Loading...
2018-09 September 6 2018 PBM Page 1 of 10 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board September 6, 2018 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Ernest Olds, Chairman Wayne Clark, Planning & Land Use Director Jordy Rawl, Vice Chairman Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Paul Boney Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Donna Girardot Brad Schuler, Current Planner Jeffrey Petroff Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Allen Pope Tim Burgess, Assistant County Manager Edward “Ted” Shipley, III Chairman Ernest Olds opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing. Planning Manager Ken Vafier led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Ernest Olds reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Chairman Ernest Olds welcomed new Planning Board member, Jeffrey Petroff. Approval of Planning Board Meeting Minutes The Planning Board tabled approval of the July 12, 2018 planning board meeting minutes to the October meeting. MOTION: Board Member Allen Pope made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Paul Boney to approve the August 2, 2018 Planning Board meeting minutes. The Planning Board voted unanimously to approve the August 2, 2018 Planning Board meeting minutes. Chairman Olds announced a change in the order of agenda items due to the receipt of continuance requests for Item 2 and Item 3. Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z18-14) – Request by GSP Consulting, PLLC, on behalf of the property owner, College Road Development Partners, LLC, to rezone approximately 8.04 acres of land located in the 2600 block of N. College Road from (CUD) R-10 to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business District. Page 2 of 10 Attorney Michael Lee of the Lee Law Firm, on behalf of his client, requested that Rezoning Request Z18-14 be continued to the Planning Board’s next regularly scheduled meeting. Chairman Olds entertained a motion on the continuance request. MOTION: Board Member Donna Girardot MOTIONED, SECONDED by Board Member Allen Pope to continue Rezoning Request Z18-14 to the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting. The Planning Board voted unanimously (7-0) to continue Rezoning Request Z18-14 to the October 4, 2018 Planning Board regular meeting. Item 3: Rezoning Request (Z18-15) – Request by McKim & Creed on behalf of the property owner, SENCA Properties, LLC, to rezone approximately 14.57 acres of land located in the 1100 block of Pandion Drive, from R-15, Residential District, to (CUD) R-10, Conditional Use Residential District, in order to construct a high density development. Tara Murphy of McKim and Creed, on behalf of the applicants, requested that Rezoning Request Z18-15 be continued to the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on October 4, 2018 to allow the applicant to progress the TIA. Chairman Olds entertained a motion on the continuance request. MOTION: Board Member Allen Pope MOTIONED, SECONDED by Board Member Donna Girardot to continue Rezoning Request Z18-15 to the next regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting on October 4, 2018. The Planning Board voted unanimously (7-0) to continue Rezoning Request Z18-15 t the October 4, 2018 Planning Board regular meeting. Chairman Olds apologized to the audience members who were inconvenienced by the continuance of the two rezoning requests. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z18-13) – Request by Bayshore Estates, Inc., property owner, to rezone approximately 2.96 acres of land located in the 7900 block of Market Street from B -2, Highway Business District, and R-15, Residential District, to O&I, Office and Institutional District. Current Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Schuler presented the following staff report. Planner Schuler stated this is an application for a zoning map amendment, which is commonly referred to as a general use or straight rezoning. A zoning map of the area shows the subject property, which consists of approximately 2.7 acres. Of this area, about 1.7 acres is zoned R-15 and the remaining one acre is zoned B-2. The property is located on Market Street, just north of the Marsh Oaks Drive intersection. An Aldi grocery store has recently been developed south of the property, and south of that is the Amberleigh Shores Apartment complex, which has Page 3 of 10 been annexed into the City of Wilmington. To the north is the Bayshore Commons Shopping Center, which includes Walmart. Planner Schuler stated the property itself is undeveloped and is part of a 6.2-acre parcel. The remaining area of the parcel is not included in this rezoning application and will remain zoned B-2. Since this is a straight rezoning application, no conditions can be added on to this request and if the rezoning is approved, the property would be allowed to be developed in accordance with the standards of the Office & Institutional zoning district. Currently, the O&I district permits 42 uses by-right. The district mainly permits office, medical, educational, and religious related uses. Commercial uses like retail establishments and restaurants are prohibited in this district. Eleven (11) uses are permitted with the issuance of a special use permit (SUP). Uses like kennels, convenience stores, and high density developments must obtain a SUP and be considered by the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners. Planner Schuler stated there are also several standards related to development of the property. First, both the O&I district and the Special Highway Overlay District require any buildings constructed on the property to be setback from the property lines. Specifically, there is a 100’ front setback, 25’ side setback, and a 30’ rear setback. An opaque bufferyard must also be installed along the adjacent residential property. In addition to the bufferyard, the ordinance will require landscaping be installed along Market Street, within the parking lot, and next to any building; any significant tree removed must be mitigated. Furthermore, the size of any freestanding sign installed on the property is limited to a maximum of six (6) feet in height and 75 square feet in area. Lastly, any development of the property must obtain a driveway permit from the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT), and complete a traffic impact analysis (TIA) if the proposed use generates more than 100 trips in the peak hours. Planner Schuler noted there have been four TIAs recently approved in the area. The Aldi grocery store and the required roadway improvements for that project have been completed. The expansion of the Oak Landing shopping center is currently under construction, and construction of the Bailey Shoppes and the second phase of the Amberleigh Shores apartment complex have not started at this time. Planner Schuler reported there are two major NCDOT projects planned for the area. Project U-4902D will install a center median on Market Street from Marsh Oaks Drive to Middle Sound Loop Road. Construction for that project is expected to begin early next year. Also, project U-4751 will extend Military Cutoff Road from Market Street to I-140, which will give motorists the option to bypass this portion of Market Street. Construction on that project is currently underway. Planner Schuler stated the Comprehensive Plan classifies the subject property as Community Mixed Use, which is a place type that focuses on small-scale, compact, mixed use Page 4 of 10 development patterns that serve all modes of travel and act as an attractor fo r county residents and visitors. Types of appropriate uses include office, retail, mixed use, recreational, commercial, institutional, and multi- and single-family residential. The proposed O&I rezoning is generally CONSISTENT with the Comprehensive Plan because it allows for the types of uses recommended in this Community Mixed Use place type, and also because the O&I district is identified as a typical zoning category for the Community Mixed Use place type. Hearing no questions for staff from planning board members, Chairman Olds opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Dan Weeks of H+W Design stated he represented the applicant and would address some of the specifics of the request. He said the applicants are requesting 2.6 acres of the 6.2-acres site to be rezoned from B-2 and R-15 to O&I. They are requesting O&I because this particular 2.6- acres tract has existing split zoning; 130 feet of it or a portion of that is zoned R -15, which abuts the adjacent residential properties and the remainder of that piece of land is zoned B -2. Mr. Weeks commented that he is a land planner and from a practical standpoint, if you were looking at developing the R-15 piece into a residential project, he would start with a math exercise. You would utilize the 65-feet right-of-way and then apply the R-15 building setbacks, which are 25 feet in the front and 20 feet in the rear, which would leave you with a linear defined building envelope of 25 feet. Mr. Weeks said, in his thirty years of experience, that is not a typical R-15 lot. A typical building footprint for a R-15 lot is on average about 40 feet by 60 feet. It is also not practical, in addition to it not being financially feasible. Mr. Weeks stated that was a great concern in trying to develop this piece of land because it’s got very unique geometry, as well. Mr. Weeks stated furthermore, surrounding land uses include residential lots to the east, the amenity club to the south, and B-2 zoning to the west. Mr. Weeks stated the B-2 zoning is a more intensive use. The applicants feel that the O&I request is a transitional zoning, is less intensive, and is also in concert with the intent of the Community Mixed Use designation. Mr. Weeks reported that the applicant intends to develop this tract into a preschool/day care facility. He then presented an overall development concept plan for the site. He noted some of the criteria they look for in any development of community mixed use include pedestrian scale, walkability, and the preservation of trees. This site is heavily vegetated, which will be an advantage in regard to the buffers that would be required to the adjacent properties. Mr. Weeks reviewed the site plan, noting the 2.6-acres piece and pointing out the potential access point off of Market Street. There is also a secondary access lane that leads all the way back to Marsh Oaks Drive. He commented that the site plan shows a typical prototype for the facility and the parking that would potentially be on this piece of property. Mr. Weeks commented in regard to stormwater, there is a gradual slope from Market Street down to the southern end of the property and a 40-feet drainage easement on the southern end of the property that has an existing swale. He explained that the existing drainage easement would be the outfall for the stormwater management of the site. This concept plan gives a sense of what this project would be at buildout and also demonstrates that it’s a cohesive Page 5 of 10 development, tied together with sidewalks and architecture, and that it meets the criteria for the community mixed use intent. Mr. Weeks stated in regard to the building setback criteria, if this property is rezoned to O&I, the applicants would be mandated with a 20-feet minimum landscape buffer that must have 100 percent opacity. Also, the building setback in this case is determined by the height of the structure. The top of the structure is 21 feet. This structure would not be a multiple-story structure. Per the ordinance, the building height determines the setback and there is a multiplier for that. The building height at its midpoint multiplied by 3.73 dictates the placement of the building. The taller the building, the greater the setback. He noted there is also a 30-feet utility easement that moves through the site. He added that their program requires fenced in play structures and play areas for the children. Mr. Weeks stated that the typical prototype has a distinctive architecture and he thinks it fits into the overall feel of what would be achieved on the overall project, noting it isn’t a tall facility, it breaks up the roof mass, and has a great feel to it. Mr. Weeks then presented a photo of a facility located in Apex, North Carolina, noting the play areas and so forth are such that it doesn’t leave an imposing footprint on the development. Mr. Weeks stated in regard to traffic, the applicant has hired a traffic consultant that looked at the proposed use. He stated it is their understanding that this use would have 133 peak hour trips per day, which exceeds the threshold of 100 trips per day so a traffic impact analysis would be required not just for this piece, but also for the overall tract. He stated that would be a process through the county and they would also go through NCDOT for locations of access on Market Street, including right-ins, right-outs, and how the whole vehicular aspect of the project would flow. Mr. Weeks concluded his presentation and offered to answer questions from planning board members. Chairman Olds thanked Mr. Weeks and commended him on the thoroughness of his presentation. He also pointed out to the public that the applicant is not required to bring a site plan for a straight rezoning request or reveal those details. Chairman Olds added it is very much appreciated and gives some needed context to the motivation behind the applicant’s request. Chairman Olds asked if board members had any questions for the applicant. Board Member Donna Girardot inquired if the TIA would take into account any stacking lanes that would be needed off Market Street for drop-off and pick-up during the day. Mr. Weeks confirmed that would be part of the engineering design permitting for the project if it were to move forward. Chairman Olds opened the opposition portion of the public hearing. SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION Steve Watmough stated he resides at 7904 Tarrants Court, which is adjacent to the subject property. He stated he was in attendance with many of his neighbors that live next door and along the adjoining fence line of the subject property. He thanked the planning board for Page 6 of 10 taking a few minutes to listen to some of their comments. Mr. Watmough stated that one of the surrounding residents’ major concerns is ambient noise and lighting. He noted there is a large wooded tract there now, which detracts from the noise and lighting coming from Market Street and they feel those woods back there not only assist, but that putting a school in and some retail areas would obviously add to that noise and lighting, considering that there will be a parking lot, a building, and so forth. Mr. Watmough stated he would also li ke to discuss traffic congestion at that traffic light. He explained that Marsh Oaks did not originally have a traffic light, but the traffic congestion made it warranted. He pointed out the location of the traffic light on the diagram, noting it was added due to the amount of traffic that goes through that light. The addition of the Aldi grocery store has exacerbated the traffic congestion problem because residents now have the traffic exiting Aldi onto Marsh Oaks Drive to access the traffic light to turn left onto Market Street. He said as you can imagine in the mornings and evenings th e traffic there gets a little bit crazy. In addition, there are a lot of U-turns there, which is another concern of the residents. He said that is a pretty tricky intersection already and he believes this proposed rezoning will only add to the congestion there. Mr. Watmough pointed out that the cut-through lane proposed on the property is going to allow people who want to skip the light at Marsh Oaks to cut through the back of the buildings there and get out to Market Street and vice versa, anybody leaving here who wants to go southbound is going to come back through the property and then out onto Marsh Oaks Drive to access the traffic light. Mr. Watmough commented that the school isn’t the end of the world, but they are concerned about what might happen with the property that it’s using and how it might be used by people in a way not intended. He would sure hate to see that become a full-time traffic pattern right behind their fence line. Mr. Watmough said that Mr. Weeks has assured residents that this will be a school and he’s sure he has plenty of faith in that, but when he and his wife moved in a few years ago, he and his wife were told Aldo was going to be a high end shopping center like Lumina Station and now we have half a dozen telephone poles with wiring. He stated he doesn’t know what assurances they can be given to be sure the plan remains as is. He commented that the County can rezone and then these guys can change their minds and all of a sudden, it’s not a school and that is a great concern of all of the residents. Mr. Watmough stated lastly, it may sound a little selfish, but he thinks this will be detrimental to property values in the area. He noted one of the reasons they purchased there was they were convinced there would be nothing building behind them but houses, and they certainly didn’t anticipate parking lots, schools, commercial activities, and things like that. He stated he would urge the planning board to maintain the current zoning as it was originally designated. He expressed great concern that the proposal that everyone thinks is going to be developed might not be developed, noting the residents were previously told that the Aldi would be a high end retail development. Mr. Watmough stated that obviously the adjacent residents are not in favor of the rezoning and are concerned that the proposal is going to not only detract from their personal property value, but also from the general appeal of the neighborhood and the whole area. He thanked the planning board for their time. Page 7 of 10 Chairman Olds asked if Mr. Weeks would like to respond to the residents’ concerns about noise, lighting, and the cut-through. Dan Weeks of H+W responded in regard to the cut-through, during the design process and the engineering of the site, there are means where you can provide traffic calming and design the roadway so that it does not become a cut-through. Mr. Weeks stated that would be on the table as the applicants move this project forward. Mr. Weeks stated in regard to lighting, it will need to be screened from any adjacent properties and there would be a commitment for the applicant to implement that. Mr. Weeks stated in terms of the proposed use, the applicants weren’t required to provide a site plan, but given the Community Mixed Use place type of the property, they believe the Office & Institutional zoning is a good transition between the R-15 and the B-2. He noted that the R-15 cannot be developed and if that was developed, it would be a failure. Mr. Weeks commented that would be more of a detriment to the property values of properties that are adjacent to this site. He said he looks at this proposal from a practical standpoint as a cohesive development. OPPOSITION REBUTTAL No one spoke during opposition rebuttal. Chairman Olds closed the public hearing and opened the planning board discussion period. Board Member Allen Pope stated the applicant mentioned the proposed school to be a daycare and preschool and inquired if they know at this point what the operating hours would be for the proposed facility. Dan Weeks stated based upon his knowledge of their program, there would be 11 -13 classrooms, but he didn’t know what the specific hours of operation would be. He noted typically, the hours would be 8am to 4pm. It would be a self-contained site with that period of operation. In response to Board Member Pope’s inquiry, Mr. Weeks stated to his knowledge, there would not be any after-hours programs on the site. Board Member Paul Boney asked Mr. Weeks to expound on the traffic calming devices that could be implemented on the site. Dan Weeks explained there are a few traffic calming devices that could be used. First, in regard to road design, the front portion of the property is undevelopable so given the direction from NCDOT and where that connection point is to Market Street, there could be a design where the curvature nature of the road forces people to slow down. Second, narrowing the cone of vision in terms of the drivability also works well as a traffic calming measure. Those are great traffic calming options and there are a lot of existing trees on the site as well. Mr. Weeks stated they want to provide a means to prevent this property from becoming a cut-through. He commented that he doesn’t like speed bumps and doesn’t think they should be used because Page 8 of 10 there are other means to create that. Mr. Weeks noted there are other examples of traffic calming options around town. Board Member Boney stated appreciation for the applicants’ efforts, noting they didn’t have to provide that information for a straight rezoning. He added that it alleviates a lot of fears about the proposal. He complimented Mr. Weeks, noting he had done a nice job on the presentation. Board Member Jordy Rawl asked Mr. Weeks to expound on the lighting proposed for the site, acknowledging that it is only a conceptual plan. He noted the current zoning is B-2 that juts into the R-15 and it appears that in order to get R-15 housing in there, you would have to single load in off of Market Street and then the backyards would back up to the Marsh Oaks properties. He noted that it’s popular to put in the Duke Energy poles that are on throughout the night in subdivisions. Board Member Rawl asked Mr. Weeks to explain how the applicants’ proposal would differ from that subdivision layout in regard to lighting and if it would have more yard lighting or have low lit accessible lighting rather than the permanent lighting that new subdivisions are utilizing. Dan Weeks explained that for the roadway lighting, there are fixtures available that can diffuse and shield lighting from horizontal view and direct lighting onto the roadway, avoiding a situation where there is a lot of intrusive lighting. Those types of fixtures wo uld be utilized on this piece of property. He stated any lighting on the school would be implemented such that it could be shielded. He noted this is not a facility to be operated at night so from that standpoint, you are really not going to see any lighting from the facility. What you are going to see is the lighting from the roadway. He stated the applicants will need to make sure they pick the correct fixture, and that will be part of the discussion with staff as the project goes through the Technical Review Committee (TRC) process. Board Member Jordy Rawl asked Mr. Weeks to clarify if the lighting used for the project would be less intrusive than the permanent lighting used in new subdivisions that is perpetually on throughout the night. Dan Weeks responded that he is not a big advocate for street lighting, noting what would make a lot of sense here is that there are a lot of nice trees on this property with the existing vegetation, and if they could snake a roadway through there and do up lighting on the trees so they can provide adequate lighting on the roadway. He explained that would deemphasize the need for people to go through there at night because when you put street lighting on roadways, people want to drive through. For those reasons, he would propose putting the up lighting on the trees on a timer so it comes on and goes off and the applicants can dictate those time schedules. Jeff Petroff commented in regard to traffic, triggering the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is very advantageous to the whole neighborhood and may result in some timing changes on some traffic lights, some additional stacking, etc. that could really benefit the neighborhood. He also stated that he appreciated the applicant bringing in the conceptual plan, but the board really has Page 9 of 10 to get away from that land plan because they aren’t reviewing that plan, and as the neighbors pointed out, something else could be done on the site. Board Member Petroff stated he likes the O&I because it’s a softer transition from the B-2. He commented that he thinks it’s a good plan, noting it was unfortunate the tract was split zoned the way it was. He commented that Mr. Weeks was right that the residential portion of that property is useless when you put on the setbacks. Board Member Petroff stated he feels this is a good zoning, but cautioned that this may not be the plan that is presented. Chairman Olds commented in regard to the buffer on the east side, they’ll get that whether this is a school or one of the other potential uses . He said he does like the concept and also agrees with the traffic elements, noting the traffic calming measures certainly make a lot of sense whatever the use is. Chairman Olds states that regardless, it’s logical that the developed side is the place to put it. The road will take up the east side. He noted that isolates that development another sixty to eighty feet from the actual backyards of the homes so that helps put the activity further away, whatever the nature of that activity actually turns out to be. He commented that he also likes the fact that the drainage is toward the clubhouse and will protect that amenity. Chairman Olds stated that overall, the proposed rezoning is pretty positive; it’s just unfortunate that we have a piece of land with spli t zoning, but the applicants have done a great job and have answered all the difficult issues. Chairman Olds entertained a motion from the planning board members. MOTION: Board Member Paul Boney MOTIONED, SECONDED by Board Member Donna Girardot to recommend approval, as the Board finds that this request for a zoning map amendment of approximately 2.7 acres from the B-2 & R-15 districts to an O&I district as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the O&I zoning district allows for the types of uses recommended by the Comprehensive Plan for this area, and is identified as a typical zoning category for the Community Mixed Use place type. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal immediately adjacent to existing commercial and office uses and will provide protection for the adjacent residential areas through the site design requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Board voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z18-13. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman entertained nominations for Chair of the Planning Board. Page 10 of 10 Donna Girardot nominated Jordy Rawl for Chairman. Nomination was seconded by Ted Shipley. No other nominations were made. The Planning Board voted unanimously to elect Jordy Rawl as Chair. Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman entertained nominations for Vice Chair of the Planning Board. Ernest Olds nominated Donna Girardot for Vice Chairman. Nomination was seconded by Ted Shipley. No other nominations were made. The Planning Board voted unanimously to elect Donna Girardot as Vice Chairman. Outgoing Chair Ernest Olds thanked the planning board members and the staff for their efforts during the last year. New Vice Chair Donna Girardot thanked outgoing Chairman Ernest Olds for his service this past year and for his extraordinary leadership during the UDO process. With no other items of business, Chairman Olds adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m. Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board meeting.