Loading...
11-2010 November 4 PBM Page 1 of 17 Minutes New Hanover County Planning Board November 4, 2010 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, November 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: Richard Collier, Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director Troy Barboza Jane Daughtridge, Planning & Zoning Manager Melissa Gott Nicole Dreibelbis, Planner Dan Hilla Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Tamara Murphy Absent: Andy Heath, Vice Chairman Chairman Richard Collier opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Chris O’Keefe led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of the October Planning Board Meeting Minutes Melissa Gott made a motion to approve the October Planning Board meeting minutes. Richard Collier seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 3-0 to approve the October 7, 2010 Planning Board meeting minutes. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-907, 11/10) – Request by H. Phillip Berman to rezone 03.05 acres at 5200 Castle Hayne Road from R-20 Residential to B-2 Commercial District. The site is classified as Community and Aquifer Resource Protection on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification Map. 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 northern portion of the County and is accessed off Castle Hayne Road, which is an urban principal arterial roadway. She reported the property is currently zoned R-20, which is Low Density Residential, the properties immediately to the north and west of the property are zoned B-2 Highway Business and immediately south of the property is a continuation of the R-20 Low Density Residential. In December 2008, the County adopted the Castle Hayne Master Plan, which includes the area requested for rezoning. Ms. Dreibelbis stated the Castle Hayne Master Plan does support the rezoning for a commercial or mixed-use purpose. She pointed out the 2007 level of service for Castle Hayne Road is D, meaning traffic volumes are nearing the capacity of design and traffic flow is beginning to feel Page 2 of 17 the effects of higher volume. She noted immediately north of the property, the traffic level of service transitions to F, meaning traffic counts exceed the capacity of the roadway by a multiplier of two or more. Ms. Dreibelbis stated in summary, staff recommends approval of the rezoning request because the zoning will be an extension of an existing B-2 zoning district and remains consistent with both the 2008 Castle Hayne Master Plan and the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Phillip Berman, the applicant, spoke in support of the rezoning, noting the parcel is part of a larger 9.2 acres parcel, which lies at the junction of Highway 132 (North College Road) and Highway 17 (Castle Hayne Road). Mr. Berman commented the vision of the Castle Hayne Plan calls for the properties at that junction to be zoned commercial. He stated one could conclude the 3.05 acres parcel, along with the 6 acres that adjoins it on the north side is viewed in the plan as the cornerstone parcel of the community. Mr. Berman explained explained the parcel is very unique because it is the only one in Castle Hayne proper that offers complete ease of access onto both highways. He explained there are numerous commercial properties and B-2 zoned properties in the area around the parcel. He also pointed out that beyond the low density residential property to the south are extensive commercial and industrial parcels, including an active asphalt plant and active railroad line. Mr. Berman commented the larger 9.2 acres parcel was the result of 30 plus years of blood, sweat, and tears on the part of his late brother John Berman, his mother, Bette Robb, and himself, noting it was always their intention not to subdivide the property, but to hold it for future development by them or someone else when Castle Hayne reached its day in the sun. He said in light of the Castle Hayne Plan, that day is closer than it has ever been. In conclusion, Mr. Berman respectfully requested a recommendation of B-2 for the 3.02 acres, explaining it was unquestionably appropriate and in line with the vision put forth by the Castle Hayne Plan, and the viewpoints of most adjoining and neighboring property owners. Bill Buie, of 5136 Castle Hayne Road, spoke in opposition, stating he resides immediately to the south of the parcel. He explained his property has been his family’s land for over thirty years and while he is not in total opposition to the rezoning, he would like to have some input in what type of business is located beside his yard. He stated there are also some wetlands associated with the property in question and he wouldn’t want a retention pond located directly beside his yard. He also requested more information rather than a blanket rezoning, which could result in a truck stop for example being built directly beside his family’s home. Mr. Buie commented that twenty years ago when the property was originally rezoned, that property was left as a buffer to prevent some type of business from encroaching on residential property. Phillip Berman spoke during rebuttal, rebuttal, reiterating it had always been their intention to develop the property. He restated his request for a recommendation to designate the parcel B-2, noting again it is perfectly appropriate in light of the Castle Hayne Community Plan. Mr. Berman stated the vision is clearly set forth in the plan and the intention is clear this intersection involves largely commercial properties because it is the logistical and physical heart of the community. He explained the commercial corridor illustrated in the plan extends to and beyond that intersection, encompassing many properties in addition to this one, and the plan further indicates the majority Page 3 of 17 of future residential development would lie west of Sycamore Street and in other outlying areas and certainly not on the highway itself. Chairman Collier closed the public hearing. Dan Hilla asked staff what was required as a buffer between B-2 and R-20 and if the buffer had to be a planted buffer or fence. Jane Daughtridge responded that a minimum twenty foot buffer is required between B-2 and R-20, but would be predicated on the height of the building proposed. She stated the setback would be a multiplier of 2.75 times the height of the building and the buffer would be half of that setback, although there are some provisions where the setback can be reduced if the buffer is increased. Ms. Daughtridge explained the buffer must be a planted buffer and can be used in conjunction with a fence, but the fence must be on the inside and the plants must be on the outside of the project and are required to provide 100% opacity within three years. Dan Hilla asked if staff was aware of any plans to run water and sewer to the site. Ms. Daughtridge stated there is water and sewer located sporadically around that area, for example at the school and further south in one of the subdivisions. She explained there is also sewer located north around Orange Street and there is a development agreement for sewer far south of this location. Ms. Daughtridge acknowledged there are plans in the development community to move water and sewer in this direction as conditions improve. Mr. Hilla noted the lack of water and sewer at the site would limit the type of development. Chairman Collier commented the zoning seems to blend with the Castle Hayne Community Small Area Plan, which he had recently reviewed to make sure this property wasn’t on the southern edge. He noted it was a natural extension of B-2 and acknowledged he understood the adjacent neighbor’s concerns about what could be built on the property. He advised Mr. Buie to meet with Planning staff about a limitation on uses, explaining the Planning Board can’t add limits on the uses of property in the case of a straight rezoning of land. He stated uses can only be limited on a conditional use request. Dan Hilla made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-907. Melissa Gott seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-907. Item 2: Conditional Rezoning Request (Z-908, 11/10) -Request by Thomas H. Johnson, Jr. with Nexsen Pruet, PLLC and Ryan Foster with Flournoy Development, on behalf of Bayshore Estates, Inc. , to rezone 26.61 acres at 7910 Market Street from B-2 Commercial District and R-15 Residential District to CD (R-15) conditional district for the purpose of increasing residential density. The site is classified as Transition on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification Map. Page 4 of 17 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 this proposal is located in the northern portion of the county’s jurisdiction and is accessed from Market Street, an urban principle arterial, as well as Marsh Oaks Drive, a collector street. The parcel requesting rezoning currently consists of two zoning districts, R-15 Medium Density Residential and B-2 Highway Business and is bordered by Marsh Oaks Drive to the north and Market Street to the west. To the east, there is currently a B-2 zoned outparcel. Ms. Dreibelbis noted that to the south is the Marymount subdivision consisting of townhomes and further northeast there are single family residences located in the Marsh Oaks subdivision. Ms. Dreibelbis explained that conditional districts are designed for firm development proposals and require site specific specific plans to be approved as special use permits providing maximum protection and predictability. She reviewed the concept plan submitted by the applicant, which illustrated the layout of the high density apartment development, noting it shows 270 total units consisting of a combination of 94 one bedroom, 130 two bedroom, and 46 three bedroom units. Ms. Dreibelbis noted the 2007 traffic level of service on Market Street at this location is F, meaning traffic counts exceed the capacity of the roadway by a multiplier of two or more. She noted the developer’s intention to subdivide the property to create an independent commercial parcel consisting of 3 acres that would remain B-2 at the corner of Market Street and Marsh Oaks Drive. The high density apartment complex would be built on the remaining 26.61 acres. She explained the anticipated buildout on this project is 2014. The proposal is located on a parcel identified as Transition and Watershed Resource Protection on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification map. Ms. Dreibelbis stated staff recommends approval of the request for the following reasons: 1) Changing the strip of B-2 Commercial to R-15 Residential remains consistent with County land use policies; 2) the proposal also meets the high density requirements for 10.2 units per acre in an R-15 zoning district; 3) the buffers are consistent with two regulations that are subject to this parcel – the conservation overlay district and the special highway overlay district; and 4) the roadway improvements required will mitigate the impacts of additional traffic in the area and will remain consistent with existing plans for improvement along Market Street. Jane Daughtridge added the staff summary provided to board members refers to an approval letter in regard to the traffic impact analysis, noting staff has not received the final approval letter yet. The recommendations in the draft letter were included and staff doesn’t anticipate any significant changes. She also mentioned this is a conditional rezoning which requires a two part approval process with the rezoning and a special use permit. Ms. Daughtridge also stated there were people present to speak on this issue and voice their concerns. She commented staff had Page 5 of 17 also recently received calls from the owners of the remaining B-2 property regarding their concerns related to buffer requirements that would be placed on them if this parcel is rezoned to residential use. Tom Johnson, of the law firm of Nexsen Pruet, spoke as co-applicant, noting the presence of the other co-applicant, Ryan Foster of Flournoy Development; Jack Reel of Thomas & Hutton Engineers; Earl Worsley, appraiser; and Jeff Ingham, Traffic Engineer. Tom Johnson provided background on Flournoy Development, noting it was founded by John Flournoy in 1967 and is one of the largest private developers of superior quality apartments in the United States. Mr. Johnson commented Flournoy has developed more than 26,000 units in approximately 125 communities nationwide and provided photos of some of those developments. He stated that Flournoy is a full service property management company that manages multi-family communities for their own company and is currently managing over 10,000 units in the southeast and Midwest. He noted they have the highest level of customer satisfaction and loyalty through quality service performance. Mr. Johnson provided a proposed site plan for the property, noting there will be a right in/right out main entrance onto Market Street and another access onto Marsh Oaks Drive that will not go through the neighborhood. Marsh Oaks Drive is a fully signalized intersection. He explained that in terms of Land Use Plan compatibility, no impervious surface is proposed for the area. This property is classified Transition in the CAMA Land Use Plan, which allows for higher density with access to minor arterials or greater and public utilities. The pump station will be completed in 2011, which will provide sewer to the property. He commented that high density development is an appropriate transition between the lower density residential and more intense commercial and provides the required buffering between them. Tom Johnson stated their awareness of locating adjacent to an existing residential subdivision and their desire to ensure a good dialogue with the residents. He reported they met with the Marsh Oaks HOA board on September 20, 2010, and on October 4, 2010, they had the required meeting with the property owners within 100’ of the proposal, but also included all residents of the Marymount subdivision in the meeting. Mr. Johnson stated they held another meeting with the rest of the residents of Marsh Oaks on October 27, 2010, which wasn’t a required meeting. Mr. Johnson presented a site plan and photos of the buffering between the proposed development and the adjacent Marymount townhomes, which includes an existing 6’ high fence and stormwater easement, then the property line and another existing stormwater easement plus an additional 20’ buffer on the property to be developed. He pointed out there is a lot of buffering between the proposed project and the existing Marymount subdivision, which is not a low density residential development because it contains duplexes and quadraplexes in a townhome format. He pointed out photos which reflect the mature vegetation that will serve as a buffer and commented the developer will meet all of the DENR and New Hanover County requirements for stormwater and the downstream part will be evaluated when the project goes through the Technical Review Committee. Page 6 of 17 Tom Johnson addressed the issue raised during the community meetings regarding the type of trash compactor the complex will have. He provided photos of the compactor, noting the area around it will be dressed up, and explained it will be located 180’ from Marsh Oaks Drive, providing ample setback from that roadway. Earl M. Worsley, Jr., a local real estate appraiser and consultant, spoke on the impact the project will have upon adjoining property values. He stated he had visited the site and reviewed the site plan and offered the following comments as they relate to property values: 1) The land plan is consistent with good land planning techniques as it provides for commercial development along the major thoroughfare, which is Highway 17 or Market Street, and then tiers back to multi-family use and tiers back again to the duplexes and townhouse configuration. This is a logical progression or land use plan. 2) The site plan provides for landscape and buffers in the form of a man made fence, as well as vegetative buffers adjoining the surrounding property uses particular to Marsh Oaks. The fence and the adequate buffer should provide ample buffer vegetation between the subject property and the adjoining residential land uses. 3) Vehicle access is confined to Market Street and the main entryway to Marsh Oaks subdivision, with no vehicular access to the interior portions of Marsh Oaks. Mr. Worsley stated that based upon these facts, it is his opinion the project as proposed will not adversely affect the surrounding and adjoining property uses. Per a request from Mr. Johnson, Mr. Worsley stated he is a local real estate appraiser, he holds the MAI designation from the Appraisal Institute, has been in practice approximately 30 years in Wilmington, and does a lot of this type of work. He stated as an appraiser, he can’t advocate and must be unbiased, and acknowledged he has provided his professional opinion. Jeff Ingham, a traffic engineer with Thomas & Hutton Engineering, stated he conducted the Traffic Traffic Impact Study for the proposed development. He reported the traffic impact analysis was approved by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). An independent firm was hired to take traffic counts at the Marsh Oaks and Market Street intersection and they obtained the signal timing information from the NCDOT. As part of the traffic counts, they looked at which direction people are going to go and assumed a conservative estimate that 70% of the people leaving Amberleigh Shores would turn left on Market Street leaving Marsh Oaks Drive. Mr. Ingham noted that is higher than the counts show, but they knew the left turn lane was a concern. Mr. Ingham stated their finding that with the intersection could continue to function at acceptable levels of service with the proposed development in place. The right in/right out access on Market Street would serve the sales center so the Marsh Oaks Drive access would be used by residents only. Construction traffic would use a separate entrance so there would be no construction traffic on Marsh Oaks Drive. During the community meetings, concerns were raised about the traffic queues for cars on Marsh Oaks Drive waiting to get onto Market Street. He reported a different traffic data collection firm was hired to take the traffic count again to make sure they got similar results at the intersection. The second firm counted traffic differently by setting up free standing video cameras for specific periods of time and then processing the data obtained. Mr. Ingham noted not only is there is no question about the accuracy of their counts, but there is visual documentation of what is occurring at the intersection, for example Page 7 of 17 how long the queues for the lights are on Marsh Oaks Drive, how many cars stacked up in the morning, etc. Residents were most concerned about the cars stacking in the morning so they broke it down into fifteen minute periods. Mr. Ingham reported the maximum queue during each fifteen minute period was 5-6 vehicles so assuming a 25’ span from the front of one vehicle to the front of the next vehicle, the queues were usually between 100’ to 200’. Noting the distance from Market Street to the proposed entrance of this project is approximately 400’, Mr. Ingham stated the existing queues wouldn’t reach to the point they would interfere with the new intersection. He also reported that all cars in the queue make it through within one single cycle, which is a good gauge of whether the intersection is functioning well. In the two hour period from 7am to 9am, there was only one instance where the queue didn’t clear and that was because the third car in line was distracted and didn’t proceed behind the first and second cars in line so his vehicle didn’t activate the detector in time to keep the green light on. The third car was able to make it through; however, the three cars behind him didn’t. He commented the perception was the estimate of 70% of traffic turning left wasn’t high enough, but in actuality, in both traffic counts 60% of traffic turned left and 40% turned right, but there were never any queues in the right turn lane because those people turned right on red. In general, the signal functions as it should with priority given to Market Street, not the side street. The queue on Market Street cleared every time and they expect that to continue in the future with this new development. Mr. Ingham stated that if that ever became a problem, signal timing could be adjusted. Thomas Johnson addressed concerns from the adjoining B-2 Commercial owners that rezoning this property to residential will require an increase in the buffering on their property. Previously the commissioners, in a very similar situation, have allowed the 20’ buffer provided by the developer to be sufficient and not required any additional buffering when there was a redevelopment of the adjoining property. Mr. Johnson stated they are proposing the same situation in this instance since a precedent has been set where there was a multi-family next to business. Mr. Johnson explained they are purchasing the property and requesting rezoning for it and leaving the B-2 to the original property owner so they don’t want to adversely affect their B-2 at the front of the property. He noted they are already providing the buffering for the residential behind them with their development. They would be impacted and they don’t have any objection to narrowing that buffer between the commercial in front on Market Street. Mr. Johnson concurred with staff, stating they don’t have the final letter from the MPO, so they’ve got to finalize that with the MPO and meet with the TRC as well. He finished his presentation by stating this is a high quality development and will be gated, credit checks will be done on potential residents, and they are looking for high quality residents for the development. Charlene Leister, of Marsh Oaks Drive, spoke in opposition to the request, noting she found out about the request when the sign was posted by Planning & Zoning staff. She disagreed that the company had gone to lengths to notify the neighboring residents about the project. She attended the homeowners meeting and the issue was tacked on at the end and very little information was provided. She stated her objection to the special use permit and rezoning. Susan Baehmann, of 617 Goldeneye Court in Bayshore Estates, spoke in opposition to the request, noting her property is labeled #1 on the adjacent property owners map. She brought photos of her neighborhood for the board to view. She commented her neighborhood, originally known as The Forest at Bayshore, has 21 homes with prices ranging from the high $300,000’s to Page 8 of 17 $800,000, and was the last addition to Bayshore begun 13 years ago and completed five years ago. That area of Bayshore would receive the most impact from the proposed development. Ms. Baehmann stated she had always expected this large parcel of land to the left of her lot would be developed, but expected it be developed with single family homes like the much larger subdivisions of Bayshore and Marsh Oaks that surround it. She had assumed that any additional housing built would not jeopardize the integrity of the neighborhood. Ms. Baehmann said she feels this high density, three storey, twelve building complex is completely inappropriate for their neighborhood. She expressed deep concern that the three storey structures and the vast array of lighting with a complex of this size will be visible behind their home and will lower the value of their homes, noting that is especially frightening in the current economy when values are already falling. She stated Mr. Worsley’s comments may be true for the custom homes further back in Marsh Oaks, but the three storey structures behind their homes will be visible from their back yards. The developers are promoting the complex as luxury apartments, which look beautiful in the pictures, but at the meeting when asked about the rents for the apartments, residents were told rents would range from $800 -$1,200 per month, which no one thinks are luxury apartment rates. Many neighbors have voiced concern that the apartments would be affordable for almost anyone and with 270 units to fill, they are fearful they will be filled with students, etc. She and her neighbors are also concerned about vandalism and break-ins, which apparently are a problem at the existing apartment complex off Market Street. She also expressed concern about adding a minimum of 270 vehicles to the highly congested area and stated it is just too much of a high density project to be put in that location. Ms. Baehmann finished by commenting she had hoped the property would be developed into custom homes or townhomes like Marymount. Mary Pfannenstein, of 213 Hilliard Court in the Marymount townhomes, expressed concern about the traffic pattern. She stated there are at least 61 additional lots in Marsh Oaks that have not yet been developed which will result in 3-4 more cars per lot trying to use those exits and questioned how that would affect the quality of life for all three communities that share the exits. She commented that squeezing at least 270 more vehicles into the traffic pattern is a danger and is really a disservice to the residents. She explained they got the traffic light installed at the Market Street and Marsh Oaks intersection because a death occurred there. She stated this is a safety issue, noting residents fought long and hard to get a traffic light there. She expressed appreciation for the invitation from Flournoy to attend the meeting and complimented them for trying to answer all of her questions. She also stated it would be a beautiful complex, but should be built somewhere else where it can be really made luxury. She commented she can’t imagine all the units can be filled with high quality residents in the current economy. Ms. Pfannenstein asked the board to consider the environmental issues, safety issues and security issues particularly for the residents of Marymount. Candace Conklin, of 724 Aquarius Drive in the Marymount townhomes, spoke to the issue of the traffic study. She commented she wished they had spoken to the residents because the residents have learned to use a different route to Market Street via Bayshore Drive to make a left hand turn. The traffic light at Marsh Oaks Drive was recently installed and most residents are still conditioned to exit onto Market Street through Bayshore. She said most residents will turn south on Market Street to go to work so 270 more vehicles could be travelling through Bayshore to make a left turn, which will have a tremendous impact on the left hand turn at that intersection. She commented that navigation systems take southbound traffic through Bayshore. Recently Page 9 of 17 there was a 3-car accident at that intersection and traffic was backed up for miles. She noted when travelling southbound north of the entrance to Marsh Oaks Drive, you can’t get into the suicide turn lane before Gold’s Gym because oncoming traffic also gets into that turn lane to make a left hand turn, resulting in a dangerous situation. Ms. Conklin also commented there are quite a few elderly people residing in the Marymount townhomes so traffic safety is a real concern. Jim Raney, representing his son and daughter-in-law who reside at 300 Vale Drive in Bayshore, stated they basically agree with the others who have spoken in opposition to the proposal. He expressed concern about the huge retention pond that will be dug adjacent to their property and is almost the size of their entire back yard especially because their property is in a low lying area with the black clay and an average rain takes at least a day to disappear. Mr. Raney stated water doesn’t go away quickly and he hasn’t heard the the developer address much about the drainage in that whole area, which has some wetlands on it near Market Street and some other drainage issues, as well as some other drainage ponds already behind Marymount. He noted there will be a system of 7 or 8 lakes and he isn’t sure where the water goes to, although truthfully, a lot of the water just sits there. He stated that with all that asphalt and all those homes, the water has got to go somewhere. Mr. Raney expressed concern about mosquitoes and possible neglect of the proposed drainage basin by the owner, commenting you see neglected drainage basins every day. Lois Dixon, of 404 Marsh Oaks Drive, spoke in opposition stating she has been a real estate broker for 31 years in the Wilmington area and does respect Mr. Worsley’s opinion in regard to the appraisal about the property values; however, he doesn’t have buyers driving around in his car on a one-to-one basis. She commented buyers are always concerned about the surrounding areas and what will happen to their property values and that is an even more prevalent concern today with the real estate market down. Ms. Dixon stated that such a large apartment complex will absolutely affect the property values of Marsh Oaks and the surrounding areas. She also reiterated the traffic issues expressed by others, noting each of the 270 units will probably have two cars, which means 540 cars dumped into an already congested area of Market Street regardless of which exit they use – Marsh Oaks Drive or Bayshore Drive. Ms. Dixon noted that will be a deterrent to people who are interested in property in that area and asked the board to deny the request because the complex is just too large to place on that property. Tom Johnson, of Nexsen Pruet, PLLC, stated during rebuttal that they met with the Marsh Oaks HOA board on September 20, 2010, to explain the proposed project and mailed notices to all Marsh Oaks residents above and beyond what is ordinarily required, plus the County also mailed the official notices so ample notice was provided to obtain input from the community. Mr. Johnson said in reference to the site plan, the height of the buildings would be buffered by the trees and a stormwater pond between the buildings and Bayshore, which is a lot of space -approximately 400’ through the stormwater pond, the other buffering is another 65’, and with the existing trees, it will be difficult to see much of the buildings simply because of the distance between the buildings and the residential area. Mr. Johnson commented in regard to the traffic issue, they had a traffic engineer and not only did they do specific traffic counts, but they also did the video recording traffic counts. He also noted the traffic engineer is a professional and the plan had to be reviewed by the Metropolitan Page 10 of 17 Planning Organization (MPO), which is in charge of making sure the analysis is done correctly to mitigate the project’s impact on the community in terms of traffic. He explained the MPO will require certain the developer to make traffic improvements along Market Street that would not otherwise occur. Mr. Johnson stated the installation of the traffic signal at Marsh Oaks Drive was related to additional commercial development across Market Street. He commented that development leads to additional traffic improvements that help everyone in the area. In terms of access, there will be no need to go through Bayshore because the shortest and easiest route for their residents will be via Marsh Oaks Drive. He stated they included a 3% increase in traffic as part of their analysis so the undeveloped lots in Marsh Oaks were programmed into the analysis. Mr. Johnson commented that the traffic engineer is a professional and State Statutes say that lay testimony can’t trump an expert when you come before the Planning Board. He noted the same for the appraiser, who looked specifically at the project and the buffering and compared it to other situations. He explained land use techniques show density increases as development gets closer to a major artery like Market Street and their higher density project will provide that buffering between the commercial and the residential. He commented the complex will also provide people who are interested in Marsh Oaks with the opportunity to temporarily rent in the area and later transition to a home in the community, as well as elderly relatives of Marsh Oaks residents with a place to stay nearby. Mr. Johnson asked the board to keep in mind most of the abutting property is not traditional single family residential, but townhomes in a quadraplex scenario. Tom Johnson stated in regard to environmental issues, the owner is required by law to control the stormwater and is not allowed to impact downstream owners. He commented that every time he works on a multi-family development in the area, he hears the assumption that apartment renters are bad people, but they aren’t. Mr. Johnson stated, while it isn’t an issue for the board to decide, apartment renters are good people that simply may be in a situation where they need to rent instead of buy. He again noted the proposed complex will be a gated community, which will provide additional security. Derek Matthews, a resident of 202 Hilliard Court in Marymount townhomes and the president of the homeowners association, stated the community’s opposition to the project based on the fact that 30 residences would back up to the proposed development. He commented that their community consists of a total of 89 units that sit on basically the same footprint as the proposed 270-unit complex. He said given the fact that staff has recommended approval of the proposed development, he would like the board to consider some conditions including: 1) relocation or elimination of building #10, a 2 storey unit and building #11, a 3 storey unit that will abut and encroach upon the Marymount townhomes and Marymount Drive; 2) a larger buffer between the development and the Marymount townhomes; and 3) relocation of the trash compactor. He noted you can dress up a garbage can as well as you can a trash compactor, but at the end of the day, it’s still a trash compactor that will have a lot of odors during the summer, especially servicing 270 units. He wondered if there wasn’t a better place to locate the trash compactor given the fact that there are 29 acres associated with the development and the trash compactor is currently going to encroach upon the Marymount neighborhood, the entrance to Marymount and Marsh Oaks Drive, and the commercial zone that will be developed in the future. Page 11 of 17 Mr. Matthews then presented a letter to the Planning Board from the HOA President of the neighboring patio homes, explaining she was out of the country on business, but they had met together with Jane Daughtridge prior to the meeting. Dan Mack, of 203 Bayfield Drive in Marsh Oaks, stated he purchased a home in Marsh Oaks because he liked the community and is happy where he is living, but he doesn’t understand why they are squeezing the community by putting up so many buildings. He commented he would have moved into the city if he had wanted to live near an apartment complex. Mr. Mack stated he also took a little umbrage to the gentlemen’s statement about experts, noting he appreciates the fact that they have degrees in their respective areas, but it was experts that picked out the convention center, experts who were expecting a hotel, and experts that were building the overpass that fell apart and killed somebody so being an expert doesn’t mean they know everything or do everything right. Mr. Mack commented it was a bit presumptuous on their part to think the residents would just roll over and play dead. Janet Ledford, a resident of Marsh Oaks, stated she appreciated that the developers met with their board, but also noted the person selling the property to the developers serves on the Marsh Oaks board so there is a certain bias. She explained the HOA board sent out a mass email saying they couldn’t take sides for or against the proposed development, but she feels that is wrong because the neighborhood as a whole is against it. People will go through Marsh Oaks to Bayshore whenever there is an accident and to avoid school buses in the morning and afternoon, resulting in a train of cars going through the neighborhood. Ms. Ledford noted the Tree apartments are located next to Jones Seafood and now they are planning to build these apartments, and just down from these are the Cypress luxury apartments. She explained both of the existing apartment complexes are not at capacity and both have one in/out out entrance, which seems to keep traffic flowing well. She stated that based on the map provided at the meeting, the entrance to their neighborhood’s playground, clubhouse, and parking area is located adjacent to the exit with the trash compactor. Ms. Ledford stated she is opposed to the apartment complex, but if it going to be built, they need to use one entrance/exit onto Market Street and not utilize the Marsh Oaks neighborhood as an entrance/exit. She believes it is an accident waiting to happen if someone is pulling out of the apartment complex onto Marsh Oaks Drive during the high traffic times of the day. Ms. Ledford also commented the photos of the buffering were taken during the summer, but in the winter when the leaves fall, there will be no buffering for Marymount. Chairman Collier closed the public hearing. Tamara Murphy asked if a deceleration lane on Market Street would be required by the MPO letter or if the developer would install one regardless of whether it was required. Tom Johnson stated that would be addressed in the MPO letter, the developer complied with the scoping the MPO required in the TIA and is now waiting for the decision of the MPO to find out what traffic improvements will be required. Jane Daughtridge stated the developer is being required to install a deceleration lane on Market Street and the main difference in the final MPO letter and the draft is the dimensions of what will Page 12 of 17 be required, noting there was discussion about requiring a vegetated median and working out some of the details about the median and the length of the lane may change. Melissa Gott asked about the connectivity to Marsh Oaks Drive and if it was necessary or was a requirement by the County. Tom Johnson explained the developer has to make the connection to Marsh Oaks Drive because of traffic flow and the requirements of the MPO. They have the right in/right out on Market Street, but they also have to have a location for left turn movement, which has to come through Marsh Oaks Drive where there is a traffic light. He noted it is a safety issue and the traffic clears in one cycle. Melissa Gott noted he had mentioned the Marsh Oaks entrance/exit would only be used by residents and asked if that was because it was gated with a code or remote device. Tom Johnson responded the Marsh Oaks entrance would be gated and used only by residents, who would not need a code to exit, while visitors and guests would use the main entrance. Ms. Gott asked if the current zoning along Marsh Oaks Drive was B-2. Mr. Johnson explained the lot on the corner of Market Street and Marsh Oaks Drive is zoned B-2 and there is also a strip of B-2 along Market Street at this location. Ms. Gott asked if the tract of land located behind the corner lot on Market Street and Marsh Oaks Drive was currently zoned R-15 or B-2. Jack Reel, of Thomas & Hutton, clarified that the remainder of the tract is R-15, but there is B-2 zoning along the entrance, which they are requesting be re-zoned to R-15. Ms. Gott stated that the permitted uses in the current B-2 zoning along Marsh Oaks Drive don’t seem to be in harmony with the neighborhood, noting permitted uses would include gas stations, kennels, convenience stores, mini-warehouses, etc. Tom Johnson stated that staff was looking favorably on the project because it will down zone some of the B-2 zoning near the entrance to Marsh Oaks. He asked the board to keep in mind that the Cape Fear Public Utilities well site will be located between the trash compactor and the adjacent properties and the compactor will be a sealed unit that won’t have any odor. Melissa Gott, asked why the trash compactor was located near the Marsh Oaks Drive exit, while the car wash and maintenance area were placed on the southwest portion of the property. Jack Reel, stated the feeling was that the trash compactor would be utilized the most when people were exiting the complex and since 70% of traffic exits in the morning, it would be convenient to drop the trash off. He explained they chose that location so it wouldn’t have a negative impact on Marsh Oaks Drive and noted the trash compactor would be completely Page 13 of 17 enclosed. He also pointed out the existing commercial use could generate more traffic than the proposed apartment complex. Tom Johnson commented that changing the B-2 to R-15 would add additional buffering for the adjacent neighborhood. Dan Hilla asked if any official stance was taken by the Boards of Directors of the HOAs or if the letters and comments provided were personal views. Derek Matthews stated his HOA board met on October 11, 2010 and had their largest turnout to date where members expressed an overwhelming concern against this proposed development. Mr. Matthews reported the Board of Directors voted to allow him to attend the Planning Board meeting to oppose the development. Jack Barker, a member of the HOA board for the Marymount patio homes, stated his board voted unanimously to oppose the project and present the opposition letter to the Planning Board. Dan Hilla asked staff if the property zoned R-15 adjacent to B-2 to the west near Jones Seafood would require buffering to build next to it. Jane Daughtridge stated that buffering would be required between the R-15 and B-2. Dan Hilla asked if the conditional use was approved, would the site plan presented be the final site plan or would it have to go through TRC for a final approval. Ms. Daughtridge stated the project would have to go through TRC for a final approval, but normally plans go through TRC first so that any major changes are made before the project comes before the Planning Board because once the site plan is approved, it is final. If substantial changes needed to be made, the developer would have to go through the full process again to modify the site plan. Dan Hilla asked if the conditional use was site specific and if it would move with the ownership of the property. Ms. Daughtridge confirmed the conditional use is site specific and would move with the ownership of the property if it was sold. Dan Hilla, asked traffic engineer Jeff Ingham if the traffic impact analysis update would take into account the 270 units in the the project since the Marsh Oaks Drive queue was done using existing conditions. Jeff Ingham stated the video taken was of existing conditions, but the traffic impact study looked at existing conditions and also at the future conditions with the proposed apartments. The modeling added the traffic from the proposed apartments and predicted the queue in the future. Mr. Ingham reported future modeling indicated the queue would continue to clear after the apartments were built, which basically confirmed their original conclusions. Page 14 of 17 Jack Reel explained the TIA would not be revised, explaining the situation was drive by how and where the traffic counts were taken and the public input during the neighborhood meetings, which indicated residents didn’t feel the information was accurate. They felt it was important to go out and recheck the traffic count to gather additional support information to substantiate what was seen in the original count. He stated it was very consistent, which confirmed about 60% of the cars turn left leaving March Oaks Drive so their assumption that 70% of cars turn left was conservative so they felt more comfortable after the second exercise. They don’t intend to revise the traffic study because the counts were the same as the original data used to prepare the study. He commented the letter was forthcoming from the MPO and any adjustments would be worked out with the TRC based on the improvements they feel are warranted by the project’s impact. Chairman Collier commented that interconnectivity works based on the input from the residents that they travel through another neighborhood when it is congested on the main roadway so he expressed pride that the board’s efforts to maintain interconnectivity do work. He stated the Market Street Corridor improvements will also be good for the area. Chairman Collier noted a portion of the property is classified as Watershed Resource Protection and asked if that put the entire project into the 25% impervious regulation or just the area that is affected. Chris O’Keefe stated the regulation would only apply to the affected area, not the entire project. Chris O’Keefe, in response to a question from Richard Collier, stated the developer did not seek credits for exceptional design so density was determined by the high density requirements in the zoning ordinance. Jane Daughtridge offered a clarification in regard to the residual buffering requirements that would be imposed on the remainder B-2 districts and the suggestion that the 20’ buffer being put into place by this developer would be adequate for future development on that property. She stated the ordinance only gives the authority for variances from standards in the ordinance to the Board of Adjustment and she would not encourage the Planning Board to incorporate that into their recommendation because it does exceed the authority granted by the ordinance. She noted the County Commissioners, as an elected body, did do that in a 2004 case. Tom Johnson, stated only they would be impacted by that and they are comfortable the buffering they are providing from the commercial is sufficient for their project. He noted that the 2004 case was a similar situation with apartments next to a B-2 district. Chris O’Keefe, clarified that the rezoning would impact the current owners of the B-2 properties and they would be required to provide that buffering when they develop their property. The Commissioners, in 2004, relieved those property owners of that clause in the ordinance. Chairman Collier requested more information regarding the the lighting for the project, which was an issue brought up during the public hearing. Page 15 of 17 Jane Daughtridge stated the ordinance requires that all lights shall be shielded in such a manner that light from the fixture will not directly radiate into the buffer strip or beyond. Jack Reel stated he wasn’t sure of the height of the light poles for the project, but they will meet the requirement cited by Ms. Daughtridge. Chairman Collier asked about stormwater management. Jack Reel stated the original site plan was changed due to input from the residents because the buffer behind Marymount was overlapping with a drainage easement, which should have been separated. He explained the modified site plan was in the board’s package and reflects the wider buffer, with an estimated 55’ of vegetative cover between the Marymount townhomes and the proposed project. He pointed out an upstream drainage basin of fairly significant size drains under Market Street and meanders through the jurisdictional wetland and goes through a quite substantial ditch that ties into an overall ditch system travelling behind a pond, across a road in a series of 36” pipe lengths and then fairly unencumbered through a very large wetland ditch system, crosses one more time across Bayshore Drive in a 60” pipe and out unencumbered into the tributary to Pages Creek and ultimately to the waterway. Mr. Reel noted they will be required to size the pipe to accommodate the buildout of the zoning that exists, including the undeveloped properties upstream, and their evaluation by TRC will include evaluation of those two pipe crossings downstream from the project. He stated the rest of the project will utilize traditional stormwater techniques with ponds. Chairman Collier asked if the gate to Marsh Oaks Drive could truly become a controlled exit used only by residents with a code or device instead of motion activated. Ryan Foster explained the gate system, which has a call box for guests, noting potential residents visiting the property can never access the Marsh Oaks Drive entrance/exit. Chairman Collier asked if another right in/right right out exit near Jones Seafood was ever considered. Mr. Reel explained that was considered but would create a safety issue due to two other driveways nearby. Jane Daughtridge stated Fire Services has previewed the project plan and will review in depth when the project goes to the TRC. Lois Dixon reiterated her concern about the traffic flow, noting she couldn’t understand how the 520 cars from the complex would not have an impact on the traffic on Marsh Oaks Drive. Chairman Collier explained if the property was developed with its current zoning, it would result in as much or more traffic than this complex and would be required to tie into Marsh Oaks Drive. Melissa Gott made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-908 based on consistency with the County’s Land Use Plan. Tamara Murphy seconded the motion. Page 16 of 17 Dan Hilla asked if staff was recommending any conditions that should be included in the motion. Jane Daughtridge stated staff offered no conditions other than to follow the requirements of the traffic impact analysis final approval and the TRC. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Rezoning Request Z-908 based on consistency with the County’s Land Use Plan. Melissa Gott made a motion to recommend approval of the special use permit for Z-908 based on consistency with the ordinance and the CAMA Land Use Plan. Troy Barboza seconded the motion. Dan Hilla asked if any conditions should be included in the motion. Chris O’Keefe suggested it would be appropriate to include the recommendations of the MPO final approval letter and the TRC. Melissa Gott amended the motion to recommend approval of the special use permit for Z-908 based upon consistency with the ordinance and the CAMA Land Use Plan with the recommendations of the TRC and the MPO approval letter. Troy Barboza seconded the amended motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the special use permit for Rezoning Request Z-908. Technical Review Committee Report (October) Chairman Collier reported the TRC did not meet during the month of October. Chairman Collier reported the Planning Board needed to discuss the Market Street Corridor Plan prior to making a recommendation to the County Commissioners to adopt the Market Street Corridor Plan. Chris O’Keefe suggested the board could recommend the adoption of the plan and then later recommend approval of the model ordinance on a future date, noting the model ordinance would require some lengthy discussion. Chairman Collier stated he would prefer the model ordinance to be reviewed by the County Attorney’s office prior to the board’s consideration. Ms. Daughtridge stated if the board was comfortable with the study, they could address it at the December meeting without a work session, noting there would be one other item on the agenda. The Planning Board agreed to discuss the Market Street Corridor Plan study at the December meeting instead of holding a separate work session. Page 17 of 17 Richard Collier and Melissa Gott agreed that one of them will attend the November 15, 2010 County Commissioners meeting to represent the Planning Board in lieu of Ken Wrangell, who recently resigned from the board. Jane Daughtridge notified board members that a neighborhood meeting will be held to review the Porters Neck Neighborhood Plan, which was originally done in 1989, on November 10, 2010 from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at Plantation Village. Long Range Planning staff will review the goals and recommendations for that plan and update the community on the progress made. Ms. Daughtridge also informed board members that zoning enforcement staff are conducting an online survey on signs and sign regulations. She noted the survey is accessible from the Planning and Zoning webpage on the New Hanover County website. Chris O’Keefe encouraged everyone to visit the Planning & Inspections Department website for information on planning related issues. Chairman Collier adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. ______________________________________ Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director