand drawn diagram of his proposed parking lot showing appropriate parking. The new Kingdom will include glass blowing, art gallery, and space for residents and local artist, hall of antiquities will house 10 resident antique and collectible dealers, Egyptian themed wedding and meditation chapel will only house 8 people, they have arranged for a resident Santa from December 8th until Christmas. In agreement with several recommendations they will stripe the parking lot and mark the handicap areas. At the advice of one of the Commissioners that visited they aren’t comfortable with the turn right only indication being placed on the entrance.

Commissioner Adams

asked if he has read the special conditions of approval Page 3 of 8

Commissioner Adams

stated if they approve the application and there is a dust complaint it will put your business in jeopardy.

Mr. Shields

stated if there is a complaint they will water it.

Commissioner Adams

stated they are looking at something more permanent and asked if he has had discussions with a groundwork contractor.

Mr. Shields

stated he hasn’t had contact with anyone.

Commissioner Hafen

asked the applicant to clarify that based on his diagram he presented that he is testifying that he doesn’t need the parking waiver and it can be removed from the waiver request.

Mr. Shields

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Adams

is concerned that the traffic won’t remain on the asphalt and asked if the applicant would be amenable to putting up a fence at the edge of the asphalt.

Mr. Shields

stated he doesn’t have a problem with that.

Ms. Beeman

stated they should keep the parking waiver, it looks like there could be sufficient parking, but what can’t be determined is the drive aisle and they could lose parking spots if it is engineered out properly.

Commissioner Fowler

asked who designed the parking diagram.

Mr. Shields

stated he did.

Commissioner Fowler

asked if he has experience in that.

Commissioner Fowler

asked if the drive aisle widths shown can accommodate a coach bus.

Mr. Shields

stated he believes so.

Commissioner Fowler

asked if he has plans in place to stripe the parking spots.

Mr. Shields

stated yes, with a company by the name Murphy.

Commissioner Adams

asked if there could be a condition that the applicant provide the diagram to staff and the waiver going forwards depends on staff’s approval of the diagram.

Mr. Lacy

stated if they can come into compliance without paving that would be fine, this is temporary to give them time to get into compliance. They would still need a waiver if they had 23 sites and not 27 sites. Site Development still needs to be submitted to Planning for review.

Commissioner Adams

stated they don’t need the waiver if the parking plan is to code.

Mr. Lacy

stated Site Development is more than just parking spaces. Page 4 of 8

Commissioner Hafen

stated to Mr. Shields that they are here to address the location and what he is asking for. Based on the findings there really aren’t special circumstances and the surrounding businesses have all complied with NCC.

Dr. Shields

stated when he came to town he met with the tourism committee and the small business executive and he was never told about anything but the parking. He has never been told what landscaping or signage is.

Commissioner Hafen

asked the applicant if he has read the code for the sign ordinance or the landscaping ordinance.

Dr. Shields

stated he hasn’t seen it, it hasn’t been submitted to him.

Commissioner Hafen

stated for clarification that he is asking for waivers of code that he hasn’t read.

Dr. Shields

stated that is correct, he was told he needed landscaping but doesn’t know what is required.

Commissioner Blundo

asked why PW hasn’t approved a plan for the corridor yet.

Mr. Lacy

stated they are trying to identify what the appropriate location is for the corridor. Looking at the diagram it is hard to identify the appropriate widths that show there are 27 spots.

Commissioner Blundo

asked Mr. Shields if within the year that he will be able to comply with all the conditions.

Commissioner Hafen

asked the property owner, Ryan Nestman if they had anything to state.

Mr. Nestman

stated this is temporary and this is just giving them time to comply.

Commissioner Fowler

asked the applicants if this is granted and the site development is approved have they discussed how and who will be paying for these improvements.

Dr. Shields

stated no they haven’t and he is willing to carry that responsibility.

Mr. Nestman

stated that would need to be worked out.

Ms. Beeman

stated if the motion is to deny the applicant has 30 days to appeal the decision to the BOCC. If continued it will go to the December 13th RPC Meeting.

Commissioner Fowler

stated it sounds like the public might need more time to speak with contractors and if that is the case it might not get heard until the January meeting.

Commissioner Lee

asked staff if the application is denied what is the soonest the applicant and property owner can apply for another waiver.

Ms. Beeman

stated that would depend on with or without prejudice. She believes it is a one year stand down unless appealed.

Commissioner Lee

stated to Dr. Shields that the business plan he suggested states entertainment venues for charity and other events, wedding chapel. The concern is that those aren’t permissive in the zoning district that this is zoned.

Dr. Shields

stated they have intended this to be a community center where fundraising organizations could meet. Entertainment is perhaps incorrect in his application. He can amend that to community activities. He stated in his notes he believes he can hold community functions. It is really based on how it is phrased.

Commissioner Koenig

stated according to what he sees this is zoned General Commercial.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial. Ryan Nestman stated the Master Plan is GC and they have spoken with Steve Osborne to possibly do a zone change, it could be a condition and would be beneficial for that area.

Commissioner Hafen

stated for the record there isn’t a Master Plan designation of GC but this would be a conforming zone change.

Dr. Shields

stated GC covers his proposals.

Commissioner Hafen

stated in looking at the sign ordinance the NC zoning does allow for wall sign and free standing signs. NC states free standing can be a maximum of 25 feet and 100 Sq Ft free standing sign. What part are they asking to be waived?

Dr. Shields

stated all signage will be on the building.

Ms. Beeman

stated staff is unsure that the wall signs that are on the sign could exceed the current code and the freestanding sign doesn’t meet setback from the roadway.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if that is also an NDOT issue.

Ms. Beeman

stated there are property line setbacks.

Commissioner Hafen

stated they recently revised the landscaping code and the ability for the Planning Director to waive certain aspects of coverage.

Mr. Lacy

stated some of this is a time issue, Site Development can take a few months and we are recommending giving them more time to come into compliance.

Commissioner Blundo

stated they have a standard we need to uphold, and asked the applicant if 6 months gives them the opportunity to get the development plan in place and work with Planning. Page 6 of 8

Dr. Shield

stated that would give him sufficient time. When he leased the property he erroneously believed he didn’t have any issues with zoning.

Commissioner Blundo

asked if they can address the zone change.

Commissioner Hafen

stated no, that isn’t agendized.

Mr. Lacy

stated Mr. Nestman the property owner stated if they place a zone change as a condition they would comply with that. The waivers still need to be granted to get them up and running.

Commissioner Adams

stated they are coming in without a plan and the waivers are asking for 6 months to come back with a plan. Can staff review the parking plan and inform us at the next meeting if it conforms and then the applicant can find out what it will cost to come into compliance. There are too many unknowns at this time.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he agrees, it is frustrating that an applicant has stated they haven’t read the code, they don’t know what is in the code and ask for a waiver from the code because they don’t want to spend the time to address the facts that they can’t meet the requirements. He appreciates the diagram provided, but they can’t tell if it meets the current code. Public Works does not support this, and he can’t determine what part of the code is holding you up and preventing you from moving forward. If you are required to pave and landscape it will be costly.

Commissioner Fowler

stated this is haphazard and not very well thought through. For vendors to make promises to help improve this property sounds great but they are subletting from someone that doesn’t have financial support from the property owners. It wouldn’t make sense to put the investment into paving such a property with an 18 month lease. To go with gravel, does that mess up the Urban Development plan that PW and Planning have worked hard on doing.

Mr. Lacy

stated staff has given two options for the board to choose, staff has had the same questions and we couldn’t support these waivers as well.

Commissioner Adams

motioned to continue WV-2017-000054 to the December RPC Meeting and stated for them to meet with staff including PW. Seconded by Commissioner Blundo.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if once this is approved they can immediately open.

Mr. Lacy

stated they could open the 14th if approved but it might not meet their needs.

Mr. Nestman

asked for clarification if the motion was to postpone.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the motion is to continue the item to the December 13th meeting.

Commissioner Blundo

asked if this would give the applicant and staff time to get all the questions answered.

Commissioner Lee

stated the project has merit, what they are proposing is a direct violation of your zoning district and that is what the board decides. By granting the waiver it is a violation of Page 7 of 8 the RPC powers, they cannot knowingly approve your applications when it violates the zoning code.

Commissioner Lee

motioned to deny WV-2017-000054 based on staff findings and without prejudice. Seconded by Commissioner Fowler.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the motion to deny without prejudice so that applicant can come back at a future meeting for a waiver and zone change to meet Commissioner Lee’s concerns.

Dr. Shields

stated he will not do that.

Commissioner Hafen

stated this can be appealed to the County Commissioners.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he would like an over view of the PW Urban Corridor when available, the lighting code for discussion, the sign ordinance for discussion and an over view of the code compliance and how things are being enforced.