Loading...
12-2010 December 2 2010 PBM 1 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board December 2, 2010 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, December 2, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the Historic County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Richard Collier, Chair Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director Troy Barboza Jane Daughtridge, Current Planning & Zoning Manager Melissa Gott Sam Burgess, Subdivision Review Planner Dan Hilla Nicole Dreibelbis, Planner Tamara Murphy Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Anthony Prinz Chris Coudriet, Assistant County Manager Matt Davis, Chief Fire Marshal Absent: Andy Heath, Vice Chair Chairman Richard Collier opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Collier introduced the two new members of the Planning Board. Those members are Dan Hilla and Anthony Prinz. Chairman Collier reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of of the November Planning Board Meeting Minutes Dan Hilla made a motion to approve the November Planning Board meeting minutes as presented. Richard Collier seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to approve the minutes. Item 1: Special Use Permit (S-602 12/10) – Request by New Hanover County Fire Services for a special use permit to locate a Fire Station in an R-15 Zoning District on approximately 0.8 acres at 6101 Carolina Beach Road. The site is classified Transition in the 2006 CAMA land use plan. Nicole Dreibelbis provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning. Ms. Dreibelbis showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and of the surrounding area. Ms. Dreibelbis stated the proposal is located in the southern portion of the County’s jurisdiction and is accessed off of Carolina Beach Road, which is an urban principal arterial roadway. She noted immediately north of the site is a conditional Office and Institutional district, housing a veterinary office. Both east and south of the site is R-15, medium density residential district, and 2 west across from Carolina Beach Road, is currently zoned B-2, highway business, and uses contained in that strip include a gas station, restaurants, and a boat repair and sales shop. Ms. Dreibelbis reported the proposed site plan provided by the applicant indicates 0.8 acres of the 42.5 acres tract will be developed as part of the proposal. She stated the 2007 traffic level of service for this area of Carolina Beach Road is E, meaning the road is operating at capacity. She pointed out the location of the proposed structure, which is approximately 266 feet from adjacent R-15 residential property, the landscaping and buffering that will be provided, and the proposed drive off of Carolina Beach Road. Ms. Dreibelbis stated staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit because the cautious site design for the fire station will preserve the residential character of the area while allowing for improved community safety and also because improving emergency response in growing areas of the county is consistent with the vision statement of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan, which expresses the need to adapt to growth as we preserve the values that make our community a great place to live. Chairman Collier asked staff if the special use permit was related to the entire 45 acres tract or only to the 0.8 acres and if the property would be subdivided. Jane Daughtridge stated the special use permit would encumber the entire property so the site plan would need to be modified for any other use. Cindee Wolf, of Withers & Ravenel, represented New Hanover County Fire Services and stated the proposal was generated primarily by master planning for fire service delivery, which is done by all communities. Ms. Wolf explained it was recommended that another fire station be placed midway between Federal Point and Myrtle Grove to improve response times, which are important to insurance rates. The obvious location for the fire station would be on County-owned land if possible and the County does own this 42-acres parcel. She acknowledged the special use would apply to the entire 42 acres, but the fire station would be placed on the frontage of Carolina Beach Road in an approximately ¾ acre section of the tract. She explained that any subsequent changes on the parcel other than the fire station would be required to come back through the entire special use permit process to be reviewed, have adjacent property owners notified and be advertised. Ms. Wolf stated in regard to the site plan, the ¾ acre site would need to be cleared, but no regulated trees would be removed and the driveway was carefully thought out and coordinated with NCDOT because the Carolina Beach Road improvements have already been designed and will soon be under construction to the best of her knowledge. NCDOT is providing a left-over at South Ridge Boulevard rather than the median breaks that currently exist along Carolina Beach Road. She explained the driveway location was based upon that plan and will allow the fire trucks to very easily get into the u-turn lane or go north as needed. Ms. Wolf stated they have provided a plan she believes meets all the criteria of a special use permit related to consistency with the ordinance and consistency with safety recommendations. She commented she didn’t find anything in the traffic generation manual for a fire station, but noted at any point in time, there will be 4 regular employees at the fire station, along with fire equipment. 3 Ms. Wolf said one of the issues she expects to come up during discussion will be what will happen to the rest of the 42.5 acres site, noting the Planning & Inspections Director has indicated it is time to take a look at preparing a master plan for the site so that process is probably eminent. She stated the building itself will be modular, but that aspect will be downplayed by the architectural features included and the siding used. She also commented the setback distance from the residential lots in the back is 550’ and the buildings are also set back from Carolina Beach Road in order to preserve the streetscape. Ms. Wolf acknowledged members of County Fire Services were present to answer questions. Dan Hilla asked if a septic permit was already in place for the site or if it would be obtained later in the process. Cindee Wolf stated the septic permit would be obtained later, but the study has been done and the soils in that area are fairly sandy so a location for the septic system has been identified. She explained the single unisex bathroom in the facility would not require a large septic area. Anthony Prinz asked Ms. Wolf if a turning template had been put on the proposed design to make sure the fire vehicles are capable of making that u-turn movement. Ms. Wolf responded that a turning template had not been put on the proposed design, but NCDOT seemed to find it was okay based upon the way South Ridge Boulevard bellies out at that location. She also stated that radii recommendations from Fire Services were followed for the interior. Ms. Wolf expressed belief there is adequate room for fire trucks to make the u-turn according to NCDOT. Richard Collier opened the public hearing. Rex Burford, of 6309 Stearman Court, spoke in opposition to the project, stating the 42 acres property, which has been in the possession of New Hanover County for some time, was used to sell a hefty parks bond issue. He explained that the County had made a promise to build a park on that site with the full recognition that Veterans Veterans Park already existed. The park was supposed to be a passive park similar to Halyburton Park on 17th Street. He commented, with the huge population growth in the area, a passive, non-threatening park would be a decided benefit for the citizens of the area who don’t wish to visit an active park like Veterans Park. Mr. Burford stated he had reviewed the information in the project file and found it didn’t contain any mention by staff about the parks bond issue or the promises made to the citizens of New Hanover County. He commented the special use for a fire station on the park property is in derogation of the overall intent and purpose of the parks bond issue. Mr. Burford noted the citizens voted to be taxed for that purpose and the County is delivering on most of the other areas, but not on this one. He expressed concern about the special permit being considered during the holiday season, commenting it was similar to the Titan deal that backfired and the County’s attempt to sell the same 42 acres several months ago until the publicity became too much. Mr. Burford voiced his displeasure that the fire station issue had become a controversial issue between the County Commission and other parties and noted the County is apparently not going to use the existing Myrtle Grove facility because of a global fire plan requiring a station in 4 the area of this proposed site. Mr. Burford stated he had heard that New Hanover County 911 would be moving into the existing Myrtle Grove VFD building, and after the annexation of Monkey Junction, the City of Wilmington would move their present fire station at Echo Farms closer to Monkey Junction and the Silver Lake area. He noted that it seems to be of no consequence that a lot more money could be spent. Mr. Burford commented the parks bond issue and the promises made to the residents seem to have been forgotten. He noted the area’s needs are often overlooked; for example, they are in dire need of a new library, but the Commissioners haven’t moved on that issue with the rapidity they are moving on this one. Mr. Burford stated his opinion that this is further proof of political manipulation and overreaching by the County Commissioners and that it is the wrong way to do business. He commented there are other pieces of land for sale in the immediate area across Highway 421. He stated he only learned tonight that the special use permit would encompass the whole 42 acres and noted the very fact that a 42-acres tract is still intact in the area is tempting for many purposes. In conclusion, Mr. Burford respectfully suggested the board table the matter for consideration at a later date in order to research the history of the site and determine the available alternatives. Ben Ashba, of 6201 Appomattox Drive, stated he has been a New Hanover County resident since 1995 and pointed out the following issues with the staff findings: 1) Pocosin encompasses two pockets of the property; however, neither is located within the proposed development area. Therefore, no Conservation Overlay District regulations are applicable. Staff has stated the special use permit will apply to the entire 42 acres parcel, and if so, Mr. Ashba contended the whole parcel would be an area of environmental concern based on a natural and cultural resource area defined by a complex natural area and unique geological formation due to the presence of of pocosin in the wetlands; therefore, a CAMA permit would be required for a special use permit to be granted. 2) No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease property values of residents who live nearby. Mr. Ashba stated a number of residents in attendance live in the area and moved there with the understanding that the property would become a park and if it is not a park, their property won’t be worth as much as they thought it was going to be when they moved there believing it would be a park. 3) 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. Mr. Ashba stated he has not seen the plan of development so he isn’t sure what the master plan is although the plan is referenced on the webpage and in some of the documents. He was also curious if there were criteria for the fire station site decision and development, if other parcels were considered, and what decisions were used to choose this particular fire station design and location. He acknowledged that he wasn’t familiar with the master plan for fire protection, but he was aware the County had a plan for development of this property as a park. Mr. Ashba explained the bond issue was passed in 1989 and the Battle Park property was purchased in 1992 from the Cameron family with the understanding that it would become a park. In 2006, the Battle Park site was specifically 5 mentioned in the bond referendum and $1 million was set aside for its development so he voted for it. Mr. Ashba commented he can’t understand how the County’s plan for development would include putting a fire station on a piece of property with no sewer or water. He stated he recently learned that New Hanover County sold an easement to the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority in 2008 to run sewer and water through that area. He noted it had been mentioned that this fire station would benefit area residents by lowering their homeowners insurance, but if those utility lines were run and fire hydrants were installed, the residents’ fire insurance rates would be lower as a result of those fire hydrants regardless of whether there was a fire department there or not. Mr. Ashba commented it was their understanding that this property would be a passive park like Halyburton Park and not like Veterans Park, which has a million kids playing soccer, baseball and softball. He explained that there is no passive park south of Monkey Junction, which is becoming more developed and has no peaceful, quiet place for people to go. Mr. Ashba made the following observations regarding the preliminary site plan for the fire station. First, the U.S. Fire Administration recommends at least a one acre site for a fire station and a drive-thru bay for the fire vehicles. He commented that the site is a small piece of property and doesn’t look like it could accommodate very large trucks, let alone allow them to pull through. Second, the U.S. Fire Administration also recommends two points of access, but this site has only one point of access and there is no signal. In addition, trucks will have to cross the median if they want to go south on Carolina Beach Road. Danny Hooks, of 606 Antietam Drive, identified himself as a resident of New Hanover County since 1965 and a taxpayer since the age of eighteen. He explained that he purchased property in Battle Park in 2003 with the understanding from other residents and the real estate agent that sold him his home that the Battle Park property had been purchased with bond funds to be developed as a park. He stated he would not have bought his home if he had known that property was going to be developed. He noted the trees on the property provide a very good buffer for the residents from the highway traffic. Mr. Hooks stated his displeasure that a perfectly good, operating fire department is located less than two miles away, but because of politics, they won’t be able to use it. He commented that once again politics is standing in the way of common sense. Mr. Hooks stated there are 77 open storefronts for lease, sale or rent within a 1 mile radius of the Monkey Junction intersection and he doesn’t want to see any additional open storefronts in the area. He expressed concern that something else might be built there since the special use permit encompasses the entire 42 acres. Mr. Hooks asked where the fire station would obtain water since there are no fire hydrants or fire systems in most of the neighborhoods. Since the fire trucks would have to bring their own water, he asked if the fire department would be pulling water from the area’s water table to fill up the trucks, which hold large amounts of water. He then indicated the public notice sign for the meeting was not clearly visible to the neighborhood. Mr. Hooks stated at some point in time this area was reserved for a park and it’s time for the politicians to do what they said they were going to do. 6 Gayle Tabor, of 6130 Shiloh Drive, stated she received notice of the hearing via mail because her property abuts the property proposed for the fire station. She stated that the property was purchased with a bond referendum for green space and when she purchased her home on December 9, 2000, she called the County and asked them what was going to happen with that property before she signed the purchase agreement for her home and she was told it would be a passive park. Ms. Tabor stated she purchased her home based on that promise from the County. She commented the County promised a park with that bond money, and in 2000 asked for more bond money to develop the park. She voted for that bond referendum on the County’s promise that the property would be a passive park and possibly have a library there, which is also a nice quiet place. She stated she took that at face value, believing the County when they told her the property would become a passive park. Ms. Tabor commented that a library and a fire department are very different things. She requested that the County acknowledge there is already a perfectly good, working fire department two miles from this location, accept that working fire department as what the County needs to use, and keep their promise to build a park on that site. During rebuttal, Matt Davis, of New Hanover County Fire Services, stated in reference to the lack of a signal at the location, the County is in discussion with NCDOT about putting a signal at the entrance to the fire station to hold traffic so fire vehicles can get out to merge and go north or turn back to go south on Carolina Beach Road. Regarding the consideration of other properties in the area, Mr. Davis stated the master plan identified the need to improve response time and service delivery due to the growth in the area. The County did look at other property in the area, but because the County already owned this property and does not have the funds to purchase new property, this location was chosen. In response to the location location question, Mr. Davis explained the location was identified as a response time issue, which along with the Myrtle Grove station, could be impacted by the annexation by the City of Wilmington. He asked staff to clarify the issue regarding the ¾ acre versus the whole property, noting it was his understanding that the layout and the site they are applying for today is the only area for which they have applied for a special use permit. Any deviation from this specific location would require County Fire Services to go through the entire special use permit process again. In response to the question about water and sewer, Mr. Davis stated the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority does have water at the north end of the property and the County could run water lines from there to the proposed site, but right now, they would probably just install a well and septic tank on the property and then address that issue through the building process. He then deferred any questions about the park to staff because it is outside his expertise. Anthony Prinz asked Mr. Davis to explain why the site is less than the preferred dimensions of one acre, the drive-thru capabilities, and why the County chose the L-shape instead of the circular drive. Matt Davis explained it was the County’s desire to keep the disturbance on the site as minimal as possible at this point with a bare minimum modular fire station building, which would cost the fire district and taxpayers considerably less and still provide the services to the community. He noted that a fire station similar to those recently constructed would require 3-5 acres and probably cost 4-5 times more to construct with the drive-thru bays. Mr. Davis stated that cost was a big factor in the design choice, noting the goal is to get something in place to improve the 7 response time. Mr. Davis made it clear there is not a time table in place for this project. He explained that funding is not currently available to staff this facility, but the goal is to get the special permit in place so that when funding does become available, the County can build the fire station and hire the staff. Chris Coudriet, stated as Assistant County Manager he works with both Fire Services and Planning. Mr. Coudriet addressed the park issue, noting a bond was approved in the late 1980s to buy Battle Park, and in 2006, $35.5 million was approved by the voters to develop parks projects around the county. He noted there was representation that potentially a park would be developed at the Battle Park site and $1 million was identified for that project. Mr. Coudriet stated those dollars have not been de-obligated to his knowledge, but at the same time, there is not a hard plan to move forward in the near future to develop that particular tract as a park. He also noted there is no intention to develop the tract for any other type of use, private or otherwise. There was a discussion about selling the property two years ago. There is the potential that perhaps one day there could be a library there, but the County has a short to mid-term need perhaps for a new fire station as annexation takes place and the Myrtle Grove station becomes obsolete for serving the response area in the southern part of the county. He stated he wished he had different news on the park at this point, but he doesn’t. Mr. Coudriet stated this project was vetted with the Parks Advisory Board in the late summer to share with them the County’s intentions to request a special use permit and they endorsed that process so they are here with both knowledge and support of the County’s efforts to continue to improve the fire service in New Hanover County. During rebuttal, Tom Scuorzo, of 6060 Shiloh Drive, stated his property backs up to the wetlands area on the site. He said his understanding is that the developed area will be .80 acres, acres, but the special use permit covers the whole 42.5 acres and asked what the property would be classified if the special use permit was approved. Chairman Collier explained the property would remain R-15 if the special use permit was approved. Mr. Scuorzo asked if that meant they would have to go through the special use process again for any other use on the property. Chairman Collier confirmed that they would have to go through the special use permit process again for any other use on the property. Mr. Scuorzo asked board members to determine the status of the bond money for the development of the park before the special use permit is recommended to the County Commissioners. He expressed concern the neighborhood wouldn’t get a park, noting the County doesn’t appear to know where the bond money is for the project that was approved by the voters. He commented the Planning Board appeared to be making a quick decision and asked if it was correct that tonight’s meeting was the only opportunity the residents residents had to object to the special use permit for the fire station. 8 Chairman Collier responded that residents would have another opportunity to address the County Commissioners if the special use permit was recommended for approval by the Planning Board. Rex Burford, commented the parcel I.D. number for the site is for the entire 42.5 acres so the entire site is included in the special use permit, but the notice states that a special use permit is being requested for .80 acres. He expressed concern that the County Parks Board and the County Fire Department could meet and sublimate the will of the people as expressed in the bond referendum because it sounds like a good idea. He explained that is why people don’t trust politicians and are upset about this issue and noted it just isn’t the right thing to do or the right way to do things. People voted for the bond issue and they expect a park there. If they aren’t going to build a park, the County should come out publicly and say it so they’ll know it instead of sneaking around the back door with something like this. He expressed concern that the owners name on the application is New Hanover County and if the special use is approved by the County Commissioners on January 3rd, it will be the end of the park, especially during the holiday season. Charles Williams, of 6110 Shiloh Drive, asked how much it will cost the taxpayers to build the proposed fire department and if that money would come out of the park bond money set aside to develop this land. He commented he would like to see some hard property lines on the site plan because the plan states .80 acres. He’d like for the County to subdivide the land so residents can see the boundaries of the fire station and of the park property. He also asked why a fire station is needed when Myrtle Grove Fire Department is just 1.1 miles down the road. Paul Mason, of 6217 Appomattox Drive, questioned where the fire department would get their water and how they could build a fire barn on .8 acres of land, which didn’t seem large enough for an adequate fire barn. Matt Davis responded that water to fill the trucks would be obtained from offsite fire hydrants. Mr. Davis estimated the fire station facility would cost approximately $250,000, which would not come out of the park bond funds. He noted some funding has been set aside from the fire district tax, which is paid by property owners in the fire service district. Tamara Murphy asked for the history of the Myrtle Grove Fire Department, why it isn’t adequate for fire services, and why another fire department is being put in the same area. Matt Davis explained that the Myrtle Grove Fire Department is adequate and Fire Services does have staffing at that location currently, but future annexation might annex the Myrtle Grove fire station. There is actually a proposal going through the process where the City will actually annex their front door so the County is concerned that the fire station will be annexed in the future by the City. The County has identified areas through the master plan where additional response is needed and this area has had a a lot of growth and the potential for a tremendous amount of growth once the economy returns. Therefore, to reduce our response time and deliver service efficiently, the County has identified this area to need an additional fire station. Dan Hilla, asked if the master plan for fire protection that was approved in the spring gave specific locations for new fire stations or identified a general area for new stations. 9 Matt Davis stated the master plan identified general areas for new stations and areas that need improvement in response times, noting the plan is available on the County’s website. Chairman Collier asked if staff could provide additional information on the parks bonds. Chris Coudriet stated he understood the residents’ frustration since the property was purchased almost twenty years ago. The County would like to develop all of the property it owns for parks into parks and allowing the construction of a fire station on less than an acre does not at all preclude the rest of those acres being developed as a passive park perhaps with a library system attached to it. He commented that is still part of the overall master plan, but there is no plan in the very near future to use the $1 million that was identified as being potentially available for Battle Park. Those funds were not pledged to clearly and emphatically go toward that park, but the dollars have not been redirected anywhere else either. Chairman Collier stated that regardless of the acreage for the special use permit, the underlying zoning won’t change. The special use permit request is only to allow a fire station within a residentially zoned property and does not change the status of the property so it can still be developed as a park. The special use permit doesn’t give the county the right to move anything anywhere else on the property or build a shopping center on the remaining land. The special use permit will only allow the County to build the proposed fire station on this .80 acres site under these prescribed circumstances. From a wetlands perspective, the pocosin seem to be isolated and would not require a CAMA permit, but if the special use permit moves forward around the pocosin, they would be protected by the conservation buffers. Chairman Collier noted he didn’t see anything on the fire station’s proposed site plan that would warrant a conservation buffer. Dan Hilla asked what restrictions, if any, are there on land purchased by the County with bond money that was earmarked for parks. Chris Coudriet stated there are no deed restrictions on land purchased with bond funds. As long as the debt is outstanding, the property would need to have some public purpose use. Dan Hilla asked if that meant the County could decide what it wants to do with the property as long as it is for public use. Chris Coudriet stated the County could, but that’s not at all the County’s intention, noting we don’t believe that a fire station is incompatible with a park. He commented there are examples of parks and fire stations co-located here in Wilmington. Anthony Prinz asked if a park is a permitted use that would not require a special use permit in an R-15 district. Jane Daughtridge stated that a park is a permitted use in an R-15 district. Anthony Prinz asked if it made sense to look at the idea of subdividing this property use out so that when the County goes forward with building a park it won’t have to go through the special use permit process again. 10 Jane Daughtridge stated that subdividing the parcel would certainly be an option if the County chose to go in that direction and would identify the specific boundaries of the uses. She commented that cost is high on everybody’s mind now particularly at the County and trying to provide services on a shoestring budget is probably a lot of the reason they didn’t choose to subdivide the property at this time, but they certainly could do that. She explained the site plan encumbers the whole property so that nothing could be done on the rest of the property without coming back through the special use process to request a modification of the site plan. Anthony Prinz stated his only concern would be whether a survey now is more cost effective versus taking it back through the special use permit process later, noting he was sure the County would have to hire a representative like they have present tonight to take it through the special use process again, which can take multiple months. Chris O’Keefe commented he thinks the reason the County is choosing to go forward this way is because the project will take place at some point in the future so making the investment in the subdivision now may prove to be something that would have to be undone in the future; therefore, the decision was made to move forward this way to save the money at this time and perhaps save it because the subdivision may never be needed. Chairman Collier asked if they would need to modify the site plan with a special use permit since a park is a use by right in R-15. Jane Daughtridge stated that once a property has a special use permit, no other use can be made of it is except that purpose in the site plan. Chairman Collier asked if it was permissible for the Planning Board to add a condition on a motion that would state a park proposed by the County would not be subject to the special use permit rules. Jane Daughtridge stated that a special use permit requires a site plan and the proposed site plan doesn’t include park facilities so she wasn’t sure how it could be done. She noted it would be very irregular because the site plan is what encumbers the property. Chairman Collier asked if the site plan could be modified to identify the remaining acreage as park land. Jane Daughtridge stated they could put a notation on the site plan that identifies the remaining acreage as passive park or future passive park, but they would still have to come back through the special use modification process because the site plan for the park would have to be approved when it is actually achieved. Anthony Prinz stated that unless that piece of property is subdivided out, it would probably have to come back through the special use process if the County decided to build anything on it other than a fire station. Mr. Prinz stated his recommendation would be to consider all options on that. 11 Danny Hooks asked for clarification about the water use for the fire station, noting the first comment made by Chief Davis was that they would be eventually connecting to existing hydrants at the end of the property, but for a while they would be drawing off a well. When he was asked again later, Chief Davis didn’t mention drawing off the well. Chairman Collier explained that the second time Chief Davis was responding to a question about how the trucks would be filled with water and Chief Davis stated they would use off-site fire hydrants to fill the trucks. Chief Davis also stated the Cape Fear Public Utility (CFPUA) has water on the north end, but they would not immediately connect to it because of the cost factor to extend the lines, so they would be utilizing a well system. Chairman Collier stated that if CFPUA installs water lines past them and through the neighborhood, he was sure the fire station would hook on to then. Mr. Hooks stated Chief Davis estimated the cost of the firehouse at $250,000 and commented the ABC stores in the county cost more to build. He said that cost seems low because the newspaper has reported that the ABC stores are costing over $1 million to build and those stores aren’t nearly as large as a fire station, which requires living quarters and a kitchen. Chairman Collier commented the fire station will be a modular facility. Rex Burford asked Mr. Coudriet to clarify his statement about the bond funds not being pledged for a particular project to be developed. Anthony Prinz asked Ms. Wolf to address the question regarding the need for a CAMA permit for the site. Cindee Wolf explained that a CAMA permit would not be required because they are not proposing any filling of the wetlands, noting the wetlands identified by the Corps of Engineers will not be impacted at all by this project. Melissa Gott made a motion to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-602 as being consistent with the CAMA Land Use Plan. Dan Hilla seconded the motion. Anthony Prinz asked if it would be beneficial to have some clarification on the funding allocation for the park when the permit goes before the Commissioners. Dan Hilla commented he would also encourage the residents of that area to get involved and help move the County along in master planning that site so they will know exactly what is going to happen on that site in the future, rather than piecemealing it as they go along. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-602. 12 Item 2: Market Street Corridor Study – Consider the recommendations outlined for the portions of the study relating to the unincorporated county. Chairman Collier stated the New Hanover County Planning Board and the City of Wilmington Planning Commission held a joint meeting to view a presentation by the consultant on the Market Street Corridor Study and discuss the study and the corridor plan. He noted that the planning board would be reviewing and discussing the study tonight. Chairman Collier stated the Model Ordinance, contained in the appendix of the study, will eventually be used to enforce the study area plan, but hasn’t been vetted by the County Attorney or the City Attorney. The Model Ordinance will be discussed by the board at a later date and will involve public hearings and workshops before it goes to a vote. He stated that staff comment on the Market Street Corridor Study would be provided by Ms. Daughtridge. Jane Daughtridge provided a detailed overview of the basic recommendations of the Market Street Corridor Study with the assistance of Mike Kozlosky, Executive Director of the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization. Ms. Daughtridge explained the rationale for the study was primarily the traffic on the Market Street corridor, which is 11 miles and extends from Colonial Drive to the County line, noting that the traffic has grown increasingly difficult, levels of service have been declining over time, and there are numerous hazardous areas where wrecks occur. This study uniquely tried to blend together land use and transportation as they relate to one another and how things can be made better. The vision of the corridor is to develop a sustainable development pattern in the study area and reinforce the community based initiatives to link development and quality of life and improve community cohesiveness and economic vitality. It is anticipated that it will be a 15-20 year process before all of these goals are realized so the plan is a long term view of how to improve and maintain quality of life along the roadway. Ms. Daughtridge pointed out the study area represents an area 1,000 feet from the center line on Market Street on which most of the attention was focused in terms of analysis and data gathering. She noted another 1,000 feet was viewed because it was envisioned to be contributing area that would influence what went on in this corridor. Ms. Daughtridge stated the guiding principles for general development as stated in Chapter 4 were to: 1) encourage mixed use, 2) look at housing future needs and various types of housing, 3) promote multi-modal transportation, 4) provide for streetscapes in order to create a sense of place, 5) integrate architecture and site design to create lasting value, 6) balance the needs of regional mobility with livability, 7) environmental stewardship – tree preservation, wetlands, and stormwater, 8) implement smart growth, low impact development, and green building standards, and 9) update plans and ordinances with the recommendations from this study. The preferred development principles include: 1) promote mixed-use development, 2) build walkable neighborhoods, 3) promote compatibility of building architecture, 4) discourage franchise architecture, 5) create quality, cohesive design in architecture, and 6) site design with emphasis on consideration of open space for people to mingle, landscaping, parking, cross access between parcels, and bike and pedestrian opportunities to make whole the mixed use concept. 13 Ms. Daughtridge noted the mixed use concept is also a goal in the CAMA Land Use Plan and helps take people off the road because they can walk to work or to shop in those types of situations. Ms. Daughtridge commented the recommended general development map for the study area identifies activity centers where certain types of development would be anticipated, such as a suburban employment center with office and institutional types of uses and commercial uses, commercial areas, urban mixed use neighborhood style development (at Marsh Oaks), some employment, commercial, and light industrial uses (at Middle Sound Loop Road), and an urban employment center with commercial activity (at Military Cutoff). She reported the summary of recommendations for Chapter 4 include: 1) updating local plans with the recommendations from the study, 2) protecting valuable open space areas that were indicated on the map provided, 3) promoting a mix of housing types in appropriate locations, 4) revising local land use development regulations, 5) revising land development regulations to encourage mixed-use development within activity centers and nodes without the need for planned development district designation, 6) promoting principles of smart growth in new neighborhoods, 7) moving from strip development patterns to activity centers or nodes, and 8) the officials of the city and county should continually monitor new development and public investments to ensure fulfillment of the visions that are focal points in this study. Ms. Daughtridge noted the County currently has only two mixed use opportunities -exceptional design or a planned development. Ms. Daughtridge stated Chapter 5 addressed focus areas in which the consultants chose some important locations and did a market study on those locations. Mike Kozlosky explained, in 2008, Rose & Associates completed a market analysis of the 11 mile corridor. During that process, they found 15 pages of for sale and lease properties, which is a significant number of properties so it was recognized that this corridor was transitioning and offered a real opportunity. As part of the market analysis, the consultant completed a ripe and firm analysis to determine which properties would be ripe for development and which ones would be firm and could sustain development. Based on that analysis and on the activity zones, the consultants recommended certain focus areas along the corridor. He stated, for example, the consultant indicated that a particular node or area could sustain 36 residential flats, 28 townhouses, 10 single family units, 148,000 square feet of general office space, some flex space, as well as some mixed use buildings. He explained the consultants provided that information for several other locations along the corridor. Mr. Kozlosky commented the State of North Carolina has a project that will extend Military Cutoff from Market Street out to the 17 By-pass. As part of that extension, they have developed an interchange design larger than the footprint we expected initially, which will significantly impact the potential for development at that particular location. He noted there will likely still be a potential for some development at that activity center. 14 Jane Daughtridge commented the concept plan will need to be reworked for that area to reflect the larger interchange design, noting that area is one of two main focus areas that pertain to the unincorporated county. Mike Kozlosky stated it was important to point out these are only recommendations. As we move forward through the development of the Market Street Corridor Study, we will take these recommendations forward and consider them through the development proposal or though our planning for the transportation infrastructure. Ms. Daughtridge stated the second focus area was a node at Marsh Oaks and as the board is aware a portion of this particular focus area is currently going through the process. A 270 unit apartment complex has been proposed in the ripe area identified in the market analysis. On the corner of Mendenhall and Marsh Oaks, there is a bank that is close to completion so the concept plan shown on the screen is not exactly how development is playing out, but there is activity occurring in in those identified areas. Ms. Daughtridge explained Chapter 6 of the plan contains the bulk of the recommendations. Transportation is a major focus of the study so the recommendations relating to transportation fall under several categories. Connectivity is a major issue and is discussed often by the County as proposals come through the approval process because it is important to ensure alternate ways for people to get from one place to another. The study proposes that we use the future collector street map in the study to review development plans and help locate future collector streets. The study includes a list of priority streets for collector development and none of those priority streets were listed in the unincorporated county, although there are streets listed there. In addition to using the future collector street map, the connectivity recommendations include: balancing natural environment, connectivity, access, mobility, and safety; considering street spacing guidelines; and in design elements, trying to use the complete streets concept to serve mobility, property access and non-vehicular transportation modes. A table is provided in Chapter 6 that shows what the spacing should be for the various types of streets. Ms. Daughtridge stated context zones are another concept reviewed in the study and speak to urban versus suburban types of cross sections. She noted the unincorporated county has essentially been designated as automobile oriented suburban, which has wider lanes and higher speeds, less frequent transit service, and virtually no pedestrian amenities. She explained the recommendation is to adopt this cross section, which goes along with the complete streets concept where you have pedestrian or multi-purpose types of opportunities. This also represents the planted median that has been recommended for the Market Street Corridor. Ms. Daughtridge stated access management was another category of recommendation and asked Mr. Kozlosky to speak on the topic. Mike Kozlosky explained the consultant looked at the corridor and the number of driveways on the corridor and then looked for opportunities to make improvements along the corridor by consolidating or eliminating driveways and installing a median to improve access and reduce left turns. He noted the Market Street Corridor has twice the state’s average of similar corridors in the State of North Carolina for the number of crashes so there is a safety component to this 15 planning effort, as well as a mobility effort. He stated they wanted to look at circulation so the collector street plan was developed. They also wanted to determine how they could interconnect properties so that a driver could access adjacent properties without going back out onto Market Street. He explained the plan also recommends that driveways not be located closer than 100’ from the nearest intersection, median treatments be provided, and intersection improvements be provided for major and minor street intersections. The plan identifies a preferred access plan for the entire corridor. He noted the preferred access map demonstrates and identifies where there are going to be u-turns, signalized intersections, and left-over movements if a median is installed. This plan is very important to the NCDOT as they move forward with designing the Market Street improvements because it indicates where the community wants to see those movements made. Jane Daughtridge stated there are a few recommendations related to landscaping. An ancillary goal of the study was to provide aesthetic improvements along that gateway into the area. Landscaped medians are the centerpiece of that proposal, but it also speaks to providing canopy trees, ornamental trees, and shrubs and where that might or might not be feasible. There is also a recommendation to try to preserve some of the old trees that are still in place on the roadway whenever possible. Roadway improvement recommendations and general recommendations are also included in the study. Mr. Kozlosky presented the portion of the study which addresses the area from Barclay Hills to Porters Neck, explaining the planning effort identified a non-traversable planted median between Barclay Hills Drive and Porters Neck Road and that the traffic signals should be coordinated to optimize traffic flow. He commented they are working through that process now as the City has recently updated their traffic signal system with efforts from the NCDOT so there will be a coordinated system all the way out to Bayshore. The effort also looks at pedestrian level improvements, for example, where we can install pedestrian crossings, pedestrian heads and crosswalks to improve pedestrian access across Market Street. It also looks at mid-block recognizing there is a significant distance between signals and if there is an opportunity to cross pedestrians mid-block, what safety concerns are there, and how it would be accomplished. He stated in regard to the pedestrian level improvements, every signalized intersection identifies the need for pedestrian heads and crosswalks in order to improve the access for pedestrians across Market Street. Jane Daughtridge stated the information for the potential alignment for Military Cutoff Road and Gordon Road was not incorporated into the design for that focal area, but the map reflects the current alternative at this point. At Ogden Park Drive, the plan envisions a median left-over treatment with the provision for a heavy vehicle u-turn operation in that location. At Middle Sound Loop and Lendire Road, there is a proposal to re-align Lendire into a 4-leg intersection and include additional left turn lanes on both the minor sides, plus additional right lanes from Middle Sound Loop onto Market Street. Crosswalks are also shown around that location. At Ogden Fire and Rescue, a mountable median is proposed and an emergency light is already there. At the intersection of Torchwood Boulevard and Bayshore Drive, another left turn lane from Bayshore Drive onto Market Street and crosswalks were identified at this signalized location, which may have already been completed. 16 Mike Kozlosky stated that NCDOT finished that left turn improvement a few weeks ago. Ms. Daughtridge commented that fortunately parts of the recommended improvements in the study have already been accomplished in the unincorporated county. At Alexander Road, which is a loop road, the study envisions some left-overs that would route traffic left in on the western most section and left-out on the eastern most section. The recommended signalization of the Marsh Oaks and Mendenhall Drive intersection has already occurred; however, the crosswalks and pedestrian sign heads have not been put into place. Cypress Pond Way is too close to the signal at Porters Neck Road so it is not being recommended for signalization, but a direct left-over from east bound Market onto Cypress Pond Way is recommended. At Porters Neck Road, the study recommends adding turn lanes at each approach to the dual left and dedicated right turn lanes on all four legs of that intersection. The Lowes project has implemented at least a portion of this recommendation. Mr. Kozlosky confirmed the Lowes project had implemented all of the roadway recommendations for the Porters Neck Road intersection. Ms. Daughtridge commented the recommended pedestrian treatments have not yet been put into place at that intersection. She acknowledged that three of the recommendations that address the unincorporated county have already been accomplished. Mike Kozlosky explained they wanted the study to be multi-modal, not just a highway element, recognizing that across the nation we are trying to become more sustainable communities and as such, we recognize the need to expand our public transportation and expand our bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This plan highlights some of those recommendations, including bus pullouts at major intersections and the upgrade of bus stops with better shelters and transit schedules to provide information to riders. As far as the pedestrian facilities, the planning effort recommends upgrading the signalized intersections and recommends strategic pedestrian crossings. It also looks at integrating bicycle and pedestrian amenities into the planning effort and identifies sidewalks/multi-use paths along the Market Street Corridor recognizing that there are neighborhoods that connect to Market Street for which we’d like to provide those amenities. He noted, for example, there is an effort to link Ogden Park and Ogden Elementary School. Relative to the Porters Neck area, he pointed out there is recommended neighborhood connection for bicycle and pedestrian amenities within this corridor study area. Mr. Kozlosky concluded by stating they are trying to look at how to more efficiently move transportation, which includes public transportation as well as bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. Chairman Collier asked board members for their comments and questions on the Market Street Corridor Study. Dan Hilla commented that he had come late to the process and it has been a lot to absorb in a short period of time, but overall the study is great and really needed to be done. He stated this type of planning is needed for our community. He expressed concern that if the board adopts the study without the accompanying ordinance, it will be mistakenly perceived by the development community to be in place in its current form. He doesn’t want to prevent someone from developing their property especially during these difficult economic times because they think 17 they have to follow these rules. Mr. Hilla asked if staff would provide this study to potential developers who came into the office and inform them that these rules are going to be implemented. Ms. Daughtridge stated that if this study moves forward to the Commissioners and the Commissioners also endorse it as a guide for development and someone comes in to develop their property, Planning staff would show them the plan and talk to them about the components of their proposal that seem to meet or not meet the direction that this study is taking. She noted that everyone is held to the standards of the County ordinance; but we would encourage and urge people to incorporate this into their project because this plan has been endorsed as a guide for this area, but we would not demand they do so. In a situation requiring an approval, it could influence whether they were approved or not approved for a special use permit, rezoning or other type of approval. Mr. Hilla asked how the corridor plan differs from the Land Use Plan adopted by the County. Chris O’Keefe explained the plans are different because the Land Use Plan comes from a much higher level regarding general policies and the Market Street Corridor plan provides a great level of detail. The CAMA Land Use Plan has implementation items that the Market Street Corridor plan carries out. They are also similar because the things that the Market Street Corridor Plan is trying to accomplish are the same policies the Land Use Plan recommends should be done. Mr. O’Keefe commented it is difficult to compare the two because their goals are different. In response to a question from Mr. Hilla, Jane Daughtridge stated she hoped the adoption process wouldn’t be long or arduous and that they could find solutions in a collective way that would help achieve the vision through public hearings and work sessions. She commented if this plan is going to be the County’s guide, staff will need appropriate tools and mechanisms to implement it. Anthony Prinz stated in his opinion, this is a very important plan for New Hanover County, not only from a land use, but from a transportation perspective and is unique in that it is one of the first combined land use and transportation plans in the state. He commented that a lot of time and work had been put into this plan and he considered it an honor that NCDOT provided the funding and opportunity for the project. Mr. Prinz stated his recommendation that the County move forward with the plan and try to expedite the TIP project that will help implement many of the transportation recommendations. He noted it is a long term plan and through the development process and public investment, a lot of the recommendations will actually come to fruition and some improvements have already been realized. He commented the ordinance might need a little more work, but that shouldn’t hold up the plan itself. Ms. Murphy commented she thinks the plan is a good starting point to address the Market Street Corridor and is a good direction for New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington to move in. Chairman Collier stated we have to start somewhere. He acknowledged that during his tenure on the board, two of the three primary concerns have been stormwater and traffic. They created a 18 low impact stormwater guidance document that is presented to every potential development and has worked well, resulting in the implementation of many low impact stormwater techniques. Relative to traffic, Market Street has always been a corridor of primary concern. Chairman Collier noted the plan is probably not perfect, but has been well thought out, addresses the safety issues, and offers options for addressing them. He acknowledged that the development community may not like parts of the plan, but giving them the Market Street Corridor Study as an option at the beginning of their project has a lot of merit. Chairman Collier expressed belief that the plan will be great for the City and the County, but stated concern about interconnectivity and what mechanism will be implemented to enforce connectivity to a private street. He commended the MPO staff and the traffic consultant for providing a very good report. Mike Kozlosky stated this plan shows how coordination and collaboration can create a good product, noting this project was a combined effort of the City, County, and NCDOT. He explained the NCDOT recognized the need to integrate land use and transportation planning and so funded the study. Tyler Newman with BASE and the Wilmington Cape Fear Homebuilders Association, encouraged the board to hold a public hearing next month before recommending adoption of the corridor study as a guiding document since the Market Street Corridor Study was advertised as a discussion item. He reported that he sent an email about his concerns, which are primarily related to the ordinance, but staff didn’t feel it was appropriate in that forum. He commented he disagreed because the ordinance will be adopted in the appendix of the study as a whole and will be coming back to the board at a later time; however, if someone comes in during the interim with a project within 1,000 feet either side of Market Street, they will be urged to follow the recommendations in the document. Mr. Newman felt that should be properly fleshed out and that property owners along the corridor within 1,000 feet of Market Street need to understand the potential impacts on their properties. He said Figure 4.1 within the document should more clearly identify the folks that are potentially going to be impacted by the study. Noting Mr. Kozlosky will be speaking to the homebuilders association during December, Mr. Newman asked the board to table a decision on the study until the January meeting to allow more input from his group and provide them an opportunity to address the board with any significant concerns before the board makes a final recommendation on the plan. Chairman Collier stated he understood Mr. Newman’s concern about getting more information and noted the City Planning Commission will not meet in December and so won’t hear the item until January. He asked for board input on postponing the vote on the recommendation until January. Dan Hilla agreed that it was a good idea to wait until January to vote on the study. Ms. Daughtridge, in response to a question from Chairman Collier, stated that a public hearing is not required, but can be held if the board chooses to do so. Anthony Prinz asked Mike Kozlosky if delaying the vote for one month would impact the TIP project. 19 Mike Kozlosky stated it would not impact the TIP project. He reported a technical coordinating committee meeting was held on Wednesday, at which there was a discussion about the corner of Kerr and Market Streets, recognizing that this plan recommends a quadrant design at that intersection. Based on NCDOT’s cost estimates, it would increase the cost by $9.5 million if the City incorporated the quadrant design into the Kerr Avenue widening project, which will widen Kerr Avenue from Randall Parkway to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway. He further noted that the TCC, at their meeting, recommended acknowledging that the Market Street Corridor is underfunded for improvements, taking that money and putting it toward the quadrant design. There are other funding options for high hazard mitigation. The department is using those funds on Carolina Beach Road, as well as on South College Road, to improve the safety of those two corridors by relocating and closing median crossings along those corridors. He commented commented that would not preclude the department from moving forward with some type of design on this facility. Mr. Kozlosky stated the Transportation Advisory Committee has not heard this, but will be presented with a resolution and a recommendation at their meeting on the 15th and they may or may not support the idea or the concept so the TIP project is still funded for 2012, 2017, and 2019. Per a question from Chris O’Keefe, Mr. Kozlosky stated the TAC has not adopted the Market Street Corridor Plan because they are waiting until the County Commissioners and City Council adopt the plan before they take it to the TAC for approval. Chris O’Keefe expressed difficulty in communicating to management future funding needs to implement the recommendations of the plan, for example, the maintenance of planted medians, and how it fits into the overall picture since the plan has not been committed. He asked Mr. Kozlosky if that was true for the greater vision and how access management fits into the overall plan. Mr. Mr. Kozlosky stated there is an action plan incorporated into the document that identifies steps in order to make this corridor study project become a reality. He noted the vision statement recognizes this is a 15-20 year process and a long term vision for the corridor. The available options and recommendations will determine how the corridor transitions. He acknowledged from a landscaping perspective, there are some issues with landscaped medians. From a NCDOT standpoint, there must be a clear zone and NCDOT also has concerns about accidents, noting an accident in which a vehicle is pushed into a tree can create a more severe crash. Additionally, the County will have to address the policy issue of maintenance of landscaped medians. Chairman Collier announced the Planning Board agreed to postpone public comment and a motion for recommendation on the Market Street Corridor Study until the January 2011 meeting. Technical Review Committee Report (November) Sam Burgess reported there were no TRC items during the month of November. Richard Collier adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. ____________________________ __________ Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director