Loading...
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.