Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09 Sept 5 2013 PBM Page 1 of 10 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board September 5, 2013 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, September 5, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the Historic County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Chairman Richard Collier Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director Vice Chair Dan Hilla Shawn Ralston, Planning Manager Andy Heath Ken Vafier, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Lisa Mesler Ben Andrea, Current Planner Tamara Murphy Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Ted Shipley, III David Weaver Chairman Richard Collier opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Ken Vafier led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Collier reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of the August 2013 Planning Board Meeting Minutes Richard Collier made a motion to adopt the August Planning Board minutes as drafted. Andy Heath seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the August 1, 2013 Planning Board meeting minutes. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-927, 08/13 - Request by Cindee Wolf on behalf of Monkey Junction Mini Storage, Monkey Junction Car Wash LLC, and AMJB Properties, LLC to rezone 9.4 acres located at 5042, 5042 ½, and 5044 Carolina Beach Road from CUD (B-2), Conditional Use District Highway Business to CZD (B-2), Conditional Zoning District Highway Business in order to construct a 12,000 sq. ft. storage building. The subject properties are classified as Urban according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Ben Andrea presented the staff summary and provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning. Mr. Andrea also showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Staff Summary  Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Monkey Junction Mini Storage, Monkey Junction Car Wash LLC, and AMJB Properties, LLC, is petitioning for a rezoning of three parcels from B-2 Highway Business Conditional Use District to B-2 Highway Business Conditional Zoning District. Page 2 of 10  The three parcels total 9.4 acres and host an existing business known as Monkey Junction Self Storage, located at 5044 Carolina Beach Road.  To briefly summarize the history of the project, in July 2000 the original Conditional Use District, Special Use Permit, and Site Plan were all approved, which included storage buildings, office space, and some designated commercial area.  In November 2005, a request for modification was approved that reconfigured the building configuration, increased the storage building area, and reduced the area designated for commercial and office uses.  In July 2007, a request for modification was approved that replaced the areas previously designated for commercial and office uses with a self-serve car wash facility. This approval included a condition that stipulated that no additional changes would be requested for the property. Because of this condition, staff is presenting the petitioner’s request for the current rezoning, which would facilitate a modification to the July-2007 approved site plan.  The subject property is located in the southern portion of the County, approximately 0.70 mile from the intersection of Carolina Beach Road and South College Road, commonly known as Monkey Junction.  The properties are classified as Urban by the 2006 Wilmington/New Hanover County CAMA Land Use Plan.  The Urban land use classification is intended to provide for continued intensive development and redevelopment of existing urban areas.  The current zoning of the property is B-2 Highway Business Conditional Use District, and the zoning in the surrounding vicinity is a mixture of R-15, R-10, B-2, Office and Institutional, and a high density residential use directly across Carolina Beach road under the jurisdiction of the City of Wilmington.  The request to rezone to a conditional zoning district was not an available tool at the time of the previous modification requests. A conditional zoning district is similar to a conditional use district but does not require the subsequent Special Use Permit and quasi-judicial hearing.  The site features approximately 641’ of frontage along Carolina Beach Road and has a direct access from and to Carolina Beach Road, as well as an additional gated access point along Archmil Way, which runs along the southeastern portion of the property.  Archmil Way also features access to Carolina Beach Road. Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization Staff has indicated that a 2011 traffic count of Carolina Beach Road near the subject site yielded an average daily trip count of 26,000, representing a Level of Service of “E”, meaning that the traffic counts are nearing design capacity of the road.  The area subject to the current request is the most northern portion of the property. Petitioner’s Request  The petitioner seeks to modify the site plan to replace the previously approved car wash facility with a 12,000 SF storage building similar in style and layout to the existing storage buildings. Although approved, the car wash facility was never developed.  The proposed site plan replaces the previously approved car wash with another storage building. The other buildings shown on the site plan have already been developed. Page 3 of 10  The proposed one-story building would match the style and theme of the existing buildings, particularly in harmony with “Building H” which has a unique façade on the street-facing side of the building.  All required landscaping and buffering has already been installed, although the applicant has indicated that streetyard landscaping and foundation plantings would be installed at all building facades adjacent to parking areas.  No additional concrete or pavement is proposed in conjunction with the new building.  Although the proposal results in a decrease in built-upon area at total buildout, the proposal revision warrants revisions to other existing permits and approvals, particularly a stormwater permit or exemption from New Hanover County Engineering, a revision to the erosion control permit, and a revision to the stormwater plan.  The rezoning request has been facilitated, processed, and reviewed per the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance. A community meeting was held by the petitioner on June 25, 2013 in accordance with the requirements for such a rezoning request. According to the community meeting report, the only attendee did not have any questions pertaining to the request.  51 adjacent property owners were notified of the rezoning request per Section 112 of the Zoning Ordinance, and a public hearing notification sign was placed on the property. Staff received no inquiries or objections to the request. Staff Position  The request is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan; therefore, staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions: o Maintain a 20’ buffer yard to the rear/western portion of the property. o Lighting for the facility will be unobtrusive down lighting. o Maintain all existing fencing and landscaping. o The new storage building shall mimic the orientation, style, and configuration of the existing street-facing storage building (Building H). Mr. Andrea concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions from the board. Vice Chair Hilla commented the petitioner had requested rezoning of the property located behind this parcel to B-2 last year and inquired if that rezoning was related to the new proposal. Mr. Andrea confirmed the current petition to rezone three properties was not related to the previous petition considered by the board. Chairman Collier opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Ms. Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions stated she had worked on the project since 2000 and reiterated this is an existing facility. They originally felt it would be a straight forward site plan modification with a reduction in traffic generation and in the amount of impervious surface. However, code changes in the ordinance have changed the conditional district situation. While this appears to be a rezoning, it is currently zoned B-2 so the request is a modification of the site plan. Ms. Wolf stated the applicant was in agreement with all conditions suggested by staff. She also noted one of the major reasons the applicant was making a new rezoning request was the Page 4 of 10 statement included in the 2007 rezoning modification approval that there would be no further changes in the site plan. Ms. Wolf stated she felt the statement was intended to indicate this was the last piece of the puzzle, and when it was developed there could be no further changes or expansion. She explained that market trends and the success of the storage facility business had altered the route the applicant wished to go in for the last building in the project. Ms. Wolf concluded her presentation, stating the petition was fairly straight forward. Chairman Collier opened the opposition portion of the hearing. Seeing no one present, Chairman Collier closed the public hearing. Chairman Collier stated paving around the car wash was shown on the existing site plan and asked for a clarification on how that impervious surface would be affected by the modification. Ms. Wolf explained in absence of building the car wash, gravel was put down in that area on the site. The petition is for the 12,000 square feet building. They don’t intend for there to be any circulation around the building so that would be left to the discretion of the zoning enforcement and stormwater management staff. The stormwater permit for the entire Monkey Junction Self- Storage was issued for 100% impervious surface. In response to Chairman Collier’s inquiry regarding whether there would be paving outside the building, Ms. Wolf reiterated there is not intended to be circulation around the building, but they may leave the gravel in place and let the grass grow up. She also noted there would probably need to be emergency exit doors on that façade, which would mesh with the architectural style. In absence of that, there would be a slab outside the back door on the street side. Chairman Collier then asked if there were roll-up doors on the drive aisle side of the building or if it was an internal storage building. Ms. Wolf explained the proposed building is a temperature-controlled building with specific entrance doors. Roll-up doors are not usually found on this type of building. Board members had no additional questions for the applicant or staff. Chairman Collier stated if the rezoning is denied, a new application may be submitted within twelve months of the denial if there is a substantial change in the original petition. He asked Ms. Wolf if the applicant would like to proceed with a vote on the rezoning request. Cindee Wolf stated the applicant would like to proceed with the Board’s recommendation. Chairman Collier entertained a motion from the board. Vice Chairman Dan Hilla made a motion based on the rezoning being consistent with the land use plan and reasonable and in the public interest to recommend approval of the petitioner’s proposal with the conditions of: 1) Maintain a 20’ buffer yard to the rear/western portion of the property. 2) Lighting for the facility will be unobtrusive down lighting. Page 5 of 10 3) Maintain all existing fencing and landscaping. 4) The new storage building shall mimic the orientation, style, and configuration of the existing street-facing storage building (Building “H”). David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-927. Item 2: Text Amendment (A-413, 9/13) - Request by Staff to amend Sections 23, 50.2, 72-20, and 81-1 of the Zoning Ordinance to amend regulations regarding child day care centers. Ben Andrea provided the following staff report:  Staff is requesting to amend the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance language and regulations pertaining to child care services.  This amendment is the result of a discussion item that Staff presented to the Planning Board at their August 2013 meeting.  Staff is requesting to amend four sections of the Zoning Ordinance in an effort to better define the types of child care services facilities permitted in the county, as well as amend or set specific regulations for each type.  The first ordinance section revision is remove the current definition of “Child Day Care Center” and replace it with two new definitions which mimic the definitions found in NC General Statute Section 110-86. The two new definitions are: o Child Care Center – An arrangement where, at any one time, there are three or more preschool-age children or nine or more school-age children receiving child care, unless excluded by NCGS Section 110-82(2) o Family Child Care Home – An arrangement located in a residence where, at any one time, more than two children, but less than nine children, receive child care, unless excluded by NCGS Section 110-82(2)  The use of Children’s Day Care within Article V, Section 50.2: Tabulation of Permitted Uses is proposed to be stricken and replaced with the two new uses of Family Child Care Home and Child Care Center o Family Child Care Homes would be permitted by right in the PD, R-20S, R-20, R-15, R-10, R-7, and RA zoning districts, and by Special Use Permit in the B-1, B-2, and Riverfront Mixed Use zoning districts. o Child Care Centers would be permitted by right in the PD, B-1, B-2, Office and Institutional, and Shopping Center zoning districts, and by Special Use Permit in the residential, industrial, RA, and Riverfront Mixed Use zoning districts.  Article VII is proposed to be revised to pertain only to Family Child Care Homes. The off-street parking and access requirements are proposed to be stricken, in addition to an inherent regulation that such facilities will comply with all other applicable laws and regulations.  The two regulations, which are a requirement that any outside play area be fenced and a limitation on sign area, would apply only to Family Child Care Homes.  Any new Child Care Center would now fall under the existing regulations for access improvements and sign area allowances in the Zoning Ordinance. Page 6 of 10  Article VIII, Section 81-1 is proposed to be revised to apply to Child Care Centers, and adjusts the required off-street parking for such facilities to one space per 8 participants. Mr. Andrea offered to answer questions from board members. David Weaver asked if a child care facility with six children would be a “child care center” or a “family child care home.” It was his understanding staff’s intent was that a child care center would be an arrangement that is located in a non-residential or commercial building, but that isn’t stated in the definition. Mr. Weaver expressed concern there may be some confusion about whether something is a family child care home or a child care center. Mr. Andrea explained the answer to that question would be determined by where those children were being taken care of, for example if there were six children being taken care of in a home, it would be a family child care home. If there were six children being taken care of in a location other than a home, it would be a child care center Mr. Weaver pointed out that the definition of child care center doesn’t state it would not be located in a home so there could be some confusion between the two definitions. Mr. Andrea explained the reason the “child care center” doesn’t restrict those type of facilities to either residential or non-residential buildings is because technically there could be a child care center located within a residence, depending on the number of children. For example, a child care facility for nine children located within a residential home wouldn’t be a family child care home, but would be a child care center because of the number of children. That scenario would require a special use permit. Mr. Andrea also noted a special use permit would not be required if there were only eight children in a child care facility located within a residential home. Mr. Weaver suggested the definition for child care center be modified to indicate “an arrangement in a non-residential structure” keeping the rest of the definition to make it more clear and eliminate the overlap between the definitions. In response to Mr. O’Keefe’s inquiry about whether the intent was to address the structure or the use of the building, Mr. Weaver explained it may be more beneficial to differentiate between when the primary use of a building is residential as in a family child care home and a child care center where there is no residential use. Andy Heath commented that based on staff’s presentation you could have ten children in your home and qualify as a child care center so that situation would happen in a residence. Lisa Mesler agreed with Mr. Heath that it would still be considered a child care center if they had ten children with a special use permit located in a residence. She commented she understood Mr. Weaver’s concerns, but noted if that language was added it could eliminate some folks that would qualify. Mr. Weaver cited a situation where his next door neighbor may be upset because he had eight children in his home, and may push the issue that he is not a family child care home, but is a child care center based on the definition; and therefore, must obtain a special use permit within a residential district. Mr. Weaver expressed concern about the overlap of the family child care home and the child care center definitions Page 7 of 10 when there are eight or more children in a residence. He felt the situation he cited would meet both definitions. Mr. O’Keefe clarified the definition of “family child care home” states specifically the location of the child care facility is in a residence so it is implying the primary use for the structure is a residence, whereas the child care center has a primary use of child care and would not be permitted as an accessory use in a residence. There would be a clear distinction if there were nine or more children participating in the day care situation because it would become a child care center and could not be used as a residence. Mr. Weaver commented he could see a potential problem, but he would be satisfied if the minutes would reflect the discussion for reference by the zoning enforcement officer trying to make a determination three year into the future. Mr. Andrea stated that adding Mr. Weaver’s suggested language of an arrangement in a non-residential structure to the definition of a child care center would preclude any possibility of having nine or more children being taken care of in a home. Mr. Weaver noted that situation was already precluded under family child care home. Ted Shipley saluted the staff for working with the General Statutes, noting they had provided great definitions for family child care home and child care center. He asked if the General Statutes also provided definitions for preschool age children, school age children or children. Noting he doesn’t like vagueness, Mr. Shipley commented if the County ordinance will parrot the General Assembly’s definitions, we might also ensure that is done in regard to ages as well. Mr. Shipley inquired if those definitions could be established on the local level to eliminate confusion and solidify them if no ages were delineated by the state. Mr. Andrea stated Mr. Shipley made a valid point, but the General Statutes do not define those ages for children so there is a degree of vagueness or ambiguity. He also cautioned that setting those ages might cause a disparity between the definitions set at a local level versus the definitions when seeking permits or certifications at the state level. In response to Mr. Heath’s question regarding the definition of a participant referred to in the section on parking requirements, Mr. Andrea explained the term “participant” referred to child. Mr. Heath stated the number of parking spaces didn’t seem adequate if there were two or three employees. Mr. Andrea explained the parking requirement was adjusted to mimic the requirements of the City of Wilmington. Ms. Murphy thanked the staff for their work on the amendment and recalled a situation earlier in the year, noting the proposed changes would be beneficial to many people. In response to Chairman Collier’s question regarding signage, Mr. Andrea explained under Article VII: Section 72.20, currently five specific standards apply to child care services. Staff is proposing to strike numbers 1, 2 and 5 and apply the remaining two requirements to Family Child Care Homes. For a commercially oriented facility, the sign regulations would fall back to the existing regulations in the ordinance based on the zoning district. Page 8 of 10 David Weaver inquired if there was a fencing requirement for child care centers. Mr. Andrea reported there is a fencing requirement for child care centers at the state level. Chairman Collier opened the public hearing. No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the text amendment. Chairman Collier closed the public hearing. Mr. O’Keefe commented in response to Mr. Heath’s concerns about parking spaces, the theory is that there should be one car per eight participants at any given time. He noted while that number seems small, generally drop-off and pick-up at daycares are staggered. He further explained that standard was used in many other areas. Mr. Heath acknowledged he understood, but noted the proposed language struck out the number of spaces for each employee, plus the number of participants. Vice Chairman Dan Hilla made a motion based on the finding the text amendment is consistent with the land use plan and is reasonable and in the public interest to recommend approval of the text amendment as written. Tamara Murphy seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7- 0 to recommend approval of Text Amendment A-413. Item 3: Text Amendment (A-414, 9/13) - Request by Staff to amend Section 62.1-10 of the Zoning Ordinance to amend street yard landscaping regulations to accommodate sidewalks and multi-use paths. Ken Vafier presented the following staff report. The amendment was originally discussed at the April 26, 2013 Planning Board Workshop. It is proposed now to accomplish two main objectives. The first objective is to increase the amount of street yard area for the required plantings. Staff has found during commercial reviews and from concerns expressed by the development community that the number of required plantings when using 300 square feet as the minimum street yard value has resulted in overcrowding of plants and in plants dying at maturity. The second objective is to clarify how to calculate the street yard area with respect to features often found within those areas, such as access driveways, sidewalks, and paths. Mr. Vafier referred to the discussion at the workshop regarding the recently adopted comprehensive greenway plan and how to find ways to implement the plan particularly along the main thoroughfares. Staff feels the proposed language may entice developer to include bike and pedestrian facilities within their developments. The language doubles the minimum required area for one canopy tree or 3 understory story trees and six shrubs from 300 square feet to 600 square feet to allow Page 9 of 10 for full maturity of the plantings. He noted this regulation is consistent with the City’s regulations and has been recommended by many local landscape architects. A reference to a “creative standard” has also been eliminated as there are no further detailed standards specified within the current ordinance. In lieu of that standard, staff proposes additional language in Section 62.1-10(6) that allows the administrator some flexibility in the planting requirements should specific site conditions warrant it. He cited the example of allowing a very large mature tree in a street yard to remain instead of replacing it with twelve shrub plantings for 500 square feet or some value using staff’s discretion, but still in keeping with the intent of the landscaping ordinance provisions. In Section 62.1-10(5), the proposed language removes the regulation limiting impervious area within the street yard to 15% as staff feels the impervious coverage on a lot is better governed via stormwater regulations. The amendment also clarifies that walkways, sidewalks, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as fountains, walls, and fences can be permitted within the street yard area. Finally, staff proposes to clarify that the total area of walkways, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities located within the street yard area may be subtracted from the total street yard area, which will ultimately determine the number of plantings required. Mr. Vafier then reported staff was also proposing additional language drafted after the Planning Board package was mailed to better clarify Section 62.1-10(7). The modified language would divide the information into two steps to clearly state the formula to calculate the number of plantings for a site. The new proposed language also clarifies that the linear frontage of the access drive is removed up front from the linear street length as opposed to the area of the access drive being removed afterwards. Then, the area of walkways, sidewalks, and bike-ped facilities that can be removed is subtracted to arrive at a final street yard area. The final street yard area is then ultimately divided by 600 to yield the total number of plantings required. Mr. Vafier concluded the presentation with a review of an example of the proposed formula for calculating the number of plantings and offered to answer questions from the board. Andy Heath noted an error in the calculations example. Mr. Weaver stated the changes were great in regard to the access driveway and asked if the area for bus shelters should also be subtracted from the street yard area. Mr. Vafier stated there were allowances for the other features, including fountains, walls, and fences to be there. He noted as Mr. O’Keefe had pointed out those items are typically located in the right-of-way, but agreed it could be clarified that those types of amenities could be included in the street yard with the subtraction of the area. Vice Chair Dan Hilla agreed, noting even though it is in the right-of-way, the bus shelter seemed to come up on every proposal before the board and if it is going to be required, that flexibility Page 10 of 10 should be given. He stated the amendment is greatly needed because the county’s regulation on plantings is much stricter than the city’s regulation. He felt the amendment will put the two ordinances more in line and noted the more mature plantings will be a great change. Chairman Collier clarified that if the bus shelter is in the right-of-way, the street yard will not be reduced by that area. Chairman Collier opened the public hearing. No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the text amendment. Chairman Collier closed the public hearing and entertained a motion from the board. Chris O’Keefe suggested the term “transit amenities” be used instead of “bus shelters.” He noted the bus pullout might extend into the front yard setback so that area should also be reduced from the street yard. David Weaver made a motion to recommend approval of the amendment with the addition of transit amenities wherever the proposed amendment lists walkways, sidewalks or other bicycle and pedestrian facilities as consistent with the land use plan. Dan Hilla seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of Text Amendment A-414 with the addition of transit amenities to the list of item. Technical Review Committee Report (August) Chairman Collier reported there was not an August Technical Review Committee report, but the TRC’s next meeting would be held on Wednesday, September 11, 2013. Chairman Collier adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m.