Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout200612 Dec PBM MINUTES OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 7, 2006 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, December 7, 2006 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 David Adams Sam Burgess, Principal Development Planner Melissa Gott Karyn Crichton, Administrative Support Specialist Sue Hayes Jane Daughtridge, Senior Planner Jay Williams Holt Moore, 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 approve the October minutes and table the approval of the November minutes until the January meeting. Jay Williams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the October minutes. Paul Bonev stated that the petitioners for item #2 and item #5 have requested a continuance. Jay Williams made a motion to continue items #2 and #5. Sue Haves seconded the motion. The Board voted 6-0 to continue both items. Item 1: Text Amendment (A-355, 11/06) - Request by staff to add a new section under Article V of the zoning ordinance, creating Section 59.9 RFMU Riverfront Mixed Use District. (Continued from November 2, 2006) Chris O'Keefe stated that the item had been continued from the November Planning Board meeting to allow Board members additional time to consider the proposed ordinance and to hold work sessions with Planning staff. The following key items were discussed at the work sessions: • The County's ability to handle services (specifically water, sewer, traffic, fire services and sheriff) for such an intense, urban style development • Height exceeding the already permitted 40 foot limit - especially across from the historic district of downtown Wilmington at the southernmost extent of the RFMU proposal • The review process for the proposed district - TRC should review the proposal before planning board and commissioners. • Storm water management • How this proposal relates to the Cape Fear River Corridor Plan • The amount of developable land and relationship to the CAMA land classification map. Mr. O'Keefe stated that as a result of further research, staff offers the following amended recommendation: Further development along both the east and west banks of the Cape Fear River is likely to occur in the future. The proposed regulations for the Riverfront Mixed Use District are structured in such a way as to provide public access, protect some environmentally sensitive areas, and promote quality design and development. Although staff recognizes many important positive aspects of the proposed district, we find that as submitted the proposal does not adequately consider the environmental integrity of the Cape Fear River Corridor and the river's conservation areas, the treasured vistas of downtown Historic District residents and the County's ability to provide urban services to a geographically isolated area. Staff thinks the height restrictions proposed in the ordinance should be described in a more certain and measurable format such as feet instead of stories and that the maximum allowable height is too tall so that it would allow for construction of single isolated towers with no urban context to support their size and intensity and no feasible way to connect them either by road or river walk. Staff finds that the RFMU as proposed is not suitable for the identified areas and therefore recommends denial. Garv Anderson, Sunset Park resident, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance stating that his hope is for a plan that allows for economic growth, protects the environment, and preserves Wilmington's history. John Evans, Insight Builders, spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance stating that taller buildings create smaller footprints, which are better for the environment. Mr. Evans explained that his project is environmentally friendly; would provide public amenities; and would enhance the historic district. Frank Palmer Wilmington resident and Muddy Waters consultant, stated that new development is necessary for a city to prosper and contended that it can occur while protecting the environment and history. Mr. Palmer cited examples of cities in which historical and modern architecture coexist. Robert Steele, architect with Perkins Eastman, that is working on the City View project, spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Steele cautioned not to make the ordinance too firm or else risk creativity and end up with cookie cutter boxes. Mr. Steele reiterated the opinion that taller buildings are more environmental friendly than wider buildings. Jane Gilbert Brunswick County Planning Board member, requested that Brunswick County have a permanent seat on the Technical Review Committee for projects proposed 2 along the riverfront corridor. Ms. Gilbert stated that riverfront developments should be required to perform tree surveys; be responsible for upgrading roadways; and commission traffic studies prior to Planning Board review if their project generates more than 100 trips per day. Kevin O'Grady, board member of Residents of Old Wilmington, stated that the proposed ordinance needed additional work regarding the height regulations. Mr. O'Grady stated that the southern portion of the west bank should be built to the same scale as the buildings opposite it and no higher than the federal courthouse or 54 feet. Mr. O'Grady added that the northern portion of the west bank could accommodate taller buildings because taller structures exist on the opposite bank. He presented slides showing the historical context of the west bank of the river. George Edwards, Executive Director of Historic Wilmington Foundation, expressed concern about the height of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Edwards stated that the height standards on the west bank should be similar to the historic district. Marilyn Meares stated that decision makers should consult the River Corridor Plan, which calls for the preservation of a green visual landscape across from downtown Wilmington to serve as an urban contrast. Ms. Meares explained that approximately 250 acres of the northern portion of Eagles' Island has been preserved as a wildlife refuge and some of it annexed by the Town of Leland. Ms. Meares stated that the Town of Leland should be consulted and that if this plan is adopted that provisions should be made to allow for public water access. John Evans showed a rendering of the proposed buildings and stated that City View is a good project. He stated that the additional height would allow for a smaller footprint to preserve open space. Mr. Evans further stated that the majority of land would be given for a wildlife trust. Alan Smith Wilmington Harbor Enhancement Trust, stated that his group would support the text amendment, with a height restriction of 100 feet. Alice Mitchell, President of the Residents of Old Wilmington, stated that this issue should be examined independently; separate from any proposed projects; and with special attention to height. Sherry Demus, resident of historic Wilmington, spoke in opposition to tall buildings on the west bank stating that it would destroy the view and ambiance of Wilmington. Kevin O'Grady responded to Alan Smith's comment and stated that 54 feet is more logical because that is the height of the federal courthouse, the tallest structure in the central business district. Mr. O'Grady stated that similarly, the PPD building represents the benchmark for the northern portion of the west bank. He asked that the County follows the height precedents that have been already set on the east bank. 3 David Adams stated that he concurred with the staff's report; that the concept for a Riverfront zoning designation is sound, but the proposed zoning amendment needs more work. Dr. Adams further commented that the primary objective should be to preserve the amenities of the Riverfront, not to foster intense development. Sue Haves stated that she concurs with Dr. Adams. Jay Williams, stated that it is difficult for the proposed amendment not to be about one project considering that there is so little developable land on the west bank. Mr. Williams stated that he does not think one zoning classification will fit both the I-2 and B-2 as proposed. Paul Boney agreed with the opinion that an ordinance should not be crafted exclusively for one project. Mr. Boney felt that taller structures could be permissible on the northern portion of the west bank because of the PPD building but that height should be restricted in the area across from the historical downtown district. Mr. Boney further stated that the future ordinance should look beyond the stretch of land between the Cape Fear Memorial and Eleanor Holmes bridges, but rather on a regional scale. Sue Haves made a motion to send the ordinance back to Planning staff for further consideration, editing, and to incorporate the input of Brunswick County officials. Ms. Hayes further stated that the edited document will be reviewed before a work session. Melissa Gott seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to send the amendment back for review. Item 2: Special Use Permit (5-13, Modification 11/06) - Request by Carolina Marina & Yacht Club, LLC to modify the approved special use permit on 1512 Burnett Road to allow relocation of the originally approved boat ramp from a position on the shoreline to a position at the end of an elevated 273' wooden ramp. (Continued from November 2, 2006) This item was continued until the April meeting at the request of the petitioner. Item 3: Rezoning (Z- 855, 12/06) - Request by Withers & Ravenel for E & B Properties to rezone approximately 19.25 acres in the Aquifer Resource Protection land classification at 1916 Rockhill Road from R-20 to R-15 Residential District. 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 staff summary: STAFF SUMMARY The subject property is located along Rockhill Road in the vicinity of Kennedy Drive. Rockhill Road is classified as a collector roadway off Castle Hayne Road near the I-140 bypass. No Level 4 of Service (LOS) is available for Rockhill Road. LOS was F (exceeds capacity) on Castle Hayne Road as of April 2005. The subject property is currently vacant and wooded. Low density single family development is prevalent on all sides. To the south, the property abuts an R-15 residential district on Oakley Circle. The subject property is located within the Ness Creek watershed drainage area but is not influenced by flood zone or protected wetland soils. Water and sewer are currently available along Rockhill Road. Sewage from the site would be treated at the Northside Treatment facility. Currently, capacity at the facility is limited and is being allocated in 15,000 gpd (approximately 41 sf homes) units. NHC Engineering Department advises it is possible the project would not be allowed to connect to the District system, even after design, permitting and construction, if flows through the Northside W WTF plant reach maximum limits. The projected date of increased capacity available in the Northside plant is 2009. Land Use Plan Considerations: The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the purpose of the Resource Protection class as providing for the preservation and protection of important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife, and recreational resources. The Aquifer Resource Protection Area is a subclass of this classification and recognizes the location of the Castle Hayne and Pee Dee aquifer recharge areas needing protection from diminished recharge and potential contamination. Protection strategies in the plan encourage larger lot development if septic systems are used. Related Policies: 3.26 "Ensure that all land use and development decisions protect groundwater aquifers." 3.28 "Preserve the Castle Hayne and Pee Dee aquifers in their present unpolluted state as the primary groundwater resources for the County." 3.28.4 "Allow density to increase to urban densities in the Aquifer Protection Areas as sewer service is provided." 3.28.5 "Require on-site infiltration to the extent soils allow." 4.1 "Designate sufficient land area and suitable locations for the various land use types." 5.5.5 "Encourage development within the urban services area where existing infrastructure is available." 5.7 "Preserve the character of the area's existing residential neighborhoods and quality of life." 6.5 "Require street connectivity and prohibit cul-de-sacs that impede connectivity through better collector street planning." 6.6.2 "Continue to require traffic impact analysis in the development review process for major development and redevelopment projects." 10.4 "Protect water quality by ensuring that drainage from land use activities has a rate of flow and volume characteristics as near to predevelopment conditions as possible." This rezoning petition proposes an increase in residential density for property adjacent to an existing R-15 district (Oakley Circle). Such a change would expand the residential density policy in the area and increase density on this acreage from 1.9 units per acre to 2.5 units per net acre on performance residential design or 4.25 to 10.2 per acre for high density by special use permit. The maximum potential development scenarios would be: R-20 R-15 Performance Residential 37 units 48 units 5 High Density (Not an option because of Land Classification) Traffic flow along Castle Bayne Road is a consideration; however, Oakley Circle to the south has been designed with street stubs for interconnectivity between Rockhill Road and Oakley Road. Weekday average trip generation for single-family detached units is estimated to generate 9.57 trips per day (ITRE manual). Approximate traffic additions would be: R-20 R-15 Performance Residential 354 459 High Density (Not an option because of Land Classification) Staff Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, and with caveats relating to reliance on public sewer, the proposal appears to be consistent with the Land Use Plan and staff recommends approval of this rezoning. Cindee Wolf, landscape architect with Withers & Ravenel, representing the property owners, provided highlights of the plan. Ms. Wolf stated the project is suitable for higher density development because of the proximity to the I-140 bypass, future commercial services, and availability of water & sewer. Ms. Wolf further stated that the plan meets the County's policies and guidelines for development. Mike Rokoski, slated developer of the property, stated that he is sensitive to neighbors' concerns because he is a resident of the area and assured residents of the quality of the development. Mr. Rokoski stated that the project would be subjected to a multitude of agency reviews that will address any concerns such as storm water and traffic. Mr. Rokoski added that a new development would not negatively impact the value of adjacent properties, rather increase values. Doretha McKnight Stone, adjacent property owner spoke in opposition to the rezoning stating that there are pre-existing traffic and drainage issues. Ms. Stone expressed concern that mobile homes could be permitted if the property were rezoned to R-15. Roger Sims, Oakley Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the rezoning stating that it will degrade the quality of life in the neighborhood; increase traffic; and bring unknown pedestrian traffic. Jimmie Sellers Oakley Circle resident spoke in opposition to the rezoning citing traffic and drainage concerns. Mr. Sellers stated that the surrounding neighborhoods are low density, situated on one-acre lots or more and that this project is not in character with the existing neighborhoods. Mr. Sellers also expressed concern about the decaying roadways and stated that they are not designed to accommodate heavy volumes of traffic. Al Edgerton, Oakley Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Edgerton expressed concern that the rezoning would allow for mobile homes, which would degrade the quality of life in the neighborhood and have a negative effect property values. 6 Cindee Wolf stated in her rebuttal that mobile homes are only permitted by special use permit, which would require additional separate hearings. Ms. Wolf added that new developments would often times improve existing problems such as drainage. Mike Rokoski stated in his rebuttal that he would accept a condition that excluded the establishment of mobile homes and that he has no intentions of building mobile homes. Jimmie Sellers, stated in his rebuttal that the area does not need higher density and the roadways cannot handle additional traffic, Melissa Gott inquired about the condition of Oakley Road and asked for clarification regarding the availability of sewer. Jimmie Sellers stated that the road is paved but cannot accommodate 400+ cars a day. Mr. Sellers question why traffic studies had not been done on Rockhill and Oakley Roads. Jane Daughtridge explained that if sewer is still available at that time, 15,000 gallons per day would be allocated which would provide for approximately 41 single-family homes. Ms. Daughtridge stated that additional sewer capacity is projected in 2009. Sue Haves inquired about the proximity of Castle Hayne Road to Rockhill Road and asked staff to comment on the level of service for Rockhill Road. Planning Staff stated that traffic counts have not been done for Rockhill Road. Additionally, staff commented that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is not required for a rezoning and the proposed development would not meet the threshold for number of trips per day which would require a TIA during the Technical Review Committee (TRC) process. There was discussion if the TRC would require connectivity through Oakley Circle. It was stated that connectivity would be required through Oakley Circle for a subdivision regardless of density. Ken Wrangell stated that R-15 zoning would create 105 more trips per day than R-20. It was stated that SD-1245 was a proposed minor subdivision that was never approved or recorded. There was discussion of county zoning regulations regarding mobile homes. David Adams stated that the issue is that the rezoning would increase density, traffic, and drainage issues by approximately 30%. Dr. Adams further stated that the Planning Board has said it would not make recommendations that would make matters worse, and he cannot support this rezoning. 7 Sue Haves made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning. David Adams seconded the motion. The Board voted 3-3 with Hayes, Adams, and Williams recommending denial. The motion did not carry. Ken Wrangell made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning. Melissa Gott seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 3-3 with Wrangell, Gott, and Boney recommending approval of the item. The motion did not carry. Holt Moore Assistant County Attorney, stated that a split vote could go to the County Commissioners since the Planning Board is an advisory board. Item 4: Rezoning (Z- 856, 12/06) - Request by Rockford Partners, LLC for Cameron Company to rezone approximately 144.14 acres at the western terminus of RockhM Road in the Conservation and Wetland Resource Protection land classifications from R-20 to R-15 Residential District. Jane Daughtridge provided the staff summary: The subject property is located on Rockhill Road west of Walnut Hills Subdivision and to the terminus of the road on both sides of the I-140 overpass. There is no access to I-140 at this location. Rockhill Road is classified as a collector roadway off Castle Hayne Road. No Level of Service (LOS) is available for Rockhill Road. LOS was F (exceeds capacity) on Castle Hayne Road as of April 2005. The subject property is made up of three parcels, the largest of which has been bisected by the construction of I-140. West of I-140 is a 22.42 acre parcel and approximately 38 acres of the bisected parcel. Only about 6 acres of the 22 acre parcel is high land, and the majority of the high acreage on the 38 acre partial parcel has been used as a borrow pit. To the east of I-140, the remainder of the bisected parcel accounts for about 63 acres, but only about 11 acres of that parcel is high land and that portion is primarily located close up to the highway right-of-way. The third parcel is 19.7 acres and represents the only cohesive high ground well suited for development. The land to the east of I-140 is vacant and wooded. The subject property is located within the Little Creek watershed drainage area and is heavily influenced by brackish marsh, swamp forest, flood zone and protected wetland soils. Relic rice fields from old Rock Hill Plantation are noted in the deed. The better soils on the bisected parcel have been used for borrow pits. The applicant intends to use septic systems. Water and sewer does not currently extend to this area of the county. Water could be extended to the NHC system from the current lines on Rock Hill Road. A regional lift station would be required to serve the site if public sewer were desired. Sewage from the site would be treated at the Northside Treatment facility. Currently, capacity at the facility is limited and is being allocated in 15,000 gpd (approximately 41 sf homes) units. NHC Engineering Department advises it is possible the project would not be allowed to connect to the District system, even after design, permitting and construction, if flows through the Northside WWTF plant reach maximum limits. The projected date of increased capacity available in the Northside plant is 2009. 8 Land Use Plan Considerations: The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the purpose of the Resource Protection class as providing for the preservation and protection of important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife, and recreational resources. This rezoning petition proposes an increase in residential density for property overwhelmingly influenced by environmental sensitivity. Furthermore, much of the high ground area has been altered for the I-140 bypass in such a way as to make development awkward and impractical. The change requested would expand the residential density on this acreage from 1.9 units per acre to 2.5 units per net acre on performance residential design or 4.25 to 10.2 units per acre for high density by special use permit. Staff estimates that only about 44% of the total acreage is high ground. The maximum potential development scenarios are particularly difficult to represent on this property because of the dominance of wet areas. Since the ordinance allows for protected areas to be left as open space and still be calculated for density purposes, the maximum potential would be: R-20 R-15 Performance Residential 217 units 285 units High Density (not an option because of Land Classification) Traffic flow along Castle Hayne Road is a consideration, There is no opportunity for interconnectivity with other collectors or local streets in this location. Weekday average trip generation for single family detached units is estimated to generate 9.57 trips per day (ITRE manual). Approximate traffic additions would be: R-20 R-15 Performance Residential 2,077 2,727 High Density (Not an option because of Land Classification) Staff Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, the reliance on septic systems, and the physical limitations of the property, staff feels the R-20 designation is the most appropriate zoning for this sensitive area, and that the proposed change is not reasonable nor in the public interest. Staff recommends denial of the rezoning, but would support rezoning only the 19.7 acre tract adjacent to Walnut Hills, an existing R-10 district, since it does not share the same environmental sensitivity and development impracticalities of the other tracts. James Yopp, Rockford Partners, LLC, stated that they are requesting increased density and design flexibility because of a large borrow pit and I-140 divides the property in half. Mr. Yopp stated that the project would comply with all environmental regulations including the preservation of the wetlands, which accounts for 55% of the property. Mr. Yopp stated that impervious surfaces levels will be below 25% and that the development would be an opportunity to eliminate illegal dumping that is currently occurring on the property. No one spoke in opposition to the item. 9 David Adams asked the petitioner if the high water mark had been determined on the property and if he would be amenable to rezoning only the 19.7 acre tract, located in the northeastern portion of the property. James Yopp stated that the land is currently being surveyed and that he prefers to pursue the full rezoning given the limitations imposed by the bypass and borrow pit. Ken Wrangell asked if all of the project's density could be concentrated into the northeastern corner. Jane Daughtridge stated that theoretically 285 units could be developed on the 19.7 acre tract as long as it complied with the zoning ordinance. Sue Haves expressed concern about rezoning to a greater density given the level of service, 'Y' on Castle Hayne Road. Sue Haves made a motion to recommend denial of the item. David Adams seconded the item and stated that he is recommending denial of the rezoning because he feels it is simply another incremental addition to the traffic problem. The Planning Board voted 4-2 (Wrangell, Boney) to recommend denial. Item 5: Rezoning (Z-857, 12/06) - Request by Haden Stanziale, PA for JH Land, LLC to rezone 341.2 acres in the Community land classification between 4950 N. College Rd. and Holly Shelter Road near I-40 from I-2 and R-15 to B-2 Business District (119.7 acres) and R-10 Residential District (221.5 acres). This item was continued until the February meeting at the request of the petitioner. Item 6: Conditional Rezoning (Z- 858, 12/06) - Request by Withers & Ravenel for Thomas Sellars, Sr. to conditionally rezone 8.57 acres at 6210, 6212 & 6224 Carolina Beach Road near Beau Rivage Plantation in the Transition land classification from R-15 Residential to CD(R-10) Residential and for approval of high density development according to a site plan showing 99 residential units. Chris O'Keefe presented the slides and gave a brief overview of the site's history, land use, zoning, level of service (LOS), and related information. Chris O'Keefe provided the staff summary: STAFF SUMMARY The subject property is located on Carolina Beach Road, just south of the intersection with Sanders Road. Carolina Beach Road is an identified arterial on the thoroughfare plan. Level of service has been rated F, meaning traffic volume exceeds capacity. The subject property is currently a Mobile Home Park with several derelict units among the occupied homes. It is an internal parcel with adjacent properties to the east fronting on Carolina 10 Beach Road. The property shares its northern boundary with South Ridge Mobile Home Park and an area of B-2 commercial zoning. West and south of the site is Beau Rivage Plantation, zoned R- 15. The subject property is located within the Lords Creek watershed drainage area. The property is not influenced by flood hazard or protected natural resources. The site is in a primary or secondary recharge area for the principal aquifers. Private water and sewer systems are available in the vicinity through Aqua of North Carolina. As a condition for rezoning, the applicant proposes that the use will be restricted to 99 residential units with 230 parking spaces (including garages); 4.8 acres of improved recreational space; 62.3% open space and a maximum of 37.7% impervious area. All other minimum requirements of local, state and federal rules will be met. A companion special use permit will bind the proposed use and restrictions to this property. Water and sewer will be provided by a private provider serving the area. Land Use Plan Considerations: This conditional rezoning petition proposes a change from moderate density R-15 residential use to the county's highest density R-10 residential designation. The change would create a new R-10 residential district with limited linkage to another R-10 sliver that runs through Beau Rivage from Monterey Heights. The resulting high-density increase as proposed would be 12 units. Between 2001 and 2005, average daily traffic volume increased by about 8% on Carolina Beach Road in this vicinity. No points of interconnectivity are proposed within the surrounding area. The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the purpose of the Transition class as providing for future intensive urban development on lands that have been or will be provided with necessary urban services. The location of these areas is based upon land use planning policies requiring optimum efficiency in land utilization and public service delivery. Based on the foregoing, this proposal would appear to be consistent with the strategies for the Transition classification. Staff recommends approval. Chris O'Keefe provided the findings of fact: PRELIMINARY STAFF FINDINGS FOR THE COMPANION SPECIAL USE PERMIT: 1. The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. A. Private water and sewer provider will serve the property. B. The property accesses an identified arterial. C. Fire Service is available from the Myrtle Grove FD. D. The property is not located in a flood hazard area. E. Stormwater retention has been included in the proposed site plan and must meet the design standards of the County's storm water ordinance. 11 2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. A. The property is zoned R-15 Residential. This request is made concurrent with conditional rezoning to R-10 Residential. B. The proposed use is limited to attached single family residential. C. Applicant has limited density for this project to 99 units on 8.57 acres. D. Petitioner proposes off-street parking that exceeds the requirements of Article VIII of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance by providing 230 spaces compared to 192 spaces required. E. Traffic circulation system will be via internal driveways and must provide adequate access for emergency service vehicles. F. A traffic impact analysis was not required by NCDOT for this project. G. Buffer of at least 20 feet will be required along all property boundaries. H. A tree survey has indicated regulated trees that must be protected or mitigated as required in Section 67 of the zoning ordinance. 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. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease property values of residents who live nearby. B. Stonnwater management must perform in compliance with the requirements of the County ordinance. 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 2006 Land Use Plan identifies this area as Transition, which provides for future intensive urban development on lands that have or will have urban services. B. Policies in the plan support higher density transition areas when public services are available. Aqua North Carolina will serve the project. Staff suggested conditions: 1. Staff finds these findings of fact to be positive. Cindee Wolf, landscape architect with Withers & Ravenel, representing the property owners stated that the request for R-10 zoning is predicated by the design of the buildings, which total 99 units, thus necessitating R-10 zoning. Ms. Wolf stated that adjacent property owners were contacted in efforts to address any concerns. Ms. Wolf added that the proposed development is an appropriate use for the area and would increase traffic by only 1% on Carolina Beach Road. Cecile Montminy, Beau Rivage resident, asked if the project would impact Sanders Road. 12 It was stated that it would not. No one spoke in opposition to the item. Cindee Wolf added that the project would be limited to 99 units contained within 3 buildings; would have a right turn lane on Carolina Beach Road; very few trees would be cut down; and the required buffers and landscaping would be an improvement to the site. David Adams inquired why two adjacent lots, located west of the property, were not included in the rezoning. Cindee Wolf stated that she did not know but speculated that the properties could be rezoned B-2 in the future. Sue Haves asked for density calculations for a R-15 zone compared to a R-10 zone and in a high-density scenario. Ms. Hayes also inquired how many more trips per day would be generated by the rezoning. It was stated that 21 units would be allowable in a R-15 and 28 units in a R-10; 87 units in a R-15 high density and 146 units in a R-10 high density; and 33 units in a mobile home park. Cindee Wolf stated that if the property were developed single-family homes in a R-15 zone, it would generate 201 trips per day. Ms. Wolf further commented that the proposed project would generate double the trips per day, but given the capacity of Carolina Beach Road, it amounts to a 1% increase. Ken Wrangell made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request from R-15 to (CD) R-10 based on consistency with the plan and other appropriate matters. Melissa Gott seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-1 (Hayes) to recommend approval of the rezoning. David Adams stated he is supporting the motion but commented that he believes that Carolina Beach Road can accommodate the incremental increase in traffic whereas rural roads such as Rockhill or Castle Hayne could not. Ken Wrangell made a motion to recommend approval of the special use permit. David Adams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-1 (Hayes) to recommend approval of the special use permit. Item 7: Special Use Permit (S-569, 12/06) - Request by Withers & Ravenel for Smith Properties, Inc. to locate a 6-slip community boating facility in an R-15 Residential District at "Shannon Pointe" (6 residential lots at 254/260/262/264/270/274 Shannon Drive). 13 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 Myrtle Grove Fire District B. Private well can provide water to the dock facility, per applicant testimony. C. The project is located in Myrtle Grove Sound. D. Access to the site will be pedestrian through Shannon Pointe from both branches of Shannon 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-15 Residential Zoning District A Special Use Permit allows a community boating facility in an R-15 Residential District B. Applicant constructed the facility without local permits and has been issued a notice of violation for which he now seeks remedy. C. A CAMA permit was issued for the project in 2005, allowing for more slips than the County ordinance allows by right. D. A portion of the property is being developed with two duplex structures called Shannon Pointe condominiums (4 dwelling units). The additional 2 properties outside the walled development of Shannon Pointe are being included and must be given deeded access easements to the community boating facility in order to qualify for 6 slips. E. 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. F. The applicant requests approval of six (6) boat slips to serve 5 residential units on 2 lots and one additional lot, currently vacant, therefore meeting the required ratio of not more than 1:1. G. A pedestrian easement must be provided and formally conferred to each of the six owners for access to the community boating facility. The existing site plan shows easement which terminates within the walls of the condominium complex. H. 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. 14 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. Amendments to the CAMA permit will be required. D. Surrounding land uses include single-family housing, some with docks and piers. Staff Comments: a. In order to preserve and assure open access to the member properties outside the Shannon Pointe condominium complex, the community should not be gated. b. Deed references for the boating facility access must be recorded for the two properties outside Shannon Pointe condominium complex. c. No overhead lighting should be installed. Cindee Wolf, landscape architect with Withers & Ravenel, representing the owner, Smith Properties, Inc., provided the background and stated that the owner is requesting a special use permit to comply with County ordinances. Ms. Wolf stated that the property owner intends to give deeds for easement and access to the boating facility to the properties outside of the complex. Ms. Wolf added that the boating facility is consistent with others in the area. There was discussion regarding the gates and access to and within the property. David Adams stated that gates could pose a problem for emergency vehicles. Wright Smith. President of Smith Properties, stated the request for a special use permit is to allow two adjacent properties to utilize one slip each within the boating facility. J.B. Piner adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition to the special use permit request stating that the boating facility should not be permitted because of safety and environmental concerns. Mr. Piner expressed concern regarding the petitioner's non- compliance with County zoning regulations. Lee Harris, Shannon Drive resident, spoke in opposition to the special use permit stating that the number of proposed boat slips is unequal to the number of dwelling units. Mr. Harris expressed concern that the approval of a special use permit for could potentially lead for additional non-contiguous properties to access the boating facility. Mr. Harris further commented that Shannon Pointe has a history of building without permits. Cindee Wolf stated in her rebuttal that there are no stop work orders on the development; all other permits with the exception of the special use permit have been obtained; the findings of fact have been met; and there is no requirement in the ordinance mandating lots to be contiguous. 15 David Adams asked for clarification as to whether boat slip #6 was encroaching on the adjacent property of Leah L. Barnello. It was stated that Leah Bamello signed a waiver to allow the boat slip. J. B. Piner further opposed the special use permit because of fire safety issues. Mr. Piner also stated that the boating facility is not consistent with other docks in the area. Lee Harris further commented that the ordinance states that a residence must be associated within a development to access a community boating facility and that lots #5 and #6 are clearly not within the associated development. There was discussion regarding section 72-37(3) of the zoning ordinance, "The number of boat slips may not exceed the number of residential lots or dwelling units within the associated development" and which lots were associated with Shannon Pointe development. Wright Smith stated that lots #1-5 were part of the homeowners association and lot #6 has expressed interest in joining. David Adams suggested that the Board could either continue the item or find that lot #6 is not part of the association and approve 5 slips for 5 lots. Ken Wrangell suggested that a condition be placed on the special use permit that lot #6 would have a specified period of time to join the association or else the special use permit to be invalid. David Adams stated that for the findings of fact to be valid, lot #6 must be part of the association. Jay Williams stated that including a lot from an existing plated subdivision into another subdivision would set a potentially dangerous precedent and thereby define the term "associated development." Holt Moore stated that a conditional approval on a special use permit is not permissible and suggested that the item be continued for 30 days to allow lot #6 to join the association. Cindee Wolf suggested that the board continue the item for 30 days. Board members expressed concern regarding public safety given the encroachment of the boating facility into public trust waters. It was stated that CAMA has approved the facility and regulates those issues. It was stated that by right, four residences could use the existing six slips under the county's ordinance that permits residential private piers. (Editorial comment - the 16 statement should have been "Private Residential Boating Facility" since a residential private pier serves only one lot or unit.) It was stated that a special use permit would allow for all six lots to access the six boat slips; this would include the non-riparian and non-contiguous lots so long as they were included in the association. Ken Wrangell made a motion to continue the item until the January meeting so that the petitioner can establish legal documentation that the six lots are incorporated under an association and provide an as-built survey. David Adams seconded the motion. Sue Haves expressed concern that Wright Smith has performed construction activities without permits and requested copies of permits at the January meeting. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to continue the item. Item 8: 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.) 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 Daughtride 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. 17 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 servel0 unidentified residential lots within the 36 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. b. No overhead lighting should be installed. Charles Duncan with Duncan Marine contractors, stated that he is requesting permission to build a community dock with 10 boats slips with lifts to serve 10 lots in the community. All of the residents in the development will have access to the dock but only 10 homes will have slips. Mr. Duncan stated that there would not be parking because residents will walk from their homes to the dock. Mr. Duncan added that he is the dock contractor and does not know much about the upland development. Ruby Freeman, representing adjacent property owners, expressed concern regarding parking, hours of operation, maintaining harmony in their neighborhood, and environmental consequences. 18 Matt Nichols, attorney representing the Manning Companies, LLC spoke in opposition to the special use permit application stating that there is pending litigation in New Hanover County Superior Court regarding ownership of the property. Mr. Nichols entered several exhibits to the record. Mr. Nichols stated that Colorado Coastal Development has simultaneously requested annexation into Carolina Beach. Cheryl Freeman Cooper, representing adjacent property owners, spoke in opposition to the proposed boating facility citing concerns regarding the preservation of cultural and historical elements of the Seabreeze community. Ms. Cooper stated that the proposed boating facility is not consistent nor in harmony with the community. Ms. Cooper expressed concerns for illegal parking and safety. Charles Duncan, stated that he is not familiar with the upland development; the property dispute; or the pending lawsuit. Mr. Duncan stated that he submitted a deed to CAMA, which was accepted. Mr. Duncan added that infrastructure has been put into place to serve the 36 lots. Holt Moore stated that Seabreeze Sound has been through the Technical Review Committee process and preliminary approved. Jay Williams and Melissa Gott asked to recuse themselves from the item. David Adams made a motion to recuse Mr. Williams and Ms. Gott; Sue Haves seconded by Sue. Board voted 4-0. There was discussion of pier details, traffic flow, and subdivision interconnectivity. David Adams made a motion to continue the item until legal matters are resolved. Sue Haves seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to continue the item. Item 9: Special Use Permit (S- 571, 12/06) - Request by Duncan Marine Contractors, Inc. for REIS, LLC to locate a 7- slip community boating facility in an R-15 Residential District at "The Bluffs at Trail's End" (7 residential lots on Trail's End Road). Chris O'Keefe presented the slides and gave a brief overview of the site's history, land use, zoning, level of service (LOS), and related information. Chris O'Keefe 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. 19 A. The subject property is located within the Myrtle Grove Fire District B. A private well will serve the dock facility. C. The project will be located in Whiskey Creek, which is subject to extreme tidal fluctuations. D. Access to the site will be pedestrian from within The Bluffs at Trails End Subdivision, off Trail's End Road. 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 and floating dock which applicant proposes to keep. C. The site will not need any off-street parking, because it is close to the proposed residential lots it will serve. D. The proposed community boating facility proposes seven (7) boat slips with boat lifts to serve seven (7) proposed residential lots, which meets the required ratio. 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. The entire creek bank is surrounded by brackish marsh and a 75' COD setback has been identified on the plan. Whiskey Creek has a significant fluctuation in water body width and a severely limited channel width at low tide, making pier projects on individual residential lots complicated. D. Surrounding land uses include single-family housing, some with docks and piers. Staff Comments: a. Deed restrictions should be placed on the 7 proposed lots in the proposed subdivision stating that no individual docks/piers will be allowed. 20 b. No overhead lighting should be installed. Charles Duncan representing the property owner, stated that he is requesting a special use permit to construct a community boating facility with 7 boat slips and lifts to serve 7 lots. Mr. Duncan stated that although Whiskey Creek is shallow, he has enough water to meet CAM regulations. Mr. Duncan stated that they plan to build a fixed pier and build upon the existing pier as well. Mr. Duncan stated that the existing floating dock would remain to provide access to slip #6 but that he would remove the cleats. Ken Wrangell asked Mr. Duncan to elaborate on the area between the boats slips and the channel and to provide water levels. Charles Duncan showed the Board a hydrographic survey, which showed the water depths. Mr. Duncan stated that he has built several docks on Whiskey Creek and is familiar with CAMA regulations for the area. Jay Williams suggested that a restrictive covenant be required prohibiting the sale or lease of the boat slips to non Bluffs at Trail's End owners and slips may only be used by those owners and their guests. Holt Moore suggested that the applicant's proposed findings be included in the motion. Paul Boney made a motion to recommend approval of the item with staff recommendations, applicant findings, and the condition that the slips may only be used by property owners of the Bluffs at Trail's End or their guests. Ken Wrangell seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the item. Item 10: Special Use Permit (S- 572, 12/06) - Request by James Eldridge for Brad & Sherry Dunker to locate a Child Development Center for up to 204 children in the R-15 Residential zoning district on 2.98 acres at 547 Sanders Road. 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. Ms. Daughtridge stated that this item has been heard before the County Commissioners twice recently and was denied. Jane Daughtride provided the findings of fact and stated that the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis: Preliminary Staff Findings 1. The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. 21 A. County water and sewer will serve the property. B. The property accesses Carolina Beach Road, an identified arterial, by Sanders Road an identified collector. C. Fire Service is available from the Myrtle Grove Fire Department. D. The property is not located in a flood hazard area. E. NCDOT traffic engineering department did not require a Traffic Impact Analysis. F. The applicant is proposing to voluntarily install a right turn/deceleration lane westbound on Sanders Road. G. Parents may be able to combine trips with the elementary school. H. At the Commissioners' September 5, 2006 meeting, this request was denied. In the minutes of the meeting, New Hanover County Sheriff Sidney A. Causey stated that he was not speaking in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. He provided an overview of the traffic safety issues on Sanders Road and described how the Sheriffs Department has tried to address them. 2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. A. The property is zoned R-15 Residential. B. Off-street parking requirements are met according to the requirements of Article VIII of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance. C. The entire play area will be within an enclosed fence with a minimum height of four feet. D. The applicant states the day care will be licensed by the State of North Carolina. E. The site plan reflects Section 72-20 for sign dimension limits, when located on a collector or arterial, which cannot exceed a maximum size of 12 square feet (i.e. 3 X 4). 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. Child care facilities exist in other residential districts in New Hanover County. B. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease property values of residents who live nearby. C. Buffers in accordance with Section 67 of the ordinance are reflected on the site plan. 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 2006 Land Use Plan Update identifies this area as Urban. B. Policies in the 2006 Land Use Plan do not address daycare needs. C. Bellamy Elementary School is located adjacent to the proposed site. D. An independent site evaluation for the presence of Venus Flytraps observed no plants on this site. 22 Suggested Conditions: a. Staff recommends that the project be required to participate in the cost-share of road improvements to Sanders Rd. based on existing Traffic Impact Analyses and NCDOT requirements. James Eldridge attorney, representing the applicants, Brad and Sherry Dunker stated that the primary reason the project was denied in the past was traffic issues at Bellamy Elementary school. Mr. Eldridge stated that he commissioned a traffic impact analysis to address the problem. Cindee Wolf, landscape architect, stated there have been no changes to the site plan but provided additional explanation of the site plan's design. Ms. Wolf stated that the location of the parking lot and drop-off area are dictated by the flow of traffic from Carolina Beach Road and safety issues. Ms. Wolf stated that they have addressed the adjacent property owner's concerns including providing ample buffer. Renal Stephenson, traffic engineer with Ramey, Kemp and Associates, stated that he performed a traffic survey of the area and his findings indicated that Bellamy Elementary was the root of the traffic problem. Mr. Stephenson stated the intersection of Carolina Beach and Sanders Road operate at an adequate level of service and with the required road improvements, capacity will increase to accommodate new development. Mr. Stephenson added that the daycare traffic would be negligible. James Eldridge asked Mr. Stephenson if the daycare traffic would affect the levels of service under any scenario. Mr. Stephenson stated no. Sid Bowman Beau Rivage resident, submitted a petition of adjacent residents opposing the daycare. Mr. Bowman stated that he is not against childcare facilities but opposes the project because it is not in harmony with current traffic flow and would materially endanger public health and safety. Katie Canty, adjacent property owner spoke in opposition to the daycare citing safety and traffic concerns. Ms. Canty stated that the project should not be constructed until the impact from Harris Teeter and the credit union are known. Cecile Montminy, Beau Rivage resident, spoke in opposition to the project because of traffic concerns. Sid Bowman asked if there are any additional proposed traffic mitigation measures. Chris O'Keefe stated that Board of Transportation member, Laney Wilson has commissioned a safety study to examine the traffic around Bellamy Elementary school but currently there is no funding for this study. Rvnal Stephenson added that there have been discussions to generate ideas to improve stacking. 23 James Eldridge stated in his rebuttal that the daycare is a well-designed project. Mr. Eldridge submitted to the record a report stating that the enrollment at Bellamy Elementary is declining. Mr. Eldrige added that unlike his opponents, he has scientific evidence in the form of a TIA to support his argument that the traffic generated will be negligible and that required traffic mitigations will improve the situation. The applicant was asked if he agreed with the findings of fact and conditions. Mr. Eldridge stated yes, as long as finding of fact #1 regarding safety could be resolved amicably. David Adams stated that it was a mistake to recommend denial the last time the item was heard and made a motion to recommend approval with staff recommendations, the eastern boundary be extend to 50 feet of natural boundary, and any overhead lighting be placed as far away from Ms. Canty's property as possible. Melissa Gott seconded the motion. There was discussion regarding increasing the buffer between the daycare and Ms. Canty's property. It was agreed that the buffer would be increased to 50 feet from the property line, with vegetation leading up to a 8 foot opaque fence. Ken Wrangell stated the proposed project is very unsafe for the area. Sue Haves echoed Mr. Wrangell's statement and stated that's he would vote against the project as well. The Planning Board voted 3-3 with Adams, Boney, and Gott recommending approval. The motion failed. Sue Haves made a motion to recommend denial of the special use permit. Jay Williams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 3-3 with Wrangell, Williams, and Hayes voting to recommend denial. The motion failed. Sue Haves made a motion to request Planning staff to report on the frequency of the resubmittal of special use permit applications and present options to address any abuse. There was discussion regarding special use and zoning amendment procedures. Sam Burgess provided an update of the Technical Review Committee's (TRC) activity for the month of November: 1. Parsons NMI- The TRC voted 4-0 to approve 354 units with conditions. 2. Walnut Hills - The TRC voted 4-0 to approve 27 lots with conditions. 24 3. Natures Walk - The TRC voted 4-0 to re-approve 14 lots and waived sidewalk requirements and road stub. 4. Charleston Lakes - The TRC voted 4-0 to approve 138 lots with requirements. 5. Pilots Ridge - The TRC voted 4-0 to dissolve the pedestrian access, leading to Veteran's Park. Sam Burgess stated that the neat TRC meeting will be held on December 13, 2006. Paul Bonev adjourned the meeting at 12:20 a.m. Planning Director 25