Loading...
PB Minutes 20110505-Approved Page 1 of 11 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board May 5, 2011 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the Historic County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Andy Heath, Vice Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director Melissa Gott Jane Daughtridge, Current Planning & Zoning Manager Dan Hilla Nicole Dreibelbis, Planner Tamara Murphy Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Anthony Prinz Absent: Richard Collier, Chairman Troy Barboza Vice Chairman Andy Heath opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Chris O’Keefe led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Vice Chairman Heath reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of the April Planning Board Meeting Minutes Melissa Gott made a motion to approve the April Planning Board meeting minutes as presented. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to approve the April Planning Board meeting minutes. Item 1: Special Use Permit (S-603, 05/11) – Request by Gene Hooton on behalf of Plantation Village Inc. for a special use permit to obtain the Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) Designation in an R-20 Zoning District on approximately 55.51 acres at 1200 Porters Neck Road. The site is classified Transition in the 2006 CAMA land use plan. Nicole Dreibelbis provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service, and zoning. Ms. Dreibelbis presented maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and of the surrounding area. Ms. Dreibelbis explained the subject property is currently zoned R-20 low density residential and the property immediately surrounding the site is also zoned R-20 residential; however, northwest of the site is a Conditional Office and Institutional District, which houses the Davis Health Care Center. She noted the location of the Davis Healthcare Facility and the Eagle Point Golf Club Page 2 of 11 and some additional R-20 residential single-family development on the 2010 aerial. She reported the 2007 Level of Service for the intersection of Market Street and Porters Neck Road is F; however, staff is in the process of obtaining feedback from the WMPO regarding changes in the traffic flow associated with the recent installation of the roundabout on Porters Neck Road. She stated Mike Kozlosky had informed them that the capacity ratio for Porters Neck Road is .82, which staff believes means the road is not at capacity. Ms. Dreibelbis reviewed the site plan of Plantation Village reflecting the existing campus and the proposed improvements in two phases. Phase I consists of the addition of six units consisting of two cottages and two duplexes. Phase II includes the addition of a 27 unit apartment complex, a wellness center, and various renovations to the existing commons. She also noted an emergency vehicle bulb-out located at the end of Meadow Lark Lane for emergency vehicles. In conclusion, Ms. Dreibelbis stated staff recommended approval of the Special Use Permit because policies outlined in the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan emphasizes the need to preserve the character of the area’s existing residential neighborhoods and quality of life. Gene Hooton of Greenbrier Development spoke on behalf of the applicant, Plantation Village, Inc. He stated his willingness to answer questions from the board and provided additional computer renderings of the design proposed for the project. He explained Phase I in the northwest corner of the property includes the two cottages and two duplexes and noted they are proposing in Phase II additions to the existing commons building, including the wellness center, and the relocation of the indoor pool, fitness and aerobics area, the beauty salon and some other ancillary spaces. He stated a new auditorium will also be added to accommodate the growing population and provide more flexibility for meeting space. The third addition to the commons building will be a dining addition to expand and diversify the dining space, creating two dining venues. Mr. Hooton explained there are currently three 3-storey apartment buildings on the campus and one additional 3-storey, 27-unit apartment building is proposed. Dan Hilla asked if Plantation Village was in any way affiliated as an owner of Champion Assisted Living or Davis Health Center or if there was an agreement with those facilities. Gene Hooton explained there is a written agreement for the life care contract with those facilities to ensure the assisted living and skilled nursing benefits of Champ Davis; however, there is only assisted living on the Plantation Village campus currently. John Drew, resident of Lot 10 on the Adjacent Property Owner Map, stated his objection to the proposed special use permit. He explained he built his home in 1999 and at that time, the closest structure was approximately 500 feet from his house on Janelle Boulevard. For several years, they didn’t have any flooding problems, even during Hurricane Floyd. Floyd. He stated a few years later, Plantation Village developed Meadow Lark Lane, extended Blue Heron, and built a number of houses there. As construction started, there was a thunderstorm that flooded his backyard, including his crawlspace. Plantation Village came to his home, pumped the water out, and provided the services of an electrician and HVAC repairman to ensure there was no permanent damage to his home. Plantation Village then constructed a small berm between their property and his property which improved the situation for 2-3 years; however, whenever there was a really strong storm, the flooding situation would occur again. Mr. Drew stated after Page 3 of 11 numerous discussions with Plantation Village representatives, Plantation Village agreed to hire an engineer to review the situation. Mr. Drew explained the engineer recommended extending the berm eastward, then digging a ditch and changing the elevation so the water would flow to the west and then turn to the south, which worked great when it was done. Mr. Drew expressed concern because the proposed site plan shows that the ditch currently channeling water away from his property will be covered up by the new fire truck turnaround, and the existing ditch also currently runs through the location of the northernmost cottage that is proposed. He stated it also appeared that a retaining wall would be constructed around two sides of the development, which would require filling in to the retaining wall, leaving nowhere for the water from the project’s runoff to go except into his yard. Dan Hilla asked Mr. Drew if he would be satisfied if he had a guarantee that the engineers would review the situation situation and let him know the project was designed in a way that the engineers thought the water would continue to be channeled in its current direction. Mr. Drew stated he would be satisfied by an engineer’s guarantee, but his experience had shown that the developer had delayed for years before finally handling the situation. He stated he would be agreeable to the project if he had some assurance that his property would not be flooded as a result of the project. Dan Hilla stated the developer would be required to obtain a review of the stormwater modifications before obtaining approval for the project. John Mallette, a member of the Board of Trustees of the Porters Neck Homeowners Association, expressed concern about the project, stating although they don’t own property directly abutting the project, their community is essentially connected part of the way around Plantation Village. Their community and the Porters Neck Golf Course are connected in that stormwater flows throughout the whole area and is controlled by ditches, pipes, and settling areas and anything that can impact the drainage on any of the borders is of serious concern to him. He stated he had not seen the drawings until the meeting. Mr. Mallette also stated that while they aren’t in opposition to the project, they would request that staff thoroughly review the stormwater permit before any approval is given. John Hooton stated during rebuttal, he had taken notes and would like to meet with both speakers following the meeting about their concerns. He stated a civil engineer was working through the stormwater permitting process and the specific civil engineering around the northwest corner where Lot #10 is located. He stated they were trying to address some extended problems at the property line and on their property at Meadow Lark and pipe all stormwater back towards the stormwater system. He noted they have excess capacity for the stormwater permit, but will need to update and review that permit. He explained they would also be working with Cape Fear Public Utility Authority to serve their campus with water later this year. Vice Chairman Heath asked Mr. Drew and Mr. Mallette if a meeting with Mr. Hooton would be acceptable to them. Page 4 of 11 Ms. Daughtridge stated the motion could include a condition requiring a meeting between the homeowners and the applicant if the board felt it was important. Vice Chairman Heath commented that stormwater is a major concern for the residents of New Hanover County and across the state so he would like to place that condition on the motion. He also recommended that Mr. Hooton invite the engineer to the meeting to answer the residents’ questions and provide engineered drawings of the site. Vice Chairman Heath closed the public hearing. Anthony Prinz commented the information states the new fire truck access road will be a grass road and he assumed the grass road would have some type of substructure. He asked if the applicant had gotten through the engineering process yet on the grass road and if it had been reviewed and approved by the fire department. Mr. Hooton explained that grass is an acceptable surface and noted he would be meeting with the Fire Marshal on Friday to review the layout. Mr. Prinz stated hopefully that would minimize the stormwater runoff associated with increasing the size of the turnaround. He also asked if the applicant had spoken with the NCDOT regarding a driveway permit modification. Mr. Hooton stated he had requested that information from NCDOT, but had not yet received a response. Dan Hilla asked staff to verify that the combination of the six parcels satisfied the 20 acres minimum requirement to be classified as a “continuing care retirement community”, if the site plan would require review by the Technical Review Committee, and if it had been reviewed by the Fire Department. Ms. Daughtridge responded that the acreage requirement to be classified as a continuing care retirement community had been met and noted the site plan would not require review by the Technical Review Committee because it is a special use permit and is not a new subdivision. Mr. Hilla asked for confirmation the board would be recommending approval of 32 additional units to the community and if the applicant would be required to apply for another special use permit for any future changes after they received the continuing care community designation. Jane Daughtridge confirmed the applicant was requesting the addition of 32 units and future changes would require a special use permit, unless the change was a minor modification, which could be done administratively. Melissa Gott made a motion to recommend granting Special Use Permit S-603 on the basis that all findings of fact are positive. Tamara Murphy seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-603. Page 5 of 11 Item 2: Special Use Permit (S-604, 05/11)-Request by Thomas H. Johnson, Jr. on behalf of American Towers, Inc. and AT&T Mobility for a special use permit to install a 90’ telecommunications tower in an R-15 Zoning District, identified as Parcel ID R02700-001-0053-000, located at the end of Mabee Way. The site is classified as Transition on the 2006 CAMA land use plan. Nicole Dreibelbis provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning. Ms. Dreibelbis showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and of the surrounding area. Ms. Dreibelbis explained the proposal is located in the northern portion of the County’s jurisdiction and is accessed off Mabee Way. The subject parcel is zoned R-15 medium density residential and the R-15 designation does extend to all adjacent properties and there is a pocket of I-2 industrial zoning to the northwest. She noted the 2007 level of service for the Mabee Way/Murrayville intersection is B, meaning that that traffic counts do not exceed the capacity of the roadway and traffic is flowing freely. The subject property is identified as Wetland Resource Protection on the 2006 CAMA land classification map. She explained the applicant is proposing a 90 foot monopole tower with an eight foot security fence surrounding a 100’ x 100’ compound. Ms. Dreibelbis presented the four simulation photos of the cell tower, which are required by the ordinance for a cell tower special use permit. She explained the subject property is located at the end of Mabee Way and is gated. The property is also located adjacent to Murrayville Elementary School and R-15 single family residences. Ms. Dreibelbis stated in conclusion, staff recommended approval of the special use permit because the special use permit will bind the entire 281.5 acres tract, while the development proposal will have minimal disturbance encompassing only 2 acres of the site, which is consistent with the intent of the Wetland Resource Protection classification. Tom Tom Johnson, spoke on behalf of American Towers and AT&T, noting the presence of Jason Groseclose of American Towers and Summer Kuebane, an RF engineer with AT&T, to answer technical questions from the board. Mr. Johnson stated the applicant already has a special use permit for a 90’ cell tower approved for a nearby site located by Murrayville Elementary School, but at the time a lot of parents expressed concern about the tower being located at the back of the school property. He explained for that reason, the Board of Education approached the applicant about the possibility of moving the tower to another site at least 1,000 feet away from the existing site. Mr. Johnson noted the proposed site, which is owned by the Trask family, meets the request of the Board of Education and doesn’t interfere with the Trask family’s future intended use of the property. Mr. Johnson explained the approval process for cell towers is rather lengthy and includes many approvals, including wetlands, FAA, floodplain, environmental, and historic property impact review. He stated in this case, the FAA has limited the height of the tower to 90’ because it is located in a secondary approach to the airport. Page 6 of 11 Mr. Johnson stated that the need for cell towers is driven by the emergency use of wireless and noted wireless is becoming the primary method of communication as opposed to traditional wire line phones. He provided a nationwide statistic showing that 50-70% of all calls to 911 are made from mobile phones and 25% of those are from indoors. He explained part of the purpose of this tower site is to improve indoor coverage so that people can have access to 911 because people are dropping their landlines and relying only on their wireless phones. He noted even those with landlines tend to reach for their mobile phones during an emergency because they have those with them. More than 20% of homes are now wireless only and wireless devices are now depended upon by emergency service providers. Mr. Johnson noted he didn’t have the most recent statistics from New Hanover County, but in Onslow County, actual figures from 911 showed that over 70% of emergency calls to 911 were made using wireless phones. Mr. Johnson reported the closest residence is located 683 feet from the proposed tower, which is over seven times tower height. The tower is located over 1,000 feet from the school property and well over 1,000 feet from the actual school building. Mr. Johnson stated they have provided for at least two other collocation opportunities on the proposed tower, but collocation opportunities are limited by the height of the tower and the obstruction of the surrounding trees. Mr. Johnson provided documentation reflecting the location of existing towers in the area and the actual current coverage in the area without the proposed tower. He explained the goal is to provide in-building coverage. He also reviewed the four vantage points reflecting the proposed tower from various locations, noting it was barely visible in some photos above the tree line. Mr. Johnson stated the applicant agrees with and accepts the staff findings so far as meeting the requirements and did submit an impact study report from a licensed real estate broker that states the tower will not adversely impact property values. He explained traffic will not be an issue and will include one vehicle every thirty days to conduct maintenance on the tower. Mr. Johnson commented that relative to health concerns, NC general statutes state that towers are so safe that health impact is not an issue, but the applicants also submitted, as required by the ordinance, an analysis that reflects the input of the tower is at 1% of the maximum permitted output under the FCC rules, which are deemed to be safe. Anthony Prinz asked for clarification regarding the existing special use permit for the other location. Mr. Johnson confirmed there is an existing special use permit for another location, but the School Board had voted to rescind the lease and American Towers & AT&T had agreed to jointly rescind the lease when a new site was approved. He stated the applicant was agreeable to the addition of a condition requiring the other special use permit be revoked if this permit is is approved. Per Mr. Prinz’ request, Mr. Johnson showed the location of the existing tower on the site plan, noting the other tower site is closer to the existing homes and to the school. Page 7 of 11 Mr. Prinz asked if the existing special use permit is issued specifically to AT&T or could it be transferred to another carrier. Mr. Johnson explained the special use permit was issued to American Towers & AT&T and they are not interested in assigning it. Ms. Daughtridge explained the special use permit actually runs with the land, but because the school board is actually the holder of that permit and they have voted to rescind their lease with American Towers/AT&T, the board could add that condition, although the school board couldn’t be forced to extinguish the permit they hold. Mr. Johnson again stated the applicant was agreeable to the condition that the other special use permit be extinguished. He also explained the rescission of the existing lease must be a mutual rescission and reiterated that American Tower/AT&T has agreed to sign the rescission agreement, but they must have another tower site approved first. Vice Chair Heath noted the proposed tower appeared to be in the corner of the property and asked Mr. Johnson to confirm the distance of the tower from the southern and eastern property lines. Thomas Johnson explained the compound is located 100’ from both property lines and the tower is located within that 100’ x 100’ enclosure so the tower is approximately 150’ from both property lines. No one spoke in opposition to the special use permit. Vice Chairman Andy Heath closed the public hearing. Melissa Gott stated she was uncomfortable rescinding a special use permit on someone’s land without the property owner being present and asked if the Planning Board could instead make it a condition of approval of the special use permit that this applicant terminate their lease on the other property; thereby, solving the problem of terminating an existing special use permit. Jane Daughtridge agreed with Ms. Gott that termination of the lease was a valid option and asked Ms. Huffman to offer an opinion. She commented that although it is the School Board’s desire to not have the tower built there, the special use permit would be valid until 2013 if the School Board didn’t decide to extinguish it, noting there had been some legislation extending permits. Sharon Huffman recommended the motion include language that the planning board is recommending approval of the special use permit conditioned upon a mutual rescission of the lease between this applicant and the school board and also the special use permit that is now held by the school board being extinguished. Ms. Huffman mentioned that it would be extremely helpful if the applicant requested that a representative of the school board attend the Commissioners meeting to affirm the agreement had been rescinded. Page 8 of 11 Mr. Johnson stated he may, if the County was agreeable, proceed with having an agreement signed by all parties prior to the meeting and deliver it upon approval. He noted he had provided County staff with the minutes of the December 2009 meeting of the New Hanover County School Board during which they voted to rescind the lease. Ms. Huffman recommended Ms. Gott include the extinguishment of the special use permit in the motion so the language is clear to the County Commissioners. Mr. Johnson affirmed the applicant was in agreement with adding the condition requiring the extinguishment of the special use permit held by the school board. Vice Chairman Andy Heath stated as he understood it, even if the lease was rescinded, the special use permit would still be valid and the schools could contract with another tower company. Chris O’Keefe stated Mr. Heath was correct and staff would pursue that issue with the school system as well, noting staff had some correspondence about the lease agreement. He acknowledged Mr. Johnson was correct that the school board had voted to rescind the lease in 2009, but the special use permit would continue. For that reason, staff had asked the school board to consider allowing the permit to expire or take formal action to rescind it. He reported staff had not yet received a response to that request. Tom Johnson stated he would confer with the School Board’s attorney, Wayne Bullard, regarding extinguishment of the special use permit, which would also require a vote by the school board. Melissa Gott made a motion to recommend granting approval of Special Use Permit S-604 subject to two conditions: 1) that there be a mutual rescission of the lease between the applicant and the School Board; and 2) that the special use permit held by the School Board be extinguished. Dan Hilla seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-604 with two conditions: 1) a mutual rescission of the lease between the applicant and the School Board; and 2) the extinguishment of the special use permit held by the School Board. Item 3: Conditional Rezoning Request (Z-838M, 05/11)-Request by Holman & Lackey on behalf of Masons Landing Yacht Club, LLC to modify an approved conditional use plan for Masons Landing Yacht Club and remove 4.19 acres or 8 lots from a 14.565 acre tract approved for a R-20 performance residential development at 7312 Mason Landing Road. The site is classified as Wetland Resource Protection. Nicole Dreibelbis provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning. Ms. Dreibelbis showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and of the surrounding area. Page 9 of 11 Ms. Dreibelbis explained two zonings are located within the conditional use district: 1) Conditional R-15; and 2) Conditional R-20. She noted, to the North and South, there is an R-20S zoning designation, which is the County’s lowest density residential district and there are two pockets of R-15 medium density residential to the west and northwest. Ms. Dreibelbis noted the 2007 level of service at the intersection of Mason Landing Road and Middle Sound Loop Road is B, meaning that traffic counts are not at capacity for the design of the road and traffic continues to flow freely. She commented the 2006 land classification for the subject parcels are Conservation and Wetland Resource Protection. Ms. Dreibelbis reviewed the current site plan, which was approved on November 5, 2007, noting it is the entire conditional district and includes 11.46 acres of Conditional R-15 and approximately 4.7 acres of Conditional R-20. She stated the site is currently approved for 34 residential units. Ms. Dreibelbis then presented the proposed modified site plan, which removes approximately 4.19 acres currently zoned Conditional R-20 and returns it to its original zoning of R-20S in harmony with the adjacent properties, and rezones two parcels totaling approximately .51 acres currently zoned Conditional R-20 to Conditional R-15 in harmony with the remainder of the residential lots that make up the rest of the conditional district. Ms. Dreibelbis, stated in conclusion, staff finds the request for rezoning of the conditional use, currently identified as Masons Landing Yacht Club, would be consistent with the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan, as well as the stated intents of both R-15 and R-20S zoning districts; and further the return of 4.19 acres to R-20S would be consistent with the adjacent Register Place Estates subdivision; therefore, staff recommends approval of the request for rezoning of the conditional use. Josh Mihaly of Mihaly Design spoke on behalf of the applicants requesting the removal of 4.19 acres from the site site plan. He explained the 4.19 acres was originally part of the Masons Landing subdivision planned development, but was never developed as such. He noted the property was never purchased or sold, although it was rezoned several years ago as part of the project. Mr. Mihaly stated the owners are requesting the 4.19 acres be removed from the conditional district site plan and be rezoned to its original zoning. In addition, they are requesting a .51 acre tract, currently owned by the Masons Landing LLC be rezoned to R-15 CD to make it in harmony with the rest of the Masons Landing Yacht Club project. Mr. Mihaly stated the goal was to clean up the Masons Landing Yacht Club site plan and the conditional district and allow Mr. Holman and Mr. Lackey to no longer be affiliated with the Masons Landing conditional district site plan. Mr. Mihaly stated, in conclusion, the new plan will reduce the number of lots approved from 34 lots to 26 lots under the R-15 district; the 4.19 acres will revert back to R-20S, which is consistent with the adjacent properties; and the .51 acres, which is part of the existing conditional district site plan, will be rezoned to R-15 to be consistent with the remaining tracts. He explained that Masons Landing has been developed, the roads are in and one house exists on the site so there is no proposed development. The proposal is simply to modify the conditional district site plan to remove the 4.19 acres tract. Page 10 of 11 Dan Hilla asked how the proposed rezoning would affect the adjacent boat slips, if it would reduce the number of slips from 34 to 26 and if it would require more parking for the boat slips. Ms. Daughtridge stated it may require a couple of extra parking for the boat slips because credit was given for onsite parking at the houses for those that would be an amenity, but that would need to be confirmed. Mr. Hilla asked if the slips could be designated as two per lot instead of one per lot and not have any more rated commercial if they so chose. Ms. Daughtridge commented they could do so if they created a deed agreement stating two slips were assigned per lot, although it would be difficult to believe each house would need two slips as a practical matter. She explained that the ordinance requires one space per slip so the original expectation of the marina owners should have been to provide one parking space per slip; however, in the last two years, the owners had requested and received an administrative approval to allocate parking to the houses. Ms. Daughtridge commented that if they found they could not under these circumstances provide one parking space per slip, the owners could request a variance from the Board of Adjustments if they could create a case to show it was a true hardship not of their own making. Per a question from Mr. Hilla, Mr. Mihaly stated the adjacent property is not bank-owned property. Mr. Mihaly stated his calculations showed there was enough parking even after the removal of the additional lots. Ms. Daughtridge stated the parking on the site plan included the required parking for the recreational facility as well, which is a separate calculation. She noted there may be the ability for the owners to claim some shared parking so it is possible, but it is not known for certain. Dan Hilla asked if the owner of the .51 acre tract was requesting that tract be rezoned. Mr. Mihaly stated the owner of the .51 acres tract had reviewed the proposed site plan and signed the applications, explaining that tract was added later in an effort to clean up the site plan and make the zoning consistent with the rest of the R-15. Ms. Daughtridge confirmed staff had received an authorization for the conditional rezoning request from the other property owner, Mr. Saieed. No one from the public spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Andy Heath closed the public hearing. Mr. Mihaly agreed with the staff findings and confirmed the applicant’s desire to proceed with the vote. Sharon Huffman and Jane Daughtridge clarified that three actions were required by the Planning Board to rezone the properties, including: 1) a vote to rezone a 4.19 acres tract from CD R-20 to Page 11 of 11 R-20S; 2) a vote on the conditional rezoning of a .51 acres tract; and 3) the associated special use permit for the conditional rezoning. Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend approval of rezoning the 4.19 acres tract from CD R-20 to R-20S. Melissa Gott seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of rezoning the 4.19 acres tract from CD R-20 to R-20S for Conditional Rezoning Request Z-838M. Tamara Murphy made a motion to recommend approval of rezoning the .51 acres tract from R-20 to R-15 and modify the conditional district. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of rezoning the .51 acres tract from R-20 CD to R-15 CD and modify the conditional district for Z-838M. Jane Daughtridge stated that the special use permit will change the site plan in a significant way and they will be bound by that site plan. Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend approval of the modified special use permit for Conditional Rezoning Request Z-838M. Melissa Gott seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the modified special use permit for Conditional Rezoning Request Z-838M. Technical Review Committee Report (April) Vice Chairman Andy Heath reported there was no TRC meeting during the month of April. No additional items were brought forward for discussion. Vice Chairman Andy Heath adjourned the meeting at 7: 40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________________ __ Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director