Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout200711 Nov PBM Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board November 1, 2007 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, November 1, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in the Human Resources Training Room at the New Hanover County Government Center, 230 Government Center Drive, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Melissa Gott, Chair Chris O'Keefe, Planning Director Sandra Spiers, Vice Chair Sam Burgess, Principal Development Planner Richard Collier Karyn Crichton, Administrative Specialist Sue Hayes Jane Daughtridge, Senior Planner Jay Williams Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Ken Wrangell Absent: David Adams Melissa Gott opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Ken Wrangell made a motion to approve the October minutes. Richard Collier seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to approve the minutes. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-874, 11/07) - Request by Lois Blackledge to rezone approximately .21 acres located at 6520 Carolina Beach Road in the Transition Land Classification from B-2 Highway Business District to R-15 Residential District. Jane Daughtridge presented slides of the property and provided information pertaining to land use, zoning, access, and level of service (LOS). Ms. Daughtridge provided the following staff summary: STAFF SUMMARY: The subject property is located in the southern portion of the county in an area classified as Transition on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification map. The property is accessed from Carolina Beach Rd. which is a principal arterial road according to the Wilmington Urban Area 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. Level of service has been rated D along this segment, meaning high density traffic is moving at a stable flow. The roadway is divided by a grassed median, and a median cut is available just to the north of the subject parcel. Traffic counts in this area increased only about 2% between 2003 and 2005. The subject property was historically used for commercial purposes and is at the southernmost point of a small commercial node near the intersection of Carolina Beach Road and Halyburton Memorial Parkway. A dilapidated structure was recently removed from the property. Several of the commercial lots south of Halyburton Memorial Parkway have been divided among multiple heirs of the original owner. The heir to this parcel desires to transition the property to residential use, consistent with adjacent property to the south and elsewhere in the surrounding area which is currently zoned R-15, including individual parcels and subdivisions such as Heritage Woods, Sago Bay and Laurel Ridge. North of this property is zoned B-2 with a dilapidated structure on the adjacent property and various commercial uses on the properties further north. Across Carolina Beach Road is additional R-15 residential property. The subject property is located within the Lords Creek watershed drainage area which is classified C(SW). The property is not within the 100 year flood zone. Soils are primarily class III Leon soils with severe limitations for septic systems. Chris O'Keefe recommended approval of the rezoning request, stating that it appears consistent with the land use and current zoning pattern. Mr. O'Keefe provided the following statement: Land Use Plan Considerations: This rezoning petition proposes a change from high intensity commercial use to R-15 Residential use. Adjoining property to the north has a dilapidated structure not suited for use. Properties further north are still utilized for commercial purposes, but property to the south is residential. The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the purpose of the Transition Class as providing for "continued intensive urban development on lands that have been or will be provided with necessary urban services. The transition to residential use would appear to be consistent with the land use and the current zoning pattern. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the rezoning to R-15 residential. Jay Williams asked if the sliver of land located in the southwestern corner of the property, between parcels labeled 2 and 4 on the map, was a mapping error or if in fact the sliver was not part of the property. Chris O'Keefe thought it to be a mapping error and would be included as part of the residential rezoning request. Lois Blackledge, the petitioner, stated that she is requesting that her property be rezoned residential because she would like to build a house on the property and reside there. Lillian Blacklege, adjacent property owner supported the rezoning. Walter Davis adjacent property owner supported the rezoning request. No one spoke in opposition. Sandra Spiers made a motion to recommend approval of the item. Richard Collier seconded the motion. Sue Haves amended the motion to include that if it is determined that the sliver of land is not a GIS error, that the sliver of land be rezoned as a residential (R-15). The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the item with the condition that the sliver of land in question be rezoned residential. Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z-875, 11/07) - Request by Withers and Ravenel to rezone 1.03 acres located at 304/308/310 Judges Road in the Urban Land Classification from R-15 Residential District to I-1 Industrial District. Jane Daughtridge presented slides of the property and provided information pertaining to land use, zoning, access, and level of service (LOS). Ms. Daughtridge provided the following staff summary: STAFF SUMMARY The subject property is located in the central portion of the county in an area classified as Urban on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification map. The property is accessed from Judges Road, a local street intersecting with Market Street, which is a principal arterial road according to the Wilmington Urban Area 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. Level of service has not been rated on Judges Road. LOS has been rated F along this segment of Market Street, meaning traffic exceeds the design capacity. Traffic counts in this area decreased about 10% between 2005 and 2006. The subject property is used for residential purposes but is largely surrounded by property zoned for industrial use. Adjacent to the north and east is zoned I-1 light industrial but is currently either undeveloped or residential. To the south is zoned I-1 and is developed with the Judges Road Business Park. To the west, three additional parcels are zoned R-15 and used for residential purposes. The area then transitions into R- 10 in Wildflower Subdivision. The subject property is located within the Smith Creek watershed drainage area which is classified C(SW) and is on the 303(d) list of impaired waters. The property is not within the 100 year flood zone. Soils are primarily class II Seagate fine sand with only moderate limitations for septic systems. Public water and sewer are available in the area. Chris O'Keefe recommended approval of the rezoning request, stating that it appears consistent with adjacent zoning and land classification. Mr. O'Keefe provided the following statement: Land Use Plan Considerations: This rezoning petition proposes a change from moderate density R-15 Residential use to a more intensive industrial classification. The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the purpose of the Urban class as providing for continued intensive development and redevelopment of existing urban areas. The transition from residential use to light industrial would appear to be consistent with the adjacent zoning and the land classification. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the rezoning from R-15 Residential to I-1 light industrial. Cindee Wolf a landscape architect representing the property owner, stated that the properties as they are currently zoned, are an anomaly since they are surrounded by industrial and business. Ms. Wolf stated that adjacent property owners, Mr. Judge and the nursing home were not interested in being included in the rezoning but did not object. Ken Wrangell made a motion to recommend approval. Sue Haves seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning request. Item 3: Text Amendment (A-365, 9/07) - Request by staff to amend Sections 59.7-4(7)(b) and 59.7-6(I) clarifying language relating to status of Conditional Use Districts and Special Use Permits. Jane Daughtridge stated that the proposed text amendment is intended to rectify the existing enforcement procedures for failure to proceed in a timely manner of special use and conditional use permits. Ms. Daughtridge explained that the proposed procedures would allow staff latitude in determining whether a hearing be scheduled before the Planning Board and County Commissioners to consider revoking a special use or conditional use permit and reverting the zoning. Ms. Daughtridge proposed that the following underlined changes be made to the zoning ordinance: BACKGROUND: The process by which we revert a conditional zoning action when building or occupancy has not been established has been called into question. When the Legal Department researched the matter, the UNC School of Government advised that the changed should happen in the same manner as it was originally approved, i.e. through the Planning Board and Commissioners with a public hearing. Therefore, we need to clarify our ordinance to assure that our actions are appropriate. Currently Section 59.7 states: 59.7-4: Approval Process (7) Effect of Approval (a) If the petition/application is approved, establishing the Conditional Use District, all conditions attached thereto by the companion Special Use Permit shall be binding on the tract included in the Conditional Use District and all subsequent development and use of the tract shall be in accordance with the approved plan and conditions. No building permit shall be issued for any development within a Conditional Use District except in accordance with an approved Special Use Permit. (b) If any condition imposed under the companion Special Use Permit is found to be illegal, the approval of both the Special Use Permit and the Conditional Use District shall be null and void, and the tract shall be rezoned. Recommendation: (b) If any condition imposed under the companion Special Use Permit is found to be illegal, the approval of both the Special Use Permit and the Conditional Use District shall be null and void, and the tract shall be rezoned in accordance with the process for map amendment outlined in Section 112. 59.7-5: Alterations to Approved Conditional Use Districts (1) Minor changes to an approved Conditional Use District or its companion Special Use Permit shall be considered in the same manner as that used for Special Use Permits as set forth in Section 71-1(9) of the Zoning Ordinance. (2) Any request for a change to an approved Conditional Use District that does not qualify as a minor change under the provisions of Section 71-1(9) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be submitted as a new Conditional Use District. 59.7-6: Enforcement (1) Failure to Proceed in a Timely Manner - If, within twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval of the Conditional Use District, no building permit has been issued for subject tract, the Planning Department shall initiate action to simultaneously revoke the Special Use Permit and rezone the Conditional Use District to its classification prior to approval. (10/7/91) Recommendation: (1) Failure to Proceed in a Timely Manner - If within 24 months from the date of approval of the Conditional Use District, no building permit has been issued for the subject tract, the Planning Department shall initiate °etieft may schedule a hearing for the Planning Board to consider progress made. If it is determined that active efforts are not proceeding, the Planning Board may send forward a recommendation to the County Commissioners to simultaneously revoke the Special Use Permit and rezone the Conditional Use District to its classification prior to approval. (2) Failure to Comply (a) The Inspections Director shall enforce the Conditions and Requirements specified for each Conditional Use District and its companion Special Use Permit following the provisions of Articles X and XIII of the Zoning Ordinance. (b) If a violation of a condition or requirement is not corrected within a reasonable time period, the Inspections Director shall also refer the matter to the Planning Department for initiation of proceedings to simultaneously revoke the Special Use Permit and rezone the Conditional Use District to its classification prior to approval. Recommendation: (b) If a violation of a condition or requirement is not corrected within a reasonable time period, the Inspections Director shall also refer the matter to the Planning Department for initiation of proceedings to simultaneously revoke the Special Use Permit and rezone the Conditional Use District to its classification prior to approval in accordance with the process outlined for map amendment in Section 112. Sue Hayes asked why the change from "shall" to "may" in section 59.7-6: Enforcement. Jane Daughtridge explained that "may" gives the Planning Department an option of whether to initiate action since there may be special circumstances to consider. Richard Collier asked how an applicant would be notified if actions to revoke a permit were being initiated. Jane Daughtridge stated that they would be notified in writing. Jay Williams asked how should the Planning Board judge progress of a conditional use or special use project. Jane Daughtridge explained that if a project is held up by an agency (e.g., DOT, CAMA, etc) but working towards resolution/moving forward, that would constitute progress. Richard Collier asked if the County's Zoning Ordinance permits extensions for special use or conditional use permits. Jane Daughtridge stated that the County's ordinance does not explicitly specify extensions for conditional use permits. There was board discussion regarding amending the proposed language of section 59.7-6 (1) to include multiple hearings at the Planning board level for extensions and a fixed amount of time for extensions. Cindee Wolf concurred with Planning staff's proposed text amendment and recommended language. Ms. Wolf added that it seems logical for Planning Staff to have the option of scheduling a hearing to consider the status of a conditional use permit which has not been issued a building permit within 24 months rather than the immediate repeal of the conditional use permit without a public hearing to consider the circumstances. Jay Williams suggested not putting a fixed time for extension to allow for greater flexibility. Sandra Spiers felt that the proposed language would be interpreted to allow for multiple hearings by the Planning Board to review the status of conditional use permits. Sue Hayes made a motion to recommend approval of the item. Jay Williams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the item. Item 4: Land Use Plan Amendment (LUP-12) Request by Staff to amend the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan to allow density exceptions for Riverfront Mixed Use projects within the Conservation Land Classification and to broaden the opportunities for commercial marinas and public water access in Primary Nursery Areas. Chris O'Keefe stated that Policy 3.12 and Policy 21.2 of the CAMA Land Use Plan inadvertently impede the guidelines set forth in the Riverfront Mixed Used (RFMU) Zoning District. Mr. O'Keefe briefly outlined the RFMU guidelines and explained that the exceptional design standards set forth in the RFMU would safeguard the environment given any exemptions for increased density and impervious surface for projects within the RFMU district. Mr. O'Keefe proposed the following bold underlined amendments to the CAMA Land Use Plan STAFF RECOMMENDS: Note: Bold underline is new language Policy 3.12 Carefully control development and redevelopment activities within the Watershed Resource Protection and Conservation areas identified on the Land Classification Map to prevent the degradation of water quality in the creeks and sounds, to protect the public health, and to ensure the protection of these vital natural resources by reducing nutrient, pesticide, sediment, and other pollutants. The following standards shall apply a. Impervious surface coverage shall be limited to twenty-five percent (25%) in the Watershed Resource Protection and Conservation areas. b. Projects that conform to adopted exceptional design standards for enhanced stormwater controls or proiects developed under the Riverfront Mixed Use District standards may exceed 25% in the Watershed Resource Protection and Conservation areas. c. Natural vegetative buffers shall be established to effectively filter runoff before it enters surface waters. Policy 21.2 Limit density to 2.5 units / acre or less in conservation areas (100 year, or 1% annual chance floodplain) as defined in Part III. Land Classification. Implementation Strategies for Policy 21.2 21.2.1 Continue enforcing the limit as specified. 21.2.2 Develop a program for density tradeoffs to encourage development outside the floodplain. LAND CLASSIFICATION MAP DESCRIPTION AND DEFINITIONS The land classification system is a means of assisting in the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan policies. It allows the local government and its citizens to specify those areas where certain policies will apply. The land classification system is intended to be supported and complemented by zoning, subdivision and other land use management tools. Together they provide the guidance to help realize the desired future land uses. The land classifications for the 2005 Wilmington-New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan Update are as follows: Conservation The purpose of the Conservation 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. Management of these areas may be required for a number of reasons, including natural, cultural, recreational, productive or scenic values, but are primarily flood prone areas. Lands placed in the Conservation class present challenges from a land use standpoint, as they are often the most desirable from a development perspective and they may be, at the same time, the most undesirable to develop from an environmental or public safety perspective. Lands placed in the Conservation class are generally the least desirable for development because: 1 They are too fragile to withstand development without losing their natural value; and/or 2 They have severe or hazardous limitations to development; and/or 3 Though they are not highly fragile or hazardous, the natural resources they represent are too valuable to endanger by development. In order to promote the highest and best use while preventing a negative impact on water quality, site specific flexibility and creativity is desirable. The application of regulations regarding issues such as density, buffers and impervious surfaces should enhance this flexibility. The use of incentives such as density credits and performance criteria is encouraged. Generally, estuarine areas of environmental concern (AEC's) as defined by the State of North Carolina and adjacent lands within the 100-year floodplain have been classified as Conservation. Conservation areas should be preserved in their natural state. Woodland, grassland and recreation areas not requiring filling are the most appropriate uses. Exceptions to this standard are limited to water-dependent uses (i.e., uses that cannot function elsewhere), shared industrial access corridors, and those exceptional development proposals which are sensitively designed so as to effectively preserve the natural functions of the site. The following guidelines clarify these Conservation area objectives and development of property should be limited to the following uses: 1 Water dependent uses - may include: utility easements, docks, wharves, boat ramps, dredging, bridge and bridge approaches, revetments, bulkheads, culverts, groins, navigational aide, moorings, pilings, navigational channels, simple access channels and drainage ditches. In some instances, a water-dependent use may involve coverage of sizeable land areas with limited opportunities to integrate the use with the site's natural features. This would require reclassification of the site. By contrast, water dependent uses which can be designed to preserve a site's natural features may not require reclassification. This would be the preferred type of development. 2 Shared industrial access corridors - as discussed in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' The Wilmington Harbor: Plan for Improvement, would provide necessary access to the channel of the Northeast Cape Fear River for industries located on high ground while minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of such access. 3 Exceptional developments preserving natural features are projects which are sensitively designed to be in harmony with the site's natural features and natural functions, and provide a balance with the highest and best use of the property. Such projects minimize erosion, runoff and siltation; minimize impervious surfaces impacts and protect estuarine resources; do not interfere with access to or use of navigable waters; do not require extraordinary public expenditures for maintenance; ensure that ground absorption sewage systems, if used, meet applicable standards; and should be aware of and not damage historic, architectural or archeological resources. In no case, with the exception of the Wilmington National Register Historic District and the Riverfront Mixed Use District shall residential density in the Conservation class be permitted to exceed 2.5 units per acre or greater than 25% impervious surface coverage, regardless of the existence of public urban services. Residential densities and impervious surface coverage may be required to be as low as 1.0 unit/acre or 15% or less respectively, depending on the environmental constraints within a particular area. While certain Conservation areas may be served by public sewer in order to eliminate septic system pollution, this should not be misconstrued as an incentive to facilitate increased development density. Sue Haves asked staff to explain the differences between exceptional design standards and regular design standards. Chris O'Keefe stated that the County does not currently have exceptional design standards but is a goal of the department. Mr. O'Keefe added that the Planning Department is nearing completion of the County's first Low Impact Development manual that could serve as a model for the development of exceptional design standards. Doug Springer. Cape Fear Riverkeeper, expressed concern about allowing impervious area to exceed 25% in the Conservation land classification. Mr. Springer was concerned that there was little discussion regarding the amendment. Several Planning Board members commented that there had been months of discussion regarding the RFMU and that the Board was comfortable with the content and understood the proposed amendment to only synchronize the land use plan with the RFMU, not to change the RFMU. Sue Haves suggested requiring projects developed under the RFMU district to conform to exceptional design standards and enhanced stormwater controls. Jane Daughtridge agreed with Jay Williams' statement that the RFMU requires more aggressive standards. Chris O'Keefe added that although the RFMU does not specifically require exceptional stormwater regulations; projects developed within the RFMU must meet the County's stormwater regulations which are the strongest in state. Jay Williams made a motion to recommend approval of the item. Richard Collier seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-1(Hayes) to recommend approval. Additional Item: Discussion of access for a proposed nursing home facility to be located off Piner Road (5-578). Chris O'Keefe stated that the NC Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Planning Organization recently completed a corridor study that determined that a right of way may potentially bisect the proposed nursing home facility through Mallard Crossing. Mr. O'Keefe stated that the petitioner has amended their site plan to accommodate for the right of way. Mr. O'Keefe explained that County Commissioners have requested that the Planning Board review the change prior to their hearing it on November 5, 2007. There was discussion whether an additional public hearing was necessary given the site plan adjustment. It was stated that adjacent property owners received a copy of the updated site plan with notification of the County Commissioners meeting. Richard Collier asked if the location of the dumpsters changed in the new site plan. Cindee Wolf landscape architect representing the nursing home project, stated that the building was rotated 90 degrees and the dumpsters are located 150 feet from any residences. Several Board members expressed concern regarding the hazards of connectivity in this particular area as well as neighborhood opposition to Mallard Crossing connectivity. Sue Haves expressed concern that the NCDOT has hastily prepared the corridor plan. Sharon Huffman Assistant County Attorney, advised the Planning Board to make a motion if they feel that an additional public hearing is necessary. No motion was made. Sam Burgess provided an update of the Technical Review Committee's (TRC) activity for the month of October: 1. Ridgefield at Middle Sound - The TRC voted 4-0 to approve a one year preliminary extension with existing terms and conditions from original approval. 2. Roland Place - The TRC voted 4-0 to deny the request to remove the public street designation and the 45 foot access easement requirement. 3. River Road - The TRC voted 2-1 to preliminarily approve both phases of the River Road project with requirements. Sam Burgess stated that the TRC would meet next on November 7, 2007. Chris O'Keefe stated that a worksession would be held on November 15, 2007 at noon at the New Hanover County Government Center to discuss design standards for hamm radio antennas, community and residential boating facilities, the proposed dry stack storage amendment, and an update on the implementation of the land use plan. Hearing no further business, Sue Haves made a motion to adjourn the meeting; Richard Collier seconded the motion; and Melissa Gott adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m.