Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout200712 Dec PBM Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board December 6, 2007 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, December 6, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the Old County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Melissa Gott, Chair Chris O'Keefe, Planning Director David Adams Karyn Crichton, Administrative Specialist Richard Collier Jane Daughtridge, Senior Planner Sue Hayes Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Jay Williams Ken Wrangell Absent: Sandra Spiers, Vice Chair Sam Burgess, Principal Development Planner Melissa Gott opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Chris O'Keefe led the reciting of the Pledge ofAllegiance. Sue Hayes made a motion to approve the November minutes. Jay Williams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the minutes. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-876, 12/07) - Request by Jonathan Washburn for Vandergrift, Williams, and Caines to rezone approximately 13 acres located at 3400-3404 Castle Hayne Road and 109-119 Gladiolus Rd. in the Aquifer Resource Protection Land Classification from R-20 low density Residential to B-2 Highway Business District. Jane Daughtridge presented slides of the property and provided information pertaining to land use, land classification, zoning, access, level of service (LOS), and water and sewer availability. Ms. Daughtridge provided the following staff summary: STAFF SUMMARY The subject property is located in the northwest portion of the county in an area classified as Aquifer Resource protection on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification map. The properties are accessed from Castle Hayne Road and from Gladiolus Road, a local street intersecting with the principal arterial road. Level of service has not been rated on Gladiolus Road. LOS has been rated F along this segment of Castle Hayne Road, meaning traffic exceeds the design capacity. Traffic counts in this area decreased about 4% between 2004 and 2005. The I-140 interchange is located just north of this property. The Caines and Vandergrift properties are vacant at this time, but a portion of the Williams properties on Castle Hayne Road are used for residential purposes. The southern portion of all these properties is traversed by a large power easement with high power lines running east and west across the land. Adjacent to the north is vacant, wooded area. To the south is zoned R-15 along Gladiolus Rd. To the west, across Castle Hayne Road, is also zoned R-20 with a church, vacant land and a residential use in place. Further south on both sides of the road are small businesses in commercial zoning districts. The subject property is located within the Prince Georges Creek watershed drainage area which is classified C(SW). The property is not within the 100 year flood zone. Soils are primarily class III Murville soils with severe limitations for septic systems. Public water is nearby at Rockhill Road. Public sewer is not available in the area at this time and septic failure has been noted in the area. This area is one of several priority needs areas for extension of county water and sewer. Chris O'Keefe recommended approval of the rezoning request, stating that the area around the I-140 interchange is appropriate to become a commercial node in the future when services such as water and sewer become available. Mr. O'Keefe provided the following statement: Land Use Plan Considerations: This rezoning petition proposes a change from low density R-20 Residential use to a more intensive B-2 highway business classification. Implementation strategies associated with Policy 4.3 of the land use plan encourage location of regional commercial nodes at major intersections consistent with the classification map and other local plans and location of commercial centers to provide service and trade at key intersections. Strategy 4.3.2 directs us to follow recommendations of the Wilmington Bypass Steering Committee on designated interchanges. Those recommendations identify expansion of economic benefits relating to industrial or manufacturing uses as well as a possible business park in this vicinity. The B-2 Highway Business District includes the broadest array of commercial uses. These would be presumed to be larger and higher intensity operations in a roadside environment to accommodate high volume traffic and the motoring public. The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the purpose of the Aquifer Resource Protection class as providing for the preservation and protection of important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife and recreational resources. The Aquifer Resource Protection subclass occurs in the Northwest part of the County north of Smith Creek, and is the area where the Castle Hayne and Pee Dee Aquifers secondary recharge occurs. The impacts that the resource is being protected from is diminished recharge of the aquifer and contamination of the aquifer by inappropriate land uses. The focus of strategies to protect this Resource Protection subclass is encouraging larger lot development if septic systems are used to prevent cross contamination of wells, extension of water and sewer service to curtail septic system use, prevention of uses that pose risk of spill of hazardous materials, and encouraging development practices that promote sustained recharge. This property will be somewhat constrained for any type of development by the presence of the large power easement on the property. Careful design will be necessary to create viable use of the land, whether residential or commercial. Staff feels the area around the I-140 interchange will be ripe for commercialization when public services become available in the future, and although a transition from residential use to highway commercial use might appear to be inconsistent with the adjacent zoning and the land classification at this time, staff believes the requested zoning change is reasonable and in the long range public interest as a start for establishing this future commercial node. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the rezoning from R-20 Residential to B-2 Highway Business. Jonathan Washburn commercial broker with Prudential CRES, representing the property owners, stated that the rezoning request is consistent with Policy 4.3.1 of the CAMA Land Use Plan that suggests locating commercial regional nodes at major intersections. Mr. Washburn stated that commercial development at the proposed location would require sewer extension and that current septic systems in the area are failing. Mr. Washburn also stated that the area has experienced significant changes since the opening of the I-140 bypass and that centralizing a commercial node near the interchange, would reduce the traffic on Castle Hayne Road. Mr. Washburn added that of the adjacent neighbors he spoke to about the rezoning, those who did not want to be included in the rezoning, did not object to the rezoning. Luther Whitted, representing St. James AME Church located across the street from the proposed rezoning spoke in opposition to the rezoning, citing concerns that the rezoning would have a negative impact on the church. Mr. Whiffed also expressed concern that Mr. Washburn did not consult with property owners on the west side of Castle Hayne Road. Emerson Whitted neighborhood resident spoke in opposition to the rezoning stating that property owners on the west side of Castle Hayne would be negatively impacted and were not consulted about the rezoning. Mr. Whitted stated that he served on the I-140 Steering Committee and it was determined that the intersection of I-140 and Castle Hayne Road was the appropriate location for commercial development, which is north of the proposed rezoning. Mr. Whitted stated that he supports growth but currently the infrastructure is not available to support commercial growth. Mr. Whitted also expressed concern about the broad range of uses permitted in a B-2 zoning district including, demolition landscaping. Robert Gore adjacent property owner to the immediate north of the proposed rezoning opposed the rezoning. Jonathan Washburn stated in his rebuttal that some of the neighbors' concerns regarding recent vandalism is not related to the rezoning. Mr. Washburn was sorry that he was unable to speak to all of the neighbors and would welcome the opportunity to speak with representatives from St. James AME church. Dave Adams asked for clarification whether Mr. Gore supported or opposed the rezoning and whether water and sewer were available for the project. Jonathan Washburn clarified that the property immediately north of the proposed rezoning is owned by two brothers and that he spoke to the other brother who implied that he did not oppose the rezoning. Mr. Washburn explained that water and sewer is necessary for the development of the property and that the developer would pay for the extension of water and sewer if developed. Luther Whined, representing St. James AME Church stated in his rebuttal that the church's contact information is readily available. Dave Adams stated that this rezoning would essentially dedicate one half mile square to commercial development and asked if there is evidence to support this need. Chris O'Keefe stated that GE has major expansion plans to add 9,000 employees and there are large scale residential projects planned along Chair and Rockhill Roads. Sue Haves felt that this proposal was spot rezoning and that it the commercial development should be closer to the I-140 interchange. Ken Wrangell stated that a B-2 rezoning might accelerate the extension of water and sewer to the area. Richard Collier asked in light of the predicted growth, if the DOT has performed any traffic studies to plan for road improvements. Chris O'Keefe stated that a traffic study would be necessary if this area grows as predicted. Richard Collier asked Jonathan Washburn the distance was from the proposed project to water and sewer lines. Jonathan Washburn stated that water and sewer lines were located 4000 feet or less than 1 mile away and that the project could speed up the availability of water and sewer for the neighbors. Ken Wrangell made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning petition. Richard Collier seconded the motion. Sue Haves stated that she would vote against it because the proposal appears to be like spot zoning and commercial development should be located at the interchange not further down. Dave Adams also felt that the proposal appeared to be spot zoning and that a one half mile commercial radius would be created by this rezoning. Jay Williams felt that the power lines along Gladiolus Road would act as a natural barrier and mark where the commercial node would terminate. Mr. Williams expressed concern regarding the range of uses in a B-2 zoning district but stated that he was begrudgingly leaning towards voting toward approval. The Planning Board voted 5-1 (Hayes) to recommend approval of the rezoning petition. Item 2: Text Amendment (A-366, 10/07) - Request by David Ward to amend Sections 72-31 Commercial Marina, to add a condition that dry storage of boats not be allowed in residential districts. Continued from October meeting. Jane Daughtridge provided a background of the item and showed aerial photos of area marinas with dry stack storage. Ms. Daughtridge summarized the following major points of discussion from a Planning Board work session that discussed dry stack storage. POINTS OF DISCUSSION FROM PLANNING BOARD WORK SESSION 1. Commercial marinas are not allowed in residential zoning districts in most NC coastal places. NHC allows commercial marinas in residential zoning districts by Special Use Permit (SUP). a. Should commercial marinas be allowed in Residential Zoning Districts? 2. Dry stack boat storage is allowed as an accessory use to commercial marinas in B-2 or I-1 zoning districts where commercial marinas are permitted by right. There is only one (1) instance where dry stack storage is included in a residential district, and it was approved as part of the SUP with added buffering required. a. Should dry stack boat storage be allowed in residential zoning districts as part of SUP? b. Should dry stack boat storage be considered as an individual use on the table of uses rather than an accessory use? 3. If commercial marinas are appropriate in residential districts and if dry stack boat storage is allowed in residential zoning districts, are there specific standards or classes of standards that should be included in the approval process? a. Buffering? b. Additional setbacks? As required when permitted by right (Sec. 69.11)? Other? c. Proximity to adjacent property? d. Stand alone use or part of mixed use project? Both? e. Other? Ms. Daughtridge stated that based on the dialogue from the work session and online research, the Planning Staff crafted the following language regarding dry stack storage: PROPOSED LANGUAGE RELATING TO DRY STACK STORAGE OF BOATS Definitions: 23-63.1 Dry Stack Storage - Vertical storage of boats in a rack system, providing for storage of at least 2 layers of boats. Table of Uses: ADD Dry stack storage of boats: Asa stand-alone warehouse use - Permitted in B-2, I4, I-2 As accessory to a marina - Permitted in B-2, I4, I-2, PD, RFMU SUP in R's and B-1 CHANGE 72-31: Commercial Marina - This type of use may be permitted in any residential district or B-1 Business District provided: (2/7/83) (1) A minimum of one (1) off-street parking space per boat slip and per four (4) dry storage facilities shall be provided. (4/05) (2) A buffer in compliance with Section 67 shall be provided along all property lines abutting residential property. (3) Night lighting by design and construction shall be contained on the site. (4) A site plan shall be submitted for review and approval. (7/7/80) (5) It can be demonstrated that the sitting of the facility will have minimal impacts on water quality, primary nursery areas, shellfish grounds, and conservation resources. (10/10/92) (6) Drv storage facilities will not be allowed in Residential Districts Possible Additions: (6) Dry stack storage as an accessory to a marina in a residential or B-1 zoning district most be clearly identified on the approved site plan and described in the findings of fact. Additional buffers or screenings may be required on a case- by-case basis to mitigate noise, light and dust impacts on surrounding properties. a. Setbacks for dry stack storage from any abutting residential property line shall be not less than 2.5 times the height of the structure if enclosed or the highest point of a stored vessel if unenclosed (Commentary: Section 69.11 of the ordinance already requires setback factors relative to height when commercial, O&I or Industrial districts abut residential districts, so in areas where a marina is permitted by right, setbacks are built in. It is logical to carry this concept over to the Special Use requirements since, without it, the setbacks could be even less than under permitted situations.) h. Appearance of stacked storage should retain the character of the surrounding residential areas or provide opaque vegetative buffers to reduce visual impacts. (Commentary: Visual buffers were required on the special use permit for Inlet Watch, the only commercial marina with dry stack in a residential district It would be consistent with the policy of protecting residential neighborhoods to require buffering of the building or racks.) C. Projects shall he designed so that the use of noise-generating activities, such as large marine forklifts, boat haul out or boat repair approved as part of the special use permit will he located as far away from residential structures as feasible to lessen impacts on the residential quality of life. (Commentary: Again, to be consistent with the policy of preserving residential neighborhoods, it would be logical to require that when commercial or industrial types of activities occur within a residential area, the activities that pose the greatest impact on peace and serenity be located as far away from the abutting residential uses as possible.) Dave Adams asked what was the staff's position and recommendation. Jane Daughtridge stated that the staff's position is that dry stack should not be allowed in residential districts. However, since a majority of the Planning Board opposes a complete prohibition of dry stack storage in residential districts, staff felt that at least, safeguards should be put into place, if dry stack is to be permitted in residential districts. Sue Haves stated that she supports completely prohibiting dry stack storage in residential districts. Jay Williams stated that majority of waterfront property in New Hanover County is zoned residential, therefore prohibiting dry stack storage in residential districts, would impede water access. Bill Raney an attorney representing the petitioner, David Ward, confirmed that the Planning Board had received his position statement. Mr. Raney stated that a couple of the Planning staffs slides that showed homes located near marinas with dry stack storage, were built after the establishment of the marina. Mr. Raney stated that his client's preference would be to disallow dry stack storage in residential districts and sited several CAMA Land Use policies to support that assertion. Ken Shanklin, an attorney representing an opposing party, Tim Ward, filed a motion to dismiss the teat amendment on the grounds that the petitioner, David Ward, is not an "interested party" because he does not reside on Burnett Road. Melissa Gott asked Assistant County Attorney, Sharon Huffman for her legal opinion on the motion to dismiss. Sharon Huffman stated that the Board may proceed and disregard the motion or suspend the item to review the motion. There was extensive discussion of whether to hear the item or suspend the item; whether David Ward had standing; and was an "interested party." Bill Raney stated that it was not necessary to suspend the item because text amendments are legislative matters, not quasi-judicial, therefore standing is not relevant. Jane Daughtridge stated that with regards to text amendments, all New Hanover County residents can be considered interested parties. Dave Adams made a motion to disregard Ken Shanklin's motion and hear the item. Sue Haves seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 4-2 (Gott and Wrangell) to hear the item. Tim Ward Burnett Road property owner, spoke in opposition to the text amendment and distributed handouts to the Planning Board. Tim Ward stated that David Ward's text amendment is targeted specifically at his desired project and that the amendment would prohibit water access in the county. Tim Ward outlined the major points of his handouts including the need for water access; the environmental benefits of dry stack storage; and appealing design of the proposed dry stack storage facility. Tim Ward added that a dry stack facility he hopes to build would bring the added benefit of water and sewer to the neighborhood residents. Bill Raney stated that the County needs more public water access but that dry stack storage only provides access for a select population. Mr. Raney stated that Tim Ward does not have a CAMA permit for dry stack storage. Mr. Raney supported Planning Staff's recommended language but preferred the original version which completely prohibited dry stack in residential districts. David Ward the petitioner, stated that he owns a home on Burnett Road and express a desire to protect the neighborhood from dry stack facilities. Matt Nichols, an attorney with Shanklin & Nichols spoke in opposition to the text amendment. Mr. Nichols stated that permitting dry stack storage in Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) does not help the cause for water access because PUDs in the County require a minimum of 100 acres which is difficult to come by in New Hanover County and argued that PUDs provide water access only to the residents and not the public at large. Dave Adams stated that the proposed text amendment is not about standings, CAMA, or water access but whether dry storage should be permitted in residential districts or permitted with conditions. Dr. Adams stated that it was difficult and subjective to define and regulate some of the conditions for permitting a marina in a residential district including building fagade and buffering/screening. Dave Adams made a motion to recommend that dry storage facilities not be allowed in residential districts. Sue Haves seconded the motion. Ken Wrangell stated that there may be situations in which dry storage facilities would be appropriate in a residential district and could not go along with a blanket prohibition. Richard Collier asked Dave Adams if defining screenings was the main reason for his opposition or if it was the amendment entirely. Dave Adams stated that dry stack storage should not be allowed in residential districts because it is unsuitable in residential districts and cited the noise generated by forklift back up warnings. Richard Collier stated that there could be cases where dry stack is appropriate in residential districts. Melissa Gott stated that she had difficulty completely prohibiting dry stack storage in residential districts because there could be circumstances where it would be appropriate and added that a complete prohibition would lead to additional rezoning requests along the water. The motion made by David Adams failed with the Planning Board voting 2-4 to prohibit dry stack storage in residential districts. Ken Wrangell made a motion to recommend that the following language be substituted for the teat amendment: Definitions: 23-63.1 Dry Stack Storage - Vertical storage of boats in a rack system, providing for storage of at least 2 layers of boats. Table of Uses: ADD Dry stack storage of boats: Asa stand-alone warehouse use - Permitted in B-2, I-1, I-2 As accessory to a marina - Permitted in B-2, I-1, I-2, PD, RFMU SUP in R's and B-1 CHANGE 72-31: Commercial Marina - This type of use may be permitted in any residential district or B-1 Business District provided: (2/7/83) (1) A minimum of one (1) off-street parking space per boat slip and per four (4) dry storage facilities shall be provided. (4/05) (2) A buffer in compliance with Section 67 shall be provided along all property lines abutting residential property. (3) Night lighting by design and construction shall be contained on the site. (4) A site plan shall be submitted for review and approval. (7/7/80) (5) It can be demonstrated that the sitting of the facility will have minimal impacts on water quality, primary nursery areas, shellfish grounds, and conservation resources. (10/10/92) Additions: (6) Dry stack storage as an accessory to a marina in a residential or B-1 zoning district must be clearly identified on the approved site plan and described in the findings of fact Additional buffers or screenings will be required to mitigate noise, light and dust impacts on surrounding properties. a. Setbacks for dry stack storage from any abutting residential property line shall be not less than 2.75 times the height of the structure if enclosed or the highest point of a stored vessel if unenclosed b. Appearance of stacked storage should retain the character of the surrounding residential areas and provide opaque vegetative buffers to reduce visual impacts. C. Projects shall be designed so that the use of noise- menerating activities, such as large marine forklifts, boat haul out or boat repair approved as part of the special use permit will be located as far away from residential structures as feasible to lessen impacts on the residential quality of life, Richard Collier asked Mr. Wrangell to amend the motion to explicitly state a maximum building height of 35 feet in residential districts but withdrew his request because of height variations in flood zone areas Sue Haves asked Mr. Wrangell to include in his motion, "The shoreline of the property shall not be located within 200' of open shellfish waters as designated by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries or any successor agency" but the additional language was not accepted by Mr. Wrangell into the motion. The Planning Board voted 4-2 (Adams, Hayes) to recommend Mr. Wrangell's modified amendment. Item 3: Text Amendment (A-368, 12/07) - Request by Grasmico, Inc. to amend Section 53.5 Planned Development Districts to add a new section 53.5-2(7)(0) allowing more flexible standards for Planned Developments which include a continuing care retirement facility. Jane Daughtridge stated that the Planning staff generally supports the petitioner's text amendment to allow for more flexible standards to accommodate continuing care retirement facilities in a Planned Unit Development given the County's growing retiree and elderly population. Ms. Daughtridge outlined the proposed amendment and highlighted the two key differences between the petitioner's proposal and the staff's version: 1.) measuring the continuing care facility by acreage not population and 2.) lessening of thoroughfare requirements so long as the level of service (LOS) of the arterial road is not diminished. The petitioner requested the following text amendment: Amend Section 53.5: Planned Development (PD) District to add new subsection 53.5-2(7)(0), as follows: Section 53.5-2(7)(0). Recognizing the County's need for adequate housing for the elderly population as stated in the 2006 CAMA Plan Update, the following district regulations shall apply in instances where at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the PD district population will reside in a Continuing Care Retirement Facility as defined in Article 64 of Chapter 58 of the North Carolina General Statutes: a. The maximum height for a continuing care retirement facility building shall be fifty-five 55 feet. b. The Thoroughfares Requirements in Section 53.5-2(7)(N) and Section 69.9 may be satisfied if a traffic study supports a finding by the Board of County Commissioners that the roadway providing access for the proposed PD development to and from an existing major or minor arterial will operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS), and will operate at an acceptable level of service. Matt Nichols, an attorney with Shanklin & Nichols representing the petitioner, stated that the text amendment is exclusive to Planned Unit Developments and would allow for a better overall project rather than a piecemeal of rezonings and special use permits to achieve his client's proposal. Mr. Nichols gave an overview of continuing care facilities, provided a handout to the Planning Board on continuing care facilities, and stated that the CAMA Land Use Plan calls for housing for the elderly population. Mr. Nichols asked the Planning Board to recommend approval of the text amendment as originally submitted with the thoroughfare requirement of operating at an "acceptable level of service" rather than "not at a diminished level of service" and with 25% measured by population not acreage. Stephen Greene, a traffic engineer with Ramey Kemp & Associates commented on diminished level of service. No one spoke in opposition to the text amendment. Richard Collier asked Mr. Nichols if his client's project met the thoroughfare requirements outlined in Section 69.9 of the County's zoning ordinance. Matt Nichols explained that a road must exclusively provide access to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to satisfy the County's access requirements; many projects, including that of Mr. Nichols' client, requires amending the County's zoning ordinance. Chris O'Keefe stated that Planning staff anticipated additional PUD petitions encountering this access issue but warned to be cautious when relaxing PUD requirements. Sue Haves asked what was the maximum building height allowed in PUD districts. Chris O'Keefe stated the maximum building height allowed in a PUD was 40 feet or 80 feet in PUDs that front an arterial roadway. There was Planning Board discussion regarding redefining the thoroughfare requirement for PUDs. Chris O'Keefe suggested that section 53.5-2(7)(O)b. of the zoning ordinance be changed to, "The Thoroughfare Requirements acceptable level of service and will not drop the level of service below C. The Petitioner agreed with the Planning Staff's amended recommendation to measure 25% of continuing care by number of units rather than population of the PUD. Richard Collier made a motion to recommend approval of the following modified text amendment: Section 53.5-2(7)(0). Recognizing the County's need for adequate housing for the elderly population as stated in the 2006 CAMA Plan Update, the following district regulations shall apply in instances where at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the PD district's maximum number of units are included in a Continuing Care Retirement Facility as described and regulated under NCGS 58 Article 64: a. The maximum height for a continuing care retirement facility building shall be fifty-five (55) feet. b. The thoroughfare requirements in Section 53.5-2(7)(N) and Section 69.9 may be satisfied if a traffic study supports a finding by the Board of County Commissioners that the roadway providing access for the proposed PD development to and from an existing major or minor arterial will operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS), and will not cause the level of service (LOS) to drop below a level of service C. Jay Williams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the modified teat amendment. Chris O'Keefe provided an update of the Technical Review Committee's (TRC) activity for the month of November: 1. Tarin Woods - The Technical Review Committee voted 4-0 to preliminarily re- approve the project of 130 units for two years. 2. Tidal Walk - The Technical Review Committee voted 4-0 to preliminarily approve a one-year extension for 150 units. 3. Sans Souci - The Technical Review Committee voted 3-1 to approve a southeastwardly shift of the project's road stub and connection to adjacent Progress Industrial Park. 4. Progress Industrial Park - The Technical Review Committee voted 4-0 to continue the item. Chris O'Keefe stated that the TRC would meet neat on December 12, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. Hearing no further business, Melissa Gott adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.