Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout200702 Feb PBM MINUTES OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FEBRUARY 1, 2007 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, February 1, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in the County Court House, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Members Present: Staff Present: Paul Boney, Chair Chris O'Keefe, Planning Director Sandra Spiers, Vice Chair Sam Burgess, Principal Development Planner David Adams Karyn Crichton, Administrative Support Specialist Melissa Gott Jane Daughtridge, Senior Planner Sue Hayes Holt Moore, Assistant County Attorney Jay Williams Sharon Jackson Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Ken Wrangell Paul Bonev opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing and led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Sue Haves made a motion to recommend approval of the January minutes. Jay Williams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the January minutes. Paul Bonev stated that case Z-857, a request by Haden Stanziale for JH Land, LLC to rezone approximately 341 acres in the Community and Conservation Land Classification located between Holly Shelter Road and N. College Rd. from I-2 and R-15 to R-10 Residential and B-2 Commercial District would be continued until a future meeting. Mr. Burney adjacent property owner expressed anger and stated that this was the second time the item has been continued. Mr. Boney apologized and stated that he would personally notify him if the item were to be continued again. Item 1: Special Use Permit (S-570, 12/06) - Request by Duncan Marine Contractors, Inc. for Colorado Coastal Development, LLC to locate a 10-slip community boating facility in an R-15 Residential District at "Seabreeze Sound" (36 residential lots on Seabreeze Road South.) Continued from December 7 meeting. Jane Daughtridge presented the slides and gave a brief overview of the site's history, land use, zoning, level of service (LOS), and related information. Jane Daughtridge provided the findings of fact: Preliminary Staff Findings: 1. The board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. A. The subject property is located within the Federal Point Fire District. B. Private water supply will serve the dock facility. C. The project will be located in Myrtle Grove Sound/Intracoastal Waterway, north of Snow's Cut D. Access to the site will be pedestrian from within Seabreeze Sound Subdivision, off Seabreeze Road South. 2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the zoning ordinance. A. The site is located in an R-15 Residential Zoning District A Special Use Permit allows a community boating facility in an R-15 Residential District B. The property has an existing pier between lots 28 and 29 which applicant proposes to keep and improve with 4 boat slips. The requested additional community boating facility will create 10 additional slips. The total sub-division has 36 platted lots. C. The site plan does not show any off-street parking, because applicant states that parking will be accommodated on the residential lots served by the facility. D. The proposed community boating facility proposes ten (10) boat slips to serve 10 non- specified residential lots of the 36 total lots in the subdivision, which meets the required ratio of not more than 1:1. E. A pedestrian easement will be provided and conferred to each owner for access to the community boating facility. F. No commercial activities, as required by the ordinance, are proposed for the facility. 3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity. A. Similar type projects exist in other residential districts in New Hanover County. B. No evidence has been presented that the proposed use will injure the value of adjoining or abutting property values. 4. The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. A. The New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan classifies the site as Conservation. The purpose of the class is to provide for effective long-term management and protection of significant, limited, or irreplaceable natural resources while also protecting the rights of the property owner. Water-dependent uses are appropriate. B. The 2006 Joint Land Use Plan encourages recreational access to estuarine and public trust waters. C. CAMA permits will be required. D. Surrounding land uses include single-family housing, some with docks and piers. Staff Comments: a. Deed restrictions should be placed on the waterfront lots in the subdivision stating that no individual docks/piers will be allowed other than the planned shared dock with 4 slips between Lots 28 and 29. b. No overhead lighting should be installed. c. Hours of operation. Melissa Gott asked to be recused from the item, stating a conflict. Paul Boney made a motion to recuse Ms. Gott. Sue Haves seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to recuse Ms. Gott. Steve Shuttleworth Colorado Coastal Development, stated that the boat slips would be restricted to the use of Seabreeze Sound residents only and that the sale or lease of the slips would be prohibited. Mr. Shuttleworth stated that the conflict of ownership issue had been resolved and the lis pendence removed. Mr. Shuttleworth agreed to the staff conditions; believed that the hours of operation could be agreed upon among the neighbors; and stated that there would be boat-lifts and no vehicle traffic. Charles Duncan, Duncan Marine, stated that they are applying for a special use permit to allow for 10 boat slips. Mr. Duncan stated that since vehicle traffic is prohibited, there should not be any parking issues. There was discussion among the Board regarding the existing four-slip dock. It was stated that the dock was permitted by right and that Mr. Duncan would apply for a CAMA permit. Matt Nichols attorney with Shanklin & Nichols, stated that he would like to withdraw his objections on behalf of his client, The Manning Company. Mr. Nichols stated that the lis pendens has been cancelled and they have no further objections to the special use permit application. Ruby Freeman, adjacent property owner, inquired about the existence of the 4-slip pier and hours of operation. Steve Shuttleworth clarified in his rebuttal that there is not an existing pier or dock currently on the property. Mr. Shuttleworth stated that he intends to convey the 10 slips to interior lot owners and added that CAMA will allow an additional pier with 2 slips each on lots 28 and 29. There was discussion regarding the boating facility's hours of operation. It was decided that the neighbors would work out the hours of operation privately. Jay Williams stated that it is not the role of the Planning Board to dictate the hours of operation of a dock in public trust waters. Several Planning Board members echoed Mr. William's opinion. Jane Daughtridge stated that typically, hours of operation may be formally established when the dock has a commercial component. Sue Haves asked for clarification regarding the dock's lighting. Mr. Shuttleworth stated that there would not be overhead lighting; but rather some type of low level lighting installed. Jay Williams inquired the location of the access easement. It was stated that on the final plat, an access easement would be delineated. Sandra Spiers made a motion to recommend approval of the item with the conditions that deed restrictions be placed on the waterfront lots in the subdivision stating that no individual docks/piers will be allowed other than the planned shared dock with 4 slips between Lots 28 and 29; no overhead lighting should be installed; and that an access easement be indicated on the final plat. Ken Wrangell seconded the motion. David Adams asked why the access easement was situated through the middle of lot 33. Charles Duncan stated that the site plan that the Planning Board reviewed was a combination of four different maps and that a corrected site plan would be presented to the County Commissioners. Jay Williams added to the motion that the slips not be leased, rented, or sold except to the lot owners of the subdivision and that an access easement to the stub of the pier be provided. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the item with conditions (Gott recused). Item 2: Rezoning (Z-857, 12/06) - Request by Haden Stanziale for JH Land, LLC to rezone approximately 341 acres in the Community and Conservation Land Classification located between Holly Shelter Road and N. College Rd. from I-2 and R-15 to R-10 Residential and B-2 Commercial District. This item was continued. Item 3: Special Use Permit (S-573, 1/07) - Request by Steve Coggins for Seahawk Development and Bald Eagle Development to locate an 8-slip community boating facility in an R-15 Residential District at The Reserve at Arjean by the Sound and The Reserve at Spring Creek Estates (proposed subdivisions) located off Sea Shell Lane and Spring Creek Lane. Jane Daughtridge presented the slides and gave a brief overview of the site's history, land use, zoning, level of service (LOS), and related information. Jane Daughtridge provided the findings of fact: Preliminary Staff Findings 1. The board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. A. The subject property is located within the Ogden Fire District B. Private water supply will serve the dock facility. C. The project will be located in Pages Creek, west of Middle Sound. D. Access to the site will be pedestrian easements from within The Reserve at Arjean and The Reserve at Spring Creek Subdivisions, off Sea Shell Lane at Arjean Drive. 2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the zoning ordinance. A. The site is located in an R-20 Residential Zoning District. A Special Use Permit allows a community boating facility in an R-20 Residential District B. The requested community boating facility will create 8 slips to serve the non-riparian lots of the two proposed subdivisions. Total proposed lots is 9, which would meet the required ratio of not more than 1:1. At the time of writing these preliminary fmdings, neither of the minor subdivisions proposed for this request have heen approved Therefore, until the subdivisions are approver, the request does not meet the requirements of the ordinance. C. The site plan does not show any off-street parking, because applicant states that parking will be accommodated on the residential lots served by the facility. D. A pedestrian easement will be provided and conferred to each owner for access to the community boating facility. E. A shared Homeowners Association will own and maintain the facility. F. No commercial activities, as required by the ordinance, are proposed for the facility. 3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity. A. Similar type projects exist in other residential districts in New Hanover County. B. No evidence has been presented that the proposed use will injure the value of adjoining or abutting property values. 4. The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. A. The New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan classifies the site as Conservation. The purpose of the class is to provide for effective long-term management and protection of significant, limited, or irreplaceable natural resources while also protecting the rights of the property owner. Water-dependent uses are appropriate. B. The 2006 Joint Land Use Plan encourages recreational access to estuarine and public trust waters. C. CAMA permits will be required. D. Surrounding land uses include single-family housing, some with docks and piers. Staff Comments: A. No overhead lighting should be installed. Steve Co ;gins an attorney representing Bald Eagle and Seahawk Development, agreed with the staff's findings of fact. Mr. Coggins asked the Planning Board to conditionally approve the special use permit given the resolution of stormwater issues and approval of both subdivisions. Mr. Coggins further stated that the CAMA permit is on hold pending stormwater and subdivision approval. Jay Peterson, adjacent property owner, representing homeowners from the Arjean and Spring Creek Lane subdivisions spoke in opposition to the item. Mr. Peterson stated that the request does not meet the ordinance; is not in harmony with the surrounding area; would adversely impact adjoining property; and would endanger public safety. Mr. Peterson further stated that the boating facility would have adverse environmental effects and that the water depths that the petitioner presented are inaccurate. Steve Coggins stated in his rebuttal that there are strict sediment requirements that they would meet during construction and that the design of the boating facility will prevent any disturbance of the underlying nursery area. Sherwin Cribb, land surveyor, described the process in which he determined the water depths. There was discussion whether the proposed boating facility would block water access for other boats. Scott Rader Bayshore Drive resident and commercial fisherman, stated that the proposed boating facility would block other boats from accessing the channel and would disturb the nursery area. Mr. Rader stated that the proposed location is not the right place for a multi-slip facility of this size. There was Board discussion regarding water depths. Sandra Spiers inquired why the petition included two separate subdivisions; whether lot 5 was included when determining the ratio of lots to boat slips; and whether lot 5 had relinquished its riparian rights and opted for inclusion in the boating facility. Steven Coggins explained that there are two subdivisions involved in the petition because the tracts of land were purchased at different times. Mr. Coggins further stated that lot 5 chose to keep its riparian rights and is not included in the community boating facility. Unidentified Woman stated that the Board should consider that New Hanover County and the Clean Water Trust Fund recently purchased land along Pages Creek in efforts to improve water quality. Steve Coggins stated that the developer intends to donate a conservation easement. Sue Haves asked Planning Staff if it is normal procedure for the Planning Board to conditionally approve an item that does not meet the requirements of the ordinance. Jane Daughtridge, citing a past example, stated that the Planning Board would not typically conditionally approve a petition that did not meet the requirements. Holt Moore stated that if the Planning Board felt that the petition met all other requirements, it could give a positive recommendation to the County Commissioners with a disclaimer that the recommendation is contingent upon subdivision approval. Ken Wrangell inquired which lots' riparian rights were being exercised to permit the boating facility and whether the subdivision regulations specified whether lots could be from multiple subdivisions when determining the lot to slip ratio for a community boating facility. Jane Daughtridge stated that the ordinance does not specify that the lots be from the same subdivision; only that the lots must associate themselves with the boating facility and provide a deeded access easement to the facility. Paul Bonev expressed concern that the proposed boating facility would block access to the channel from boaters from the south. Ken Wrangell stated that it was difficult to make a determination without the sounding data and water depths for adjacent properties and asked if the petitioner would be willing to provide that data. Steve Coggins stated that he would be willing to provide that information. Sue Haves made a motion to recommend denial. Jay Williams seconded the motion. Melissa Gott stated that she was concerned that the proposed boating facility would block Jay Peterson's access. Steve Coggins asked the Board to withdraw the petition Jay Williams expressed concern that there is the intent to build 10 boat slips without applying for a CAMA major permit. Paul Bonev agreed with Mr. Williams' opinion. Sue Haves made a motion to accept the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition. Jay Williams seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to allow the applicant to withdraw his petition. Item 4: Text Amendment (A-355) - Request by staff for Zoning Text Amendment for Article V, creating section 59.9 RFMU, Riverfront Mixed Use District. Continued from December 7meeting. Chris O'Keefe provided the background and a description of the proposed ordinance including height, public space, building design, and parking specifications. Mr. O'Keefe stated that there had been several meetings and workshops to address issues concerning height, availability of services, the review process, and adherence to the CAMA and Cape Fear Corridor Plan. Mr. O'Keefe stated that Planning Staff does not support the proposed amendment but instead presented the Planning Board with an amended ordinance for their consideration that included an overlay area with height restrictions. Mr. O'Keefe showed photos taken from the banks of the Cape Fear River at different vantage points to illustrate distances. Jeff LaCroix, Wilmington resident, supported the proposed amendment stating that development along the river corridor would be financially good for the city and contribute measurably to our tax base. Deb Quaranta, Wilmington resident, supported the proposed amendment stating that the development of the west bank would improve the appearance north of the battleship; would provide public water access and open space; and provide tax revenues. Steve Kohlstedt, Downtown restaurant owner, supported the proposed amendment stating that development across the river would provide more year-round residents which would patronize local businesses and in turn support the economy. Churchill Hornstein, Wilmington resident, supported the proposed amendment stating that Wilmington's population is growing and we should embrace development plans that utilize height. Mr. Hornstein stated that new and old development could coexist; felt that Eagle Island in its current state was not beneficial to the community; and development along the West Bank would provide jobs, tax revenues, and public recreation for Wilmington residents. John Evans, supported the proposed amendment and encouraged the Planning Board not to make any changes to the ordinance. Mr. Evans felt that the necessary safeguards have been built into the ordinance and would work effectively if left in its original state. George Edwards, Executive Director, Historic Wilmington Foundation stated that he would support a maximum height of 50 feet in the overlay district and up to 190 feet in the northern area of the west bank. Mr. Edwards stated that he is not opposed to development but feels that development should be concentrated to the east side of the river and the west bank preserved. Kevin O'Grady, board member of Residents of Old Wilmington, stated that he does not oppose height so long as height is responsibly designated along the riverfront, with a 50- foot maximum height on Eagle's Island. John Evans showed photos of trees on the west bank he had taken from a cherry picker and stated that the tall trees are located on the back of the property. Mr. Evans spoke in support of the ordinance in its original form, stating that it would provide for projects that would enhance Wilmington. Alice Mitchell President of the Residents of Old Wilmington, stated that she supports a maximum height of approximately 50 feet and Jay Williams stated that he could not support the ordinance unless height was significantly reduced along the Eagle Island area. Mr. Williams stated that he would support a 50-foot maximum building height but was concerned that a 100-foot structure across the river would disturb the skyline Sue Haves proposed that the Planning Board accept the staff recommendation to create a height restriction overlay district directly across from the Wilmington Historic District and suggested amending the maximum height from 100 to 50 feet. Sandra Spiers stated that she believed that taller buildings could add to the community as long as they were ascetically pleasing. Ms. Spiers supported the amended ordinance and felt that staff's changes were a fair compromise. Melissa Gott supported the amended ordinance. Ms. Gott felt that a 100-foot cap does guarantee 100-foot buildings, rather that a review process would consider proposals of up to 100 feet. There was discussion of the application process for the riverfront mixed use district and it was stated that it would be similar to a conditional use rezoning application. Some Planning Board Members felt that setting a 100-foot maximum building height would not preclude projects from requesting the maximum height and would make it difficult to selectively deny projects based on height. Holt Moore stated that setting a maximum building height of 100-feet would indicate that 100-feet is an appropriate height and would be difficult to deny projects based on height. David Adams stated that ideally he would like to see Eagle's Island preserved as a cultural and natural public resource but given the lack of funds to acquire it, the property owner should be entitled to benefit from its development as long as the development did not destroy the skyline. Ken Wrangell stated that he supports a maximum building height of 100 feet and does not think that it would obstruct the view given the distance of the river. Mr. Wrangell suggested adding a section to the ordinance to address building design. Paul Bonev stated that the intent of the ordinance was to avoid single tower-like structures of 100 feet. Paul Bonev suggested a compromise of a 75-foot maximum building height for the overlay district and reiterated that a maximum building height of 240 feet would be permitted in the remaining sections of the riverfront mixed used district. Sandra Spiers echoed Mr. Wrangell's suggestion that building style guidelines be incorporated into the ordinance to prevent unappealing block-like structures. Ms. Spiers stated that 75 feet would be a good compromise, which would allow for height variation, and prevent a line of 50-foot structures. Ken Wrangell felt that a 75-foot maximum building height would not be economically feasible for development. It was stated that the mass reduction formula would not apply if the maximum building height were set at 50 feet. Jay Williams made a motion to recommend the establishment of an overlay district for the area directly across from the Wilmington Historic District with a maximum building height of 75 feet. Dave Adams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-2 (Gott, Wrangell) to recommend an overlay district with a 75-foot maximum building height in the riverfront mixed use district. There was discussion regarding the procedure to establish a riverfront mixed use district (section 59.9-6). It was decided that the process would remain as proposed in the following order: Planning Staff review - Planning Board review - County Commissioner review- Technical Review Committee review. Sue Hayes requested that "City" be changed to "County" under 59.9-4 section 11: General Site Design. Ms. Hayes asked that the minimum sidewalk width be reduced from 16 feet to 12 feet. Ms. Hayes also requested that the term "multi-family" be more clearly defined and consistent with the terminology used by the New Hanover County zoning ordinance. It was agreed that Planning Staff would insert the changes that Ms. Hayes suggested prior to the item going to the County Commissioners. David Adams made a motion to recommend the approval of the riverfront mixed use district with amendments. Sue Haves seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5- 2 (Gott, Wrangell) to recommend approval of the riverfront mixed use district with amendments. Sam Burgess provided an update of the Technical Review Committee's (TRC) activity for the month of January: 1. Coral Ridge- The TRC voted 4-0 to preliminarily approve 70 units with the provision that the homeowners maintain the roads until NCDOT is petitioned to take over maintenance. 2. Walnut Hills - The TRC voted 4-0 to waive the cul de sac diameter requirement. 3. The Grove at Anchors Bend - The TRC voted 3-0 to approve 12 lots with requirements. 4. Exton Place - The TRC voted 3-0 to approve 114 units with conditions. 5. Stevenson Mazda - The TRC voted 3-0 to preliminarily approve the portion of a 60-foot public right of way dedication located within the unincorporated area of the County. 6. NEI Moratorium - The TRC decided that it would continue to review subdivision plans located with in the NEI moratorium area if the developer provided an alternate wastewater disposal method such as septic systems. Dry sewer lines would still be required. Sue Haves expressed concern regarding the safety of septic tanks given the soils of the area. Ms. Hayes stated that she thought the main reason for running sewer to that area had been the number of failing septic tanks. There was discussion regarding the safety of septic tanks and the role of the County's Environmental Health department to manage the septic systems. Sam Burgess stated that the next TRC meeting will be held February 7, 2007. Sue Haves asked that the Planning staff to review and report at next month's Planning Board meeting the definition of "associated lot" in a subdivision with regards to the lot to boat slip ratio. Chris O'Keefe asked the Planning Board for a volunteer to serve on the Selection Committee for the Community Development Block Grant program. The Board requested additional information. Holt Moore introduced the new Assistant County Attorney, Sharon Jackson Huffman. The Board thanked Holt Moore for his service to the Planning Board and wished him well in his new endeavors. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm.