200805 May PBM
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
May 1, 2008
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, May 1, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. in the
Assembly Room of the Old County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public
meeting.
Planning Board Present: Staff Present:
Melissa Gott, Chair Chris O'Keefe, Planning Director
Sandra Spiers, Vice Chair Sam Burgess, Principal Development Planner
David Adams Karyn Crichton, Administrative Specialist
Sue Hayes Jane Daughtridge, Senior Planner
Ken Wrangell Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney
Absent:
Richard Collier
Jay Williams
Melissa Gott opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam
Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Sue Haves made a motion to approve the April minutes. Ken Wrangell seconded the
motion. The Planning Board voted 4-0 to approve the minutes.
Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-883, 5/08) - Request by Don Joseph for multiple
property owners to rezone approximately 2.75 acres located at 7031-7047 Market
Street in the Transition Land Classifications from R-15 Residential to B-2 Highway
Commercial District. The action would open the range of uses to a broad array of
intensive commercial activities.
Jane Daughtridge showed maps and photographs of the property and of the surrounding
area. Ms. Daughtridge also provided information pertaining to land classification, access,
levels of service, and zoning. Ms. Daughtridge provided the following staff summary:
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located in the northern portion of the county in an area classified
as Transition on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification map. The property is north of the
intersection of Market and Military Cut-off. Market Street is a major arterial roadway
with level of service rated at F along this segment, meaning traffic flow exceeds capacity.
Average daily traffic counts were about 20% less in fall of 2006 than in spring of 2005.
There are 5 platted lots involved in this request. The subject properties are currently
developed with residential dwellings. Adjacent property to the south is zoned B-2
Highway Business, as well as much of the area to the east. Properties to the west and
north remain R-15 residential. Mt. Ararat AME Church is adjacent to the north. A small
neighborhood is located west of the subject property along Ruth Avenue between this
property and Ogden Park.
The subject property is located within the Howe Creek watershed drainage area The
property is not influenced by flood hazard. The site is a primary recharge area for the
principal aquifers. The properties are served by public water and sewer.
Chris O'Keefe recommended denial of the rezoning request stating that the lots are
unsuitable for commercial development given their size. Mr. O'Keefe provided the
following land use plan considerations:
Land Use Plan Considerations:
This rezoning petition proposes a change from moderate density R-15 Residential with a
maximum of 2.5units/acre to B-2 Highway Business District. The B-2 district allows for
a wide range of intensive commercial uses. Maximum height also increases from 35 feet
in R-15 to 40 feet in the B-2 district.
The purpose of the B-2 district is to provide for the proper grouping and development of
roadside business uses which will best accommodate the needs of the motoring public
and businesses demanding high volume traffic. The district's principal means of ingress
and egress shall be along collector roads, minor arterials, and/or major arterials as
designated on the County's Thoroughfare Classification Plan.
The property is classified as Transition by the 2006 CAMA Plan. The purpose of the
Transition class is to provide for future intensive urban development on lands that have
been or will be provided with necessary urban services. The location of these areas is
based upon land use planning policies requiring optimum efficiency in land utilization
and public service delivery.
These lots are only about 200 feet deep and each is currently individually owned. None
would be well suited for general B-2 zoning on their own because of the awkward traffic
circulation limitations and the frontage along Market Street on a very busy segment.
Continued residential use is also awkward in this location for the same reasons. A
conditional rezoning with a specific site plan to show how the limitations of the site can
be appropriately mitigated would be preferred and could be considered after 12 months.
Based on the foregoing analysis, staff recommends denial.
2
Donald Joseph, the petitioner, representing five property owners along Market Street
stated that his clients are requesting the rezoning in efforts to make better use of their
property given the change in the area's character. Mr. Joseph explained that the area is
surrounded by business zoning and no longer suitable for residential uses given the noise
and traffic.
Dave Adams asked the petitioner what is the proposed use of the property.
Donald Joseph stated that no specific use had been identified yet.
Donald Joseph stated that the properties are sandwiched between large segments of B-2
zoning from the south and north.
Dave Adams asked the petitioner to confirm that all five property owners consent to the
rezoning.
Donald Joseph stated that he has signed documentation from the property owners
authorizing the rezoning petition.
No one from the public spoke.
Donald Joseph stated in the rebuttal period that the five properties should be rezoned B-2
given that they front Market Street and are located within a well defined business
neighborhood.
Melissa Gott asked Mr. Joseph if he had spoken to any of the Ruth Avenue residents
about the rezoning.
Donald Joseph stated that he has spoken to the Nixon heirs about the rezoning and has
not heard objection from any Ruth Avenue residents.
Sue Haves asked Mr. Joseph if he had spoken to Planning staff regarding their
recommendation for denial and if he might consider a conditional rezoning which would
show a site plan as well as plan to mitigate traffic.
Donald Joseph stated that he was aware of the staff's recommendations but explained that
it was very difficult to get the five property owners to agree to one plan. Mr. Joseph
stated that it would be easier if he had one single buyer for all five properties.
Dave Adams asked Mr. Joseph if he was marketing the properties as residential or
commercial.
3
Donald Joseph stated that the property is being marketed as R-15 zoning that is
undergoing a rezoning to B-2.
Sandra Spiers agreed that the property is suitable for commercial zoning but explained
that a site plan with a traffic mitigation plan is encouraged given the rapid growth in New
Hanover County.
Ken Wrangell stated that he would like to see the five properties conform with the
predominant zoning of the area but expressed concern regarding the uncertainty of a
straight B-2 rezoning. Mr. Wrangell supported the suggestion that the petitioner consider
a conditional use rezoning as an alternative to denial and to avoid the one-year waiting
period for resubmission.
Sue Haves asked staff if the petitioner withdrew his application, whether he would be
subject to the one-year waiting period for re-submittal.
Jane Daughtridge explained that the ordinance states that if an item is withdrawn after it
has been advertised, it is subject to a 12 month waiting period. Ms. Daughtridge stated
that the Planning Board may choose to table the item for a period of time so that the
petitioner may bring forward a conditional rezoning application and avoid the 12 month
waiting period.
Sandra Spiers asked staff to elaborate on the difficulty of commercially developing the
five properties given their small lot size.
Chris O'Keefe explained that it would be extremely difficult for any of the five properties
to get a driveway permit for commercial use given their configuration. Mr. O'Keefe
stated that rezoning proposal would create a dangerous traffic situation along Market
Street and negatively impact and restrict future development for the residents along Ruth
Avenue.
There was discussion regarding continuing the item to allow the petitioner time to speak
to the owners of the Ruth Avenue properties to determine if they would acquiesce to
include their property in the rezoning and provide time for the petitioner to develop a
concrete development proposal.
Ken Wrangell suggested a 60 day continuance.
Jane Daughtridge suggested a 30 day continuance if the petitioner was going to inquire if
the residents along Ruth Avenue wanted to be included in the rezoning petition and 60-90
day continuance if the petitioner planned to develop a site plan for a conditional rezoning.
Ken Wrangell asked the petitioner which direction he would like to proceed.
4
Donald Joseph stated that he would only need a short extension to talk to the two owners
to determine if they were interested in participating in the rezoning.
Sue Haves stated that she would not support the rezoning based solely on the Ruth
Avenue owners participating in the rezoning but would need to see a development plan to
mitigate the traffic.
Donald Joseph stated that it is difficult to come up with a site plan without knowing what
the zoning.
Sandra Spiers pointed out to the petitioner that the Planning Board would be more
receptive to the rezoning if they knew specifically the plan for the properties.
David Adams stated that he could not recommend that the property be rezoned if the
possibility existed that the properties be divided up into five pieces but felt that the
properties combined as a single developable unit should be rezoned commercial.
David Adams made a motion to continue the item for 30 days until the June 5'' Planning
Board meeting with hopes that petitioner can come forward with a concrete proposal.
Sue Haves seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to continue the item.
Item 2: Text Amendment (A-371, 5/08) - Request by staff to amend Article II.
Dermitions and Article VI. Supplementary District Regulations to deFme and specify
standards for senior housing options. The change would deFme and differentiate
between active adult retirement communities, continuing care communities, assisted
living/personal care facilities, and nursing homes.
Jane Daughtridge explained that the reason for the text amendment is that there has been
a growing interest in senior housing options and that the current zoning ordinance does
not address the wide range of senior housing options currently available. Ms.
Daughtridge stated that the amendment attempts to incorporate incentives outlined in the
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) plan for senior and special population housing
into the zoning ordinance. Ms. Daughtridge further explained that the text amendment
would provide definitions for a wide range of senior living scenarios.
Sue Haves asked if the senior living options would be restricted to particular zoning
districts.
Jane Daughtridge recommended that the senior living options be permitted in all
residential zoning districts, office and institutional, and perhaps B-1 but requested
Planning Board input. Ms Daughtridge outlined the following proposed requirements for
senior living options:
5
SECTION 69.4-1: SENIOR LIVING OPTIONS
Certain senior living options will be permitted by right when the prescribed standards
outlined below are followed. Proposals which do not care to follow these prescriptions or
which desire to maximize possible density allowances within specific zoning districts
may alternatively be considered under normal special use permit requirements for high
density development. Any "bonus" features outlined in this section may not cross over
into a regular special use permit request for high density development.
Active Adult Retirement Community or Independent Living - Since this type of
development is most commonly a simple matter of segregating residents based on age
and not physical limitations, development proposals in this category shall not be
differentiated from other residential subdivisions or special use high density residential
proposals.
Continuing Care Retirement or Life Care Community - Since this type of development
provides a variety of residential units that accommodate older adults through the
continuum of changing needs, development proposals in this category shall be permitted
with standards as described below:
1. Minimum lot size: 20 acres
2. Parking requirements: 1.5 spaces per independent or assisted living unit plus
1 per employee on the largest shift at all facilities.
3. Density: Maximum density shall not exceed 8 living units per acre, not
including nursing home beds.
4. Maximum impervious area for the total development may not exceed 40% of
the net acreage.
5. Commercial uses in the nature of small, neighborhood shops may occupy up
to 2% of the net acreage.
6. Maximum height may not exceed 35 feet for single family structures or when
buildings are placed within 50 feet of single family residential lots or parcels.
7. Except as noted in item 6, above, maximum height may exceed 35 feet when
setbacks are increased to equal the proposed height of the building.
8. Public water and sewer must serve the site.
9. Open Space and improved recreational area shall be provided at a rate of 35%.
Improved recreation space shall be appropriate for seniors at all stages of
lifestyle transition, such as ADA accessible walkways, gardens, and parks.
10. Vegetative buffers of not less than 20 feet are required for all proposals.
11. Traffic impacts and required road improvements must be reviewed and
approved by the MPO and NCDOT. Frontage on an arterial or collector street
is required unless located in a Planned Development as described in Section
53.5-2 (7) (O) b..
12. All other local state or federal permits or authorizations.
(Commentary: This category includes built-in "bonus" features such as reduced
parking standards; high density without the time and expense of a special use
6
permit review as long as prescribed conditions are part of the proposal; option for
increased height; and option for minor commercial uses to be included Projects
which do not conform to the prescribed standards may still apply for a special use
permit for high density development under the other existing provisions of Sec. 69.4
The impervious limits and open space requirements are the same as high density
standards in R-15 districts when special use permits are required Permitted density
bonus is 75% of the maximum high density with SUP in R-15. Twenty acres is
roughly the size of the Brightmore complex in the city.)
Assisted Living or Personal Care Facility - Since this type of development provides
residential units to accommodate seniors in need of assistance with the activities of daily
living, development proposals in this category shall permitted by right under the
following conditions:
1. Minimum lot size: 5 acres
2. Parking requirements: 1.25 spaces per living unit plus 1 per employee on the
largest shift.
3. Density: Maximum density shall not exceed 13 living units per acre.
4. Maximum Height shall be limited to 35 feet when buildings are placed within
50 feet of single family residential lots or parcels.
5. Except as noted in item 4 above, height may exceed 35 feet when rear and
side yard setbacks are increased to equal the proposed height of the building.
6. Public water and sewer must serve the site.
7. Maximum impervious area shall not exceed 50% of the net acreage.
8. Open Space and improved recreation space shall be provided at a rate of 20%
of net acreage.
9. Vegetative buffers of not less than 20 feet are required for all proposals.
10. Traffic impacts and required road improvements must be reviewed and
approved by the MPO and NCDOT. Frontage on an arterial or collector
roadway is required.
11. All other local state or federal permits or authorizations.
(Commentary: This category includes greater built-in "bonus" features such as
greater reduction of parking standards; higher density without the time and
expense of a special use permit review as long as prescribed conditions are part of
the proposal; option for increased height; and option for minor commercial uses to
be included Projects which do not conform to the prescribed standards may still
apply for a special use permit for high density development under the other existing
provisions of Sec. 69.4 The impervious limits and open space requirements are the
same as high density standards in R-10 districts when special use permits are
required Permitted density bonus is 75% of maximum under high density SUP in
R-10 districts)
Nursing home/rehabilitation center - Since this type of development provides residential
care in a licensed institutional setting, the provisions of the ordinance outlined in Sec. 72-
7
9 of the ordinance. The number of beds approved should correspond to the number of
beds allocated to the applicant by an approved certificate of need.
(Commentary: The name of this use changes slightly from "nursing home and
personal care facility" to Nursing home/rehabilitation center. There has been
considerable debate about the scope of `personal care" in the current definition, and
several parties have suggested projects that bear no similarity to a licensed facility
providing personalized assistance to residents with limitations, but they wish to be
approved as personal care facilities under the highly institutionalized standards for this
use category. Therefore, we have shifted personal care into a new category which more
appropriately aligns that term with assisted living. The ordinance adequately deals with
this type of development Except for the change in name and tying the approval to the
number of beds in the CON, this use and its standards would remain the same as now.)
Sue Haves expressed concern regarding the lack of building height restrictions and feared
that the area could end up very tall buildings.
Jane Daughtridge explained that the proposed amendment incorporates a type of fail-safe
mechanism by requiring that the setback be equal to the building height. Ms. Daughtridge
further explained that the height of a very tall building would be mitigated by the sheer
distance it would have to be setback from the property lines. Ms. Daughtridge stated that
the Planning Board could impose some sort of building height limit.
Sue Haves stated that she would like to see some sort of building height limit but could
not determine the appropriate height at the moment.
Ken Wrangell stated that he supports the proposal and felt that setbacks equivalent to a
building's height on a 20 acre parcel would mitigate any height issues. Mr. Wrangell
explained that many factors would need to be considered before he could provide a
building height cap recommendation.
Sue Haves questioned whether 40% impervious surface was too high for certain
environmental sensitive areas of the county.
Staff explained that projects would be subject to county and state stormwater regulations
and exceptional design criteria if they wanted to exceed the 25% impervious surface ratio
in the conservation land classification districts.
Ken Wrangell provided a scenario applying the proposed setback=building height rule to
a 20 acre parcel which yielded a building approximately 465 feet tall. In light of this, Mr.
Wrangell suggested setting a maximum building height that would not exceed the current
county maximum of 225 feet.
Chris O'Keefe confirmed that the maximum building height is 225 feet tall and is
permitted within the RFMU district.
8
Sue Haves stated that 225 feet does not seem reasonable and recommended a 60 foot
height limit.
Ken Wrangell stated that limiting the building height to 60 feet diminishes the amount of
buffer because developments will be forced to utilize a larger footprint which also
increases the amount of impervious surface.
There was Board discussion regarding establishing maximum building heights based on
zoning districts.
Ken Wrangell made a motion to recommend approval of the text amendment with the
addition of a 225 foot building height restriction.
Chris O'Keefe added that he would like to incorporate parking requirements (similar to
those established in the RFMU district) such as in-structure parking to minimize
impervious surface into the proposed text amendment.
Ken Wrangell agreed with Mr. O'Keefe but was unsure to what extent should elements
such as in-structure parking be required given the different context. Mr. Wrangell felt
that some parking and stormwater retention could be located underground and suggested
that staff craft recommendations.
Jane Daughtridge suggested that this item be discussed further at a workshop.
A majority of the Planning Board agreed that a workshop was a good idea
Ken Wrangell retracted his motion.
Sam Burgess provided an update of the Technical Review Committee's (TRC) activity
for the month of April:
1. Sycamore Grove - The TRC voted 4-0 to deny the developer's request to
redesignate the roads from public to private.
2. Waterstone - The TRC voted 4-0 to approve a second one-year extension of the
project with all original terms and conditions.
3. Sunset Reach - The TRC voted 4-0 to approve a one-year extension of the project
with all preliminary terms and conditions remaining in place.
4. Fowler Division - The TRC voted 3-1 to approve a one-year extension of the
project with all original terms and conditions plus an additional recommendation
that lots 15-18 be situated so that access is provided internally rather than from
Grathwol Drive.
9
5. Deer Crossing - The TRC voted 4-0 to reapprove the preliminary site plan with
original terms and conditions.
6. Winds Harbor - The TRC voted 4-1 to redesignate the roads from public to
private.
7. Inlet Crossing - The TRC voted 5-0 to approve the project for 7 lots with several
conditions.
8. Market Commerce Center - The TRC voted 5-0 to preliminarily approve the
project for 17 lots with conditions.
Mr. Burgess stated that the TRC discussed the conceptual plan for Harbor Landing
which is located on the west side of the Cape Fear River. The petitioner is applying
for a rezoning to a RFMU district. Mr. Burgess stated that the project is likely to
appear before the Planning Board at the July meeting.
Mr. Burgess stated that the TRC will meet neat on May 7, 2008
Chris O'Keefe scheduled a work session for Wednesday June, 18th 2008 from 11:00 a.m.
to 3:00 p.m.
Dave Adams made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Sue Haves seconded the motion.
The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
10