03-2010 March 2010 PBM
Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board March 4, 2010 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, March 4, 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: Jay Williams, Chair Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director Richard Collier, Vice-Chair
Jane Daughtridge, Planning & Zoning Manager Melissa Gott Shawn Ralston, Senior Environmental Planner Sue Hayes Sam Burgess, Subdivision Review Planner Andy Heath Sharon Huffman, Assistant
County Attorney Sandra Spiers Absent: Ken Wrangell Jay Williams opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Williams announced that Item 1: Conditional Rezoning Request (Z-900, 1/10) by Beau Rivage Golf & Resort, LLC has been withdrawn from the March agenda and will be re-scheduled to
the April 1st meeting due to procedural errors realized by staff related to notification of all adjacent property owners. Sue Hayes made a motion to approve the February Planning Board
meeting minutes. Richard Collier seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the minutes. Item 2: Special Use Permit Modification (S-329M, 3/10) – Request by UNC-W to
modify the site plan for an existing special use permit by relocating a planned 68,000 sq. ft. laboratory building and redesigning parking lots at 5600 Marvin K. Moss Lane in an R-15
residential zoning district. The site is classified watershed resource protection in the 2006 CAMA land use plan. Jane Daughtridge showed maps and photographs of the property and of
the surrounding area. Ms. Daughtridge also provided information pertaining to land classification, access, level of service, zoning, and flood hazard areas. Ms. Daughtridge noted that
the most recent modification of the special use permit was in 2007. Chris O’Keefe presented the staff summary and the conclusion of the “findings of fact”.
1. The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. Evidence in
the record at this time supports a finding that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed road improvements required by NCDOT are implemented. 2.
The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. Evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use meets all
required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. 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. The evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. 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. The evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use will be consistent with the land
use plan and in harmony with the neighborhood if developed within the limitations of the project as proposed and with the required road improvements outlined in the TIA approval letter
for this project. Sue Hayes asked staff to explain how and why the UNCW center was consistently out of compliance with condition (3) as stated in 2.D. of the “findings of fact”. Jane
Daughtridge explained that this modification will be an addendum to the existing special use permit which has been modified several times. The original buildings constructed on the site
had a lot of noise issues that the neighbors had complained about. There was a condition placed on the original permit that stated the facility could only operate the air conditioning
system during certain hours of the day. Ms. Daughtridge stated UNCW was consistently out of compliance with that condition. She apologized and noted that “finding” was not intended to
be carried over for the new request because it applied to a different piece of the project. She stated this issue was discussed when UNCW made their 2007 modification request. At that
time, UNCW staff explained to the County Commissioners that their ability to keep their marine creatures alive relied on being able to operate the cooling systems during the night time
hours as well. Ms. Daughtridge commented that UNCW has made improvements to their systems that have helped bring the noise into compliance and the petitioner may want to address that.
Chris O’Keefe confirmed the petitioner had been very sensitive to the noise issue and stated their presentation should provide comfort in that area. David Girardot, Associate Vice Chancellor
for Facilities at UNCW, stated they have overcome the noise problem. UNCW has installed variable speed fans on the cooling towers and replaced the boilers in the main facility with a
series of pulse boilers, which are practically noiseless. He assured the board the facility is in full compliance with the County’s guidelines at all hours. Mr. Girardot provided a brief
explanation for UNCW’s request for another modification to their special use permit. The project for which the 2007 modification was requested was unfortunately not funded. Subsequently,
the N.C. Legislature did fund the oyster hatchery, which is currently under construction and about 40% complete. In re-examination of what was desired in the oyster hatchery, the facility
became one-storey instead of two-storey, with the same square footage, which obviously obviously made a larger footprint. Mr. Girardot explained that in establishing the larger footprint
for the hatchery, if the MARBIONC building was built, it would protrude into wetlands and require the removal of an inordinate number of trees. In order to get past that problem, UNCW
would like to move that building to the north, which will satisfy two concerns. Environmentally, it would be a far superior location and operationally, it would enable research staff
in the MARBIONC building to utilize facilities in the main building, which will be connected by either a covered walkway or a bridge. Mr. Girardot reported that the $30 million MARBIONC
building has now been funded with the combination of a $15 million federal grant and UNCW matching funds. He stated the other aspect of the project is the expansion of the existing parking
lot, located west of the main campus. The parking expansion will accommodate current staff, as well as future staff. Mr. Girardot reiterated that the proposed modification is an environmentally
superior solution and operationally superior plan for the facility. He commented that UNCW is very excited about the project, which will not only benefit the university, but also benefit
the city and county by employing approximately 200 construction workers and once established, housing high level researchers employed by UNCW and other outside research agencies. No
one spoke in opposition to the special use permit. Richard Collier asked what type of stormwater treatment was being used on the site and if UNCW would be incorporating any LID practices
into the facility redesign. Mr. Girardot stated there is no pervious pavement currently on the parking lots, but the extension will have pervious pavement. He assured Mr. Collier LID
practices would be incorporated into the MARBIONC facility design, which is currently in the very beginning stages of the process. Mr. Collier asked if UNCW would be making improvements
to Masonboro Loop Road at Marvin K. Moss Lane. Mr. Girardot stated that UNCW would make improvements to the road if required to do so by NCDOT or the City of Wilmington. He noted if
there is no requirement, it is UNCW’s desire to
construct one or two turn lanes if sufficient funds are available after the construction of the MARBIONC facility. Mr. Collier asked if NCDOT or the City had weighed in on that issue
yet. Mr. Girardot stated there had been a recommendation that turn lanes be established, but no requirement had been made. Mr. Collier asked if the relocation of the building would impact
any wetlands on the site. Mr. Girardot explained that one of the primary purposes of shifting the building location was to prevent impact on the wetlands. Jay Williams commented that
he likes the idea of moving the building to the other side of the property, adjacent to the vacant tract owned by the Lutherans. Richard Collier made a motion to recommend approval of
Special Use Permit S-329M for the UNCW Center For Marine Science based upon all findings of fact being positive. The motion was seconded by Andy Heath. Sandra Spiers seconded an amended
motion by Mr. Collier adding the statement that the recommendation is based on positive findings of fact. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-329M.
Item 3: Special Use Permit (S-600 3/10) – Request by Avenel Boating Facility Association for a special use permit to expand a community boating facility serving the Avenel Subdivision
at 1532 Portsmouth Place in an R-20 residential district. The site is classified Conservation in the 2006 CAMA land use plan. Jane Daughtridge showed maps, aerials, and photographs of
the property and of the surrounding area. Ms. Daughtridge also provided information pertaining to land classification, access, level of service, zoning, and flood hazard areas. Ms. Daughtridge
explained the applicant is proposing dredging and a 70 foot extension of the dock to accommodate new boat lifts at each slip, but will not be expanding the number of slips. She noted
special use permits were not required when the Avenel facility was built so this permit would bring the facility into full compliance with the current zoning ordinance. Ms. Daughtridge
stated there are twenty existing parking spaces and the additional eight required parking spaces can also be accommodated on the site. She commented that the facility is in close proximity
to the Figure Eight Bridge and has experienced a good deal of shoaling, which has resulted in the dredging component of the application. Chris O’Keefe presented the staff summary and
conclusion of the “findings of fact”.
1. The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. Evidence in
the record at this time supports a finding that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed when required fire suppression devices as required by
NHC Fire Services are installed. 2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. The evidence in the record at this time
supports a finding that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. 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. The evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use will not substantially injure the value
of adjoining or abutting property. 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. The evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the
use will be consistent with the land use plan and in harmony with the neighborhood if developed within the limitations of the project as proposed and with minimal maintenance dredging.
Sue Hayes asked if an environmental assessment had been done on the proposed dredging. Ms. Daughtridge stated the applicant has held scoping meetings with Coastal Management. Ms. Daughtridge
attended the preliminary meeting, during which Coastal Management indicated that the applicant would be allowed to dredge as proposed. Charles Vaughan, Vice President of the Avenel Boating
Facility Association, stated they agree with the findings of fact. He noted the dredging is primarily to recover the depth that has been lost due to shoaling and the extension of the
pier is being requested to accommodate the addition of boat lifts to the slips in order to improve the safety of the facility and get the boats out of the water, which is a positive
for the environment. Rob Mairs, an engineer with ECS Carolinas representing Avenel, stated they met with the three state agencies that will be reviewing the CAMA major permit, and their
staff felt that returning the area to its original depth at the time of the permit application in 1990 would be consistent and therefore, would not require an environmental assessment.
Those agencies will submit their comments during the CAMA major permit application process.
No one spoke in opposition to the special use permit. Jay Williams closed the public hearing. Sue Hayes stated her concern about the dredging and asked if the County had done its own
environmental assessment. Chris O’Keefe stated the County has not done an environmental assessment. He explained the State of North Carolina is the primary body that regulates dredging
so it’s not a typical process for the County to require an environmental assessment. Ms. Hayes asked if dredging is allowed in Outstanding Resource Waters. Mr. O’Keefe explained this
is deemed to be maintenance dredging where there is an existing channel already there and maintenance dredging is allowed in Outstanding Resource Waters. Avenel is an existing facility
and because of that, they are allowed a greater degree of rights. The State will oversee the dredging and determine if the impact of the dredging is problematic. Melissa Gott asked how
the State will oversee the dredging. Mr. O’Keefe explained the applicant will be issued a permit by the State and their staff will monitor the dredging to ensure the area of disturbance
is in the correct location. Ms. Hayes asked staff to clarify on the map where dredging had taken place and where the applicant is proposing to dredge. Rob Mairs reviewed the hydrographic
survey, which reflects the loss of depth over the years. He explained the proposed dredging area is the area that has been utilized since 1990, and includes the expansion area for the
boat lifts. They will be dredging to a depth of -4, which is approximately one foot. Mr. Mairs reported that during the scoping meetings with the State, it was determined that dredging
within a 4-1/2 foot depth would not require an environmental assessment. He explained the area is not in a designated primary nursery area and is open to shell fishing. In response to
a question from Ms. Gott, Mr. Mairs confirmed the depth in 1990 was 4 to 4-1/2 feet and dredging was not necessary. He stated the area has experienced a substantial loss of depth since
that time. Melissa Gott requested clarification from staff that the dredging would fall under the dredging exceptions listed in the findings of fact. Chris O’Keefe stated the dredging
would fall under the exceptions listed in 4.D. in the findings of fact. Mr. Collier asked if a CAMA permit could be issued at the current water depth of 3-1/2 feet.
Mr. Mairs explained that the CAMA permit for the facility could proceed without it, but dredging is needed to return it to its original depth. The project includes the replacement of
the floating docks and the installation of new finger piers, as well as the addition of boat lifts to the slips. Mr. Mairs stated there are currently no boat lifts so a slight expansion
is needed to accommodate the lifts. Mr. Collier asked if the dock itself would remain in the same place and if any dredging would be done closer to the shore. Mr. Mairs stated that the
dock and dredging would remain essentially in the same footprint of the existing pier and would not be closer to the shore. Mr. Mairs commented the boat facility area had not been dredged
in the past. When the facility was built in 1990, the water depth was an adequate 4-1/2 feet so dredging was not needed then. He stated the dredging currently proposed will simply return
the water to its original depth and accommodate the slight expansion of the boat slips. Mr. O’Keefe assured that board that because the facility had been in place and in use since 1990,
the dredging is considered to be maintaining an existing use, not creating a new facility. Sandra Spiers stated the dredging would also be considered maintenance because the applicant
will be returning the water to its original depth, not exceeding it. Melissa Gott made a motion to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-600 based upon all the findings of fact
being positive. The motion was seconded by Richard Collier. Sue Hayes asked if a condition could be added to the motion requiring that the dredging not exceed 4-1/2 feet. Mr. O’Keefe
asked for clarification from Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman. Sharon Huffman stated it would not be appropriate for the condition to be added because the dredging is regulated
solely by the State of North Carolina and the County should not attempt to police it. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-600. Sue Hayes abstained
from the vote. An abstention counts as a vote in the affirmative for the motion. Therefore, the final vote counts as 6-0 in favor of the motion. The meeting recessed for five minutes.
Item 4: Text Amendment (A-384, 2/10) – Request by Planning staff to amend Section 53.6 of the ordinance to clarify certain standards for establishing an Exceptional Design Zoning District.
Shawn Ralston stated the EDZD district is a list of exemplary standards the applicant can utilize in order to take advantage of density bonuses. The standards are not meant to be a one-size-fits-
all scenario. The applicant is able to use those standards based on the condition of the site they are proposing to rezone. The standards are meant to provide a compact, walk-able mixed-use
type of development that preserves water quality, protects habitat and provides connections to existing infrastructure. Ms. Ralston noted that part two of the text amendment was approved
by the board at their February meeting. She explained the proposed text amendment containing the technical refinements was continued to the March meeting in order to give the development
community an opportunity to review the proposed refinements and provide input. She noted that no written comments had been received from the development community since the February
meeting. Ms. Ralston stated that during the extended review process, staff added a few more refinements to the amendment based on conversations with the development community. Ms. Ralston
presented the following recommended procedural refinements and refinements to the requirements for the EDZD ordinance. A. Public Notice of Meeting (Procedural Refinement to Section 53.6-3)
1. Require that notice be given at least two weeks in advance for the two required public meetings. B. Building Height (Procedural Refinement to Section 53.6-7) 1. Allow for design flexibility
when abutting nonresidential uses or districts 2. Protect abutting residential uses or districts Maximum Building Height: Within 200 feet of any residential zoning district or residential
use, building height shall not exceed 40 feet. C. Building Setbacks (Procedural Refinement to Section 53.6-7) 1. Provide more internal design flexibility 2. Protect adjacent properties
Removed internal building setbacks. Require that buildings be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the district boundary or the proposed height of the building (whichever is greater).
If setback is less than the height of the building – must explain how project addresses privacy of adjacent property. D. Buffers (Procedural Refinement to Section 53.6-7) Allow buffers
within utility easements greater than 30 feet with the permission and memorandum of agreement with the utility company stating that the buffer will be maintained in perpetuity. E. Lighting
(Procedural Refinement to Section 53.6-7) All site lighting shall be located so as not to shine or reflect directly onto any adjacent residential property. F. Open Space (Procedural
Refinement to Section 53.6-7)
1. This requirement creates a minimum standard of 35% of gross site area of the district for open space. (This standard is currently in place for PD, O&I, and R-15, as well as in the
City of Wilmington’s Multi-family zoning district). 2. Staff recommended a broader definition for open space by adding atriums, courtyards, plazas and greenways. 3. Flexibility would
be given to propose less than 35% or more than the maximums for natural open space or recreational space, with explanation from applicant. 4. Natural open space is intended to protect
water quality and environment and provide environmental education opportunities. 5. Maximum of 10% of the open space area may be natural. 6. Recreation open space, active or passive,
is intended to promote outdoor recreation opportunities or provide locations for people to gather. Refinements to EDZD Definition Section: A. Core Requirement #1: Smart Location – Option
2 1. New definition of Pre-project Connectivity reflects the most recent LEED definition. Pre-project connectivity is met when project is located so that 25% of the project boundary
is adjacent to a previously developed property and connectivity of the site and adjacent land is at least 90 intersections per square mile as measured within a ½ mile distance of a continuous
segment of the project boundary. Design the project so that a through street or non-motorized right-of-way intersects the project boundary at least every 800 feet to connect with one
outside the project. B. Core Requirement #4: Wetland and Water Body Conservation and Preservation 1. To prevent bacterial contamination of surface water, pet waste stations must be installed
within open spaces and a maintenance schedule must be implemented. C. Core Requirement #10: Affordable Housing A minimum of 15% of dwelling units must be rental and/or for-sale dwelling
units that meet the requirements listed below. 1. For rental units, the requirement states that affordability must be priced for households earning 80% of Area Median Income based on
HUD figures. (This standard is also used by City of Wilmington). 2. Rental limits are set annually by HUD Standard Income and Rent Limits Table. Rental units must be maintained at affordable
levels for a minimum of 15 years. 3. Sale Units – Affordability must be based on sale price limits established by N.C. Housing Finance Agency First–Time Home Buyer Mortgage and Down
Payment Assistance Program. (Ms. Ralston presented a table of the 2009 Standard Income and Rent Limits).
Ms. Hayes requested a more detailed explanation of connectivity. Ms. Ralston provided an explanation of how the connectivity requirement is met by locating a point ½ mile from either
outside edge of the project property and drawing a circle around it; then counting the intersections located within that radius. There must be 90 intersections within that square mile
radius to provide connectivity. (25% of the boundary of the project must be adjacent to a previously developed property). Jay Williams asked what purpose is met by the connectivity requirement.
Ms. Ralston stated the connectivity requirement is an effort to duplicate LEED, but is only one of the four options available for a Smart Location. Ms. Daughtridge explained this requirement
provides an opportunity to show that the location has many ways to dissipate the traffic within the project rather than concentrating in only a few connections. Mr. Williams asked if
creeks, ponds, etc. count toward open space. Ms. Ralston stated creeks, ponds, and other natural bodies of water do count toward the open space requirements. Melissa Gott asked if retention
ponds would be included since they are man-made and not natural. Ms. Ralston explained that stormwater ponds would not be included because there isn’t much opportunity for environmental
education in retention ponds. Ms. Hayes suggested that it should be clarified in the ordinance that stormwater ponds are not considered open space. Mr. O’Keefe explained that stormwater
ponds are by definition not natural bodies of water so they would not be recognized as open space. Mr. Williams expressed concern that 80% of Area Median Income was low for a home purchase.
Ms. Daughtridge explained the 80% refers to rental units only, not to purchase and noted the NC Housing Finance Agency assistance is for purchase amounts of about $220,000. Melissa Gott
thanked staff and fellow board members for giving her the opportunity to review the EDZD proposal by continuing the item to the March meeting. Mr. Williams asked when the board might
consider an EDZD project. Mr. O’Keefe and Ms. Ralston confirmed the board would most likely be considering two EDZD projects at the April meeting.
Richard Collier made a motion to recommend approval of Text Amendment A-384 as written. The motion was seconded by Melissa Gott. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of
Text Amendment A-384. Technical Review Committee Report (February) Sam Burgess presented the following TRC report. The TRC met once during the month of February and reviewed one revised
performance residential site plan. Windswept: This performance residential plan is located in the southern portion of the County and is classified as Transition on the Updated Land Use
Plan. Specific review site is located between The Cape to the south, which has been in existence since 1982, and Lighthouse Village to the north. The project presently contains 83 lots
and is served by private water and sewer. The road network begins at Carolina Beach Road and is designated as private, but for public use. The developer desired to maximize his density
by adding 16 units, bringing the total number of units to 99. In a vote of 5-0, the TRC voted to approve the revision to Windswept with several conditions. Those conditions were included
in the Planning Board package. Mr. Burgess reported that the next meeting of the TRC will be held on Wednesday, March 10, 2010. Jay Williams adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. _______________________
_______________ Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director