Loading...
09-2010 September 2 2010 PBM Page 1 of 17 Minutes New Hanover County Planning Board September 2, 2010 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, September 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, Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director Troy Barboza Jane Daughtridge, Planning & Zoning Manager Melissa Gott Sam Burgess, Subdivision Planner Andy Heath, Vice Chairman Nicole Dreibelbis, Planner Tara Murphy Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Ken Wrangell Absent: Tamara Murphy Richard Collier opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of the June and August Planning Board Meeting Minutes Melissa Gott made a motion to approve the June Planning Board meeting minutes. Andy Heath seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 3-0 to approve the June minutes. Andy Heath made a motion to approve the August Planning Board meeting minutes. Tara Murphy seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to approve the August minutes. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-905, 9/10) – Request by Tripp Engineering Firm for Ronald Hughes to rezone 0.31 acres at 110 Horne Place Drive from R-20 Residential District to O&I Commercial District. The site is classified as Transition 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 reported the 2007 level of service for Castle Hayne Road is E, meaning the road is operating at capacity; however, slightly past North Kerr Avenue, the level of service transitions to F, meaning traffic counts exceed the roadway capacity by a multiplier of 2 or more. She pointed out the zoning map indicates a variety of zoning districts, including Office & Institutional immediately east of the property and Commercial south along Castle Hayne Road. An existing structure is located on the property, which is currently zoned R-20. Ms. Dreibelbis Page 2 of 17 provided various photos of the property, which illustrated the close proximity between the R-20 and the AutoZone building in the Commercial district facing Castle Hayne Road. The Food Lion Shopping Center could be seen to the south across the rear fence. The AutoZone on Castle Hayne Road was also visible from the rear of the property. Ms. Dreibelbis then showed photos of the adjacent Office and Institutional-zoned property facing Castle Hayne Road, which is also owned by Ronald Hughes. She noted the blend of existing R-20 and Office & Institutional zoning on the northern side of Horne Place Drive. Jane Daughtridge stated the purpose of the Office & Institutional district is to provide areas that are more or less protected for lower intensity, non-commercial activities like offices or other types of institutional uses, for example schools. A comparison list of uses allowed in the current R-20 zoning and the uses that would be allowed if the zoning were changed to Office & Institutional was provided in the Planning Board package. Those uses are relatively lower impact office and professional office types of situations. The County has also traditionally used the Office & Institutional district as a transitional zone between higher intensity commercial uses and residential uses. It is the consensus of staff that all of those purposes are well served in this circumstance. She explained since the same applicant owns the properties at the front of this location, changing this particular lot to O&I would, in fact, deepen his lot, making it more usable for new projects to take over that area, and help provide enough depth to create the required buffers for new development adjacent to the Residential district. Ms. Daughtridge stated staff recommends approval of the project and believes it is consistent with the Land Use Plan and is not against the public’s interest. She reported staff had received two phone inquiries about the proposed rezoning. Property owner #1 on the Adjacent Property Map expressed concern about the rezoning, but didn’t provide any details about his concerns. He was unable to attend the meeting due to another obligation. One other neighborhood resident called to obtain additional information about the item, but didn’t express an opinion. Phil Tripp, of Tripp Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant, Ronald Hughes. He acknowledged Mr. Hughes was also present. Mr. Tripp commented that a shopping center is located to the south and O&I to the north of this property, noting Mr. Hughes owns the two lots directly in front on Castle Hayne Road to the east, which are both 150’ in depth. The required building setback doesn’t leave room to develop those properties significantly. Mr. Tripp explained that rezoning the third piece of property would provide additional space to buffer the two lots that front Castle Hayne Road, making them more buildable. He stated their willingness to address any comments or questions from the board. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Chairman Collier closed the public hearing. Melissa Gott asked if the two existing O&I lots were currently being used for commercial purposes. Mr. Tripp replied that the other properties were not being used for commercial purposes, in fact, one lot is vacant and the other lot currently has a home on it. Page 3 of 17 Mr. Heath, noting Mr. Tripp had indicated rezoning would allow the lots to be deeper, asked if the owner’s true intention was to combine that parcel with the other two parcels. Mr. Tripp stated the three lots would be combined into one parcel. He also added that the owner currently has a permit to demolish the house currently located on one of the lots. Ms. Murphy questioned staff about the buffer that would be required between lot #1 and the piece of property to be rezoned. Ms. Daughtridge explained the buffer would be dependent upon the site plan. For example, the buffer for a building would be determined by a multiplier based on the height of the proposed structure, and a parking lot would require a 20’ buffer. Chairman Collier asked if the Boyd family, Property Owner #1, supported or opposed the proposed rezoning request, noting it appeared they may have some concerns. He asked Mr. Tripp if the applicant had held any discussions with the Boyd family. Mr. Tripp stated Mr. Hughes had relayed to him that Mr. Boyd had expressed interest in selling his property during a recent phone call, but no date had been set for further discussions. In response to a question from Chairman Collier, Ms. Daughtridge stated Mr. Boyd had provided no details about his concerns. She noted she had encouraged him to contact the board with his specific concerns or provide a letter stating those concerns that she could forward to board members. When Mr. Boyd stated he would be out of town on the meeting date, she had informed him that if the rezoning moved forward from the Planning Board, he would have the opportunity to address the County Commissioners with his concerns. Melissa Gott made a motion to recommend rezoning of Z-905 -.31 acres from R-20 Residential District to O&I Commercial District. Troy Barboza seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the motion to rezone Case Z-905 from R-20 Residential District to O&I Commercial District. Item 2: Land Use Plan Amendment (LUP-13, 6/10) – Request by David Ward to amend the definition of “marina” as defined in Appendix A: Definitions of the 2006 Wilmington-New Hanover County CAMA Plan to be consistent with the county’s zoning definition. Jane Daughtridge provided a brief history of the amendment request, reminding board members Mr. Ward had presented a proposal at a prior meeting that recommended changing the current definition in the Land Use Plan to reflect the definition used in the County’s Zoning Ordinance. During that discussion, members of the public and several board members had expressed concern about the long term ramifications of that change and whether there had been appropriate stakeholder discussions about that issue and exploration of the potential impacts. She explained the Planning Board had recommended not advancing that particular proposal and the applicant had the option to take the proposal on to the Commissioners. Mr. Ward chose not to put the proposal on the Commissioners agenda in order to allow staff the opportunity to hold a Page 4 of 17 stakeholder meeting to explore the issues after which he would make his decision about proceeding with the amendment request. Ms. Daughtridge reported a stakeholder meeting was held and most of the participants were marina owners or managers. A large number of those present were NC DENR staff members who perform reviews of marinas as they go through the CAMA permitting process. They were asked to describe how their reviews of major CAMA permits would change if the LUP definition of marina were changed. She commented County staff came out of the meeting without a clear picture of the overall long term ramifications of the change. She noted staff was in agreement that the time of this amendment may not be exactly right. Ms. Daughtridge stated staff strongly supports the notion of protecting our shellfish, our shellfish waters and our Primary Nursery Areas and our productive resources, but there will be a CAMA Land Use Plan update probably beginning in 18 months that will provide a much broader opportunity for discussion and public input on this and many other issues related to resources. She explained that staff is still very unclear about whether the definition change is a great idea or not. That said, Ms. Daughtridge advised board members that Mr. Ward still wished to offer an amendment and has changed the amendment language that he originally offered. Ms. Daughtridge presented the amended language for the proposed LUP amendment, which changes the existing definition of marina to include dry storage facilities constructed to accommodate more than 50 boats. Ms. Daughtridge explained the capture of dry storage facilities would impact the policy suggesting marinas should not be allowed in Primary Nursery Areas, Outstanding Resource Waters or open Shellfishing Waters. A facility that we classify as a marina would not receive a CAMA permit if it met the definition of a marina in the Land Use Plan. Therefore, if this language is added, a dry storage marina facility with more than 50 boats, even if it didn’t have more than 10 wet slips, would not be able to receive a CAMA permit if it was located in an area with Shellfishing Waters, Primary Nursery Areas, or Outstanding Resource Waters. Ms. Daughtridge presented a map reflecting the Primary Nursery Areas and pointed out that most of New Hanover County falls into that category. She stated marinas are a challenge under any definition because the policy remains the same that no new marinas are allowed in those Primary Nursery Areas. David Ward spoke in support of the proposed Land Use Plan amendment, stating he had spoken with representatives from the states of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida and none of those states allow dry storage marinas in a Primary Nursery Area and all of those states consider dry storage facilities as marinas in their permitting process. He noted North Carolina is the only state on the lower eastern seaboard that does not consider dry storage facilities as marinas. He expressed his belief that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will result in the need for the eastern seaboard to fill the void for seafood. Mr. Ward stated the intent of changing the LUP definition was not to stop the development of dry storage marinas because he recognizes New Hanover County will need marinas as it continues to grow. He affirmed that his intent was to protect the County’s resource waters. Mr. Page 5 of 17 Ward expressed belief that everyone involved in the meetings agrees that shellfishing should be protected. Mr. Ward explained the proposed change would affect only dry storage facilities that accommodate more than 50 boats that would be built in a Primary Nursery Area, requiring them to be considered as marinas as they go through the CAMA permit process. The change would not prohibit such facilities from being built, but would provide extra protection by requiring CAMA to perform a more thorough review to ensure that the facility could be developed without harming the resources in the proposed location. Mr. Ward acknowledged that approximately 90% of the Primary Nursery Areas shown on the map provided by Ms. Daughtridge are residential areas. He stated that most likely anything built in a PNA in New Hanover County will be in a residential neighborhood. He commented that he wasn’t saying a dry storage facility can’t fit into a residential neighborhood, but this change would give those residential neighborhoods more protection for the existing resources they have always enjoyed. He noted that living on the waterfront his entire life and seeing significant changes over the years, he has learned how valuable the resources are in this area. David Ward confirmed his belief that this change would not prevent marinas from being built, but would only provide an extra measure of protection for our local shellfish, noting the State of North Carolina would still have the final decision of approving marinas. He reiterated the County would consider a dry storage facility as a marina only if it has more than 50 boats, which he believes is a reasonable size for a facility. When a dry storage facility has more than 50 boats and is going to be located in an open shellfish area, the State of North Carolina will then have the opportunity to decide if it will work in a particular area. Mr. Ward then reminded board members that the Pender County Land Use Plan defines a marina as 5 boats, which is stricter than New Hanover County’s Land Use Plan that defines a marina as more than 10 boats. He also commented that Brunswick County’s Land Use Plan actually states that as long as a marina is developed with their Zoning Ordinance, then it matches the Land Use Plan. Finally, Mr. Ward stated the board and commissioners have a chance to make an impact that may spread to other areas in the state. He again emphasized it is not his desire to stop development because New Hanover County needs jobs; he simply feels that New Hanover County should be proactive and make a change that will improve the future of the County. Ken Shanklin, of Shanklin and Nichols, stated he represents Mr. Tim Ward, owner of Carolina Marina and Yacht Club. Mr. Shanklin spoke in opposition to the amendment, commenting this is the eighth day his firm has represented Mr. Ward during three types of hearings involving that marina. Those hearings included a Board of Adjustments hearing last Thursday regarding an appeal by Mr. David Ward about an administrative map change and a hearing on Monday before the Court of Appeals regarding an appeal of Judge Locklear’s decision last August giving Tim Ward the right to build a dry stack storage facility. Mr. Shanklin stated he had the privilege of serving on the Planning Board in the 90’s and had the honor of helping draft the New Hanover County CAMA Land Use Plan. He noted this was a Page 6 of 17 part of the process of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan Update and another update will be taking place soon. Mr. Shanklin stated there are unintended consequences when you tinker with definitions. He commented the map presented earlier by Ms. Daughtridge reflects that a large portion of the county is Primary Nursery Area or Outstanding Resources and the County has control of the majority of the waters in the county, not Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach, or the City of Wilmington. He explained the City of Wilmington annexed in 1995, which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 1999, down to the mean high water. He provided the example of requesting a permit for a boat in the water with a pier on Shandy Lane. The City of Wilmington would regulate the high ground and New Hanover County would regulate the low ground and the water. Mr. Shanklin offered his opinion that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow Mr. David Ward the opportunity to oppose the CAMA permit or any kind of CAMA permit requested by Tim Ward before the CRC and Division of Coastal Management. He explained that when a Part 4 permit is requested under CAMA, which is NCGS 113A-100, you must have consistency of that permit with the CAMA Land Use Plan. If your intent is to get a project out of consistency, this would be a good way to defeat it. Mr. Shanklin stated this proposed text amendment is simply another vehicle for David Ward to oppose Tim Ward’s project. Mr Shanklin noted the letter in the Planning Board packet dated August 2, 2010, from David Ward to Jane Daughtridge that stated, “It seems to be a good balance and it would not hurt any existing marinas that would like to expand in the future”. He commented that is an incorrect statement because an existing marina trying to expand by adding dry stack or anything else that met the CAMA qualifications of a marina may not be able to meet the consistency requirement that would be reviewed by Doug Huggett of DCM if the definition were changed. In conclusion, Mr. Shanklin Shanklin asked the board to oppose the amendment and adopt the Planning staff’s recommendation to not recommend this change because it would accomplish too much and give Mr. Ward another vehicle to get his client in court again. He reiterated how many times he had appeared before the Planning Board, the Superior Court, the Board of Adjustments and the Court of Appeals on behalf of Tim Ward regarding this marina, estimating he had appeared 20-30 times. Tim Ward, owner of Carolina Marina & Yacht Club, also spoke in opposition to the amendment, stating he also attended the stakeholders meeting. He commented it was unfortunate that he none of the other stakeholders were in attendance, but noted it was rather difficult for marina operators to attend due to the inclement weather. He reported the persistent perspective of the stakeholders at the meeting was that currently there aren’t many requests for additional marinas and dry stack storage facilities in New Hanover County. He stated he also believes most people people who live and work in New Hanover County want to see our resources protected. He stated in his opinion it was apparent that the only reason the amendment was being presented was to benefit Mr. David Ward, who is in opposition to the Carolina Marina & Yacht Club project. He stated they would continue to fight those battles, but it the amendment was not in the best interest of New Hanover County residents. He pointed out the process for an amendment is quite involved and if approved by the County Commissioners, would require staff to travel to attend the Coastal Resources Commission meeting. Mr. Ward expressed his opinion that would not be a proper use Page 7 of 17 of taxpayer funds during the current economic times. Mr. Ward also stated concern about how the proposed amendment would affect dry storage facilities with more than 50 boats that are not located on the water. He commented the proposed amendment doesn’t state that the facility has to be on the water, it simply addresses dry storage facilities with more than 50 boats. He questioned if such as facility would then be considered a marina and require a CAMA permit even though it wasn’t located on the water. Tim Ward acknowledged he was currently going through the existing CAMA process for a major permit modification for a 200 vessel dry stack storage facility, which is in a Primary Nursery Area, although he has had a permit for nearly four years. He assured the board that all the technical aspects David Ward is seeking in the review process are already in place. Mr. Ward informed the board that dry stack storage facilities are the most environmentally friendly type of marinas. He explained that statistics prove that a 200 vessel dry stack facility would typically have no more than 50 boats in and out of the water on a given day, which is equivalent to a boat ramp facility with 50 parking spaces. In addition, dry stack storage has more control of the equipment being used. A marina forklift, maintained to specific standards with trained staff to operate it, is used to put boats in and out of the water eliminating boat trailers with axle grease and resulting in the least environmental impact possible. On a final note, Tim Ward stated current processes are already in place to protect resources and the County will be going through the CAMA Land Use Plan review process in the next year with additional amendments that may need to be made to the Land Use Plan. He expressed hope that the Planning Board would recommend not letting the amendment go through for approval at this time. Mr. Ward stated that would provide the opportunity to evaluate the impacts of this change and correct the language to read clearly and accomplish what is should. David Ward offered a rebuttal, stating he didn’t realize the change would have any effect on Mr. Tim Ward’s project; in fact, it was his understanding in speaking with CAMA representatives that it would have no effect on that project because it was already in the CAMA review process. He stated his only concern was to protect the shellfish. He restated that eight other states on the eastern seaboard consider dry storage facilities as marinas and require them to go through the same permitting process. He commented that New Hanover County has the chance to do something now to protect its shellfish and noted the proposed definition change is not as strict as the definition used by other states. He noted it had been a long journey for his neighborhood and family, but this is about protecting the shellfish. He reiterated his understanding that the change wouldn’t affect Tim Ward’s marina project. He again asked the Planning Board to think about the future, noting the proposed amendment would only affect future dry stack marinas of over 50 boats. He commented that in the future, there will probably only be dry stack storage facilities. He asked the board to protect the County’s resources for the benefit of all residents. Ken Shanklin restated that if a project doesn’t meet the consistency requirement, it will not be issued a permit. Tim Ward’s project will be intensely scrutinized and reviewed whether it has one wet slip, ten wet slips, or a dry stack facility. He again commented that the amendment would provide David Ward with another tool to oppose Tim Ward’s project. Chairman Collier closed the public hearing. Page 8 of 17 Andy Heath asked staff to describe a situation of a dry stack facility that put boats in and out of the water that would not be classified as a marina or would not be captured without the proposed language change. Jane Daughtridge explained the current definition of marina applies only if there are more than ten wet slips. If there are less than ten wet slips, along with a 200-vessel dry stack, the facility would not be classified as a marina; therefore, CAMA would not withhold a consistency statement because the policy regarding no new marinas in those areas would not apply. In response to a question from Andy Heath, Ms. Daughtridge explained the current definition says, “a dock, basin, or wet storage facility constructed to accommodate more than ten boats” so without more than ten wet slips, it wouldn’t be restricted by the policy that says no new marinas in PNA’s, Shellfishing Areas, or ORW’s. Tara Murphy asked Ms. Daughtridge if the Land Use Plan definition was currently the same as with CAMA. Ms. Daughtridge explained the current LUP definition is slightly different than CAMA. More than ten wet slips is the consistent thread with CAMA’s definition. The County’s definition does vary slightly because the County gives an exemption to Community Boating Facilities and Boat Ramps. She noted there is a lot of variation between our Zoning Ordinance definition and some variation between the Land Use Plan and the CAMA definition. Ken Wrangell asked how often the Land Use Plan was reviewed. Ms. Daughtridge stated the Land Use Plan Update is supposed to take place every six years, although a major process is not required if there have been no major changes or if no major changes are needed. She reported there hasn’t been any local funding for an LUP Update, but typically the State of North Carolina provides some grant funding although the schedule for funding has been delayed. Melissa Gott stated it appeared that from the stakeholder meeting that was held, regardless of what language we put or don’t put in our CAMA Land Use Plan, the state agencies are still going to send us through the same rigorous review process based on their stringent rules and regulations. She asked if that was a valid observation. Jane Daughtridge stated that is accurate true for all the agencies other than CAMA. Coastal Management has an obligation not to issue a CAMA permit for a project that is not consistent with the County’s CAMA Land Use Plan so they would be the final decision maker. When they receive a CAMA major permit application, they route it to all of those resource agencies that comment on it. Those agencies will review the application under their rules and provide their feedback. For example, shellfish sanitation noted that when they count slips, it doesn’t have to be just the one project, it is whatever is within that distances proximity. When those reviews are complete, the permit is reviewed by CAMA, which must be able to make a positive consistency statement in order to issue the CAMA permit. Page 9 of 17 Ms. Gott commented that Mr. Shanklin had alluded to the importance of the consistency statement earlier. Chairman Collier asked about the likelihood of a CAMA update within the next two years. Ms. Daughtridge stated Mr. O’Keefe was optimistic the CAMA update would occur during that time frame and staff certainly wants to accomplish that within the next two years. The County may be able to begin the process within the next eighteen months even without receipt of any grant funds. Chris O’Keefe stated CAMA typically makes that funding available in six year cycles, but funding has been uncertain lately so the current plan is to move forward with an update of the CAMA plan within eighteen months. Staff will seek alternate funding. Chairman Collier stated his opinion that the change may seem easy on the surface, but many people need to be involved in the definition change and a lot of discussion needs to occur to determine if this is the right thing to do. For example, the number of vessels seems arbitrary. He explained he would more comfortable supporting the motion after it has gone through the vetting process that will happen during the CAMA plan update. After which, the whole plan can be sent forward and adopted as one plan. Mr. Collier recommended the board wait and move forward with an amendment as part of the normal Land Use Plan Update, noting he feels it is better to review the plan on a routine basis. Melissa Gott made a motion to deny Land Use Plan amendment LUP-13. Ken Wrangell seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to deny Land Use Plan Amendment LUP-13. Item 3: Rezoning Request Modification (Z-880M, 9/10) – Request by Thomas Nuzio for River Bluffs Development Corporation to modify the master plan for an existing PD Planned Development by rezoning 92.9 acres located at the west end of Chair Road in the Wetland Resource Protection, Natural Heritage Resource Protection, and Aquifer Resource Protection Land Classifications from R-20 Residential to PD Planned Development District for for a continuing care retirement community. 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. Nicole Dreibelbis stated this proposal is a modification of a prior approved Planned District and is located in the northwest portion of the County’s jurisdiction in an area classified as Wetland & Aquifer Resource Protection. The amendment includes the addition of approximately 92 acres that is split into two portions that would be added to the previously approved 237 acres. The property is accessed off Chair Road located on the western side of Castle Hayne Road by about one mile. The 2007 level of service for Castle Hayne Road is E, meaning that the roadway is functioning at capacity. The zoning map indicates predominantly R-20 in the area with the exception of the GE plant being located in the I-2 district and the previously approved Planned Page 10 of 17 District. Ms. Dreibelbis presented the proposed master plan for the project, noting that all of Tract A was previously approved and the applicant was proposing additional residential, both single and multi-family units, in Tracts C, E, & F. An additional recreation area is proposed for Tract B and a nursing facility has been added in Tract D. Jane Daughtridge provided the staff comments, stating the main pieces of this puzzle were that the nursing facility which was originally included in that vicinity as part of the continuing care piece with the assisted living and independent living units is proposed to be relocated to this additional acreage. She pointed out the sections that were part of the first approval of the PD, noting there was originally going to be a country store in that location and the location of some storage units in another location. Because the applicant is reconfiguring their thoughts on that, that is included in the area that is highlighted on the map. Ms. Daughtridge noted staff had several comments at the end of the write-up. They had reviewed the proposal as they always do in relation to the requirements for a PD in the plan and there were a few things we didn’t find within what had been submitted. Those items were communicated back to the applicant and the list of those things was there. One of things on the list was a discussion about fees that are payable to the County in relation to Planned Developments. One set of fees is required for Fire Services. There is also a provision that says you either dedicate land for a school based on size of your project and the number of units or if you choose you can provide a fee in lieu of that dedication. Some board members have heard about recent cases at the Court of Appeals in Cary and Union County that have challenged some types of impact fees in those locations. She stated our position at this time is simply that it is a requirement within our ordinance and we would anticipate that would remain a requirement until such time as as is shown not to be valid. We do anticipate that will happen, but we think that will all be handled later in the process if this is approved as the final plans come through rather than this concept plan at this point. Staff has also asked the applicant to clarify their ideas about a restaurant and perhaps a bed and breakfast in an amenity center. Those are aspects of the proposal that we don’t object to, but the standards in the ordinance would require whatever square footage that was attached to that to be reduced from the acreage that density was calculated on for example. Therefore, staff has asked for clarification on that and we think that would be fairly minor, but something that needed clarification. The tree survey or inventory we requested was actually included in the proposal, but was so small that staff couldn’t identify the writing on it. Ms. Daughtridge stated in general the staff supports the modification for several reasons. First, it maintains a 2.5 unit per acre density across the entire PD, which would be a requirement since it is located in a Resource Protection area. The required Continuing Care component has been maintained because it was one of the requirements in order to allow them to be this far down a road and not on a principal arterial. Most importantly, the addition of the property to the south creates connectivity into Rock Hill Road, which allows for a flow of traffic movement that is not there now and at this point it would just be collecting traffic. Creating that connectivity is a very positive aspect of this proposal. Although it is not listed in the staff summary, staff feels the provision of water and sewer services being brought into the area, which is a very large hurdle they will have to rise to, is a very positive aspect for this development. They will be adding this acreage, adding 229 residential units to the 553 units for a total of 780 units altogether on 313 Page 11 of 17 acres. This is a very large project, but potentially a very positive project. The three things staff would like the Planning Board to consider as conditions moving forward from here are: 1) the collector street would remain unobstructed by gates and remain public. (Those assurances were given to the neighbors during the public meetings). 2) The updated master plan with the missing components must be provided by the September 20, 2010 deadline for commissioner packets. 3) An approval letter for the amended Traffic Impact Analysis that meets the DOT and MPO scoping requirements must be submitted at least a week prior to the County Commissioners’ public hearing. Michael Cole of ColeJenest & Stone, the planners on the project, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He introduced other members of the project staff, including Burrows Smith, who represents the owner and Donna Ray Mitchell, manager of the ColeJenest & Stone Wilmington Office; Rynal Stephenson with Ramey Kemp, who will answer traffic questions; John Tunstall, civil engineer with Norris, Kuske & Tunstall. He noted there are also a number of people on the team who were not present, including environmental staff, surveyors, and a historian because of the significance of the site, which includes the Davis family cemetery that is being documented and restored. Mr. Cole provided a PowerPoint presentation, which included background information and photographs of the vision of the project. He noted this is a spectacular land planner’s dream project. They were able to work closely with the Riverkeeper, who gave them a fun ride from the river, during which they took some great photos of the site. He provided photos from the amenity area of the property, looking north. He stated their vision is to create an environmentally sensitive, walkable, pedestrian-oriented neighborhood where the different housing types are linked together with a lot of open space. The PD allows them to do some things they couldn’t otherwise do, most importantly, there isn’t really really a vehicle in the County zoning ordinance that allows them to do mixed use so we have some limited amount of commercial nestled into the project. Obviously, the Cape Fear River is what they are most interested in, but there are some cultural and historic uniqueness about the property because of what it has been in the past. Mr. Cole stated Burrows Smith had done a phenomenal job of saving trees and preserving the property. He noted that generally in this part of the country, the topo is flat, but they have a 25’-30’ bluff on this property, which is very, very unusual that we want to preserve along with the heritage trees. There are some magnificent cypress trees in an old quarry area that runs into the property that will be saved. Many of them will be incorporated into the project. They have worked really hard to enhance the historic features. There is a cemetery on the site and as a history buff; he has drooled over some of the background information there. The cemetery will become a significant feature of the project. The cemetery will be incorporated into a park and open space where they can provide some signage and interpretive pieces. Mr. Smith was a grading contractor before becoming a developer and understands the land more than most clients. He has worked closely with John Tunstall, who is very detail oriented and they have worked hard on designing a low impact development to deal with storm water drainage and we are very proud of that. He believes it will be evident in the development. There will be wide variety of housing types that will develop a strong sense of place early in the project. We travelled to a lot of different developments to understand some precedents locally and far away. Mr. Smith has been to Ion and a number of other places to pick up on things he felt were important. There is already an architectural standards and controls Page 12 of 17 mechanism in the original zoning that will be expanded. They think that having the CCRC in their development even though we are separating the medical facility and the nursing component from the neighborhood part right now, and having seniors in the development is really important and will add to the diversity of the project. They moved the store concept from the other side of the interstate into the development so that it’s a little more like some of the other developments you might see like Old Field and some of the other along the South Carolina coast where they’ve actually brought a commercial component in to help with traffic and keep people in the development, creating a sense of community. They do have amenities, not just a club, but open space, a lot of nice landscaping, muti-use paths and common areas that will make a big difference. He provided another overview of the project master plan as shown by Nicole and Jane, noting one of the additional tracts will be open space and Tract D will be a nursing home. This is a six phase development and the nursing/medical facility will be in the last phase of the project. Tracts C and E are an amenity auxiliary area for storage that will not be open to the public, but will be strictly for the residents of the neighborhood only and will be set up so that you can lease a land slip or purchase a land slip in Tract C, which is about 12 acres. The store component has been moved to Tract B and Tract E is future residential. He provided a diagram of the plan for the board’s review, pointing out the recreation areas, the cemetery, a concept area for cottages for visitors that will complement the B&B component the club, and a wetlands feature with a spring and creek, which was a quarry many years ago. The wetlands area will be a transition between some single family on the north side and a different type of single family on the south side. The dramatic topography was shown in a photo taken from the Riverkeeper’s boat. Mr. Cole noted they have really enjoyed enjoyed working on this project and feel it will be a spectacular addition to the County. He commented they are only adding about 55 units for these 90+ acres being added, since they are allowed by right to do 1.9 units per acre and they’re going to 2.5 units per acre. He commented about the importance of bringing water and sewer to the area, which is not slated to get those utilities until 2023. No one spoke in opposition to the item. Chairman Collier closed the public hearing. Tara Murphy stated her observation that some of the participants in the community meeting were interested in having access to the open space areas and to the water. She then asked Mr. Cole if the community would have access to the multi-use paths or to the water. Mr. Cole commented there may have been some miscommunication about community access to the multi-use paths and the water, noting they need some flexibility on the issue of gates for the community based on the real estate market. He stated it was not their intention to gate the community, but reiterated the need for flexibility if there was a market demand or need for a gated community. Mr. Cole explained he could not state absolutely they won’t have any gates; however, if they don’t have gates, the development would be open to the community to visit the restaurant, store, and the water. He again expressed concern about not having the ability to install gates if it became necessary to make the property more marketable in the future. Tara Murphy asked the developer if the community would still have pedestrian access for the multi-use paths if gates were installed in the future. Page 13 of 17 Burrows Smith, owner and developer of the property, stated his intent is not to gain the main thoroughfare; however the CCRC, which would be on a road coming off the main thoroughfare, may need to be gated because of the seniors. He commented the idea for a public or quasi-public restaurant facility came from public input received during the community meeting regarding the desire for water access. The restaurant was not included in the first TIA because it came about after the application had been submitted. He said the intent was to have a public area there as well, although that hasn’t been studied or planned because the idea is only two weeks old. Chairman Collier asked Mr. Smith to clarify the major thoroughfare would not be gated. Burrows Smith stated the intent is to not gate the major thoroughfare, but he wouldn’t want to agree to that as a condition. He commented there are 780 units in the project to sell. He expressed his opinion that gates don’t add value to a subdivision and are actually an added expense to the homeowners later. Mr. Smith explained he had toured similar facilities in South Carolina, such as Palmetto Bluffs, that had a greeter who served as a marketing agent and monitored visitors entering and leaving the community. He noted that was an idea he was considering. He commented he doesn’t want to give up the right to gate the community, but it is not his intent. Mr. Smith stated the project has a great deal of connectivity with multi-use paths and walking trails. Chairman Collier commented he doesn’t want to limit Mr. Smith’s marketing opportunities; however, providing connectivity from Chair Road to Rock Hill Road certainly makes the project much more viable. He stated if he read the traffic study correctly, the traffic has been distributed using both streets which would imply there are no gates at least on the major roads. Chairman Collier noted he would be more comfortable if there was at least a general commitment not to gate the major connector road, explaining the developer could still gate the CCRC or a private neighborhood within the project with the TRC’s approval and maintain the access. Burrows Smith noted that staff has really pushed for connectivity, which has been a recurring theme as this project has gone through the process. He commented the Commissioners didn’t make connectivity a condition last year when they considered his request for the abandonment of part of Chair Road. Chairman Collier stated that until now, the project didn’t have another access on the other side of the property. Mr. Smith explained the second access was planned because that was the reason they purchased the other property. Chairman Collier noted it was completely different because Mr. Smith is now presenting a project that has both public roads connected, which makes the project much more attractive. Mr. Smith reiterated that he doesn’t want to accept a condition to prohibit gates. Chairman Collier stated his appreciation for Mr. Smith’s honesty. Page 14 of 17 Mr. Wrangell asked Mr. Smith to confirm that all roads within the development would be private roads. Burrows Smith confirmed that all roads within the development will be private roads, noting it would be very difficult to build a low impact development with state roads. Chairman Collier asked the applicant if he was agreeable to the three conditions listed in the staff report. He re-stated the following three conditions: 1. The collector street that provides interconnectivity between Chair Road and Rock Hill Road must remain unobstructed by gates and the road would remain open to the public (as assurance was given to participants at the required neighborhood meetings). 2. An updated master plan which includes the missing components must be submitted by September 20, 2010. 3. An approval letter for an amended TIA that meets the modified DOT/MPO scoping requirements for this proposed expansion must be submitted at least one week prior to the County Commissioners’ hearing on this matter. Mr. Smith stated that Conditions 2 and 3 were already in progress. Chairman Collier, acknowledging some modifications were still being made in the traffic study, asked Mr. Stephenson how gating and closing the road between the two public streets would affect the study. Rynal Stephenson, of Ramey Kemp & Associates, stated that gating and closing the road between the two public streets would not have a major effect on the traffic study because most of the traffic would be coming from the ends of the roads. The traffic study currently shows the traffic travelling from the end of Rock Hill Road or Chair Road through the gates and headed out to the public streets so if the project was gated, it would simply not allow the adjacent neighborhood residents to drive through the project. The study doesn’t take that traffic into account because of the method used to generate the traffic. Mr. Stephenson stated they have been conservative in the study by sending all traffic onto the public street network as preferred by NC DOT and the staff. Mr. Stephenson stated, in conclusion, gates would have no significant impact on the improvements or capacity of those streets. Chairman Collier asked how many trips per day were reflected in the traffic study. Mr. Stephenson confirmed that 5,300 trips per day were reflected in the traffic study. Chairman Collier asked what size collector street was needed to accommodate 5,300 trips per day. Mr. Stephenson responded that a two-lane road would handle that type of traffic, as well as up to 10,000 cars per day roughly. Page 15 of 17 Chairman Collier asked what, if any, improvements had been recommended for Castle Hayne Road. Mr. Stephenson explained they were still working through the approval process with the DOT and MPO review, but the TIA recommended a right turn deceleration lane southbound on Castle Hayne Road at the intersection of Rock Hill Road. He reported there are existing left turn lanes on Castle Hayne Road at both intersections with Chair Road and Rock Hill Road. Chairman Collier asked for a clarification of the acronym TWLTL used in the report. Mr. Stephenson stated TWLTL stands for “Two Way Left Turn Lane”, which is commonly referred to as a suicide lane or center turn lane. Chairman Collier, acknowledging Mr. Kozlosky serves on the TRC and is a MPO staff member, asked his opinion about allowing gates on the collector street of the project. Mike Kozlosky, commented as a TRC member and MPO staff member he would not encourage or support any gates on the collector street, noting it provides important connectivity between Chair Road and Rock Hill Road. He reminded board members they had considered several other requests for gated communities, for example the recent request by Belle Meade residents, and reiterated the importance of connectivity among and through the is development and to the adjacent neighborhoods. As a staff member to the County, he stated he would not recommend gates along the connector street. Melissa Gott asked Mr. Kozlosky to clarify if the collector street he was referring to was the loop road. Mr. Kozlosky stated he was referring to the connection road between Rock Hill Road and Chair Road. Ms. Gott asked Mr. Kozlosky if he was okay with gates on the internal roads. Mr. Kozlosky stated he would not oppose gates on internal roads within the development; however once you get to the roads that connect the two facilities, they would have an issue because it does provide the connection between the two neighborhoods or two roadway networks. Tara Murphy made a motion to recommend approval of Case Z-880M with the three additional conditions recommended in the staff report. Andy Heath seconded the motion. Ms. Gott asked staff if in the future the applicant determines that based upon market conditions they need to gate the community, can they come back and ask for an amendment or a change to this request. Jane Daughtridge stated if it is placed as a condition on the approval, the applicant would have to ask for an amendment. She noted that “market conditions” is a very seductive term, but they are looking at the public’s interest so that needs to be our primary goal. She commented that Page 16 of 17 basically, the market conditions can be captured internally with their ability to control the inside components of their neighborhoods. Melissa Gott asked if that does become an issue, they are allowed to come back with a request to modify their request. Ms. Daughtridge stated in the affirmative. Chairman Collier stated there is a motion on the floor for approval with the three conditions and a second. He asked if there was any further discussion on the item. Tara Murphy modified her motion to recommend approval of Z-880M with the three conditions based on consistency with the Plan and other appropriate documents and matters. Andy Heath seconded the amended motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Z-880M with the three conditions. Chairman Collier expressed his opinion that this is a great project based upon everything he knows about it and complimented the development team on their wonderful design. Technical Review Committee Report (August) Sam Burgess presented the Technical Review Committee (TRC) Report for August. Mr. Burgess provided various maps, oblique aerials, photos, and other support documents during the presentation. He reported the TRC met once during the month of August and reviewed a request to waive a portion of a sidewalk near Nautical Green, a revised performance residential plan, and a series of subdivision text amendment proposals pertaining to private roads. Nautical Green Nautical Green is located in the southern portion of the County and is classified Transition on the County’s 2006 Land Use Plan. As shown on the map, to the south is Becker Woods, which is part of The Cape subdivision along with Nautical Green. There are several other subdivisions within The Cape that are located adjacent to the property. The Cape is anchored between River Road to the west and Carolina Beach Road to the east. The petitioner, Secof Construction, requested the TRC consider waiving a portion of sidewalk on the west side of a road stub leading into the project due to the grade of the land and also improving the aesthetics in accordance with Section 52-11(2) of the County’s Subdivision Ordinance. That particular waiver is shown as a portion of this road stub shown in red on the map, which essentially connects Spencer Court with the Nautical Green project directly and adjacent to the north. An oblique aerial photo of the road stub before any earth moving had taken place within the Nautical Green project. The proposed sidewalk in question is located on the left side of the road stub. He provided another map to give an idea of the road stub itself, which is approximately 160’ in length and the sidewalk required by the ordinance and approved by TRC is on the left side and adjacent to Lot #2. The map reflects where the sidewalk is supposed to go and shows that the owner of Lot #2 chose to install a fence to reduce noise and other impediments involved with traffic going in and out of the road stub. Page 17 of 17 In a vote of 3-2, the TRC denied the request to eliminate the sidewalk. Suggestions were made to incorporate the sidewalk and also some buffering. Mr. Burgess that detailed information was provided in the Planning Board package. The Registry at Vineyard Plantation (Revised Site Plan) The Registry at Vineyard Plantation, located in the northeastern portion of the County’s jurisdiction, is classified as Transition on the County’s Land Use Plan. He provided an aerial view displaying the project. He stated there are a number of alternative road options for the eventual residents of the Registry in terms of getting in and out. One would be through Jade Wood Drive out to Futch Creek, another would be the Market Street Service Road out to the west, and also access going into Vineyard Plantation proper. The revised site plan for the project displays 106 single family lots. Public water and sewer will serve the project. As previously mentioned, access into the project will be from multiple points -Market Street Service Road, Futch Creek Road, and Vineyard Plantation, in addition to Porters Neck Road. In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the revised preliminary site plan for The Registry at Vineyard Plantation with conditions, which are noted in the Planning Board package. Private Road Text Amendments (Subdivision Ordinance) TRC also reviewed the Private Road Text Amendments presented by the Private Road Task Force Committee, which consisted of several County agencies and County stakeholders. The committee has been working on the series of text amendments for at least a year. The intent on developing private street language provides a clear delineation between public and private streets, provides more teeth to the maintenance responsibilities, and a good potential of reduction of impervious surface, and also minimizing the elimination of significant trees through flexible geometric street standards. The language and profiles created by the Task Force are included in the Planning Board package. In a vote of 5-5-0, the TRC endorsed the private road text amendments with suggestions, which are included in the TRC full report in the Planning Board package. Mr. Burgess reported the Private Road Text Amendments may be presented at the October 7th Planning Board meeting. Jane Daughtridge reminded board members that staff will be scheduling a joint meeting of the City Planning Board and County Planning Board to review the Market Street Corridor Plan. Ms. Daughtridge commented the meeting may be held on September 27th and a copy of the corridor plan will be forwarded to board members as quickly as possible. Richard Collier adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. ______________________________________ Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director