2014-10 October 2 2014 PBM
Page 1 of 21
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
October 2, 2014
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, October 2, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Assembly Room of the Historic County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting.
Planning Board Present: Staff Present:
Ted Shipley, III, Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director
Donna Girardot, Vice Chairman Kenneth Vafier, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Lisa Mesler Sam Burgess, Senior Planner
Tamara Murphy Jennifer Rigby, Long Range Planner
Anthony Prinz Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney
Jordy Rawl Megan Upchurch, Fellow
Absent:
David Weaver
Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director, opened the meeting and welcomed the audience
to the public hearing.
Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. O’Keefe welcomed new board members Anthony Prinz and Thomas “Jordy” Rawl.
Election of Officers
Chris O’Keefe opened the nominations for Chairman.
Donna Girardot nominated Ted Shipley for Chairman. Anthony Prinz seconded the nomination.
No other nominations were received. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to elect Ted Shipley as
Chairman of the Planning Board.
Chris O’Keefe opened the nominations for Vice Chairman.
Lisa Mesler nominated Donna Girardot for Vice Chairman. Ted Shipley seconded the
nomination. No other nominations were received. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to elect Donna
Girardot as Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board.
Chairman Ted Shipley reviewed the procedures for the meeting.
Page 2 of 21
Approval of July 2014 Planning Board Minutes
Donna Girardot made a motion to approve the July Planning Board minutes. Anthony Prinz
seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the July 10, 2014 Planning
Board meeting minutes.
Item 1: Special Use Permit Request (S-621, 10/14) – Request by Design Solutions on behalf
of Gordon Road Investments, LLC to develop a 336-unit multifamily high density
residential project at 4645 Gordon Road. The property is currently zoned R-15,
Residential District, and classified as Urban and Conservation Area according to the 2006
CAMA Land Use Plan.
Sam Burgess provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of
service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the property and the
surrounding area.
Mr. Burgess presented the following staff report:
Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions is applying on behalf of Gordon Road Investments,
LLC for a Special Use Permit for a high density project consisting of 328 residential
apartment units at the 4600 block of Gordon Road. Note: The number of units has been
reduced from 336 to 328.
The subject property consists of 43.82 acres and is in the central portion of the county,
near the on-ramp to westbound Interstate 40.
The property is mostly classified as Urban and Conservation Area according to the 2006
Wilmington-New Hanover County Joint CAMA Land Use Plan; the northern most
portion of the parcel is classified as Transition.
The proposal limits the development to only the area classified as Urban.
The property is currently undeveloped and is bordered by single family residential uses
to the southeast and Interstate 40 to the west.
Smith Creek Park is visible to the north, and the area in between the pond and the
subject property is county-owned and intended for future park use.
Smith Creek crosses a portion of the property, and as such there are areas of flood
hazard concern as shown on the slide. The plan limits development only to areas outside
of the flood hazard areas.
The property is currently zoned R-15, as is the majority of the area surrounding the
property.
A B-1 conditional zoning district lies to the southwest of the site, which remains a valid
approval for a convenience store and boat storage facility.
Some nonresidential zoning also exists across Gordon Road, including and Office and
Instructional district along the frontage of Gordon Road, and a vast area of B-2 that
connects to the frontage along North College Road.
The proposal consists of a high density project that includes 328 residential apartment
units within 14 buildings.
Page 3 of 21
Access to the site would be from a new driveway on Gordon Road that runs north
adjacent to the existing homes on Blount Drive.
A roundabout would also connect to Shaw Drive, which is a public road. A third, gated
access would be provided at the terminus of Blount Drive and available for emergency
ingress and egress to the site.
At their August 13 meeting, the County’s Technical Review Committee passed a
motion to approve the proposal with eight conditions, as detailed on Page 1 of the Staff
Summary.
All buildings are proposed to be 3 stories tall, with the exception of building 14 which
will be 2 stories.
All parking, buffers, and setbacks conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
and the requirements of Section 72-43 have also been met. Finding 2 further details the
compliance with those requirements.
The picture taken adjacent to the Shaw Drive stub show there is little buffering of the
existing residences from the entrance drive.
On Shaw Drive, the existing pavement would need to be extended to connect to the
roundabout in the entrance drive.
The adjacent property owners were notified by mail of tonight’s public hearing and also
the community meeting that took place on August 28.
Some concerns about traffic and property values were expressed at the August
community meeting, as well as concerns about buffering along the entrance road and
the market that would be the target for the apartment complex.
Staff received one phone call about the proposal, and the caller was mainly interested in
whether the surrounding properties would receive public water and sewer as a result of
the project.
Staff recommended a motion to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit request,
which is supported by the four Findings of Fact detailed in the Staff Summary.
Mr. Burgess concluded the staff presentation and offered to address questions from the board. He
reported the petitioner was also prepared to provide a presentation.
Per Vice Chair Donna Girardot’s request, Mr. Burgess located the site of the conditional use
rezoning for the convenience store and boat storage area on the map.
Anthony Prinz asked Mr. Burgess to explain the TRC’s recommendation, specifically Item 6) A
bike lane located along the Gordon Road frontage will be coordinated with NCDOT and
Wilmington MPO, noting he was uncertain whether the applicant was expected to build the bike
lane or dedicate the right-of-way.
Mr. Burgess explained there was some uncertainty at the TRC meeting as to whether there would
be enough available property to create a bike lane along the frontage of Gordon Road. For that
reason, the Technical Review Committee decided to add a loose condition to have the applicant
work with NCDOT to determine if a bike lane is feasible.
Mr. Burgess affirmed Mr. Prinz’ statement that the bike lane along the Gordon Road frontage is
strongly recommended if it can be done, but is not mandatory.
Page 4 of 21
Mr. Prinz asked if there had been any discussion about the future widening of Gordon Road and
what type of right-of-way may be needed in order to accommodate that project.
Mr. Burgess replied there had been very little discussion concerning the widening of Gordon
Road. He stated he knew that with the approval some widening requirements would be imposed
for a project of this size. In regard to the additional lanes on Gordon Road that have been on the
transportation program for a number of years, that project is still in the distant future; however,
Bill McDowell of the Wilmington MPO is present and may also be able to address that issue.
Mr. Prinz commented he may also ask the petitioner, Ms. Wolf, about the timing of the Gordon
Road widening project and he hoped it wasn’t as far in the future as it seemed.
Chairman Shipley opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions spoke on behalf of the applicant, noting she had been working
on this land since 2005. She pointed out the Smith Creek Park property, which was purchased by
the County prior to 2005. A remnant piece of land from all of the residential communities that
were developed over the years was close to 120 acres. At that time, the CAMA Land Use Plan
defined the property as being Transition, a land classification that was probably viable for a
rezoning to R-10. At R-15 or R-10, that whole area of 120 acres would have supported at a
minimum 300 units. When her client bought the 120 acres property, they preferred to work with
the County, who wanted to expand the size of their park. Her client sold eighty (80) acres
wrapped around their property at a fair price to the County, which has really improved the way
Smith Creek Park will be able to grow in the future.
Ms. Wolf explained that being in an Urban Land classification, the remaining 40 acres upon
meeting all of the Findings of Fact for a special use permit is viable for the 328 units we are
requesting. They feel the request is a win/win situation because this type of development is very
compact and very environmentally friendly because they have set aside not only the 80 acres that
was sold to the county, but also all of the additional land that is not being used in the 40 acres
petition site.
Ms. Wolf noted demographic studies are supportive of apartments and different types of
residential opportunities and this location at the interchange of I-40 and Gordon Road is perfect
for getting out of town, cutting up to I-140 to get to the Porter’s Neck area and reaching
downtown via Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway. It is a prime location for this type of slightly
higher density development. She elaborated on Mr. Burgess’s statements regarding access to the
property, explaining they decided to build a road from Gordon Road up to the roundabout, which
would be built as a private road. The width of the road would be determined by what may or may
not happen in the future to the adjacent parcels. The access into the apartment complex would
then be off of that roundabout to where the club house would be located. For interconnectivity,
the applicant connected that private road to Shaw Drive. Obviously Blount Drive dead ends into
this tract also. During design, the applicant determined they didn’t want to impact those
communities there because if Blount Drive was extended in its full road capacity into this
development, they felt a lot more traffic would have come through the neighborhood. The
applicant tried to avoid that situation and so worked out a great solution with Fire Services to
Page 5 of 21
designate the Blount Drive access as an emergency access only. It would be a secured stabilized
access with gates that would only open to fire and emergency services vehicles and utilize paver
stones which allow grass to grow in.
Ms. Wolf reported at the community meeting, the neighbors along Blount Drive expressed
concern about traffic coming through their neighborhood. She felt they would never see the
apartment residents using Shaw Drive; however, if the B-2 properties are developed for
commercial purposes, the people in the neighborhood ultimately would be able to reach those
commercial projects without getting onto Gordon Road.
Ms. Wolf stated in regard to the Gordon Road frontage and the TRC comment about bike lanes,
the site only has 128 feet of frontage, of which 60 feet will go to the road, but the applicant is
more than willing to work with whomever because it is their intention to provide a sidewalk from
the back of the site to the front. She noted Gordon Road is on the WAVE Transit route so they
will be working with them to determine the location of the bus stops on Gordon Road and
coordinate with them because this would be a potential site for user friendly riders on the WAVE
Transit.
Ms. Wolf commented in regard to the aesthetics of the apartment complex, it is tucked away at
the back of the site. The entrance road is the only portion of the complex along the residential
part of the community. The clubhouse is off to the left of the entrance. She explained the number
of units was reduced to 328 from 336 because the setback of Building 14 had to be adjusted due
to its proximity to the last parcel along Blount Drive, which is the McQueen property. Building
14 will be only 2 stories instead of 3 stories in order to provide the adequate setback from the
McQueen property line and provide adequate area to buffer sufficiently for the visibility and
separation of the use. This type of apartment complex is of the size that would have onsite
management and maintenance, which assures safety and security compliance with the rules of
the community. She noted it is much better to have a little larger complex with those types of
service onsite because they are much better managed than smaller projects. The CAMA Land
Use Plan identified the property for more intensive development where the necessary services
are located. Water and sewer have already been extended into the area of the roundabout so
extension of those services will be very simple.
Ms. Wolf stated the applicant feels the proposed project is good economic development. It is a
nice compact, small footprint, but yields what could have been units over the entire the 120 acres
at one point in time. She concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions, noting the
traffic engineer was also present to answer questions. She reported that a traffic impact analysis
was conducted for the project. The right turn lane into this drive was already in place, but there
are some other items that will be worked out with NCDOT during the driveway permitting
process. Areas have been set aside for stormwater and the floodplain has been avoided with the
exception of a minor section encroached upon by the pool.
Chairman Shipley asked if board members had any questions for Ms. Wolf.
Vice Chair Girardot commented she had noticed that the end of Blount Drive is not paved to
where the project site will begin and asked Ms. Wolf to address how that area will be handled.
Page 6 of 21
Ms. Wolf explained a creek runs along that boundary and that pavement ends just beyond Ms.
McQueen’s driveway. There is approximately 40-60 feet before the creek which is the common
property boundary and the end of the existing right-of-way. The petitioner will install a stabilized
surface from the end of that pavement, culvert over the creek and then butt into what would
become a parking lot. The petitioner will work out with County Fire the installation of knock
down bollards and the security gate on both sides probably of the creek. Fire Services will
require a Knox box, which can be open the gate via siren control if it becomes necessary. The
petitioner wants to avoid that access becoming a parking lot or a way for people to get into to
work out in the woods or be in that right-of-way. That issue can be worked out.
Vice Chair Girardot asked who owned that piece of property at the end of Blount Drive that
appears on the map to be almost no man’s land.
Ms. Wolf stated that Blount Drive abuts their property boundary when surveyed. Blount Drive
was dedicated to the creek. The creek might move on the tax maps, but it abuts immediately to
the petitioner’s property.
Mr. Prinz asked Ms. Wolf if there had been any discussion about the Gordon Road widening
project.
Ms. Wolf explained there had been not discussion. She noted a previous conversation with Mr.
Prinz about the feasibility of the widening of Gordon Road in the hopefully not so distance
future. She explained the petitioner is proposing a median, which will be worked out with
NCDOT. At this point, the petitioner doesn’t have any insight into what additional right-of-way
may be taken by NCDOT, but would certainly want to work with NCDOT depending on their
timing for construction to hopefully avoid building a beautiful entryway and then have to move it
back 30-40 feet in the next couple of years. The petitioner has available area up there and is not
trying to develop on top of it or put any type of structures there so they can coordinate their
driveway with whatever those plans might be.
Mr. Prinz stated that information was what he was needed to ensure they are responsible in that
area and not overburdening the taxpayers by having to purchase and relocate utilities and other
things that actually could be constructed out there. He commented from the interchange, there is
a certain amount of controlled access. He explained controlled access is a distance where
NCDOT has purchased all rights to accessing property from the interchange itself. It looks like
that controlled access actually goes right up to the driveway of this project. You mentioned that
the intent is for that private street to provide access at some point in the future to the other
properties there.
Ms. Wolf stated the intent is to provide access to the other Gordon Road Investments property,
which is located just to the left of the entrance road before it starts to curve. She noted that parcel
is still zoned residential, but is not included in the current petition. The B-1 zoning is located
where the convenience store and storage was going to be constructed.
Page 7 of 21
Mr. Prinz asked how access would be provided to the other two parcels that are directly adjacent
to the interchange.
Ms. Wolf expressed surprise that Mr. Prinz thought that area was controlled access because as
far as she knows the properties all have driveways. She was unsure about what would happen if
those properties were developed.
Mr. Prinz commented that usually when you see that type of right-of-way pattern reflected on a
map it would tend to indicate controlled access, but if that is not the case there really is no
concern.
Ms. Wolf stated she was guessing that property could be a future commercial development that
would certainly require access from their entrance road because there was no possibility they
would get any type of driveway onto Gordon Road with the small tract. She couldn’t speak to the
access in regard to the Evans, Clay and Wicker properties at that point.
Mr. Prinz stated when he didn’t notice those two parcels when he visited the site, but access
concerned him. When you see the right-of-way doing something like that it typically means there
is some access limitation. His thought was how those two parcels might possibly get access from
the road if the parcels do not have access to Gordon Road. If in fact the parcels do have access to
Gordon Road, he doesn’t have a concern.
Ms. Wolf stated the properties currently have driveways and she believed the site plan for the B-
1 for the convenience store had a driveway shown.
Sam Burgess confirmed the site plan for the B-1 for the convenience store does reflect a
driveway.
No one else from the public spoke in support of the special use permit.
Chairman Shipley then opened the opposition portion of the hearing.
Ms. Pearl McQueen stated her property is located at the end of Blount Drive and expressed
concern that the proposed location of the security/emergency gate is sixty feet from her property.
Blount Drive is a dead end street and her house is the last house on the left. In the back of her
home is the drive Ms. Wolf described that goes back toward the complex. She asked that the
applicant be required to construct a privacy fence there on their property rather than on her
property. Ms. McQueen also expressed concern about whether or not those fire hydrants would
be placed at the center of Blount Drive going into Shaw Drive for the emergency access. Noting
Gordon Road is a very busy highway, she stated she was unsure whether the applicant was
prepared for the traffic they are proposing coming in and out of Gordon Road. She explained it
would be even more difficult to make a left turn than a right turn, commenting she sometimes
waited 15 minutes before being able to make a right turn onto Gordon in the mornings. Ms.
McQueen then expressed concern about the area at the back of her property that goes into the
creek. No one has maintained the road except her since 1996 when she purchased her property.
Page 8 of 21
The property across the street from hers is wetlands so she also maintains that for safety reasons
because she is a widow and lives alone. Ms. McQueen also had major concerns about the
additional traffic generated based upon the number of units, which she anticipated would be at
least 1,334 cars for residents alone. She also stated there is also currently a lot of traffic from dirt
bikes and other activity occurring there that may or may not be legal. She explained she
constantly has to call for assistance. She pointed out her next door neighbor is in his 90’s and she
has to watch out for him also. Ms. McQueen stated in conclusion she would like to know if the
applicant is genuinely concerned about the current residents on Blount Drive that have been there
for a very long time.
Phillip Bryce of 202 Avant Drive commented he had previously worked for Emergency
Management for quite a while in the county. He commented his concern is the additional traffic
in the neighborhood. As previously stated by Ms. McQueen, at certain times of the day it is
extremely difficult and dangerous to get out of the neighborhood onto Gordon Road. He felt
additional lanes should have been added to Gordon Road before the subdivisions were allowed in
the neighborhood, but noted certainly there could be a requirement that a decent turning lane or
other improvement be constructed to avoid accidents. He explained one of his relatives had died
in an accident there on Gordon Road. He also had concerns about the fire service and requested a
fire hydrant be required at the entrance to the proposed complex, noting it would also benefit the
residents on Blount Drive. Mr. Bryce also requested a privacy fence on the property line to
separate the complex from the neighborhood, noting he felt it was a reasonable request. He asked
for clarification on the proposed emergency gate because he was trying to envision what kind of
gate would also allow the people and children to walk, bike and ride go-carts through the
neighborhood. He asked if the residents could walk through the gated access or if it would be
shut off to the neighbors who walk dogs, etc. He noted it is currently a public way. Mr. Bryce
stated he was not trying to interrupt their business and thought growth for the county is good, but
it can be done so that everyone wins in this situation.
Karen Batey spoke on behalf of the Clay family and the Clay property. She apologized for being
late, explaining they had arrived on time but had difficulty locating the handicap access to the
building. She introduced her mother, the owner of the Clay parcel. Ms. Batey inquired if the
roundabout would be constructed prior to or after the construction of the apartments. She also
asked for the specific location of the apartment complex entrance, commenting that the map she
had received in the mail indicated it would be directly across the street from her residence, which
is the other side of Gordon Road. She felt it would make it very difficult for her family to make
that left turn to get out on Gordon Road because of the additional traffic generated by the over
300 unit apartment complex. She also asked for information about the proposed convenience
store, specifically when that project would be built. Ms. Batey explained there is a 60 foot
easement that they use to get back to their property which is behind where the proposed site is
and will butt up to where the apartments are going to be so they need to know how they will be
able to access their property if that convenience store is built. Ms. Batey reiterated that the
apartment project will add a lot of traffic and expressed hope that Ms. Wolf and her associates
had a well thought out plan for their project.
William McGlen stated he resides in the house on the corner of Gordon Road and the entrance to
Page 9 of 21
the new proposed road to the apartment complex. He expressed concern about a pool of water
behind his home and the flooding in front of his home on the left corner of the entrance road
which occurs every time it rains. He also expressed concern about the traffic from the proposed
development. He then pointed out his property on the map and asked if there was anything the
developer could do to eliminate the flooding on the front of his property and the cesspool behind
his home.
Henrietta McGlen, wife of William McGlen, stated they have definite concerns about the water
behind their home because it covers the entire back length of their property. She noted they have
children and grandchildren and also foster children and feel that area is a danger zone. She asked
if the proposed drainage area could be moved to a different place on the property. She also
inquired about the convenience store, which will bring even more traffic to the area. She pointed
out the difficulty in getting their children to school on time due to the traffic on Gordon Road,
also noting it takes 15 to 20 minutes to get out of their driveway and onto Gordon Road. She felt
the apartment project would cause more inconvenience getting in and out of their property and
asked if the developer could do something to alleviate some of those issues.
Chairman Shipley closed the opposition portion of the hearing and opened the rebuttal period.
Cindee Wolf responded to the neighbors’ concerns. She explained the applicant will be required
to have storm water management for the entry road and that area was a logical place for it. Their
property boundary would be buffered by at least twenty feet. It has to be landscaped to 100%
opacity so those types of remedies will occur. She stated certainly fences can be incorporated if
that is the best way to separate those uses. The applicant will take a look at the entire front
section as far as the best location for a pond, but she felt the proposed location was the most
logical given the ditches that run down the back of the property and where everything goes. In
regard to drainage issues along Gordon Road, usually those types of issues are addressed in the
grading and drainage associated with a new driveway permit. The driveway permit for the
apartment project will go through the drainage division in Raleigh for approval. She reported
generally the ditches along roads like this that aren’t used have a tendency to become overgrown
and then clogged. When development occurs, it becomes a much better situation because
landowners will provide good maintenance to preserve the value of their property. Ms. Wolf felt
the issues along Gordon Road may well be remedied by the driveway permit and the
improvements that will happen on the applicant’s property, particularly as related to the
McGlen’s concerns. In regard to fire safety, there is a public water line on Shaw Drive and a fire
hydrant at the point where Shaw Drive will intersect the roundabout in this proposal. The water
line already extends up to the roundabout. All buildings in the complex will have sprinklers and
water lines with fire lines will be extended into the apartment community. The fire service plan
will be reviewed by building inspections and fire safety when constructed and permitted to be
built. She offered to explain how the roundabout worked to Mrs. Clay and her daughter. The
proposed project will in no way impact Ms. Clay’s existing driveway. In regard to future access,
Mrs. Clay can discuss that with the project’s owners at a later date.
Ms. Wolf explained the gates will not impact Ms. McQueen’s driveway access. She agreed that
type of sandy, hilly property is prime for people on dirt bikes or squatters with tents, etc. but a
Page 10 of 21
project like this is actually great for security because of the more vigilant management and
maintenance. The applicant would work out the details of the emergency access to allow it to
become a pedestrian thoroughfare. She felt it was a good part of the interconnectivity as fare as
the county was concerned, but their concern that vehicular traffic would have impacted the
community was very valid.
Ms. Wolf pointed out on the location of the emergency access on the site plan and explained the
developer would only be working within the right-of-way and would not in any way impact Ms.
McQueen’s driveway or property frontage. They would be working beyond the extent of the
existing pavement.
No one from the public spoke during the opposition rebuttal period.
Chairman Shipley closed the public hearing and opened formal discussion by the planning board.
Tamara Murphy asked in regard to site lighting for the project whether the applicant would
ensure that no lighting would bleed over into the adjacent subdivision.
Ms. Wolf explained those issues would be coordinated in accordance with the ordinance. The
site will be lighted for security, but the ordinance requires that all site lighting be directional and
not impede outside the boundaries of the property. Neighbor complaints regarding lighting
extending onto their properties would have to be remedied per the zoning ordinance.
Chairman Shipley stated the neighbors had expressed several safety concerns about pedestrian
and vehicle traffic, children playing in the neighborhood, retention ponds, and stormwater ponds.
He asked Ms. Wolf to address the stormwater pond and offer an opinion on whether the
increased traffic from the project and the development of the bare land would enhance safety. He
noted earlier comments about people using the area for ATVs and bikes, etc.
Ms. Wolf explained that the applicant could commit to commit to fencing that corner of the
stormwater pond if located there to prevent children from getting into the pond. Historically,
vacant property is much more viable for crime issues, especially a large tract like this one. There
will be onsite management of the site to offer oversight of the road and property and provide
maintenance. A vacant piece of land with no daily supervision provides the potential for other
uses.
Vice Chair Girardot asked if the MPO representative was available to answer questions. She
noted there had been a lot of emphasis put on traffic at Gordon Road and inquired about the
current level of service (LOS) on Gordon Road.
Bill McDowell of the Wilmington MPO reported the LOS on Gordon Road was dependent upon
the section of the road, noting the road is wider near Lewis Strawberry Farms. Portions of
Gordon Road are classified as D or E and other portions of the road are closer to F.
Ms. Girardot asked if the traffic impact analysis for the project indicated the trips per day
Page 11 of 21
between 7am and 9am and 4pm and 6pm.
Mr. McDowell stated those are the AM and PM peak hour periods which were specifically
studied, as well as other projects on Gordon Road by the NCDOT Division 3 and NCDOT’s
congestion management division in Raleigh, which also looked at congestion on the roadway. In
regard to the U-3831 project mentioned earlier by Mr. Prinz for widening Gordon Road to multi-
lanes on the entire roadway from the College Road interchange to Market Street, they looked at
the impact of that project and projections with traffic and then incorporated traffic from this
project to determine impacts. Based upon that review, the MPO approval letter for the TIA
included in the meeting packet requires U-turn combinations be made for this project.
Jordy Rawl asked Mr. Burgess to elaborate on the New Hanover County future land use for a
park behind the proposed high density subdivision and the long range plans for what will
actually be constructed on that property, particularly how or if it is intended to be accessed via
Gordon Road.
Sam Burgess explained the Smith Creek Project proposal was recommended for approval by
TRC and one of their conditions for approval was a pedestrian access to the north leading into
the county property. He stated he had not seen a master plan for the park property south of the
lake, but was sure Parks & Gardens does have some plan for that particular area.
Ms. Wolf stated a representative from County Parks & Gardens attended the TRC meeting and
said there isn’t a fixed plan yet, but their intention for that part of the park is for horse trails, bike
trails, and walking trails. No structures are anticipated for that area.
Anthony Prinz asked Ms. Wolf to address Mr. Bryce’s concerns about buffering and whether a
privacy fence was included along the existing residential properties.
Ms. Wolf explained around the corner to the McGlen property there is a minimum 20’ fenced
buffer yard. She proposed they would take that fence around the pond if a pond is located there.
If not, the area would remain wooded and wouldn’t be an issue. Past the “S” curve back around
to the end of the potential pond site there is a 30’ vegetative buffer yard so all existing vegetation
would remain and would have to be supplemented as necessary to screen it off.
Ms. Wolf explained in regard to Mr. Prinz’s question about fire hydrants, there would be
coordination with CFPUA and County Fire Services. There is already a fire hydrant at the end of
the road. Because this is over 800 feet, there is probably also a fire hydrant midway and on the
corner of Gordon Road. Beyond the roundabout, the petitioner would be extending fire lines to
fire hydrants which are required to be within 250 feet of any sprinkler connections to the
buildings.
Mr. Prinz commented one of the reasons he was on the board was traffic experience. He
reviewed the TIA and summarized that it reflects a lot of traffic on Gordon Road, but it also says
this particular development does not have a substantial impact on that traffic. He felt the question
is whether or not imposing some type of condition on the developer to resolve those congestion
Page 12 of 21
issues is reasonable. He stated he personally felt the TIA recommendations are reasonable and
going further that those requirements would stretch the board’s authority.
Chairman Shipley stated appreciation for the expertise of all board members. Noting Mr. Prinz’s
expertise in regard to traffic, he asked what the conditions would be if they went further beyond
what is proposed.
Mr. Prinz explained that the only way to fix Gordon Road is to widen it. As a matter of
perspective, the project mentioned earlier by Mr. McDowell, TIP Project U-3831B, is a $17.3
million effort. That would be a substantial investment particularly given the size of the proposed
complex.
Lisa Mesler asked Ms. Wolf to address Ms. McQueen’s concerns regarding the buffering
between the project and her property.
Ms. Wolf explained that issue was two-fold and had been worked out with staff. Building 14 was
reduced from three stories to two stories to provide adequate separation and setback. The
combination of setback and buffer yard takes precedent. There is a utility easement running past
that area upon which the utility company wants no buildings, shrubs, or tree; however, along the
creek line and behind Building 14 there is more than adequate space to provide the buffer yard
required. None of the vegetation along the creek will be taken out. Although the utility easement
is thirty feet wide, probably fifteen feet of it is actually cleared and maintained. Even without the
utility easement, there is more than adequate area to provide the buffer and screen the project
from Ms. McQueen’s property.
Chairman Shipley entertained a motion to close the board’s question and comment period.
Anthony Prinz made a motion to close the Planning Board question and comment period. Lisa
Mesler seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to close the Planning Board question
and comment period.
Chairman Shipley stated the staff has concluded that the applicant has demonstrated the proposal
complies with the applicable regulations in the zoning ordinance, including Section 72-43, as
well as the Findings of Fact specified in Section 71 of the zoning ordinance. Staff concludes
with the information submitted the applicant has demonstrated the proposal is consistent with the
management strategy for the Urban and Conservation land classifications and is not in conflict
with the CAMA Land Use Plan. He asked Ms. Wolf if the applicant agreed with the staff’s
findings and proposed conditions which there are none.
Cindee Wolf confirmed the applicant agreed with the specific Findings of Fact.
Chairman Shipley stated the board must find:
1) The proposal does not endanger the public health or safety where proposed and
developed according to the plan as submitted and approved;
2) The use meets all required conditions and specifications of the zoning ordinance;
Page 13 of 21
3) The use will not affect the adjoining property; and
4) The location and character of the use if developed according to the plan submitted and
approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is located and in general
conformity of the plan of development for New Hanover County.
Chairman Shipley then asked if the applicant was ready to proceed with a vote to approve the
special use permit.
Ms. Wolf confirmed the applicant would like to proceed with a vote for a recommendation of
approval to the Board of Commissioners.
Anthony Prinz asked for a point of clarification regarding whether the eight conditions
recommended included by the TRC should be attached to the motion for the special use permit or
were inherent within the TRC approval.
Chairman Shipley stated that because the conditions are part of staff’s recommendations they can
be stated in the record with a motion to recommend the permit subject to the conditions specified
in the document.
Anthony Prinz made a motion to send forward a favorable recommendation for Special Use
Permit S-621, including all eight conditions provided by the TRC with the finding that the board
is in concurrence with all of the associated findings attached to the special use permit approval
process. Lisa Mesler seconded the motion.
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-621 including
eight conditions recommended by the Technical Review Committee (TRC).
Jennifer Rigby introduced Megan Upchurch, who joined New Hanover County as a Fellow for
the first year of her MPA program at UNCW. She will assist the Planning and Inspections
Department with the comprehensive plan and will play a very integral part in the planning
process.
New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan Update – Planning Staff will present the
Existing Conditions chapter of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for hearing and
consideration of a motion to recommend adoption by the Board of Commissioners.
Jennifer Rigby provided the following staff report on the Comprehensive Plan:
There are five chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. Each chapter builds on the previous
chapter. Staff is asking the board to consider each chapter as it is completed in an effort
to provide clarify and direction for the overall plan.
The first chapter is the Public Engagement Plan, which was presented to the Planning
Board and County Commissioners and adopted by resolution last November, 2013.
Page 14 of 21
The second chapter is the Existing Conditions Report, which includes information
presented to the Planning Board and the community at the public launch. A detailed
presentation was provided at that time. The report is full of interesting information
specific to New Hanover County and will be a critical building block in the
development of the future land use map.
The third chapter is dedicated to policy direction. There are six Theme Committees that
have been meeting and working diligently to provide a clear framework for the Citizen
Advisory Committee to use in establishing policy set forth in the plan.
The fourth chapter is dedicated to illustrating various growth and development
scenarios. The information from the existing conditions report is compiled with growth
projection to help us determine how our community can grow over the next 25 years.
The fifth and final chapter of the report is where the policies and the preferred growth
pattern are tied together in a future land use map and implementation strategy.
She briefly touched on each of the elements of the report structure, noting more detailed
information is available on the Plan NHC website.
1) Population: Touches on the historic growth and addresses forecasted growth.
Includes graphs outlining the population projections for the community and region.
The County worked closely with various planning initiatives in the community
(City of Wilmington, MPO, and FOCUS) to ensure these projections were as sound
as possible. The City of Wilmington is updating their comprehensive plan. FOCUS
is developing a regional plan for sustainability and the MPO is working on a plan
as well. Staff looked at three different methodologies: Moody’s Analytics, the NC
Office of State Budget and Management, and the Wilmington Metropolitan
Planning Organization. These projections helped staff determine a low growth rate
and a high growth rate. For the comprehensive plan purposes, we will use the high
growth rate. She pointed out the base year is 2010, which had a population of just
over 200,000 individuals. With the high growth rate, staff expects approximately
337,000 people over the next 25 years, which is a significant amount of growth.
2) Land Development: Outlines development trends reflecting developed versus
undeveloped land, land cover data, conservation data, land use and zoning. This
data is helpful to planners in establishing the current development patterns that
New Hanover County is experiencing and helping to determine how the county is
going to grow and what type of growth patterns we choose for the community.
3) Housing: Addresses housing in the community in an effort to understand the needs
for the future. It is important to understand the needs for the future of our housing.
Pie graphs show interesting information about the amount of income individuals
spend on housing. HUD has set a standard that individuals should not spend more
than 30% of their income on housing. By adhering to this standard, individuals are
not deemed “house poor”. A community does not want individuals to spend more
Page 15 of 21
than 30% of their income on housing because it adversely affects the local
economy by capturing the portion of their income that should go back into the
economy rather than on housing. The helps determine the development patterns
that are necessary to provide adequate housing within the community.
4) Transportation: The Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is
currently working on their long range plan. The City and County recently
completed a greenway master plan. The Port of Wilmington and the Airport also
have individual master plans. Ensuring these planning efforts are consistent and
represented in the whole comprehensive plan helps planners to better understand
the current transportation conditions and the future needs within the community.
5) Economy: In this planning process, the County has the benefit of the Garner Report
that was generated and presented to the community recently. The Existing
Conditions Report outlines and analyzes much of the information contained in the
Garner Report. The graphics illustrate the elements of per capita income. New
Hanover County’s wages are approximately 10% below the State’s average and
26% below the national average; however, the County’s median income per capita
is higher than the State’s average. Staff believes this is attributed to investment
income, government transfers and social security. This information is interesting to
consider as we plan for the future and the type of individuals within the
community.
6) Infrastructure and Urban Services: Catalogues infrastructure needs and urban
services. By understanding how many parks we have, our education system, and
water and sewer availability, planners can establish critical needs within the
community and provide solutions for incorporating them into future development
patterns.
7) Environment and Natural Resources: Reflects environmental constraints or areas
such as wetlands and sensitive areas for development. All of this background
information will be helpful as the County allocates appropriate land to
accommodate future needs. Water, watersheds, water quality, air quality, hazard
areas, wetlands, soils, conservation easements and of course biodiversity will all be
considered. Staff will overlay these maps and use the population projections to
determine exactly where growth can occur.
Ms. Rigby concluded the presentation, stating hopefully she had provided a brief glimpse at the
information collected for the existing conditions report and a clear understanding of how this
information will be used for plans for future development. As with the first chapter of the plan,
the Public Engagement Plan, staff asks for the planning board’s recommendation to the Board of
Commissioners to approve this chapter by resolution. Additional information may be collected
and incorporated into the report as staff moves through the planning process. This chapter will be
part of the final document, which will be subject for approval by ordinance once the entire plan
is completed. Ms. Rigby offered to answer questions from the board members.
Page 16 of 21
Vice Chair Girardot stated she would assume the flood maps were the existing flood maps since
the new maps are still in the preliminary stage. She hoped the new maps would be included
before adoption of the final draft document.
Ms. Rigby confirmed one of the benefits of adopting the existing conditions by resolution at this
point and then adopting the entire document by ordinance is that as additional information
becomes available it can be included in the document.
Vice Chair Girardot asked as the County goes through the process of adopting the
comprehensive plan if the board would be provided with a timeline with an outline as to when
each part could be expected.
Ms. Rigby affirmed a schedule was initially created reflecting when each phase would be
completed; however, as with many complex projects that schedule may sometimes be a moving
target. Staff can certainly provide the board with an updated schedule regarding when they can
expect each element and each chapter of the report.
Vice Chair Girardot stated she noticed on Page 18 information about the urban services boundary
and hoped there would be more discussion on that topic as the plan moves forward because it is
described there as a tool used to help New Hanover County decision makers determine the cost
of providing infrastructure such as water and sewer. A number of community individuals in the
development industry look upon it as an impediment because many folks have the opinion that
other things tend to drive economic development, like the market and lack of land that is in New
Hanover County, homebuyers, schools, regulation, etc. She felt it should probably be discussed
as the County moves forward with the comprehensive plan.
Ms. Rigby agreed, noting the urban services boundary is a very important topic that will be
addressed through the plan. They will have conversations about the urban services boundary,
where it’s currently located, if and where it should be moved, and what is most appropriate for
the future growth of New Hanover County.
Vice Chair Girardot stated the report was excellent and Ms. Rigby deserved a lot of credit.
Ms. Rigby noted the report was definitely a staff effort and recognized Dylan McDonnell and
Karyn Crichton, who put a tremendous amount of work into the document as well.
Chairman Shipley thanked Ms. Rigby also and asked if the board would be able to discuss the
comprehensive plan at the work session planned for the next day.
Ms. Rigby confirmed the comp plan could be discussed at the Planning Board work session.
Anthony Prinz inquired about the purpose of adopting the plan by ordinance and whether that
took it from a planning type of environment to a regulatory environment.
Ms. Rigby explained the comprehensive plan would not be regulatory by nature, but adopting it
Page 17 of 21
by ordinance would give it more substance so that the County’s capital improvement projects
and capital improvement program can be tied to the comprehensive plan. The zoning ordinance
will be the regulatory document that the County lives by.
Chairman Shipley commented that recommendations wouldn’t automatically become part of the
zoning ordinance, but when brought up later as a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance
they would be supported by what was already passed in the comprehensive plan; and therefore,
could become an amendment to the zoning ordinance. If passed by the county commissioners, it
will not actually fulfill its legal status as an operative ordinance, but will be simply a document
that has been previously check marked by the board.
Ms. Rigby affirmed Chairman Shipley was correct.
Chairman Shipley also commented if revisions to the special use permit were included in the
comprehensive plan they would only be recommendations without any other substance other
than being included in the comprehensive plan.
Ms. Rigby replied the special use permit is geared toward the zoning ordinance. The
comprehensive plan establishes the vision for the community, sets the policy, and then the
implementation steps and strategies for that vision. Those are the three main goals of a
comprehensive plan. The implementation part of the plan is typically the zoning ordinance. The
zoning ordinance is where the special use permit and updating that process would occur.
Chairman Shipley noted he had heard comments that the special use permit should be part of the
comprehensive plan, but the comprehensive plan is actually an omnibus idea and plan for our
future and the special use permit is zoning, particularly with heavy scrutiny towards heavy
industry, so the separation of those is rather dramatic.
Ms. Rigby confirmed there are two different tools. One is the vision and one is the
implementation tool.
Chairman Shipley entertained questions from the board. Hearing none, he inquired if any action
was needed by the Planning Board on the item.
Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman provided instructions regarding the action needed by
the board to accept and recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2: Existing
Conditions Report by the County Commissioners.
Lisa Mesler made a motion to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2:
Existing Conditions Report. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion.
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2:
Existing Conditions Report.
Page 18 of 21
Technical Review Committee Reports (July, August, and September)
Sam Burgess presented the following TRC Report:
The County’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) met during the months of July, August,
and September and reviewed a total of seven (7) site plans.
JULY
H & H Homes
H&H Homes is located near the northeastern portion of our jurisdiction near Greenview Ranches
subdivision off Market Street and is classified as Wetland Resource Protection on the County’s
adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. Performance site plan attributes include:
R-15 residential zoning
73 lots
29.2 acres
Public water and sewer
Public roads with access from Greenville Ranches
In a vote of 5-0, the TRC preliminarily approved the preliminary site plan for 73 lots for a period
of two years with the following conditions:
1) A new fire hydrant be located at the entrance to the project along with a hydrant
placed at lot 29.
2) A NCDOT Driveway Permit will be required connecting to one of the State
maintained roads located in Greenville Ranches subdivision.
3) No gates, obstructions, traffic calming devices or on-street parking will be allowed.
4) Right of way dedication along with road construction improvements will be required
from the northern end of Old Oak Road to the entrance to the project site. A collector
“curve” will also be required near Old Oak Road and Ranch Drive.
5) The project has been designated with public roads. The project must connect to an
existing publically maintained road along with roads offered to NCDOT for State
maintenance once residency requirements are met.
AUGUST
Smith Creek Apartments
Smith Creek Apartments is located in the north central portion of our jurisdiction near the 4600
block of Gordon Road and is classified as Urban & Conservation on the County’s adopted 2006
Land Use Plan. High density site plan attributes include:
R-15 residential zoning
336 lots
41.21 acres
Public water and sewer
Private road network leading out to Gordon Road
Page 19 of 21
The TRC approved it originally for 336 lots, but it was downsized to 328 lots due to some buffer
yard setbacks that encroached on Buildings 13 and 14.
In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the site design for Smith Creek Apartments with the
following conditions:
1) In accordance with Section 72-43(14) of the County’s Zoning Ordinance, a Special
Use Permit will be required.
2) A NCDOT Driveway Permit from the project’s primary entrance with Gordon Road
and approved off-site road improvements be required.
3) Shaw Drive will be constructed (paved) from its intersection with Blount Drive west
to the proposed round-about as displayed on the site plan.
4) No gates, obstructions, traffic calming devices or on-street parking will be permitted.
5) Pedestrian and bike access from the northern portion of the apartment campus to the
County Park/property will be required.
6) A bike Lane located along the Gordon Road frontage will be coordinated with
NCDOT and the office of the WMPO.
7) A WAVE Transit shelter near the entrance to the project will be coordinated with
WAVE Transit and the New Hanover County School System.
8) A secondary all weathered road surface may be gated from the northern end of
Blount Drive leading into the project but will also serve as access to the apartment
residents in the event of an emergency.
Tralee Place
Tralee Place is located in the south central portion of our jurisdiction near the 6500 block of
Lipscomb Drive and is classified as Transition on the County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan.
Performance site plan attributes include:
R-15 residential zoning
30 lots
12 acres
Public water and sewer
Private roads leading out to Lipscomb Drive
In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the preliminary site design for Tralee Place for a period of
two years with the following conditions:
1) NCDOT Driveway be required.
2) No gates, obstructions, traffic calming devices, or on-street parking allowed.
3) Copy of the approved water and sewer letter required prior to final plat approval for
all or a portion of the project.
4) Applicant will provide clarification on the tree caliper inches within road r/w.
5) The project entrance will have an additional hydrant in coordination with County
Fire Services.
6) Applicant will work with County Engineering regarding drainage easements on
interior lots.
7) A note will be added to the plat stating that the driveway serving lots 22, 23, and 24
will be part of the maintenance responsibilities of the HOA.
Page 20 of 21
Cottage Grove
Cottage Grove is located in the Middle Sound/Ogden area of our jurisdiction (200 block of
Middle Sound Loop Road) and is classified as Watershed Resource Protection on the County’s
adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. Performance site plan attributes include:
R-15 residential zoning
24 lots
9.41 acres
Public water and sewer
Private roads leading out to Middle Sound Loop Road
In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved Cottage Grove for a period of two years with the following
conditions:
1) NCDOT Driveway Permit be required.
2) No gates, obstructions, traffic calming devices, or on-street parking allowed.
3) Street names will need to be verified with E-911.
4) Sidewalks will be provided along the project frontage of Middle Sound Loop Road
(northern side of driveway), along lots 2, 3, and 4, and in front of the designed open
displayed on the plan.
5) Right-of-way widths will be revised to envelope the significant trees that were
subject to the road width variation request.
6) HOA covenants shall include language for tree protection in the r/w and open space
areas.
SEPTEMBER
Serenity Point
Serenity Point is located in the south central portion of our jurisdiction and is classified as
Watershed Resource Protection on the County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. The developer for
the project requested TRC to consider waiving the recreational park impact fee (already
paid)requirement in lieu of a proposed eight (8) slip private boating facility serving four (4)
residential lots in accordance with Section 52-7(1)(a) & (b) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the developer’s request for a park impact fee waiver with the
following conditions:
1) The recorded plat from July, 2014 be revised to include the boat facility and common
area. The revised plat will be reviewed and approved by County Planning staff prior
to recordation.
2) If common area is not designated for any reason, only a partial refund
(approximately half) will be returned to the applicant.
3) Homeowner covenants be reviewed by County Planning staff and County Legal for
maintenance, liability insurance, taxes, liens, and right of each lot owner to access
the designated recreational area.
4) The TRC recommends that the County Manager release of the recreational park
impact fee and provide direction on the release of the fee/funds.
Page 21 of 21
Myrtle Landing
Myrtle Landing is located in the south central portion of our jurisdiction (near 7200 block Myrtle
Grove Road) and is classified as Transition and Resource Protection on the County’s adopted
2006 Land Use Plan. Performance site plan attributes include:
R-15 residential
146 lots
58.40 acres
Public water and sewer
Private roads leading out to Myrtle Grove Road
In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the preliminary site plan for Myrtle Landing for a period of
two years with the following conditions:
1) Widen the entrance road to 26 feet and stripe for pedestrian use to join with the
proposed sidewalk shown on the plan.
2) Proposed street names will be reviewed and approved the County.
3) A reissuance of the wetland JD from the Corps of Engineers with the plan being
updated to reflect the jurisdictional areas if warranted.
4) An updated letter from a licensed soil scientist attesting to the types of soils on site
5) Consideration of a 10 foot pedestrian access easement along the southern property
line to the Freeman Cemetery if it can be coordinated with the adjacent property
owner (church and cemetery owner
6) Consideration of a crosswalk connecting Myrtle Landing Road if it can be
accomplished pursuant to storm water permitting calculations.
Village at Motts Landing: Phase 1 (Revision)
The Village at Motts Landing is located in the south central portion of our jurisdiction and is
classified as Urban on the County’s adopted 2006 Land Use Plan. The developer for the project
requested TRC to add 13 lots to the existing 2004 preliminary site plan approved in 2004.
Performance site plan attributes include:
R-15 residential zoning
13 lots
5.6 acres
Private water and public sewer
Blend of Public & private roads leading out to Sanders and River Roads
In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the revision preliminary site plan for a period of two years
with the following conditions:
1) No gates, obstructions, traffic calming devices or on-street parking allowed.
2) The General Development Plan (GDP) approved several months ago will remain the
same at 736 lots/units.
3) Installation of a new fire hydrant at the entrance to White Swan Court.
With no further business, Chairman Shipley entertained a motion to adjourn.
Anthony Prinz made a motion to adjourn. Donna Girardot seconded the motion. The meeting
was adjourned at 7:48pm.