200808 Aug PBM
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
August 7, 2008
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, August 7, 2008 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:
Melissa Gott, Chair Chris O'Keefe, Planning Director
Sandra Spiers, Vice Chair Sam Burgess, Principal Development Planner
Richard Collier Karyn Crichton, Administrative Specialist
Sue Hayes Jane Daughtridge, Senior Planner
Andy Heath Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney
Jay Williams
Ken Wrangell
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 July minutes. Jay Williams seconded the
motion. The Planning Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes.
Melissa Gott stated that the overview of the newly created low impact development
manual would be heard at neat month's meeting and welcomed Andy Heath to the
Planning Board.
Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-887. 7/08) - Request by LS3P Associates for
Michael White to rezone approximately 5.7 acres at 1400 block of Point Harbor
Road from 1-2 to RFMU in the Conservation land classification. The change
would create a mixed use commercial and residential development on the west
bank of the Cape Fear River.
Jane Daughtridg_e showed maps and photographs of the property and of the surrounding
area Ms. Daughtridge provided information pertaining to land classification, access,
levels of service, utilities, zoning, flood plain, and water quality. Ms. Daughtridge
provided the following staff summary:
STAFF SUMMARY
The subject property is located in the western portion of the county in an area classified
as Conservation on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification map. The property is accessed
from Point Harbor Road, a local street near the intersection of US Highway 421 and
Parsley Street (Isabel Holmes Bridge). Neither traffic counts nor levels of service are
1
available for Point Harbor Road, however, service along US Highway 421 in this vicinity
was shown at LOS B in 2005, meaning traffic flows at a stable pace. Traffic counts along
US Highway 421 increased by approximately 19% between 2003 and 2005.
The subject property is currently zoned I-2 and vacant. Property south of the site
continues to be utilized for marine industries. West of the site is US Highway 421
between the Thomas H Rhodes bridge and the Isabel Holmes Bridge. North of the site is
another active marine industry. East of the site is the City of Wilmington. The property is
influenced by the airport transitional and conical zones. These zones are formulaically
created, based on FAA standards to limit obstructions to runway access, airspace, lighting
or reflection, navigational signals and radio communications in the vicinity of the airport.
The subject property is located within the Cape Fear River watershed drainage area
which is classified C(SW). The property is totally within the 100 year special flood
hazard area. Soils are primarily shown as Urban Land, which is not classified or
described in the Soil Survey. Public water and sewer service is not currently available in
the vicinity.
Chris O'Keefe recommended approval of the rezoning stating that the project satisfies the
ordinance requirements but expressed concern regarding the project's ability to perform
on the 12-month schedule required by the ordinance. Mr. O'Keefe provided the
following land use plan considerations and comments:
Land Use Plan Considerations:
This rezoning petition is the second project to be reviewed under the county's new
RFMU standards. It proposes a change from I-2 heavy industrial use to RFMU in order to
allow association of 108 residential units and around 12,000 sq. ft. of commercial
development. The RFMU enjoys options for greater height and lot coverage in exchange
for mixed uses, public access, reduced surface parking, and sensitive treatment of
environmental resources in a limited and specific eligible area on the west side of the
river across from downtown Wilmington.
The proposal envisions a mixed development on approximately 5 acres with 108 condo
units mixed with commercial and institutional uses in one eleven story building. This site
is a long and narrow strip, influenced by wetlands on both ends. A significant easement
for harbor maintenance by the US Army Corps of Engineers further reduces the long term
development potential for the property. The first floor is proposed for commercial retail
uses and parking. There are proposed 3 stories of structured parking in an 11 story
building. The overall building height is shown as 144 feet. Non-residential uses are
estimated at 12,420 square feet with 10,500 sq. ft. being commercial uses and the
remainder of the square footage shown as institutional, bringing the total non-residential
use to 5.9% of the gross floor area.
Highlights of the proposal include a 3,100 sq. ft. public pedestrian plaza at a small
docking area on the north side of the project and pedestrian access along a comprehensive
2
shoreline promenade. Preservation of wetlands and addition of landscape trees will also
contribute to a public benefit. A 120 foot pedestrian pier is proposed along the northern
shoreline. The applicant proposes to incorporate as many of the newly devised Low
Impact Development (LID) best management practices as possible, to include water re-
use and xeriscaping among others.
Infrastructure to support the project is not yet in place. The first RFMU project, north of
this site, proposes to bring public water and sewer under the river to serve that site. This
project would need to tap into those lines. Thus far, no commitment for capacity has been
presented. The applicant indicates that for the Point Harbor project voluntary annexation
into the City is being required by the City for approval of the service connections, but the
Harbor Landing project will actually be subject to the new Cape Fear Public Utility
Authority for accommodating water and sewer needs. Since the ordinance requires that
the first phase of construction must commence within 12 months of project approval, it is
questionable as to whether this proposal could meet that deadline in light of all the
unanswered questions relating to provision of water and sewer on the first Point Harbor
river front mixed use project.
The proposal is located just north of the Thomas Rhodes Bridge on the east side of US
421. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) conducted for the former RFMU proposal was
deemed to be adequate by the MPO for this project because the required improvements
were oversized to accommodate subsequent development. The original TIA for the
Harbor Point RFMU anticipates a southbound right in/right out configuration which
would route traffic on US 421 to a right turn into a new roadway that would circle back
under the Thomas Rhodes bridge and bring traffic back northerly along Point Harbor
Road. Northbound traffic on US 421 would make right turns into and out of the site. The
right in/right out only option was the preferred option because Level of Service is
maintained at Level D under that scenario. The TIA recommends construction of a right
turn lane on US 421, improvement of Point Harbor Road, and restriping. One left turn
option will remain on US 421 into Point Harbor Road just north of this location. The
improvements from that TIA need to be in place before this proposal can be adequately
served. Existing conditions are not suitable to handle traffic for this project.
The entirety of the project is located within the 100 year flood plain in an AE (EL 9), and
the structure must be built to meet the county's floodplain management standards for all
uses.
The project lies within the Airport transitional and conical zones, meaning all structures
or other obstructions over 75 feet require additional review to assure compliance with the
Airport Height Ordinance prior to issuance of building permits. In this case, the height
elevations are well above the overall allowable height of the RFMU, so no special
authorizations are anticipated.
The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the purpose of the Conservation
class as providing for "effective long-term management and protection of significant,
limited or irreplaceable natural resources while also protecting the rights of the property
3
owner. Management of these areas may be required for a number of reasons, including
natural, cultural, recreational, productive or scenic values, but are primarily flood prone
areas...
In order to promote the highest and best use while preventing a negative impact on water
quality, site specific flexibility and creativity is desirable. The application of regulations
regarding issues such as density, buffers and impervious surfaces should enhance this
flexibility. The use of incentives such as density credits and performance criteria is
encouraged.
Generally, estuarine areas of environmental concern (AEC's) as defined by the State of
North Carolina and adjacent lands within the 100-year floodplain have been classified as
Conservation.
Conservation areas should be preserved in their natural state. Woodland, grassland and
recreation areas not requiring filling are the most appropriate uses. Exceptions to this
standard are limited to water-dependent uses (i.e., uses that cannot function elsewhere),
shared industrial access corridors, and those exceptional development proposals which
are sensitively designed so as to effectively preserve the natural functions of the site. The
following guidelines clarify these Conservation area objectives and development of
property should be limited to the following uses:
3 Exceptional developments preserving natural features are projects which are
sensitively designed to be in harmony with the site's natural features and natural
functions, and provide a balance with the highest and best use of the property. Such
projects minimize erosion, runoff and siltation; minimize impervious surfaces impacts
and protect estuarine resources; do not interfere with access to or use of navigable waters;
do not require extraordinary public expenditures for maintenance; ensure that ground
absorption sewage systems, if used, meet applicable standards; and should be aware of
and not damage historic, architectural or archeological resources.
In no case, with the exception of the Wilmington National Register Historic District and
the Riverfront Mixed Use District (1108), shall residential density in the Conservation
class be permitted to exceed 2.5 units per acre or greater than 25% impervious surface
coverage, regardless of the existence of public urban services. Residential densities and
impervious surface coverage may be required to be as low as 1.0 unit/acre or 15% or less
respectively, depending on the environmental constraints within a particular area. While
certain Conservation areas may be served by public sewer in order to eliminate septic
system pollution, this should not be misconstrued as an incentive to facilitate increased
development density."
This proposal largely meets the RFMU standards outlined in the ordinance. A waiver has
been granted by the TRC for the 50% non-residential ground floor provision. The
ordinance also authorizes TRC to allow for alternatives to strict compliance with
prescribed landscape requirements. An actual landscape plan will be submitted at the
time building permits are requested.
4
In accordance with the ordinance, this preliminary plan proposal was reviewed by the
Technical Review Committee (TRC) on April 17th and again June 11, 2008 with the
following comments and recommendations forwarded for your consideration:
1. County fire services will need to meet with the project's Fire Protection Engineer,
2. Low Impact Development (LID) techniques will be utilized,
3. Water and sewer service will be provided by the Water/Sewer Authority and,
4. An evacuation plan be coordinated with County Emergency Services.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff feels this proposal generally complies with the spirit and intent of the RFMU
requirements, although commercial aspects are minimal. The staff has considerable
concern about the project's ability to perform on the 12-month schedule required by the
ordinance. If approved without confidence in the ability to provide adequate water and
sewer in a timely manner, the county will be placed in an awkward position of rescinding
the zoning district approval. The petitioner has provided staff with a time line that they
plan to meet. Given the uncertainty for how the provision of water and sewer will move
forward, a more reasonable approach may be to bring this proposal back at a later date
when services are either in place at the northern RFMU site or at least when the bore
under the river is in progress, when adequate water/sewer capacity is assured and when
road improvements are under way. Nonetheless, the timeline presented by the petitioner
does satisfy the ordinance requirements that construction of the project begin within 12-
months. Staff recommends approval of the proposal at this time.
Richard Collier and Jay Williams recused themselves from the item.
Ken Wrangell asked why the Technical Review Committee (TRC) waived for the 50%
non-residential ground floor provision.
Chris O'Keefe explained that the TRC felt that site does not lend itself to commercial
uses but does meet all other RFMU requirements, thus granted a waiver.
Michael White President and owner of Five Points Development stated that his company
partnered with Fedora Investment Corporation (a subsidiary of Urban Smart Growth) to
purchase the property in efforts to redevelop a blighted industrial property using smart
growth techniques.
Chris Boney, an architect with LS3P Associates, provided an overview of the project and
showed photographs to illustrate the blighted conditions as well as illustrations of the
proposed site plan. Mr. Boney explained that the proposal utilizes only one-third of the
property thereby leaving the remaining two-thirds of the land in a natural state
supplemented with amenities such as walking trails or boardwalks which would be
available to the public. Mr. Boney also highlighted some of the project's low-impact
development techniques including: sustainable design; under building parking; limited
5
surface parking; green roofs; constructed wetlands; and less than half of the allowable
impervious surface area Mr. Boney stated that the project's evacuation plan satisfies
County Emergency Services technical requirements and its traffic impact analysis was
approved by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
Doug Springer. Executive Director of the Cape Fear River Watch asked the petitioner to
identify the cut in the land and clarify the amount of dredging required. Mr. Springer
asked the Planning Board to carefully consider the recommendations of the CAMA Plan
and stated that blighted land can be restored to an estuary rather than being redeveloped.
Mr. Springer suggested removing the property to the south of the proposal from being
eligible for the RFMU district and recommended designating it a conservation easement.
Sue Haves asked Michael White if any of the owners of the proposed rezoning (Five
Points Development, Fedora Investment Corporation, or Urban Smart Growth) had plans
to buy the property to the south, which Mr. Springer identified as highly environmentally
sensitive.
Michael White stated that none of the afore mentioned companies have intentions to
purchase the property to the south. Mr. White stated that Mr. Bordeaux (the adjacent
property owner to the south) supports the proposed project which would clean up the
blighted property. Mr. White added that the CAMA Land Use Plan was amended to
permit the RFMU district and provide incentives for property owners to redevelop
property while at the same time cleaning up contaminated properties which would be a
benefit to the environment.
Doug Springer stated that if done properly, this project could environmentally enhance
the property. Mr. Springer added that in general, when proposals regarding blighted
property are presented to the planning board, development is presented as the only option
when other options such as restoring the environment are available.
Chris Boney stated in the rebuttal period that the cut in the land is preexisting and has
been previously dredged; the new proposal will not disturb any new areas.
Michael White reiterated in the rebuttal period that they are taking a conservative
approach to developing the land by only utilizing one-third of the parcel and preserving
the remaining two-thirds. Mr. White also stated that the company's policy is to utilize
best management practices and cited building wetlands instead of retention ponds as an
example of best practices in their stormwater plan.
Sandra Spiers stated that the proposal appears to be a good project but asked the
petitioner to comment on the ordinance's requirement to begin construction within 12
months of project approval.
Michael White stated that he felt confident about meeting the 12-month construction start
date requirement because the utility agreement to provide water and sewer services to the
Point Harbor project also encompassed this project. Mr. White added that although the
6
water and sewer agreement with the City of Wilmington has been transferred to the Cape
Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA), negotiations were already underway with the
CFPUA. Mr. White also stated that they have received preliminary approval from the
North Carolina Department of Transportation for construction of service roads.
Ken Wrangell stated that it is a good project and that the developer has addressed Doug
Springer's concerns. Mr. Wrangell made a motion to recommend approval of the
petition. Sandra Spiers seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to
recommend approval of the item.
Item 2: Text Amendment (A-374, 8/08) - Request by staff to amend Section 67-
9 of the zoning ordinance to discourage clear-cutting of land. The change would
require a 3-5 year waiting period before building permits could be issued if land
was clear-cut without a bona fide timber management plan.
Jane Daughtridge provided background on the text amendment explaining that the text
amendment is intended to clarify current language in the zoning ordinance. Ms.
Daughtridge stated that the following language is derived from 2005 state legislation with
the exception of the enforcement provision which mirrors the City of Wilmington's code:
67-9 Tree Removal
(5) Withholding or Revocation of Permits.
(A) A building permit, site plan approval or subdivision plan approval may be
denied, subject to the following:
(1) a period of up to three (3) years after the completion of a timber
harvest if the harvest results in the removal of all or substantially all
regulated or significant trees from the tract; or
(2) a period up to five (5) years after the completion of a timber harvest if
the harvest results in the removal of all or substantially all of the
regulated or significant trees from the tract if the harvest was a willful
violation of County regulations.
This enforcement provision shall apply regardless of whether the current owner or
applicant is responsible for the violation in question.
Chris O'Keefe stated that staff feels that the proposed text amendment is necessary for
the area to improve current development techniques.
Jay Williams provided editorial comments regarding the text amendment. Mr. Williams
suggested word replacement in several instances and felt that some of the proposed
language was too subjective.
7
Jane Danghtridge explained that most of the amendment is derived straight from the state
statutes and the additional language regarding enforcement, provides the necessary
latitude for zoning enforcement officials.
Sue Hayes stated that she supports the proposed text amendment.
Richard Collier stated that he supports the principal of the amendment but expressed
concern about the enforcement clause which states that, " shall apply regardless of
whether the current owner or applicant is responsible for the violation in question." Mr.
Collier felt that some property owners may be unfairly penalized by the proposed clause
and suggested that the proposed amendment undergo minor wordsmithing.
Jane Daughtridge stated that the Cooperative Extension provides a variety of forestry
resources and explained that the state clearly distinguishes between tree
fanning/harvesting and cutting trees down for land development.
Sue Hayes thought the Board's recommended changes from "may" to "shall" were
reasonable and asked staff to comment.
Chris O'Keefe supported the staff's version over the Board's recommended changes and
explained that there will be situations which will warrant staff discretion.
Sandra Spiers supported the amendment but was concerned that the public at large would
be unaware of the regulations prohibiting clearcutting trees.
Melissa Gott asked if staff knew of any other counties that have adopted similar
language.
Jay Williams stated that he would like to table the item and investigate it further.
Audrey Albright representing the League of Women Voters spoke in support of the text
amendment and requested that the word "shall" not be replaced with "may" in the second
paragraph.
Tyler Newman representing the Wilmington Cape Fear Home Builders Association and
the Business Alliance for a Sound Economy expressed concern that the text amendment
had shortcomings and outstanding questions. Mr. Newman stated that the amendment
warranted a closer look and referred to an email his organizations sent containing
alternative language.
Sue Hayes stated that she would like to see the amendment pass and made a motion to
recommend approval. The motion was not seconded and failed.
8
Sandra Spiers made a motion to table the item and reschedule after a work session. Jav
Williams seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to table the item.
The work session was scheduled for Wednesday, August 27, 2008 from 10:00 a.m. to
1:00 P.M.
Sam Burgess provided an update of the Technical Review Committee's (TRC) activity
for the month of July.
1. Tidalwalk - The TRC voted 4-0 to approve 197 units with requirements to the
revised site plan.
Mr. Burgess stated that the Technical Review Committee will meet neat on August 13,
2008.
Sue Haves made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Richard Collier seconded the motion.
The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
9