Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout200406 June PBM MINUTES OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING June 3, 2004 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, June 3, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the County Court House, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Members Present: Staff Present: McKinley Dull, Chairman Dexter Hayes, Planning Director David Girardot Baird Stewart, Senior Planner Michael Keenan Sam Burgess, Planner David Adams Linda Keough, Administrative Secretary Robin Robinson Members Absent: Walter Conlogue, Vice Chairman Frank Smith Chairman McKinley Dull opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Chairman Dull proceeded with the approval of the minutes. Robin Robinson moved to approve the May minutes. David Adams seconded the motion. The Board approved May 2004 minutes by a vote of 5-0. Chairman Dull proceeded with the first hearing item. Item 1: Special Use Permit: Request by Grace Patterson for a Special Use Permit to operate a Child Daycare Facility for 12 children in a R-15 Residential District located at 111 Cannon Road between El Ogden Subdivision and the Cedars at Gorman Plantation (5-519, 05/04). Baird Stewart presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use, zoning and related information. Grace Patterson applicant, stated that she is currently caring for five (5) children and is licensed by the State of North Carolina. She added that her residence could accommodate up to ten (10) children based on the measurements of her home. Ms. Patterson also stated that they would be adding a paved turn around to the existing driveway and will continue staggering the arrival times for the parents to avoid any traffic problems. Ms. Patterson stated that she talked to the neighbors on both sides of her home who had no problem with her increasing the number of children. She also stated that she is requesting increasing the number of children to twelve for ages 0-5 but would agree to ten, if necessary. 1 Mr. Keenan asked where the turn around would be located on the site plan. Ms. Patterson replied by pointing out the location on the site plan. Don Jarboe 208 Cannon Road, stated that he is concerned with the logistical location regarding the driveway. He stated that the driveway width does not allow two cars to be in the driveway at the same time. Mr. Jarboe presented photos of the road and driveway. Mr. Jarboe emphasized that he is not concerned with Ms. Patterson's abilities as a daycare provider but is concerned with the traffic on the road. He stated that there is a bend in the road and that there is often a semi-trailer parked along side of the road, which would cause a problem with someone walking their child along side of the road to get to the Patterson's residence. He explained that there are no shoulders and no sidewalks. Therefore, there would be little room for additional traffic with a semi-trailer parked along side of the road. Michael Keenan asked if adding five (5) more children would cause significant traffic problems. Mr. Jarboe replied that he felt that it would. David Adams asked if Mr. Jarboe drove this road daily and Mr. Jarboe replied that he did. David Adams asked Mr. Jarboe if he had any education in traffic. Mr. Jarboe stated that he did not but has held a North Carolina driver's license for several years. Robin Robinson asked if staggering the times of pickup and drop-off would alleviate some concerns. Mr. Jarboe replied that it would. Linda Page. 110 Cannon Road, stated that she felt that the driveway is too small to handle additional traffic. Ms. Page also showed photos of the driveway adding that four school buses travel the road every day. Ms. Page provided a petition and additional photos. Phyllis Trierwiler. 120 Cannon Road, stated that she and her husband are retired and would like to keep it a nice, quiet neighborhood with no increase in traffic. Mr. Patterson stated that the semi-trailer truck is typically not there. He usually uses a storage unit. PRELIMINARY STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. A. The subject property is located within the Ogden VFD. B. The site has access to Cannon Road, which is a public right-of-way. C. The site is served by City Water and County Sewer. D. The proposed use will occur in an existing home that is currently used as an in- home daycare for less than 5 children. 2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the zoning ordinance. 2 A. Parking for 1 employee and 4 off street spaces is proposed adjacent to the driveway. B. Additional area may need to be provided to accommodate drop off and turn around in a manner to provide access without backing onto the public right of way. C. There is an existing fenced play area. D. Outside signs for the facility shall not exceed 2 square feet. No sings are proposed E. Operation of the facility shall comply with the provisions of the General Statutes of the State of North Carolina and other applicable federal state or local codes. F. No new buildings are proposed, however the applicant may need to convert a portion of the existing Garage to accommodate the proposed number of children. 3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity. A. The subject property is located in an R-15 residential district. B. Child daycare facilities are permitted by special use permit in all residential districts. 4. The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. A. The site is classified as resource protection by the New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan and is within the urban growth boundaries. The purpose of the Resource Protection class is to provide for the preservation and protection of important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife and recreational resources. B. Several policies in the comprehensive plan support establishing programs for elderly, special needs, and children. STAFF CONCERNS: 1. Given the limited space for parking, drop off & turnaround and given the limited size of the existing home, the Board may consider reducing the proposed number of children from 12 to 8 or 10. David Girardot asked if the existing structure could accommodate ten children. Dexter Hayes replied that it could. David Adams stated that he is concerned if the parking area is adequate or not and asked staff if the parking is adequate for ten children. Dexter Hayes replied that the ordinance requires adequate turn around without having to back into the street. Baird Stewart replied that a turn around area and four parking spaces is required Robin Robinson asked what the square footage requirement is for over ten children. Grace Patterson replied that 25 sq. ft. per child is the minimum requirement. Michael Keenan made a motion to approve the request with staggered parent arrival times with no more than two drop-offs within a ten minute period between 7:00 a.m. and 3 8:00 a.m., allowing up to nine (9) children and establishing the turnaround by widening to the property line for adequate space. Robin Robinson made a motion to amend the motion to allow up to ten (10) children which was seconded by Michael Keenan. Chairman Dull stated that he felt that ten children compounds the other problems and does not see how four cars can pull into the driveway and turn around and get back out. David Girardot stated that he did not see where there is a danger to safety. Robin Robinson withdrew her amendment to the motion and seconded Michael Keenan's motion allowing up to nine children and requiring a scaled drawing showing the four parking spaces. The Board voted 4-1 in favor of the motion, with Chairman Dull opposed. This item will be heard at the July 12, 2004 County Commissioner's meeting. Item 2: Zoning Text Amendment: - Request by Staff to amend Section 62 The Accessory Building/Use Section of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance to allow Stormwater Management Facilities on contiguous properties with different zoning (A-334, 06/04) Baird Stewart gave a brief review of the Staff's request. If approved language in Section 62 would be placed in a new section 62-1 and a Section 62-2 would be added to the Zoning Ordinance with the underlined text: 62-2 Retention and detention facilities serving nonresidential developments shall be permitted on contiguous residential tracts abutting the development served provided: (1) There is no encroachment of the commercial activity onto the adjacent residential site, and (2) provided the adjacent residential property is in the same ownership as the commercial tract and (3) the residential site is not part of an existing residential subdivision except in the case of shared stormwater facilities. (4) The stormwater facility shall be setback twice the corresponding residential minimum side or rear yard measured from the top of slope to the adjacent property line. %A minimum 20' bufferyard within the setback shall be provided. (5) The stormwater management facility shall be constructed as an aesthetic amenity with maximum slopes of 5:1. (6) If fencing of the facility is necessary then it shall not be chain link. STAFF SUMMARY Under the current regulations stormwater management is considered an accessory use and is not permitted on adjacent properties with different zoning classifications. Many applicants have approached the planning staff with proposals that make good site planning sense but cannot be accomplished because the stormwater system is within an adjacent residential district. In some situations staff has allowed stormwater management within residential districts if the system is a shared facility for residential and commercial projects. Many of the County zoning district boundaries were established as offsets from right of ways, and many of the district boundaries continue to parallel these right of ways. 4 As a result there are numerous locations where parcels have split zoning or there are landlocked parcels between commercial frontage and subdivisions. Often these types of parcels end up as the subject of marginal rezoning cases and end up as conditional use districts because that is the only way to ensure that the new zoning area is used for stormwater management. Ultimately it is preferable for commercial and residential developments alike to utilize a site sensitive approach to development and work with the natural topography and natural features rather than specifically engineering a site around the zoning regulations. Allowing developments to utilize low areas for stormwater management regardless of zoning and the source of the runoff leaves the opportunity for more sensitive site design, preservation of vegetation and possibly a reduction of conditional use zoning. Michael Keenan moved to approve the staff request for a zoning text amendment with a correction to the first sentence changing serving nonresidential developments to serving a nonresidential develol2ment. David Adams seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Item 3: Zoning Text Amendment: - Request by Staff to amend Section 59.6 The Special Highway Overlay District Section of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance to address situations where there are overlapping Special Highway Overlay Districts (A-335, 06/44) If approved Section 59.6-3 would be amended to add (7) to the ordinance. The underlined text shown below would be added: 59.6-3(7) Any parcel of land that falls within overlapping Special Highway Overlay Districts shall be subject to all of the setback requirements of this section for one of the two designated highways. Setbacks from the right of way of the secondary highway frontage as determined by the applicant may be reduced by 50%. STAFF SUMMARY The Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD) regulations were established in 1986. The purpose as defined in section 59.6-1 is to protect the natural beauty and scenic vista that exists along Interstate Highways and other specially designated roadways that serve as major access ways and gateways into New Hanover County. The SHOD regulations accomplish this objective with additional front and side setbacks, regulations for location of parking and loading, and additional regulation of signs. In the Unincorporated County, the SHOD has been established along three major corridors; Interstate 40, North Market Street, and most recently I-140 (17 By-pass). Establishment of the SHOD along the By-pass created situations where there are overlapping Special Highway Overlay Districts. The Overlapping SHOD requirements occur at the Market Street Interchange and the I-40 Interchange. Nothing in the Ordinance specifically addresses this situation, therefore, any parcel falling within the overlapping SHOD districts is subject to additional setbacks and parking and loading 5 regulations from two sides. Although no specific development proposals have been received for any of these quadrants, applying the additional SHOD regulations to two sides of a project could severely impact the develop ability of certain parcels. The ordinance dictates special provisions for corner lots in two other sections, which could be adapted to address the Overlapping SHOD situation. Section 23-19 of the Zoning Ordinance addresses setbacks, "The front of a lot shall be construed to be that portion abutting on a street, including the side dimension of a corner lot. For the purpose of determining yard requirements for corner lots in Residential Districts, the minimum width of a side yard along an intersecting street shall be fifty (50) percent greater than the minimum side yard requirements of the district in which the lot is located, or one-half (1/2) of the minimum front yard setback along the side street, whichever is greater. Side yard requirements of corner lots in Business, Office and Institutional, and Industrial Districts shall be the same as the front yard requirements of the district in which the lot is located. Through lots shall be considered to have two (2) front yards. (1/4/93)." Section 67-10(8) of the Ordinance addresses Streetyard Landscaping requirements on corner lots, "Streetyards shall be required along all street frontage. For sites with 2 or more street frontages only the primary street frontage shall contain the full amount of streetyard as indicated in the table. All secondary street frontages shall contain 1/z the required square footage amount. Based on the consistency with other sections of the Ordinance Staff recommends the proposed changes to the Special Highway Overlay District. After discussion and additional clarification between the Board and staff, David Adams moved to approve the request for the zoning text amendment. Michael Keenan seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0 in favor of the motion. Item 4: Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendment - Request by Staff to amend Section 41-1(6) of the New Hanover County Subdivision Ordinance to re-establish a minimum lot width for conventional subdivisions (A-336, 06/04). If approved Section 41-1(6)(g) of the Subdivision Ordinance would be amended to add the following underlined text: (g) Each lot of a subdivision shall individually abut or be adjacent to an approved public or approved private street or private access easement. Condominium and townhouse-style subdivisions may be exempted from this requirement at the discretion of the Technical Review Committee, provided that in all cases each individual lot shall be assured safe and reasonable vehicular access to and from an approved street. (3/03). Every Conventional residential lot shall front a public or private street or access easement for a distance of at least 34 feet. STAFF SUMMARY Until recently when the County adopted the Subdivision regulations from the Unified Development Ordinance there was a minimum 40-foot lot frontage requirement for all residential lots. The proposed amendment would strictly apply to conventional subdivision lots and by default minor subdivisions. The minimum frontage requirement prevents subdivisions with multiple flag lots, which are not a desirable subdivision 6 pattern. Although staff has not received a significant number of proposals with multiple flag lots, there have been some presented and recorded. Previously there was a 10 foot discrepancy between the required 40' lot frontage and the 30' private access easement. It makes logical sense that the minimum lot frontage should be consistent with the minimum access easement width. Anticipating the adoption of some other portions of the UDO, Staff recommends making the frontage requirement consistent with the proposed 34' private access easement that is recommended by the UDO committee. David Adams asked how it would affect other properties and cul-de-sacs. Baird Stewart stated that 95% of the subdivision applications are performance subdivisions and this only pertains to conventional. Michael Keenan stated that this change would create less lots per acre with less land being available in New Hanover County. Mr. Keenan made a motion to continue this item to the July meeting requesting the staff to bring some examples for the Board's review. David Adams seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0 in favor of the motion to continue. Other Items of Business: Sam Burgess gave an update on the Technical Review Committee's activity during the month of May 2004. Mr. Burgess stated that the committee met to discuss six preliminary site plans in the month of May. The six site plans were reviewed as performance projects. Two of the projects were new, one was a revised site plan, and the other three were preliminary extension requests. 1. Deer Crossing, was the revised site plan and classified as a Resource Protection on the County's Land Use Plan. The plan contains a total of 159 lots in which 119 are single family and 40 are town homes. The project is served by city water and county sewer. The TRC voted 5-0 to continue the project on May 12'' until a water capacity letter was received from the City of Wilmington, placement of the fire hydrants displayed on the plan, and a road realignment study at Deer Hill Drive and Middle Oaks Drive were received. On May 26th the project was brought back to the TRC with placement of the hydrants, water letter, and road realignment. It was approved with a 5-0 vote. 2. Woodlake at Lord's Creek was reviewed by the TRC on May 12th and on May 26th. It is classified as a limited transition and a conservation area. The project contains a total of 386 lots of which 176 are single-family lots, 120 condos, and 90 multi-family units. It will be served by City water and County sewer. The project was continued by the TRC on May 12ffi based on the uncertainty of City water capacity and water pressure to support fire plugs and the method of preservation for the designated open 7 space in the project. On May 26th the TRC voted 4-1 to approve the project. The project came with four conditions. 3. Addenbury Subdivision was reviewed by TRC on May 12 and is made up of two parcels of land. The TRC approved 17 lots for this project by a vote of 5-0 with no significant conditions. 4. Three (3) preliminary site plans were reviewed by the TRC and extended for one year: a. Johnson Farms - 551 lots b. Kirkwood Estates - 354 lots c. Interstate Business Park- Industrial Park with 44 lots Dexter Hayes informed the Board that a Planning Board member should attend the neat County Commission meeting on July 12th. Being no further business, David Adams moved to adjourn the meeting. Robin Robinson seconded the motion, which the Board unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Dexter Hayes, Planning Director 8