200611 Nov PBM
MINUTES OF THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
NOVEMBER 2, 2006
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, November 2, 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
Sandra Spiers Holt Moore, Assistant County Attorney
Jay Williams Shawn Ralston, Senior Environmental Planner
Ken Wrangell
Paul Bonev opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing and led
the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Jay Williams made a motion to table the approval of the October minutes until the
December meeting.
Chris O'Keefe introduced new Planning Department employee, Shawn Ralston, Senior
Environmental Planner to the Planning Board.
Item 1: Modification of Approved Site Plan (Z-802, 07/05) - Request by Howard
Capps for Diako Construction, Inc. to increase the size of the convenience center
and to modify the layout of the approved site plan originally approved by
conditional rezoning on 10/05 for a convenience center and boat storage facility at
4601 Gordon 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
the Planning Staff deemed the proposed modifications to the site plan major, thus
requiring Planning Board review and County Commissioner approval.
Howard Capps, petitioner and landscape architect, provided an overview of the original
site plan and outlined the proposed changes including moving the car wash to the front of
the property and increasing the size of the convenience center by 1000 square feet.
No one spoke in opposition to the item.
Jane Daughtridge provided the findings of fact:
1
Staff Preliminary Findings
1. The board must find that the modification will not materially endanger the
public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the
plan as submitted and approved.
A. Public water and sewer is available near the site.
B. Access to the site is from Gordon Road, a major collector.
C. The property is served by the Ogden Volunteer Fire Department.
D. Z-802 applies to 4.46 acres
E. The location of the 60 foot drive access remains the same as in the original
approval
2. The Board must find that the modification meets all required conditions and
specifications of the zoning ordinance.
A. The specified conditions of the original approval are still in effect. Those are:
Right-in, right-out only at the entrance to Gordon Road; Lighting not to shine on
Evans residents; and Fence to extend entire length of property boundary adjacent
to Evans residences.
B. All other local, state and federal laws and standards apply.
3. The Board must find that the modification 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 at this time to show that adjoining property value
would be injured.
4. The Board must find that the location and character of the use if modified
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 Urban. The
purpose of the class is to provide for intensive urban uses where infrastructure is
in place to support it.
B. Other uses in the immediate vicinity are residential.
Staff Comments:
1. All findings of fact are positive.
2. Project must still comply with conditions of S-802.
There was no Board discussion or questions.
2
Sue Haves made a motion for approval. Jay Williams seconded the motion. The Planning
Board voted unanimously 7-0 to recommend approval of the item.
Item 2: Modification of Approved Site Plan (5-13, 06/71) - 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.
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
the Planning Staff deemed the proposed modifications to the site plan major, thus
requiring Planning Board review and County Commissioner approval. Ms Daughtridge
stated that Ann Hines, Chief Zoning Officer for New Hanover County, is present to
answer questions pertaining to the project.
Matt Nichols an attorney representing the applicant, Carolina Marina and Yacht Club
stated that they are requesting permission to relocate a boat ramp to the south of the
property and to the end of an elevated ramp. Mr. Nichols provided a historical overview
of Special Use Permit 13, including the approval of the special use permit in 1971; site
plan modifications granted by administrative approval in 2005; and current requested
modifications. Mr. Nichols stated that the proposal is an environmentally friendly
solution that would alleviate the need for dredging; would not negatively impact adjacent
property value; and fulfills a public necessity for water access.
Tim Ward, property owner, explained that he is requesting the modification to provide
for water access; for financial value; and for familial reasons. Mr. Ward stated that the
proposed boat ramp is a solution to concerns regarding the environmental consequences
of dredging. Mr. Ward further stated that similar boat ramp structures have been
permitted by the County and State in primary nursery areas in the region.
Gene Merritt, commercial real estate appraiser, stated that his research showed that
marinas, dry stack storage, etc, do not negatively affect property value. Mr. Merritt cited
the Bradley Creek marina and dry stack facility to support his contention.
Bill Raney, attorney representing adjacent property owner Violet Ward, distributed letters
of opposition to the Planning Board from neighbors who were not able to attend the
meeting. Mr. Raney felt it was premature for the Planning Board to make a
recommendation regarding the site plan modification given that there were several
outstanding issues to be resolved including: a CAMA permit application submitted with a
different site plan; an appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment regarding the right to
operate a forklift under S-13; and an appeal to Superior Court to determine whether
conservation overlay district are applicable to elements of the current approved site plan.
Mr. Raney argued that the requested modification does not meet the four criteria required
of a special use permit. Mr. Raney further stated that the proposed project is contrary to
3
recommendations made in the CAMA Land Use Plan which state that marinas shall not
be built in primary nursery areas.
Violet Ward adjacent property owner stated that the construction will substantially injure
the value of her property and the project is not in harmony with the neighborhood.
Kim Altman, adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed project citing
safety and environmental concerns. Ms. Altman felt that the marina would not be in
harmony with the neighborhood.
David Ward, adjacent property owner, stated that the proposed boat ramp is the
petitioner's response to a recent decision prohibiting dredging of the area. Mr. Ward
spoke in opposition to the proposed project citing environmental and safety issues.
Matt Nichols reiterated in his rebuttal the validity of S-13; the environmental benefit of
their proposal to that of dredging; and stated that the forklift issue is irrelevant to the
proposed site plan modification. Mr. Nichols further stated that S-13 and the Zoning
Ordinance do not prohibit the operation of a forklift on a commercial marina and that the
issue is being heard by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Tim Ward stated in his rebuttal that the proposed boat ramp would preserve the nursery
area by extending beyond it; that the proposed site plan contains less impervious surface
than what was approved; and that the clubhouse will be designed to blend in with
residential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Ward stated that there are many neighbors
in favor of the project.
Bill Raney, stated in his rebuttal that a commercial marina is not suitable for the area
based on the findings of fact required of a special use permit.
Ken Wrangell asked Chief Zoning Officer, Ann Hines to comment on how the CAMA
policy regarding the prohibition of commercial marinas in primary nursery areas and the
encroachment of the Violet Ward's pier in Tim Ward's riparian corridor related to
proposed boat ramp.
Ann Hines stated that the CAMA policy could be interpreted two ways; limiting the
expansion of a marina or conversely, grandfathering it in. Ms. Hines further stated that
the Division of Coastal Management issue CAMA permits and would make that
determination.
There was discussion regarding whether a waiver existed granting permission for Violet
Ward's pier to encroach into Tim Ward's riparian corridor. No definitive conclusion was
established.
Jay Williams asked the petitioner if the boat facility would be private or public and to
summarize any pending judicial or administrative cases relating to the present case.
4
Tim Ward stated that based on neighborhood feedback, it would be a private facility.
Matt Nichols summarized the pending judicial and administrative matters.
Jay Williams asked for the status of the CAMA permit.
Tim Ward stated that CAMA is reviewing a site plan that is different from the proposed
site plan submitted to the Planning Board. Mr. Ward also stated that no negative
comments have been received thus far from CAMA and are awaiting comments from the
Army Corp of Engineers.
Laura Stasavich, environmental scientist, stated that they put the initial CAMA
application that included maintenance dredging on hold after receiving comments from
reviewing agencies and submitted a new application without dredging for review.
Melissa Gott asked for an explanation of an elevated ramp.
Tim Ward stated that an elevated ramp is a pier and provided additional design details.
There was discussion among the Board and Tim Ward regarding the design, mechanics,
and safety of the elevated ramp. There was also discussion whether a truck or forklift
would be used to transport boats from the elevated ramp into the water.
Paul Bonev asked Ann Hines to confirm that the September 29, 2005 site plan for S-13 is
the current approved plan by New Hanover County.
Ann Hines confirmed County approval of the September 29, 2005 site plan but noted that
other agencies also have jurisdiction.
There was discussion regarding the details of the approved September 2005 site plan
compared to the proposed site plan including the location of the fuel dock and how
vehicles would transport boats from the elevated ramp into the water. The Board
expressed concern that there was not a representative from Stroud Engineering present to
answer technical questions.
Matt Nichols stated that they are appealing to the Zoning Board of Adjustment the
allegation that they are prohibited from using a forklift. Mr. Nichols stated that the
proposed site plan does not require the use of a forklift but would use one on their marina
if permitted.
Paul Bonev expressed concern about the noise a forklift would generate.
Melissa Gott expressed concern that there was not a representative from Stroud
Engineering present to answer technical questions and was concerned about the distance
of the proposed elevated ramp to the existing piers.
5
The Board asked the applicant if he would like to withdraw the case.
Holt Moore Assistant County Attorney explained that there is no waiting period with a
special use permit application in the event an application is withdrawn.
Matt Nichols requested that the item be continued until the December Planning Board
meeting and that they would return with an engineer to answer technical questions.
There was discussion regarding what legal or administrative issues were pending,
whether they would be resolved by the December Planning Board meeting, and what
impact the outcomes would have on the current case.
It was stated that the forklift issue would be resolved at the November 28u, Zoning Board
of Adjustment meeting and the appeal regarding the administrative approval of the
9/29/05 site plan to the Superior Court would not be resolved in one month.
Ann Hines stated that the applicant could apply for a building permit with the current
approved site plan but any structures within 75 feet of water would require a CAMA
permit.
Sandra Spiers inquired if a forklift could be operated on either the existing pier or the
floating dock indicated on the approved site plan. It was stated that a forklift could not be
operated on either of these structures.
David Adams made a motion to recommend that the item be continued until the
December Planning Board meeting and that the following issues be addressed at that
time:
1. Safety-Is the distance between the existing pier and the proposed elevated
ramp ample or problematic?
2. Engineering-Stroud engineer present to provide technical specifications of
elevated ramp.
3. Harmony-Provide evidence that the marina will be in harmony with the
neighborhood.
4. Resolution of legal and administrative issues.
The Planning Board voted unanimously to continue the item until the December meeting.
Item 3: Conditional District Rezoning (Z-852, 11/06) - Request by Howard Penton,
III to rezone approximately 34.98 acres located at 4299 N. College Road from R-15
Residential and a sliver of I-2 Industrial Zoning District to CD(R-10) Conditional
District for residential use.
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.
6
Howard Penton, representing property owners, Pumpkin Powerline Properties, provided
an overview of the proposed residential project. Mr. Penton stated that of the 35 acres,
only a quarter of the land would be disturbed; all of the wetlands would be preserved; and
7.5% impervious surface created. Mr. Penton stated that the project would comply with
all federal, state, and county ordinances including water and sewer extension, roadway
improvements, and storm water retention. Mr. Penton provided details of the project's
storm water management system.
Mike Fitzgerald, adjacent property owner spoke in opposition to the project because of
flooding issues and traffic issues. Mr. Fitzgerald wanted assurance that the proposed
project would not add to the existing flooding problem. Mr. Fitzgerald showed photos of
the flooding around his house.
Bonnie Devane adjacent property owner expressed concern regarding flooding and felt
that recent development exacerbated the problem. Ms. Devane questioned the efficacy of
the retention ponds and cited a clogged ditch that needed improvements.
Paul Horsboll adjacent property owner expressed concern regarding drainage issues. Mr.
Horsboll stated that state and county maintained ditches are not properly maintained and
that should be addressed before further development occurs.
Howard Penton stated in his rebuttal that the drainage issues are pre-existing and that his
project will not worsen the flooding because the rate of storm water discharge from his
project will not exceed the rate of that of undeveloped land. Mr. Penton showed
photographs of downed trees that block the flow of water through culverts along North
College and Parmele roads and showed a letter issued to Mr. Fitzgerald from New
Hanover County asking him to clean his ditch.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated in his rebuttal that the letter from the County has been nullified
because it has been proven that NCDOT owns the land of which the ditch is located.
There was discussion of the 100-year floodplain related to the residents of Longview
Drive. It was stated that Mr. Fitzgerald was not required to buy flood insurance when he
purchased his home but as a result of the new FEMA floodplain mapping, some
Longview Drive residents are now in a floodplain.
David Adams asked the applicant to explain how he planned to transport the project's
storm water from an upland area, across wetlands, onto more uplands.
Howard Penton provided additional details of the storm water system and stated that he
would not disturb any wetlands. Mr. Penton showed the wetland delineation map
approved by the Army Corp of Engineers and would consent to condition that his project
would not discharge into Pumpkin Creek.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that there are obstructions throughout Pumpkin Creek and it should
to be addressed before Mr. Penton constructs his project.
7
Jane Daughtridge provided the staff summary:
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located on N. College Road, just north of the intersection with
Blue Clay Road. N. College Road (NC 132) is an identified arterial on the thoroughfare
plan. Level of service has been rated E on this segment of College Road, meaning traffic
volume is at capacity.
The subject property is currently undeveloped, wooded acreage with a 150 ft. power line
right-of-way bisecting the property. Along the northern boundary of the subject property
has recently been rezoned to CD(R-10) for the Parson's Mill Farms subdivision. West of
the site is the County Jail property, zoned I-2. The southern boundary adjoins vacant,
wooded property zoned R-15. To the east across N. College Road and beyond the
existing road right of way is Pumpkin Creek Subdivision, also zoned R-15.
The subject property is located within the Prince George Creek watershed drainage area.
The southernmost portion of the property is within a special flood hazard area. The site is
in a primary or secondary recharge area for the principal aquifers. Public water and sewer
are available in the vicinity. Current sewer capacity is limited to incremental allocations
for new development.
As a condition for rezoning, the applicant proposes that the use will be restricted to 114
residential town homes which will meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
Additionally, all of the town homes will be clustered out of the flood zone and wetland
protection areas, leaving the entire property south of the power line for storm water
management and potential recreational amenities. A companion special use permit will
bind the proposed use and restrictions to this property.
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 extend an existing R-10 residential district. The resulting density increase as
proposed would be 27 units.
Between 2001 and 2005, Average daily traffic volume increased by about 21% on N.
College 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 Resource
Protection class as providing for the preservation and protection of important natural,
historic, scenic, wildlife, and recreational resources. The Aquifer and Wetland Resource
Protection Areas are subclasses of this classification. The Aquifer subclass recognizes the
location of the Castle Hayne and Pee Dee aquifer recharge areas needing protection from
8
diminished recharge and potential contamination. Protection strategies in the plan
encourage larger lot development if septic systems are used. The Wetlands Resource
Protection subclass and the Conservation Classification areas on the subject property
have been avoided.
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."
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."
Based on the foregoing, this proposal would appear to be consistent with the strategies
for resource protection and conservation. Staff recommends approval.
Ken Wrangell made a motion to recommend rezoning with staff recommendations.
Sue Haves expressed concern that this project would generate more traffic in the area
Jane Daughtridge stated that a Traffic Impact Analysis was not required for this project;
by right the land could be developed for 87 units compared to the proposed 114 units, a
difference of 27 additional units.
Sandra Spiers stated that traffic is always an issue in New Hanover County but that her
understanding is that staff feels that the density increase is not significant.
David Adams commented that the Planning Board has said it would not recommend
projects that would make traffic worse; the approval of this project would make traffic
30% worse.
Melissa Gott seconded the motion.
The Planning Board voted 5-2 (Adams, Hayes) to recommend rezoning.
Jane provided the findings of fact:
PRELIMINARY STAFF FINDINGS FOR THE COMPANION SPECIAL USE
PERMIT:
9
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. Public water and sewer are accessible for the property.
B. The property accesses an identified arterial.
C. Fire Service is available from the Castle Hayne VFD.
D. The property is located in a flood hazard area, however, all town home
development has been designed outside the flood hazard area.
E. Storm water retention has been included in the proposed site plan and is
located within the wetland and flood prone areas of the property.
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. Density for this project will be limited to 3.3 units per net acres and is
proposed at 114 units.
D. Petitioner proposes off-street parking that exceeds the requirements of
Article VIII of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance by providing
243 spaces compared to 228 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 the northern boundary of
the property.
H. A tree survey must be performed and trees must be protected and
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. Storm water 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.
10
A. The 2006 Land Use Plan identifies this area as Resource Protection and
Conservation, which provides for the preservation and protection of
important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife, and recreational resources.
B. Policies in the plan support higher density in Aquifer Resource Protection
areas when public services are available.
C. Parson's Mill Farms is designed as a residential community along the
northern boundary of the subject property.
Staff suggested conditions:
1. Staff rinds these Tmdings of fact to be positive.
2. Project must go through the County's Technical Review Committee
procedure.
Ken Wrangell commented that the storm water runoff generated by this project would not
be more than if the land remained undeveloped.
Ken Wrangell made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use portion of
the rezoning. Melissa Gott seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-2 (Adams,
Hayes) to recommend a condition use of the rezoning.
Item 4: Conditional District Rezoning (Z-853, 11/06) - Request by SENCA
Properties, LLC to rezone approximately 50.35 acres located in the 9000 block of
Market Street as follows: 31.31 acres from R-15 Residential to CD(O&I)
Conditional District for expansion of New Hanover County Regional Medical
Center facilities and storm water facilities; and 18.47 acres from R-15 Residential to
CD(B-1) Conditional District for a variety of mixed uses.
Sue Haves made a motion to recuse Sandy Spiers and Paul Boney from the item and
appoint David Adams chair during item #4. Ken Wrangell seconded the motion. The
Planning Board voted 4-0 (Adams abstained) in favor of the motion.
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 N. Market Street, just south of the intersection with
Scott's Hill Loop Road. In September of 2005, this request was denied by the County
Commissioners. One lot within the former proposal master plan was rezoned CD(O&I)
for an outpatient surgery facility which is currently under construction. The applicant
requests that 31.31 acres of the total acres be changed to a Conditional District (CD) for
Office and Institutional (O&I) use by New Hanover County Medical Center (26.93 acres)
11
for use options of hospital, personal care facilities and/or offices for professional
activities, and for a storm water facility (4.95 acres) that will help serve the overall
development. The remaining 18.47 acres is requested to be changed to Conditional
District (CD) for Business District (B-1) uses predominated by private medical offices
with associated retail and restaurant uses, but also including other potential mixed uses,
such as second-story residential dwellings, food stores, barber/beauty shops, dry cleaners,
drug stores, health club, convenience food stores, and others.
Market Street (US 17) is an identified arterial on the thoroughfare plan. Level of service
was rated F, by the MPO in 2005, meaning traffic volume exceeds capacity. The site is
located north of the I-140 by-pass, so there is no traffic flow offset at this time, however,
road improvements are currently under way by NCDOT to install a "super street" concept
along this segment. Within the next 10 years, a Hampstead by-pass project could help
manage traffic flow in the vicinity as well. A traffic impact analysis has been completed.
Since 2001, average daily traffic has increased by about 27 The site is within a Special
Highway Overlay District and subject to special standards to preserve visual appeal.
Traffic within the site is facilitated via a network of radial streets and driveways
converging at a traffic circle in the center of the project.
The subject property is currently undeveloped, partially cleared acreage. Public water and
sewer will be required and is available in the general vicinity.
The subject property is located within the Futch Creek watershed drainage area. None of
the subject property is located in a flood hazard area. The site is in a primary recharge
area for the Castle Hayne and PeeDee aquifers.
As a condition for rezoning, the applicant proposes that the uses will be restricted to those
noted on the site plan. A companion special use permit will bind the proposed use and
restrictions to this property. The project design has attempted to avoid development in the
most sensitive areas of the property and has incorporated a storm water infiltration
system into the design to treat runoff before it flows off of the property.
Land Use Plan Considerations:
The 2005 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the Transition classification as areas
providing for future intensive urban development on lands that have or will have urban
services.
One of the specified goals described in the plan reads, "Our region will offer outstanding,
affordable health care systems and facilities." For the portion of this project that focuses
on the aspects of medical care and service, this project would appear to offer opportunity
to help address that goal in a rapidly developing portion of the region. Many individual
policies in the plan have applicability to this proposal. They encourage environmental
sensitivity in project design and provision of standards and facilities to maintain quality
of life and reduce dependence on the automobile. Two policies appear to particularly
support the type of concept proposed.
12
4.3 Maximize effectiveness of commercial uses by assuring that land is available for
commercial uses within close proximity to the markets they serve and by ensuring that
such uses do not diminish the quality of life in nearby residential areas.
5.1 Promote mixed use development away from sensitive areas within the urban services
area and higher density mixed use in redevelopment projects in order to maximize
benefits from available infrastructure, preserve valuable natural resources including open
space, and reduce dependency on the automobile.
This conditional rezoning petition proposes a change from moderate density R-15
residential use to an array of institutional, office, retail, service and residential uses
envisioned to serve the medical and related needs of an expanding population in northern
New Hanover and southern Pender counties.
Based on the foregoing, this proposal would appear to be generally consistent with the
Land Use Plan. To better address quality of life considerations and to address the
healthcare needs of the areas growing population, staff recommends approval of the
proposed rezoning.
John Wessell, attorney representing SENCA properties, showed a copy of the site plan
and identified the proposed zoning and uses. Mr. Wessell stated that the project would
provide a surgical center, medical offices, retail, and restaurants. Mr. Wessell provided
details of the storm water drainage system stating that all of the storm water will be
retained on site and managed by retention ponds and wetlands. Mr. Wessell provided
impervious surface percentages for the project, noting that the percentages are far below
commercial averages. Mr. Wessell stated that a traffic impact analysis has been
performed and the roadway mitigation will provide an acceptable level of service until
2010. Additionally, Mr. Wessell stated that the project meets the findings of fact and
complies with the CAMA land use plan. Mr. Wessell submitted to the record an affidavit
stating that the project will not substantially injure the property value of adjacent
property.
Jack Barto President of New Hanover Regional Medical Center, stated that projected
growth necessities an additional medical facility in the northern portion of the county.
Chuck Bovette, adjacent property owner, spoke in support of the project and believes that
the medical facility will be beneficial for the area and noted that the developer took extra
measures to protect the environment.
Robert Sanders adjacent property owner spoke in support of the project stating the need
for medical facilities in the northern part of the county.
Beth Steelman general partner for the Foy-Taylor Partnership spoke in opposition to the
project because of traffic, storm water runoff into Futch Creek, and other environmental
13
concerns. Ms. Steelman stated that according to the NCDOT, the super street project is
already inadequate given recent development.
Roger Hayden, Salem Woods resident spoke in opposition to the item citing traffic and
environmental concerns. Mr. Hayden also stated that the project would change the
character and value of his neighborhood and is not consistent with the land use plan for
the area.
Jim Mullins Salem Woods resident spoke in opposition to the project stating that the
proposed location is a bad choice because it is situated in the middle of the Futch and Foy
Creek watersheds. Mr. Mullins opposes the retail portion of the project.
Hope Pollock, physician and SENCA member, spoke in support of the project stating
there is a need for a medical facility in the northern part of the county and that it would
not compete with New Hanover hospital. Dr. Pollock stated that the extension of water
and sewer to the project will benefit area residents as well as the environment.
David Adams stated that in 2005, the Planning Board voted to 5-2 to approve the project,
with himself and Sue Hayes dissenting.
John Wessell stated in his rebuttal that the traffic impact analysis definitively states that
the roadways will adequately handle traffic volumes in the area. Mr. Wessell also stated
that the storm water drainage system would retain all of the storm water on the property
and prevent runoff into Futch's creek.
Beth Steelman asked why SENCA is choosing to develop their project at this location
and not on the property on Market that they already own.
Chris O'Keefe presented 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. Public water and sewer has been extended to the property by the
developer.
B. The property accesses an identified arterial with a Level of Service F,
indicating that flow exceeds current capacity. Internal circulation of traffic
and external improvements to the existing roadway as shown in the traffic
Impact Analysis anticipate mitigating traffic impacts on the overburdened
N. Market Street arterial.
C. Fire Service is available from the Ogden Fire Department.
D. The property is not located in a flood hazard area.
14
E. Storm water retention facilities have been included on the proposed site
plan.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and
specifications of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. This request is made concurrent with conditional rezoning to CD(0&1)
and CD(13-1) as indicated on the site plan.
B. The proposed uses will be limited to those listed on the approved site plan
for each portion.
C. Petitioner proposes off-street parking of 631 total spaces for the CD(13-1)
portion and 898 spaces for the CD(0&1) portion. The 40 potential upper-
story residential units can be accommodated as dedicated or shared
parking within the CD(13-1).
D. Traffic circulation system will be via internal streets and driveways with
three drive accesses to N. Market Street (US 17). A traffic impact analysis
has been prepared for this project which includes certain recommendations
to mitigate traffic impacts of the overall project.
E. The property is subject to the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD).
F. A tree survey has been provided. The eventual method of protection or
mitigation will be developed in compliance with Section 67 of the county
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. Storm water management systems must be designed in accordance with
the county's ordinance in order to reasonably protect adjoining properties
from off-site runoff impacts.
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 Classification,
meaning an area where intensive urban development is anticipated and
where services are or will be provided.
B. Policies in the plan support mixed-use projects away from sensitive areas
and in the urban services area in order to reduce dependence on the
automobile.
Staff suggested conditions:
15
1. NCDOT and MPO technical staff must concur with the TIA
recommendations for road improvements.
2. Internal street system must provide adequate access and maneuverability
to accommodate emergency vehicles to the satisfaction of County Fire
Services.
Sue Haves asked if the hospital had a certificate of need and why they chose to develop
their project at this location and not at the Market Street property.
Jack Barto stated that they do not have a certificate of need but feel confident that they
will receive one when they apply for it in approximately five years. Mr. Barto stated that
they chose this location over the Market street property because of additional acreage and
traffic patterns.
Melissa Gott asked if there is an exclusivity clause on the B-1 portion of the plan and to
cite any differences between the current and the 2005 plan.
Jack Barto stated that they have exclusivity.
Mike Nadeau commercial realtor stated that the plan has remained unchanged since the
Planning Board and County Commissioners reviewed in approximately one year ago.
Mr. Nadeau added that any changes would have been made prior to the public hearings in
2005.
Jay Williams asked what the density would be if the property were developed under the
existing zoning.
Chris O'Keefe stated 125 houses.
Sue Haves asked what the difference in traffic would be if the land were developed
residential compared to the current proposal.
Chris O'Keefe stated 1250 trips per day if it were developed performance residential.
Richard Adams traffic engineer with McKinley Horn, who performed the traffic study,
stated that the rezoning would generate approximately 14,000 trips per day.
Sue Haves expressed concern regarding traffic in the area Ms. Hayes stated that the
level of service is presently failing at "F" and the proposal would add 12,000 trips per
day.
Sue Haves made a motion to recommend denial of the item. There was not a second; the
motion failed.
16
Ken Wrangell made a motion to recommend rezoning with staff conditions. Melissa Gott
seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 3-1 to recommend rezoning (Hayes
against; Adams abstained).
Ken Wrangell made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use portion of
the rezoning with staff conditions. Melissa Gott seconded the motion. The Planning
Board voted 3-1 to recommend approval of the conditional use portion of the rezoning
(Hayes against; Adams abstained).
Item 5: Rezoning (Z-854, 11/06) - Request by Ward & Smith, PA for Bill Clark
Homes of Wilmington, LLC to rezone 104.6 acres between the 2000 and 2100 blocks
of Castle Hayne 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
classification, land use, zoning, level of service (LOS), and related information.
Jane Daughtridge provided the staff summary:
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located along Castle Hayne Road north of the 23`d Street
intersection. Castle Hayne Road is classified as an arterial roadway which experienced a
23% increase in traffic volume between 2001 and 2005. Level of Service was F on Castle
Hayne Road as of April 2005. LOS on 23rd Street is rated C&D. The impact of opening
of the Martin Luther King Parkway and I-140 bypass has not been evaluated at this time.
The subject property is currently vacant with one unoccupied dilapidated residential
structure along the highway. A borrow pit used for recent highway construction in the
area has created an 11.2 acre lake in the center of the property. Land to the south is
zoned R-15 and is developed in single-family residential use along Arlington Drive.
South of the project and along Castle Hayne Road is zoned B-1 Business. Immediately
north of the subject property, zoning is R-20 Residential and is currently in agricultural
use. Further north is the Seitter residential subdivision along Carl Seitter Drive. To the
east, across Castle Hayne Road, zoning is AR Airport Residential, transitioning to B-1 at
Spring Road.
The property is relatively near the airport and is identified within the airport transition
zone indicated by the Airport Height Ordinance, however, elevations below 182' would
not need special authorization from the FAA. The property is located within the Ness
Creek watershed drainage area and is slightly influenced by flood zone on the extreme
west portion of the site.
Water and sewer are currently not available near the site. Sewer lines may be extended at
the developer's expense. Sewage from the site would be treated at the Northside
17
Treatment facility. Currently capacity at the facility is limited and is being allocated in
15,000 gpd (approximately 41 sf homes) units.
Land Use Plan Considerations:
The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the Transition classification as areas
providing for future intensive urban development on lands that have or will have urban
services. The property is within the Urban Services Boundary and public water and
sewer are available in the vicinity.
This rezoning petition proposes a change to allow higher residential density by an
expansion of an existing R-15 district (Arlington Drive). 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. Subtracting the acreage of open water, the
maximum scenarios would be:
R-20 R-15
Performance Residential 177 units 234 units
High Density 397 units 953 units
The Transition Classification allows for intensive development where urban services are
provided. Policies in the land use plan encourage preservation of the character of existing
neighborhoods and quality of life with the primary strategy to integrate development and
growth with input from residents, and also to develop design standards to replace use
standards.
The character of the surrounding residential development is low density to the north and
moderate density to the immediate south. Connectivity with these neighborhoods is not
likely. It should be noted that a zoning boundary irregularity from the past places the
district line through the center of properties on Arlington Drive and will create a narrow
strip of R-20 between the R-15 Districts. That discrepancy will need to be addressed to
make the boundary consistent
Traffic in the area is a significant consideration; however, the adjacent neighborhoods
have not been designed with street stubs for interconnectivity. 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 1,694 2,239
High Density 3,799 9,120
Staff Recommendation:
18
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends approval of this rezoning.
Tom Johnson, attorney with Ward & Smith for Bill Clark Homes stated that the rezoning
request is consistent with the zoning in the area, specifically with the R-15 property to the
south. Mr. Johnson stated that lot "T" on the site plan could potentially provide
connectivity to the adjacent subdivision through Arlington Drive. Mr. Johnson stated that
a traffic impact analysis has not been done but has been ordered. Additionally, Mr.
Johnson stated that water and sewer are available to the project.
Chris Miller adjacent property owner spoke in opposition to the rezoning because of the
increase in density. Mr. Miller clarified that the pond is approximately 20 acres and not
11 acres and that the easement behind Arlington drive accommodates septic tanks.
Tom Johnson stated in his rebuttal that the proposal is consistent with the density and
development with the area and that a high-density project would require a special use
permit and a public hearing.
David Adams asked for the acreage of the pond.
Rob Balland, engineer with Paramount stated that the pond is 19.26 acres.
Sue Haves expressed concern that the traffic impact could not be estimated for the
rezoning since the acreage and current level of service are unknown.
Tom Johnson explained that current levels of service are unknown because the impact of
the newly constructed, I-140 bypass and Martin Luther King Parkway have not been
evaluated.
Chris Miller stated that this case was presented before the Planning Board approximately
one year ago with a site plan that contained 80 half-acre lots on 40 acres
There was discussion of the number of trips generated a day if this project were
developed under high-density. It was stated that traffic would be 30% greater.
The Board expressed concern that adjacent property owners did not receive proper
notification regarding the rezoning. It was stated that the map sent to property owners did
not indicate the potential for interconnectivity provided by the parcel owned by Park
Lake properties. Board members felt that possibly more adjacent property owners would
have attended the hearing to voice opposition to connectivity through their neighborhood
if they would have known.
Jay Williams stated that the interconnectivity is only a suggestion and not definite;
covenants may restrict a connection.
Tom Johnson stated that they have held several neighborhood meetings and addressed
neighbors' concerns.
19
There was further discussion regarding whether the Park Lake Properties, LLC lot that
could potentially provide connectivity, should be considered part of the rezoning request.
Holt Moore stated that the rezoning should not include the Park Lake Property lot
because it was not indicated as part of the proposed rezoning on the map that was sent to
adjacent property owners.
Ken Wrangell made a motion to recommend approval. Jay Williams seconded the
motion. The Planning Board voted 6-1 (Hayes) to recommend approval.
Item 6: Text Amendment (A-355, 11/06) - Request by staff to consider addition to
the zoning ordinance of a Riverfront Mixed Use District.
Chris O'Keefe presented slides and gave an overview of the site's history, land
classification, land use, zoning, level of service (LOS), and related information.
Chris O'Keefe provided the staff summary:
Background
In response to increasing interest in development along the banks of the Cape Fear River,
the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners directed County staff to work with
City of Wilmington planning staff to establish regulations for a waterfront zoning district.
Elected officials from the City and County agreed that City staff would take the lead in
this planning effort.
During the development of the proposed district City and County staff held a number
of public meetings in order to obtain initial input from the public and gather feedback
from various stakeholders. A public meeting was held at the outset of the process to
get initial input and comments from the public. This information was compiled and
included within the preliminary draft of the ordinance. A series of small-group
roundtable discussions were held with various stakeholder groups to review drafts
and get feedback and input from various stakeholders.
General consensus indicated that if this area is going to develop, more appropriate
regulations need to be in place in order to protect the existing environmentally sensitive
areas located on the west bank as well as provide for quality development which allows
for the greatest community benefit.
A number of potential application areas were identified in order to provide a context for
development of the RFMU district (See attachment 3). However, the proposed
Riverfront Mixed Use District, if adopted, would be a "floating" district. Property
would be considered for rezoning at the request of the property owner. This designation
is not proposed to be applied to any specific properties at this time.
20
The proposed RFMU district regulations incorporate key elements of both the Vision
2020: A Waterfront Downtown and the Cape Fear River Corridor plans, balancing the
desire to promote sound economic development options with the need to protect the
sensitive natural and scenic qualities of the Cape Fear River.
The proposed zoning district is expected to be considered by the Wilmington Planning
Commission on November 1.
Description
The riverfront in downtown Wilmington has recently seen considerable redevelopment,
beginning a transformation of the historical industrial riverfront into a residential and
entertainment destination. This change has developers looking across the river for land
that may be suitable for the same urban intensity as in the city. The County's riverfront
needs regulations that will guide this land use transition and encourage quality
development along the west bank of the downtown riverfront while recognizing the
differences between intense development in a fully urbanized city versus development
challenges near fragile marshes and flood prone areas which do not enjoy a full range of
urban services and infrastructure.
The Riverfront Mixed Use District is established to support seven main objectives: to
enhance and preserve environmentally sensitive areas along the river; to protect public
access to the river through the creation of quality public spaces, to preserve cultural and
natural resources, to effect quality design and a variety of built forms that result in a
pedestrian scale as well as a compelling skyline; to promote and enhance transit options,
particularly pedestrian and water-oriented transportation options; to provide an
opportunity for intensive development consistent with the urban form; and to encourage
a mix of uses that foster a sense of community and create a destination for residents and
visitors alike.
The RFMU district is not intended to be applied to any other areas of the County's
riverfront. It is also not intended to supersede the CAMA Land Classification map. The
proposed district would be applicable only to properties with frontage on the Cape Fear
and/or Northeast Cape Fear River between the Holmes Bridge and the Cape Fear
Memorial Bridge and east of Hwy 421. Land along the banks of the river is zoned for
either commercial or industrial uses. While protecting the industrial base is critical in
certain parts of the County, portions of the riverfront are more desirable for other uses. If
the current zoning is retained, development along the riverfront could occur in a less than
desirable way, particularly across from historic downtown Wilmington. The RFMU
district has great potential to be applied in these areas.
The proposed district includes development regulations which are intended to support
quality developments along the riverfront. These regulations address height, protection
of environmental resources, the provision of public space, and building and site design
standards.
Height
21
As part of the process for developing this ordinance, City staff examined a number of
comparable cities to identify how other cities regulate height along their waterfronts.
Staff found no identifiable pattern in these cities as height regulations were customized to
fit the unique character and historic context of each city's downtown waterfront. The
regulation of height is based on the preferences of the community. In areas where RFMU
zoning is most likely to be applied, there is no historic context to preserve or protect.
Therefore, staff believes it is appropriate to allow taller buildings. The preservation of
open/green space is critical in these areas due to the prevalence of environmentally
sensitive areas. Building taller will reduce the need to expand building footprints and
also make it more feasible to provide a large amount of public and open space. The
RFMU proposes that a building height of 15 stories be permitted without conditions.
Additional height, up to a maximum of 20 stories, may be incrementally granted based on
performance requirements. At least one of the two following requirements must be met
for each additional story: (1) the dedication of private land for public use at 5 percent
greater than district requirements, or (2) the reduction of building volume above the base
by 5 percent greater than the required minimum of 25 percent.
Public Space
Public space, including a river walk, is required in all RFMU developments. Public
spaces include natural wetlands, forested areas, atriums, parks, a river walk, internal
courtyards, plazas, or other undisturbed or improved spaces. Public access connections
to a river walk are also required.
Building Design
In order to moderate the overall scale of the building, a "building base" is required at a
maximum of 4 stories or 50 feet, whichever is less. For buildings exceeding this height,
facades are required to incorporate a visual transition which distinguishes the base from
the upper floors of the building. While buildings may reach or exceed 15 stories, the total
building volume above the base must be reduced by 25 percent. Buildings are also
required to incorporate periodic transitions across the fagade in order to create a vertical
orientation, eliminate expanses of blank walls and create a more pedestrian-scaled block
face. These requirements will eliminate the potential of maximizing the building
envelope with a non-descript, box-like structure, and will help to produce a more
attractive design.
Parking
Surface parking is limited and structured parking is required in order to prevent vast
expanses of parking along the riverfront. Surface parking is limited to 5 percent of the
total parking area or 50 spaces, whichever is less and is prohibited from the riverfront
side of buildings. Structured parking decks are required to be visually compatible with
surrounding structures and must be visually obscured from the river.
Given the desirable views of the river and access to the downtown waterfront,
development along the Cape Fear River is likely to occur. Downtown Wilmington is a
22
distinctive and exceptional place that cannot be recreated. Great places do not happen
by accident. Growth and development along the riverbanks should occur in suitable
areas in a manner that makes the Wilmington region even more desirable than it is now.
Therefore, it is vitally important that any new development along the Cape Fear River
be of high quality and support the shared vision of Wilmington, New Hanover County,
and the region as a whole. This new zoning district will accommodate the desire to
provide urban intensity on the west bank of the river while protecting the integrity of
historic downtown Wilmington and the diverse riverine ecosystem.
Staff 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 to and protect views of the river,
protect environmentally sensitive areas, and promote quality design and development.
The creation of the RFMU district regulations has been a joint effort between City of
Wilmington and New Hanover County planning staff and the result is a new zoning
district that can be applied to riverfront properties along both banks of the river to
achieve the stated objectives. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this request.
Mr. O'Keefe distributed an updated version of the Riverfront Mixed Use District
ordinance to the Planning Board:
Sue Haves asked if the new version had been distributed to the public. Ms. Hayes felt
that the Planning Board should have an opportunity to provide input into the proposed
Riverfront Mixed Use District ordinance and requested a work session.
Paul Boney asked Chris O'Keefe to highlight the changes to the Riverfront Mixed Use
District ordinance.
Chris O'Keefe cited the changes and additions including the waterfront access and
building height.
Christine Laughlin, Senior Long Range Planner, City of Wilmington, stated that they
held many public hearings to solicit input regarding the riverfront mixed use district. Ms.
Laughlin summarized the proposed height regulations for the district.
Joan Weld spoke in support of the text amendment and applauded the planning process
and stated that public input was adequately solicited. Ms. Weld believes this amendment
will provide public water access and responsible development of the west bank.
John Evans spoke in support of the text amendment commending the planning process
for its inclusion of public input. Mr. Evans felt that the text amendment represents an
even balance of ideas, allowing for architectural creativity, and will promote
development of a high caliber. Mr. Evans stated his project would include a river walk, a
public park, preserved green space, and preserved history.
23
Alfred Schnobe riverfront resident, spoke in support of the text amendment stating that
the development of the west side of the bank is inevitable and he would prefer to see it
developed responsibly. Mr. Schnobe felt that a well-designed architectural concept on
the west bank would be a nice contrast to the historical east side. Additionally Mr.
Schnobe felt that the west bank would provide additional housing as the population of
Wilmington grows.
William J. Hart New Hanover County Soil and Water supervisor, spoke in opposition to
the item. Mr. Hart stated that they were not involved in the development of the Riverfront
Mixed Use District ordinance and that the land should be preserved because of its cultural
and natural historic value. Mr. Hart believes that public funds should be used to acquire
Eagle Island for preservation.
Alice Mitchell, President of Residents of Old Wilmington, spoke in opposition to the text
amendment citing concerns regarding height regulations. Ms. Mitchell stated that the
proposed height regulations are too high and cited Charleston, SC as an example of good
planning.
Michael Murchison Board Member of the Historic Wilmington Foundation, spoke in
opposition to the item expressing concern regarding height and scale of the proposed
ordinance.
Kevin O'Grady, Board Member of Residents of Old Wilmington, spoke in opposition to
the item. Mr. O'Grady stated that the southern portion of the west bank, should be built
to the same scale as the adjacent buildings 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 there.
John Evans stated that as a proponent of the environment, his project uses only 15% of
the footprint and the rest provides large amounts of green space and public area. Mr.
Evans felt that the development of the west bank would enrich the lives of Wilmington
residents and visitors.
Kevin O'Grady stated he is already enriched by the history and natural beauty of
Wilmington. Mr. O'Grady reiterated that building height must be to scale with historic
Wilmington.
William Hart stated that the preservation of Eagle Island and its natural resources is an
economic generator for Wilmington.
Sue Haves requested a workshop to examine in depth the text amendment.
A majority of board members felt that a work session was necessary to discuss the text
amendment in further detail.
24
Sue Haves made a motion to table the item until the December Planning Board meeting
and hold a work session in the interim.
Jay Williams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-2 (Gott, Spiers) to table
the item and hold a work session.
Sam Burgess provided an update on the Technical Review Committee's (TRC)
activity for the month of October 2006.
The Technical Review Committee (TRC) reviewed two projects:
1. Avalon West - On October 11, 2006, the TRC voted 3-2 to continue
discussion until proper road documentation was presented. On October 25,
2006, the TRC voted 3-1 to re-approve the preliminary plan for 24 lots with
conditions.
2. Roymac Business Park - TRC voted 4-0 to re-approve the preliminary plan
for 10 lots with conditions.
Mr. Burgess stated that the TRC adjusted its policy guidelines for the submittal of
preliminary site plans and created the following timetable:
? Agencies will have 3 weeks to review plans and submit comments
? Once comments are received, Planning staff will meet with the applicant
to discuss comments. The developer or surveyor will then have 2 weeks
to make changes.
? Once the changes have been made, the revised plan will go back to the
agencies and then placed on the TRC agenda.
? The entire process to take 6 weeks.
Sam Burgess stated that the neat TRC meeting will be held on November 8, 2006.
Dave Adams stated that the new timetable was created to curb incomplete applications.
Sue Haves commented that the Planning Board should request a flooding study of the
northern portion of the County in response to public outcry.
Chris O'Keefe stated that the New Hanover County Engineering department has stated
that flooding is county-wide and that they are working to address the issues in order. Mr.
O'Keefe stated that he would supply the Board with a copy of the Engineering
department's work program at the upcoming work session.
Paul Bonev adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m.
25