200404 Apr PBM
MINUTES OF THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
APRIL 1, 2004
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, April 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in
the County Court House, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, NC to hold a public
meeting.
Members Present: Staff Present:
Ken Dull, Chairman Dexter Hayes, Planning Director
David Girardot Baird Stewart, Senior Planner
Frank Smith Sam Burgess, Planner
Michael Keenan Holt Moore, County Attorney
David Adams
Robin Robinson
Members Absent:
Walter Conlogue, Vice Chairman
Chairman Ken Dull opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing.
The Board approved the January 2004 minutes by a vote of 6-0.
Chairman Dull proceeded with the first hearing item.
Item 1: Rezoning (Continued Item) - Request by J.F. Larsen for Oliver Godwin to
rezone approximately 3.30 acres of property located at 6620 Gordon Road across
from Farrington Farms Subdivision from R-15 Residential to CD (I-1) Conditional
Light Industrial. (Z-774, 03/04)
Baird Stewart presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use,
zoning and related information.
Chairman Dull asked the petitioner to come forward.
J.F. Larsen an independent realtor representing the property owner presented a revised
site plan. He stated that he had redesigned a plan that was less obtrusive for the
neighboring Gresham Place Apartments. This was accomplished by the exclusion of
several uses from the I-1 District. This would allow 6620 Gordon Road to be in harmony
with its neighbors and less conducive to excess noise. Pursuant to the Board's
recommendations of last month and working in conjunction with Staff, he felt this
proposed plan was sufficient for the subject property. He stated that the height of the
buildings in the new designs coincide with set back requirements set forth in the District
Regulations. He also stated that the front set back maintained clear visibility and was far
enough from the street so as not to encroach on the adjacent residential community.
Parking requirements were met by the combination of both warehouse, industrial and the
more stringent general office and retail standards. This proposed development was a
1
protege of the Judges Road facilities. Typical uses for the property included
contractor/sub-contactor trades, coffee/vending facilities, printing, labeling,
embroidering, HVAC contractors and warehousing. He asked the Board to reconsider the
property for rezoning to CD (I-1) Conditional Light Industrial.
Chairman Dull asked if there were any other speakers in favor of the petition. Chairman
Dull asked if there were any speakers in opposition. There were no other speakers.
Chairman Dull closed the public comment segment of the hearing and asked the Staff for
findings and recommendations.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The petitioner is requesting a rezoning from R-15 residential to I-1 Light Industrial. The
subject property has approximately 200 feet of frontage on Gordon Road across from the
entrance to the Farrington Farms Subdivision and is surrounded on two sides by I-1 Light
Industrial Zoning. The other side of the property is adjacent to Gresham Place
Apartments, which is a recently developed 51-unit personal care facility. The majority of
the Industrial zoning in the area is part of Dutch Square, which was established in 1979.
The Dutch square Industrial zoning was extended to Gordon Road in the late 80's and
early 90's. At that time concerns were raised that extending the Industrial District to
Gordon Road would lead to further requests to expand down Gordon Road to the West.
Primarily because of its proximity to Dutch Square, the parcel directly adjacent to the
subject parcel was rezoned from R-15 Residential to I-1 Light Industrial in 1999. To date
there has been no development on that tract of land. Because of the impact on the subject
parcel and the concern for more Industrial zoning extending further down Gordon Road,
staff recommended in 1999, that as a transition the adjacent parcel should be zoned O&I
Office and Institutional. Because of the number of large acreage tracts nearby, Staff
continues to have concerns about expanding-this zoning pattern further west along
Gordon Road. Therefore, Staff recommends that the subject property should be zoned
O&I as a transition into the Residential uses to the west. This would also establish a
boundary for the existing commercial/industrial zoning.
Preliminary Staff Findings
1. The board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health
or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as
submitted and approved.
A. The subject property is located within the Ogden VFD.
B. Proposed access to the site is from Gordon Road. Gordon Road is classified by the
New Hanover County Thoroughfare Classification Plan as a Collector Road.
C. The site is served by County water and sewer.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and
specifications of the zoning ordinance.
s
A. The applicant has eliminated 11 uses that are otherwise permitted in the general I-1
Light Industrial District.
2
B. A site plan meeting the setback and buffer requirements of the ordinance has been
submitted and reviewed.
C. Inter-connectivity with the adjacent I-1 Light Industrial District to the east is shown
on the site plan.
D. The site plan shows four 9,240 s.f. flex space buildings and 69 associated parking
spaces which is less than the minimum required by the ordinance.
E. Although actual landscape plans are not shown on the plan, there is sufficient area
shown to accommodate landscaping and buffering.
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. Zoning on the adjacent parcels to the south and the east is I-1 Light Industrial.
B. Zoning on the adjacent parcel to the west is R-15 Residential and is occupied by a 51
unit Nursing and Personal Care Facility which operates under a special use permit
and is commonly known as Gresham Place Apartments. There is an existing
landscaped buffer along the common property line with the subject property.
C. Additional buffering will be required on the subject property and can be
accommodated.
D. No evidence has been presented that the proposed project will negatively affect
adjoining property values.
4. The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed
according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the
area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of
development for New Hanover County.
A. The site is classified Developed by the New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of the Developed class is to provide for continued intensive development
and redevelopment in existing urban areas. These areas are already developed at a
density approaching 1,500 unites per square mile. Urban services are already in place
or scheduled within the immediate future.
Recommended Planning Staff Conditions:
1) Development should be coordinated with the adjacent Industrial district to ensure
inter-connectivity.
Frank Smith asked the petitioner if he was still in working with Mr. Floyd and Atlantic
Marine to redirect traffic away from the adjacent residential areas.
J.F. Larsen replied affirmatively that there was still open communication between the two
parties in regards to this matter. Both parties wanted to continue the flow of traffic away
from the residential areas without creating conditional use restrictions for Mr. Floyd's
property. Currently his property was zoned straight 1-1. Both parties were open to
sharing responsibilities in parking and traffic flow.
3
Frank Smith stated that from the site plan there seemed to be a cross connection instead
of an actual driveway with the adjacent property.
J.F. Larsen replied that the reason behind this was that they were working with Farrington
Farms to put a light at this intersection to help traffic issues.
Frank Smith asked if the driveway would align with Farrington Farms Road.
J.F. Larsen replied that the driveway was within the adjacent property's setbacks.
Frank Smith stated that he felt the site plan was inadequate.
Staff stated that the driveway would have to be shifted to the west to align with
Farrington Farm Road.
Frank Smith stated that if the petitioner kept the same arrangements with the driveway,
then this approach would directly change the building layout.
Staff replied that one of the petitioner's challenges was trying to propose a site plan that
could interconnect with the adjacent property without putting unnecessary restrictions on
an existing I-1 District. It was apparent that the adjacent property owner was willing to
work with Mr. Larsen, however he did not want the additional restrictions that occur with
a Conditional Use.
Chairman Dull asked the petitioner why he had revised the original site plan.
J.F. Larsen replied that his original site plan was a preliminary draft. With further
research it was discovered that the units did not work out as well as the revisions that
were brought before the Board tonight. In all aspects, this was a better plan.
David Adams asked Staff if the property was not rezoned I-1 Conditional Use could the
petitioner carry out his intended plan with an O&I classification.
Staff replied that an O&I classification would not allow the full spectrum of uses for the
petitioner's development plans.
David Adams stated that the revised site plan was inadequate and confusing, which kept
him from making a favorable decision.
Frank Smith added that the petitioner needed to modify his revised site plan.
Robin Robinson stated that the Board was there to approve the recommended list of uses
for the CD (I-1) and should focus on that approach toward resolution.
Frank Smith asked Staff if set back requirements were the same for an I-1 and O&I
classification.
Staff replied that the setback requirement for an I-1 was 3.73 and for an O&I it was 2.75.
4
Frank Smith asked Staff if the petitioner could continue with his proposal under an O&I
classification.
Staff replied that the building configurations could remain the same but the uses would be
different.
Chairman Dull asked the Board to focus on the proposed uses that they felt appropriate
for a CD (I-1) Conditional Light Industrial.
J.F. Larsen replied that he had a list of excluded uses and gave them to the Board for
review. He also stated that CD (I-1) would allow a clean light industrial use of the
property with adjunct warehouse and storage use. An O&I classification was only for
managerial use and excluded both storage and warehouse uses. The property's design
was based on its proximity to residential areas and those residents who needed a space to
work near their cord unity. They in turn could use their main suppliers in Dutch Square.
This would eliminate traffic to and from other areas across town by utilizing the nearby
Industrial Park.
Mike Keenan expressed concern with kennels, auto service stations, mobile home sales
and convenience stores.
Staff added mini storage facilities to the list.
Robin Robinson expressed concern with communication towers up to 70 R in height.
David Girardot stated that the Board should add uses that included activities occurring at
night. He also stated that he concurred with Staffs recommendation for an O&I
classification as a transition.
Mike Keenan stated that he felt the petitioner could not find a marketable use for the
subject property with an O&I classification. Mike Keenan moved to approve the revised
site plan as submitted with the exclusions Staff and Board had presented. Robin
Robinson seconded the motion.
David Adams stated that he was against the motion. He could not approve a plan that he
felt was inadequate.
Chairman Dull asked Staff to make sure that the proposed driveway was subject to
DOT's approval. He also recommended an addition to the motion that any security
lighting on the backside of the buildings should be directed toward the subject property
and not toward Gresham Place Apartments.
The Board voted 3-3 in favor of the motion, with Frank Smith, David Girardot and David
Adams opposed. The item will be heard at next month's County Commissioner meeting
on May 3, 2004.
5
Item 2: Rezoning - Request by Sonja Powell to rezone approximately 4.0 acres of
property located at 4133 Blue Clay Road on the eastern corner of Blue Clay Road
and Juvenile Center Drive from R-15 Residential to 1-2 Heavy Industrial. (Z-776,
04/04)
Baird Stewart presented the slides and gave a brief review of site's history, land use,
zoning and related information.
Chairman Dull asked the petitioner to come forward.
Larry Powell owner of 4133 Blue Clay Road presented the request. He stated that his
Engineering Firm, Right Angle, had talked with Staff and their consensus was to rezone
the property to I-1 Light Industrial instead of I-2 Heavy Industrial. He did not have a
problem with Staffs recommendation to rezone the property to I-1. The development
plans for the property were for a small office use. This would have a low impact on the
adjacent residential community.
Chairman Dull asked if there were any other speakers in favor of the petition. Chairman
Dull asked if there were any speakers against the petition.
Nadine Brimage owner of the adjacent parcel located at 3810 Juvenile Center Road
expressed concerns with the rezoning of the property to I-2 Heavy Industrial and I-1
Light Industrial. She asked the Board to vote in favor of an O&I classification because of
the nearby residential area. She had concerns of the heavy impact that excessive noise,
odor, smoke, dust, and air borne debris would have on the neighborhood. -
Glen Burleson a resident of 4207 Blue Clay Road asked to come forward. He stated that
he had previous concerns with an I-2 Heavy Industrial classification, but was satisfied
with Staff s recommendation and the owner's acceptance of an I-1 zoning.
Chairman Dull offered the petitioner an opportunity for rebuttal.
Larry Powell stated that an I-1 classification was a perfect fit for the property.
Mike Keenan asked petitioner if he would accept an O&I classification.
Lam Powell stated that he did not want to restrict the property's uses in case of firture
development changes.
Mike Keenan asked Staff for the history of the subject property.
Staff replied that the original zoning line split the property between industrial and
residential. In 1999 there were concerns about using the property for residential use. It
was agreed to realign zoning lines to match up the property's boundaries. This was done
by placing the property back into the R-15 District which was the predominant zoning for
the site.
Chairman Dull asked Ms. Brimage how she accessed her property.
6
Nadine Brimage stated that the access was across County land and to the rear of this site.
Chairman Dull asked Staff if the County owned most of the land near the subject
property.
Staff replied affirmatively.
Nadine Brimage asked what type of business would require an I-1 classification.
Chairman Dull responded that this issue would be discussed shortly. Chairman Dull then
closed the public comment segment of the hearing and asked the Staff for findings and
recommendations.
STAFF SUMMARY:
The applicant is requesting a rezoning of approximately 4 acres from R-15 Residential to
I-2 Heavy Industrial. Zoning in the area was established in 1972 and created a split
zoning on the subject property with a combination of R-15 Residential and I-12 Heavy
Industrial. In 1999 a relative of the current owner rezoned the entire lot to R-15
Residential. The premise for the 1999 rezoning was to facilitate the administration of
land use regulations and tax appraisals by establishing a single zoning for the entire tract.
The majority of property in the area is rural and the primary development activity in the
area has been the County Jail, Cape Fear Community College and the construction of the
I-140 By-Pass. With the development of the Jail there are County water and Sewer
services nearby. This area will likely begin to see some additional growth as a result of
these projects and NCDOT's plan to add an interchange to the By-Pass at Blue Clay
Road. "
Given the fact that the subject property once had an Industrial classification, the rezoning
proposal does not seem unreasonable. However, the uses permitted in the Heavy
Industrial zoning classification are most suitable for large tracts of land that could support
major Industrial Uses. The uses permitted in the I-1 Light Industrial District are more
compatible with smaller parcels, where Industrial flex space, professional offices,
contractors, or retail services might located. Staff recommends rezoning to I-1 Light
Industrial.
Frank Smith asked petitioner if he intended to develop the whole property.
Larry Powell replied not at this time.
Staff stated that they had not seen a development plan. This was a straight zoning issue.
Mike Keenan concurred with Staff in their assessment of rezoning the property to I-1
Light Industrial. He felt that an I-1 zoning would respect the neighbors and be consistent
with the adjacent zoning.
Staff stated that even with the less stringent zoning of I-1, the property would be required
to have set backs and buffers because of the adjacent R-15 property.
7
David Girardot questioned Staff about the lighting restrictions for the property.
Staff replied that outside lighting would have to be directed on site away from the
adjacent property.
Chairman Dull asked Staff to describe the buffer, set back and building height for an I-1
classification.
Staff replied that the building's set back is based on the building's height. The adjacent
residential properties would require an I-1 classification to have a building set back of
3.73 times the building height. Since a one-story building is typically 14 ft. in height, the
minimum set back would be 36 ft. Buffering requirements were %z of the building's set
back or 20 ft. whichever was greater.
Chairman Dull asked for confirmation that there was a tree line between the adjacent
parcel located at 38 f 0 Juvenile Center Road and the property to the east.
Staff confirmed this.
Mike Keenan moved to recormnend approval of an I-1 zoning. Robin Robinson
seconded the motion.
David Girardot stated that he would feel more comfortable with the motion if it were a
Conditional Use request. This would allow the Board to view the property's
development plans. He felt that the Board was operating in the dark because of the
absence of these plans.
Chairman Dull stated that he concurred with David Girardot's statements to some degree.
He questioned if the Board could impose a plan to rezone most of the property to I-1 but
leave a 50 ft strip that was zoned residential. This would enable the buffer between the
residential and industrial property to be a little bit larger. He stated that the County had
done this in the past.
Staff replied that this method was not preferred. If the Board decided to split the
property, they should leave enough of the remaining property so that it could be used for
residential purposes.
Frank Smith suggested splitting the property following the lines from the old zoning
maps which split the property straight down the middle.
Robin Robinson stated that she was mindful of the neighbors' considerations. However it
appeared that Mr. Burleson no longer objected with the rezoning as long as it was an I-1
classification. An I-1 zoning seemed the most appropriate step for the property since 3
comers of the intersection were already zoned I-1 or I-2. There were buffers and set
backs already in place as well as a natural tree line that separated the residential areas
from this property. From that perspective, she concurred with Staff's recommendation
for an I-1 zoning.
8
Mike Keenan concurred with Staffs recommendation. He replied that this area was
mostly rural and that the I-1 zoning would only put the fundamentals of good planning to
use.
The Board voted 3-3 in favor of Staff's recommendation with Chairman Dull, Frank
Smith and David Girardot in opposition.
Frank Smith suggested that the petitioner should bring in the property's development
plans in order to receive a more favorable recommendation from the Board.
Lary Powell stated that he thought that if he complied with Staff's recommendations
then everything would have run smoothly. He was not prepared to defend his position.
He stated that development plans were in the works but were not completed. Their
proposed plan was for a nice office building.
Chairman Dull stated that if the petitioner presented his intentions to the Board this
would help them make a decision based on good planning.
Larry Powell replied that he thought this process would have been simpler. He asked the
Board to reopen the petition.
Mike Keenan moved to recommend continuing the item to next month's meeting. Robin
Robinson seconded the motion. The Board voted 6-0 in favor of the continuance.
Item 3: Zoning Text Amendment - Request by Design Solutions to Amend Section
50.5 The Table of Permitted Uses of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance to
permit Veterinaries in the 0&1 Office and Institutional District. (A-333, 04/04)
Chairman Dull asked the petitioner to come forward.
Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions presented the request. She stated that Kennels were
allowed in an O&I District under a Special Use Permit but Veterinaries were not. Her
proposed solution was to add a line item to the Permitted Use table stating Veterinaries
without outside runs. However, Staff had suggested including Veterinaries in an O&I
District under a Special Use Permit. This plan of action was acceptable to all parties
involved.
Frank Smith stated that the simpler approach would be to add a line item and require a
Special Use Permit.
Staff stated that they did not want to encourage the opportunity to have Kennels in an
O&I District. Petitioner was asking for Veterinaries without outdoor runs to be included
in an O&I District.
Cindee Wolf stated that Frank Smith's idea seemed the most reasonable.
9
Frank Smith stated that he recognized Staff's concerns with not wanting to promote
having an outdoor kennel in an O&I District.
Chairman Dull asked if there were any other speakers in favor of the petition. Chairman li
Dull asked if there were any speakers in opposition to the petition.
Virginia Crocker a resident of 7794 Alexander Road asked how this petition would affect
Item #4 and her property.
Chairman Dull stated that this issue must be resolved first. He asked Staff if Kennels
were permitted in an O&I District under a Special Use Permit.
Staff replied affirmatively, however veterinaries were not permitted. Staff's concern with
veterinaries is that often, outdoor kennels are associated with veterinary clinics and the
noise and odor from these kennels may cause a problem. Typically O&I is a transitional
use between heavy commercial and residential districts. Staff recommended that
veterinaries be permitted by a Special Use Permit in the O&I District. If you add a line
item of a veterinary without outdoor kennels then you may have to look at other zoning
districts that allow veterinaries and restrict them as well. Staff felt that the easiest method
was to allow veterinaries under a Special Use Permit.
Chairman Dull asked the Staff for their findings and recommendations.
STAFF SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes to allow Veterinaries as a permitted use in the 0&1 Office and
Institutional District. The justification for this request is that currently the Ordinance
allows Kennels as a Special Use Permit in the:O&I Office and Institutional District and
typically Veterinaries are significantly less intrusive and more in keeping with
professional office type developments.
Veterinaries are currently permitted in the B-1 neighborhood Business District, the B-2
Highway Business District, the SC Shopping Center District, the PD Planned
Development District and more recently the I-1 Light Industrial District. The primary
concern with veterinary hospitals are the noise and odor associated with outdoor kennels
that are often operated in conjunction with veterinary clinics. The zoning ordinance has a
separate designation for kennels, which are permitted by special use permit in the O&I
Office and Institutional District. While the addition of veterinaries as a permitted use in
O&I is consistent with other medical offices and professional activities already permitted
in the district, Staff has concerns about the possibility of outdoor kennels associated with
veterinaries. Therefore, Staff recommends that Veterinaries be permitted by Special
Use Permit in the O&I District. The special use permit process would allow the
Planning Board and Commissioners an opportunity to review plans for veterinary clinics
and any associated kennels.
i
Mike Keenan moved to recommend approval of Staff's recommendation. David Girardot
seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous vote.
10
Item 4: Rezoning - Request by Design Solutions for William Alexander to amend an
existing Conditional Use O&I site plan located at the 7700 Block of Market Street on
the West side at the corner of Alexander Road and Market Street. (Z-635, 04/04)
Baird Stewart presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use,
zoning and related information.
Chairman Dull asked the petitioner to come forward.
Cindee Wolf represented the property owner in the request. She stated that she was
requesting to amend the Conditional Use site plan to include Veterinaries. In this
particular case, the request was conditioned upon no outdoor runs. The proposed plan for
the development was a medical complex including a front building that would be used as
a Veterinary clinic for felines only. The rest of the buildings would be developed for
other medical practitioners or similar office uses. A natural buffer yard had also been
included in the plans to shield the neighboring residential areas. She also added that they
were willing to abide by Staff s original conditions that none of the buildings were to be
used for drug stores, convenience stores, day care, electrical, gas or sanitary sewage
services. The building along Alexander Road, the Veterinary Clinic, would have dormers
facing the road so as not to appear as the rear of the building. The service facilities
would be shielded from view as required by the Landscaping Ordinance. The buildings
along Alexander Road would be perpendicular to Market Street and parking for the
j development would not extend past the required set backs. The further condition that they
were adhering to was that this Veterinary Clinic would never have outdoor runs.
Frank Smith asked the petitioner if there was an infiltration system under the proposed
parking lot.
Cindee Wolf replied affirmatively that the soils would be monitored by the State to make
sure that the infiltration was appropriate.
Chairman Dull asked Staff what the Board was deciding upon tonight.
Staff replied that they were deciding upon two items, on whether or not to modify the
uses and the approval of the revised site plan.
Cindee Wolf added that these decisions would also be conditioned upon the County
Commissioners approval of the text amendment.
Chairman Dull asked the petitioner about the uses that were excluded and included in the
site plan.
Staff replied that the exclusions were part of the existing permit that was approved in
1999. The petitioner was asking to add Vetermaries to the already existing list that was
approved.
11
Cindee Wolf replied that all uses permitted in an O&I District were approved for this site
plan with the exception of drug stores, convenience stores, day care, electrical, gas or
sanitary sewage services.
Robin Robinson asked petitioner if the only change to the site plan was the addition of
Veterinaries in an O&I District.
Cindee Wolf replied that there were also changes to the site's layout. These changes
included an increase in the number of buildings, a decrease in the impervious surfaces
and in the square footage.
Staff added that this was a very well thought out plan for this particular site.
Chairman Dull asked Staff if the Board could restrict the veterinary to treating only cats.
Staff replied affirmatively if the petitioner was willing.
Cindee Wolf replied that she would not like to see that happen without her client present.
However, she would not mind restricting the use to a small animal veterinary with no
outdoor runs.
Chairman Dull asked if there were any other speakers in favor of the petition. Chairman
Dull asked if there were any speakers in opposition of the petition.
Virginia Crocker owner of the adjacent parcel located at 7794 Alexander Road asked the
petitioner if there would be an odor associated with the development. -
Cindee Wolf replied that because of the absence of outdoor runs there should not be a
problem with odor. The veterinary use would-be restricted to the front building. Mrs.
Crocker would not only have a space between that building but there would be another
building, parking area and buffer zone separating her from the clinic.
Virginia Crocker asked the petitioner if she specifically knew what business would be in
the back building.
Cindee Wolf replied not at this time. But generally speaking, the owner intended to have
it filled by a medical practitioner, dentist, or other approved O&I use.
Virginia Crocker asked the petitioner where the entrance of the development was located.
Cindee Wolf replied that the main entrance would be on Highway 17, however they
would like to have a connection to Alexander Road. Petitioner felt that Alexander
Road's intersection at Market Street was the safer route when making a left turn onto
Market Street from the property's driveway.
Virginia Crocker stated that there was a lot of traffic associated with Alexander Road.
She added that when the Planning Board met two years ago they decided against an
access to Alexander Road.
12
Chairman Dull stated that this was correct.
Cindee Wolf replied that she felt that it was better to have a supplemental entrance for
left turns out of the property. In regards to safety and fire regulations it was also better to
have a duplicate entrance.
Virginia Crocker stated that she was still concerned with the excess traffic and the school
buses that frequently used Alexander Road. She stated that the residents on Alexander
Road had a problem with this request in the past.
Chainnan Dull closed the public comment segment of the hearing and asked the Staff for
their findings and recommendations.
CASE HISTORY:
1998-
This item originally appeared on the Planning Board's September 3, 1998 agenda as an
R-15 to B-2 Rezoning. The item was tabled for 30 days to give the petitioner time to
submit a revised application under conditional use guidelines. Subsequent to that
directive the application was revised to CD(B-2) business. Specific uses were not listed.
Ultimately in December 1998 the Board of County Commissioners voted to approve a
CD(0&1) proposal allowing all uses permitted within the 0&I district.
1999-
In November 1999 the applicant presented a revised CD(0&I) site plant showing 6,540
additional square feet of buildings and associated parking. Some neighbors stated their
concern about some of the uses allowed in the 0&I zone. The Planning Board
recommended approval with the following conditions, which were ultimately adopted by
the Board of Commissioner in December 1999;
1) Buildings supplemental to the proposed dental office will not be sued for convenience
food stores, drug stores, day care, or electric/gas & sanitary services,
2) the building along Alexander Road must have a minimum of two dormers facing
Alexander Road, and all the service facilities for these buildings must be shielded
from view,
3) the buildings along Alexander Road should be perpendicular to Market Street, and
the parking at the ends of these buildings should not extend beyond the building
setback.
STAFF SUMMARY:
The petitioner is requesting an amendment to the approved conditional use site plan. The
petitioner has modified the building layout and the parking layout and has presented the
site plan in the context of a medical office complex including a veterinary office. The
revised site plan shows approximately the same building area as approved on the original
site plan with an overall reduction in impervious surface. The plan continues to specify a
20' bufferyard along Alexander Road, which was a condition of the previous approvals.
13
The most notable change to the site plan is a proposed secondary driveway access to
Alexander Road, which was removed from the previous site plans as a result
neighborhood concerns. According to the ITE Trip Generation Manual the proposed
project will generate slightly less than 100 peak hour trips and does not require a Traffic
Analysis.
2004 Site Plan 1999 Site Plan 1998 Site Plan
Bldg. Area 22,360 s.f. 28,700 s.f. 22,250 s.f.
Impervious 59,566 s.f. (40.1%) 76,072 s.f. (55.6%) 70,308 s.f. (51.4%)
Area
The petitioner is proposing to utilize an underground infiltration system to accommodate
storm water management requirements. According to The New Hanover County Soil
Survey it appears that the soil type is Kereb which is a well-drained soil and is classified
as suitable for septic. Additionally the Soil Survey indicates that the depth to the water
table is approximately 6 feet which should be adequate for underground infiltration.
The objective of the O&I Office and Institutional zone is to allow for a transition from
commercial to residential uses. Staff recommends Approval with the other conditions
as approved in 1999.
Mike Keenan asked Staff about the driveway off Market Street near the intersection of
Market and Alexander Road.
Staff replied it would probably be used as a right-in right-out only. If the driveway did
have a two-way entrance, it might later change to a right-in right-out if in fact they were
allowed to retain the driveway.
David Adams asked the Board if they were approving the proposal portrayed in the plan
dated March 5, 2004.
Chairman Dull replied affirmatively.
David Adams asked the Board if the petitioner was not able to get an approval for the
infiltration would she have to start over.
Chairman Dull stated that that was his understanding.
Frank Smith asked the petitioner if she could face the front of the two-story building
toward Market Street.
Cindee Wolf replied that this recommendation would not fit with the building designs
because of the building's width, set back and parking requirements. The designs for the
property were concentrated internally around the tree line and natural common area. It
would be difficult to comply with this request.
14
Frank Smith replied that he still felt uncomfortable about the backside of the building
facing a major commercial area.
Cindee Wolf replied that with the 20 ft bufferyard that could not be cleared, the dormers
and lattice cover for the utility services; these precautions should be pleasing to the
surrounding areas.
Frank Smith suggested extending the gable from the front of the building to the rear of
the building in order to disguise the appearance.
Cindee Wolf agreed that this could be done and implemented into the design plans.
Frank Smith motioned to approve the petition as submitted with Staff and Board
recommendations and subject to approval of the text amendment by the County
Commissioners. Mike Keenan seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous vote.
Item 5: Rezoning - Request by Planning Staff to rezone a portion of property owned
by the Federal Aviation Administration located off of Holly Shelter Road west of
Blue Clay Road from R-15 Residential to I-1 Light Industrial. (Z-777, 04/04)
Baird Stewart presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use,
zoning and related information.
I
j STAFF SUMMARY:
Pursuant to section 111-1 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance, the New
Hanover County Planning Staff is initiating a rezoning for parcel R01 100-008-010-001
near Holly Shelter Road which is owned by the Federal Aviation Administration.
Currently the zoning on this parcel is a combination of I-1 Light Industrial and R-15
Residential. In August 2000 the neighboring property was rezoned to I-1 Light
Industrial. The adjacent rezoning left the R-15 residential portion of the FAA property
surrounded by I-1 Light Industrial zoning. At that time the Planning Board went on
record in support of rezoning this remnant R-15 Residential District to I-1 Light
Industrial.
Staff is recommending the rezoning of this property primarily to consolidate the zoning
lines in the area. The zoning on this property only affects the FAA if there is a plan to
develop the property. Air transportation and related uses are not permitted in the R-15
District, therefore a rezoning would be necessary if the FAA is interested in utilizing the
property for this type of use. The R-15 District also affects buffering and setbacks on
adjacent lands.
On March 11, 2004 a letter was sent to Mr. Alan Bryan from the FAA with a carbon copy
sent to Julie Wilsey at the Airport, explaining that staff was initiating a rezoning on this
property. Receipt of the letter was confirmed by a phone call from Ron Meredith.
I
Chairman Dull asked Staff why this request came about.
Staff replied that they were in the process of printing new zoning maps for the County
and they found this remnant zoning district.
15
Chairman Dull asked Staff if getting rid of the R-15 zoning would allow an elimination
of the buffer zone for the parcel.
Staff replied affirmatively. Staff also stated that they had received no oral objections to
the rezoning from the Federal Government who owned the property.
David Girardot motioned to approve Staff s recommendation. Mike Keenan seconded
the motion, which carried by a unanimous vote.
Other Items of Business:
Sam Burgess gave an update on the Technical Review Committee's activity during the
month of March 2004. Mr. Burgess stated that there were five projects reviewed by the
TRC. These included an adjustment to the site plan for Laurel Lea, approval of the site
plan for Vineyard Plantation, Princeton Place, and Ocean Forest Lakes, and a reapproval
of the original site plan for River Oaks. Mr. Burgess advised the Board that the next
Technical Review Committee meeting was scheduled for April 7, 2004.
In other business, Dexter Hayes spoke about the Capital Facilities Review Process. He
stated that the Facilities Review Committee would be the responsible party for reviewing
new land purchases and facility developments in the County. Once completed it would
go through a technical review process before final sign off on the plan. This proposed
method of review was going to a County Commissioners Hearing at their next meeting.
Frank Smith expressed concem about the Planning Board and Staff's lack of involvement
with reviewing new land purchases, facility developments and the technical review
process itself.
Being no further business, David Girardot moved to adjourn the meeting. Mike Keenan
seconded the motion, which the Board unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at
9:40 p.m.
1
Dexter ayes, P a ing Director
s
16