JACKSONVILLE PLANNING BOARD

Transcription

JACKSONVILLE PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
October 12, 2009, 6 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
JACKSONVILLE CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
REVIEW OF THE MINUTES – Regular Meeting – September 14, 2009
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE – Councilman Michael Lazzara
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
Land Use Map Amendment
1. Ralph and Eva Pollmiller – Adjacent to Gum Branch Road - LDR to NC
Rezoning
2. Ralph and Eva Pollmiller – Adjacent to Gum Branch Road - RS-7 to B-1
Special and/or Conditional Use Permit and Site Plans
3. Carolina Forest Developers, LLC. - Village at the Glen Section I, Carolina Forest –
Adjacent to Ramsey Road – Major Site Plan Modification.
4. Carolina Forest Developers, LLC - Village at the Glen Section II, Carolina Forest –
Adjacent to Ramsey Road – Major Site Plan Modification.
5. Elijah Morton – Country View – Adjacent to Drummer Kellum Road – SUP and Site
Plan
Preliminary Plan
6. Eastern Properties, Inc. – Fieldstone At Haws Run, Section IV – Old Wilmington Road
and Wynstone Drive
Zoning Text Amendments
7. Hotel/Motel as Special Use in O&I Zone
REPORTS
Planning Administrator
Development Services Director
ADJOURNMENT
DRAFT
JACKSONVILLE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 14, 2009, 6:00 p.m.
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council:
The regularly scheduled Jacksonville Planning Board meeting was called to order by ChairmanDoug Lesan at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, September 14, 2009 in Council Chambers at Jacksonville
City Hall. Chuck Quinn led the Board in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Homer Spring gave
the invocation. The following were in attendance:
Planning Board Members Present
Dr. Doug Lesan, Chairman
Sandra Wyrick, Vice-Chairwoman
Robert Warden
Homer Spring
Danny Williams
Chuck Quinn
Theresa VanderVere
Pauline K. Joos, ETJ representative
Thomasine Moore
City Staff
Ryan King, Planning Administrator
Ednasha McCray, Senior Planner
Paul Stockwell, Planner
Jeremy Smith, Planner
Debbie Jefferson, Administrative Assistant
Planning Board Members Absent
Shadow Leadership Members Present
City Council Liaison
Councilman Michael Lazzara
Shadow Leadership Members Absent
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairman Doug Lesan asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Theresa VandeVere
made a motion and Thomasine Moore seconded the motion that carried by unanimous vote
of the Board members present.
REVIEW OF MINUTES
Chairman Doug Lesan asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the August 10, 2009
meeting. Sandra Wyrick made a motion to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded
by Homer Spring. The motion carried by unanimous vote of the Board members present.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
Councilman Lazzara gave the city council update:
On September 8th, 2009 City Council approved the following:
Jacksonville Planning Board
Page No. 2 of 11
•
•
September 14, 2009
Zoning Test Amendment to Section 109 – Sign Regulations – Colleges & University
Signage
Road Renaming – Victory Way to Hickory Road
NEW BUSINESS
Hattie Joyce Popkin – 304 South Marine Boulevard Rezoning from R-7 to B-1 – 1.68 acres
adjacent to South Maring Boulevard
Ms. McCray presented Hattie Joyce Popkin’s request to rezone a parcel totaling 1.68 acres from
Residential 7 (R-7) to Business 1 (B-1). The subject parcel is located adjacent to South Marine
Boulevard.
In conjunction with the applicant’s request, staff is recommending that an additional seven
parcels, totaling 5.70 acres, to the east and west of the subject parcel, be rezoned from
Residential 7 (R-7) to Business 1 (B-1).
This rezoning request is consistent with the Council adopted Growth Management Plan and draft
CAMA Land Use Plan Update.
Chuck Quinn made a motion to approve the Rezoning request findings of fact A-D are in
the affirmative and to include the Staff initiated Rezoning request to include the other
seven adjacent parcels. Homer Spring seconded the motion.
Mr. Warden asked if there were adjacent property owners here against the proposed rezoning.
Mr. Quinn asked if this was one more place where there is split zoning. Mr. King replied yes and
it’s along commercial developed properties so we do not believe the current zoning is
appropriate. Mr. King also stated that letters were sent out to the adjacent property owners letting
them know they were either part of or within one hundred feet. Mr. Quinn asked if staff could
come back later on and ask that other parcels be changed or does that need to be initiated by the
property owner. Mr. King replied we are recommending we go above and beyond what the
applicant has requested and include additional parcels for rezoning. Mr. Warden replied the
reason I asked the question was if somebody was against it and they ever wanted to do
something R-7 on the property, then they would have to pay to have it rezoned.
The motion to approve the Rezoning request was approved unanimously by the Board
members present.
Page No. 3 of 11
September 14, 2009
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan – Lot 9, Northwest Business Park – Shepherd’s
Shoppe
Mr. Paul Stockwell presented The Shepherd’s Shoppe, Inc. application for a Conditional Use
Permit and Site Plan that would allow offices and service shops, within the existing 10,200
square foot building. The property is zoned Conditional Use Business 1 (CU B-1) and within
this zoning district any use requires a Conditional Use Permit.
The project site is located within the City limits and served by existing infrastructure; therefore,
these proposed uses will not impact the City’s Sewer Allocation Policy.
Staff recommended three conditions to complete the site plan in accordance with the City’s
Development regulations. The following were the recommended conditions:
1) The site plan be designed/ show full compliance with Section 103 Landscaping
Requirements;
2) Correction of a general construction note pertaining to overhead clearance for
pedestrian facilities; and
3) Data block: Adjust the parking requirement (shopping center @ 1 space per 250
square feet).
Robert Warden made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan as
presented with the staff recommended conditions. Sandra Wyrick seconded the motion.
The motion to approve the Conditional Use and Site Plan request was approved
unanimously by the Board members present.
Zoning Text Amendment – Creation of Flex Space – Dorsey Robinson, III
Mr. Ryan King presented Mr. Dorsey Robinson, III request to modify the City’s Zoning
Ordinance in order to establish “Flex Space” as a permitted and/or special use. These changes
will create a unique type of commercial space for businesses in transition from home/office
occupation to an established location to service their customer’s service needs.
Staff has discussed the proposed text changes with Clarion Associates and the UDO Steering
Committee. It has been determined that the proposal is consistent with expected provisions that
will be incorporated into the proposed Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
Mr. King gave a brief synopsis of what the Zoning Text Amendment included: The proposal will
specifically define Flex Space, identify specific parking requirements and also establish the
zoning districts in which they will be permitted, either by special use permit or permitted by
right.
Mr. Warden replied that he was confused of what flex space is, can you give me an example
please. Mr. King replied, a good example of Flex Space would be an office/warehouse set up, the
Page No. 4 of 11
September 14, 2009
front area where approximately 15-25 percent typically is office and the rest of the area is used
for storage. A lot of these businesses would be in a transition from a home based business where
they have outgrown their space. In some cases, they need an area to store equipment, supplies,
bring on additional staff due to an increase in the business.
Mr. Warden asked if this will address some of the concerns we had in the UDO meetings about
contractors coming in from out of town setting up an office. Mr. King replied no, this is more in
line with the discussion we had about the general industrial use that needs to be moved to the
commercial category. Similar to a light industrial use, that is why we are recommending they be
permitted in the industrial zone and as a Special Use in the B-1 and B-2 zoning districts. Ms.
Wyrick asked are they B-1 classified right now? Mr. King replied that they are not currently
identified in our ordinance at all right now. The problem we have had in the past is the majority
of the building is essentially a warehouse.
Mr. Quinn replied the UDO meetings he has sat in can best be described as the transitional piece
for the one that doesn’t fully fit in an industrial area but yet doesn’t fit right next to Marshall’s,
the main stream retail shops. Mr. Warden replied now it is clarified.
Bob Warden made a motion to approve the Zoning text Amendment as presented.
Thomasine Moore seconded the motion.
The motion to approve the Zoning Text Amendment as presented was approved
unanimously by the Board members present.
Zoning Text Amendment – Section 106 Communication Towers and others – Incorporate
Proposal UDO Language in Advance of the UDO – Bill and Susan Terrell
Mr. Quinn replied to the Chairman, before we go to the next item, as I said in Friday’s UDO
meeting, I just happen to work in the telecommunications industry and this next item relates to
that. I will not benefit directly from changes but just in case anyone on the Board felt that maybe
it was any kind of conflict, if you feel it is more appropriate for me to recuse myself I am open to
that. I hand that to the Board itself.
Mr. Warden made a motion that Mr. Quinn be allowed to participate and vote. Ms.
VanderVere seconded the motion
The motion to allow Mr. Quinn to participate and vote was approved unanimously by the
Board members present.
Mr. King presented Bill and Susan Terrell’s zoning text amendment request to modify Section
106 Communication Towers. The applicants have used the draft Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) as a basis for a request to modify the City Zoning Ordinance as it relates to
communication towers. The changes will primarily affect Section 106 Communication Towers;
however, other sections would also have to be changed in order to ensure the ordinance is clear
and complete.
Page No. 5 of 11
September 14, 2009
After reviewing the applicant’s request, staff is recommending that some existing text remain
and that several minor adjustments be made since this proposal is in advance of the overall UDO.
These additional changes were discussed with the applicant and his attorney and did not generate
objections. In addition, staff discussed this with the UDO Steering committee and there were
several changes that were recommended to be considered. Those are the ones that are before you
tonight highlighted in green and yellow. I think there are four of them. The one in green adds a
clarification to an exemption. That’s green because staff concurred with that amendment. The
other items that are yellow are basically recommended by the UDO Steering Committee. I
shared those with Mr. Terrell. Obviously, Mr. Terrell took part of the conversations on Friday
and showed them to Mr. Ron VonLembke, the applicant’s legal counsel. I did not hear any
objections to those changes. In addition, Mr. Bill Howard is here tonight. He is not an applicant
but he is interested in the telecommunications facilities here in Jacksonville. I shared those with
him also and I have not heard any objections. The applicant has proposed to take out the
definitions as it relates to communication facilities in our current ordinance and replace them
definitions from the draft Unified Development Ordinance. We are also proposing to change all
of the zoning districts so that they correctly reflect the appropriate telecommunication facility
uses as either a permitted or special use. That is why you see all of the different sections listed
which is basically a transformation from current codes and use types to the proposed codes and
use types. So you are looking at a complete overhaul of Section 106 with the exception of we
carried forth several of the exemptions forward and we have also left in the temporary wireless
tower section. That is at the very end of the proposed ordinance. We feel like being in a coastal
city, we just recently adopted that provision in case we have a disaster such as a hurricane. It
basically allows a tower or trailer on wheels (COW) or cellular on trucks (COLT) so that they
can restore telecommunications in a relatively short amount of time.
Planning Board has two options. Obviously, staff recommended approval based on what we
gave you last week. Changes since then are the areas shown in yellow. Planning Board needs to
decide whether to include those changes or not. The area in green which is just one small part,
adding 14A to the exemptions which staff believes should be added. That was an oversight on
our part. One of the items of discussion that came up was the design type of the towers. The
current zoning ordinance says that communication towers have to be a monopole tower and this
is a monopole tower (photo shown), basically a stick with antennas on top of it. That was
changed back in the late nineties by Council as the acceptable tower construction type. The
current draft UDO does not specify that it has to be monopole variety. Staff is not comfortable
making any suggested changes to that monopole standard.
The UDO Steering Committee had a little bit of a different opinion that there may be occasions
where a different type tower may be appropriate and that’s the reason why they suggested that if
City Council were willing to approve a different design such as a guyed tower or a self
supporting tower, that they be allowed to consider that option. If you have a situation like this
(photos shown), you may not want that next to Highway 17 or Gum Branch Road. You may
want to say that can’t go there. There’s not enough design standards in place which is staff’s
concern, based on Council’s direction in the late nineties. That is the one piece where we are not
necessarily 100% in agreement at this time. That being said, I have given the Planning Board an
option which is what the UDO Steering Committee is recommending and that is the language
Page No. 6 of 11
September 14, 2009
you find in yellow. You can add the new language I gave you tonight with the addition of the
green which is staff’s recommendation, you have two choices.
Mr. Quinn wanted to bring to the board’s attention the reasons for the UDO Steering
Committee’s wanting what is highlighted in yellow in place is so that Planning Board, City
Council and Staff could have the ability to determine that’s not going to devalue the adjoining
properties and further the common good. Mr. Quinn asked Mr. King if he misstated what he
said.
Mr. King replied that he didn’t think so, but added that one of the things we talked about was the
design standards and since the design standards aren’t coming forward at this time, this is
making this zoning text amendment kind of piecemeal. Staff is not comfortable with sticking
that out there yet. It may be that when the Unified Development Ordinance comes forward for
adoption, there may be additional considerations given. That’s why we did not make that area
green from a staff’s standpoint. We are comfortable with not including the yellow at this time
since this is in advance to the Unified Development Ordinance which would allow us an
additional opportunity to look into the other things found there. We have not gotten into any of
those standards and what that would include. I think that is why staff is reluctant to move
forward with the areas in yellow at this time, It may be included in the future as we have an
opportunity to look at that further.
Mr. Quinn brought up two points. The UDO group did think that it was appropriate to put these
forward and your premise there about not bringing the standards and all forward at this time to
support these would also have been applicable to the flex space thing that we just previously
talked about. In other words, anything that we push forward to some degree may have a line that
traces back to design standards and you are right, it could…. Mr. King stated that the flex space
would not be considered a design. The UDO Steering Committee did feel comfortable enough
with making that recommended change and that is why we brought that to you and highlighted it
for you. The policy direction established by Council back in the late 90’s was to require towers
to be monopole only. Things have changed since then, I don’t know if it’s gone to a more
restrictive direction for communication facilities or if it has gone more lenient. We as a staff do
not have enough information to go down a different road that was established in 1997. The UDO
committee thinks it’s appropriate to do that, I’m just letting Planning Board know where we are
from a staff standpoint right now. That may change when the rest of the Unified Development
Ordinance comes forward. That being said, that doesn’t benefit the applicant right now if they
want to do something other than monopole. We discussed this Friday; monopoles are probably
the most expensive of the three types so there is additional costs involved with the monopoles.
At some point monopoles at certain heights and may not be a practical way of doing things
anymore. With what we have right now, we’re recommending that you approve the zoning text
amendment with the addition of the green area from a staff’s standpoint. The UDO Steering
Committee is in agreement with that along with the additions of the area found in yellow.
Ms. Joos asks are there any type of setback from roads and sidewalks. Mr. King replied yes; that
is found in the table of attachment (A) of your packets. In all the zoning districts accept B-1, B-2
and Industrial, so all of your residential zones, the setback must be equal to the tower height. So
if you have a 200 foot tower, it has to be 200 feet from any property line. If you are in a
Page No. 7 of 11
September 14, 2009
commercial zone such as the B-1, B-2 and Industrial, you have half the distance of the tower
height unless an engineer certifies that the tower can collapse within itself and in no case can the
setback be less than 50 feet.
Ms. VanderVere stated there are two areas where it talks about health issues, can you tell me
what health issues can come up. Mr. King replied the public health and general welfare is a
typical planning term. That is kind of a caveat for anything that may create problems. The
concern just raised, if a tower falls, that is a health and safety concern. I think this ordinance
addresses that concern by requiring at least a fifty foot setback and in residential zones it has to
be the setback of the structure. The idea behind that is if it falls, it will fall completely within a
diameter around that tower base so that it does not affect another property owner. If there are
any other health and safety concerns, I’m not aware of them. You may want to ask Mr. Howard,
Mr. Terrell or even Mr. Quinn who may be more knowledgeable of this.
Mr. Quinn replied to his knowledge all of those issues have been researched by the different
groups. The phones we carry today are under .6 watts. The FCC as well as all the health
organizations are on it. Mr. King replied having that in the ordinance, if there are additional
studies done and it is found that there is something that gives the Planning Board and the City
Council a means to deny a permit. Especially if it’s going through the Special Use Permit
process, it gives you an avenue to deny it based on concerns for the health and safety of the
community.
Ms. Joos asked about the fencing around these towers that would be the public safety especially
with children that love to climb. Mr. King replied information can be found on page 71
addressing that issue with the fencing.
Ms. Moore asked if the telecommunications needs to exceed 300 feet to be effective, would that
require a Special Use permit. Mr. King replied that was one change that came out of result of the
meeting last week. There was a cap of 300 feet. Some asked why have caps at all, but the UDO
Committee Steering said there needs to be a cap of some sort. Ms. Moore replied suppose this
affects our phones just because you want 300 feet, what would they need to do to get more if
they needed it? Mr. King replied that they would have to request a zoning text amendment or go
for a variance request. Right now it’s 120 or 199 so you have an opportunity to go to 199, a 79
foot increase right off the bat with this proposal. With the special use permit it gives an
additional 101 feet. I can tell you this is swinging the other way from where we have been over
the last twelve years.
Mr. Quinn replied that in the UDO Meeting on Friday that is why the yellow section was thought
to be a best add, because it did give the ability for if things changes rapidly in the industry or
there were demands within the community there was already a provision in place to take care of
that through a special use permit as opposed having to go through a process of changing the
ordinance and all that it means and takes to amend one.
Councilman Lazzara asked if we have considered a communications tower overlay, to determine
where we could allow the different types of towers within our city so it would alleviate some of
these situations. If we know that in our main corridor we want only the monopole then that’s an
Page No. 8 of 11
September 14, 2009
overlay and or maybe could allow some of these other ones in different areas. I’m just asking if
that was considered at all. Mr. King replied that we did not consider an overlay district nor did
Clarion. I’m not saying they don’t do that in other areas. We did have conversations that if
you’re with 1000 feet of a major corridor, you would need to do a monopole if it’s beyond that
then you could do something different, not quite an overlay but similar. Councilman Lazzara
asked how does Clarion deal with this issue on other municipalities. Mr. King replied not sure
because they did not specify monopole only. Councilman Lazzara replied I think you would need
to get that input before you would come forward with this type of amendment.
Mr. Quinn asked does a special use permitting process not give us the ability to say no if for no
other reason to say it negatively impacts the value of the property next to it. Councilman Lazzara
replied I don’t disagree with that, I just think the special use permit may be an easy way to solve
something. Mr. Quinn stated that with Clarion’s template type guidance, that wasn’t specific to
every one of our issues. They give us more of a rough template. Mr. King stated that the
applicant used what Clarion drafted as the basis and we had discussions with Mr. vonLembke
and Mr. Terrell. One of the things that may come out in Module 3 is specific design criteria for
communication towers that we haven’t gotten to yet. That may be the piece of the puzzle we
haven’t seen yet and I have not asked that question of Clarion.
Chairman Lesan asked Mr. Terrell if he had something to say. Mr. Terrell replied that the reason
we are going in the direction we are going and the reason we had three watt phones in the past is
because there were not enough towers close enough to reduce power. Therefore the medical
industry thought three watts was a lot. As towers have been expanded and distances between the
receiver and tower have been shortened, we have been able to reduce cellular wattage from 3
watts to .6 watts. That’s a vast improvement over how far you can get with just a tiny amount of
wattage and it is based on the proximity of towers. If you limit the proximity of towers then you
require more power and that is true also of municipalities. Northwoods has a poor signal for most
cellular companies because there are no towers nearby. If you have a bag phone you are in good
shape.
To reduce the number of towers at the same time putting them closer together is a function called
loading. When you have loading you can put six cellular companies on a single tower. Yes that
particular tower is not quite as pretty. The lattice tower with a whole lot of stuff on it is ugly. If
you have better loading then you need fewer towers. If you build towers that are so skinny and
weak then you can’t do loading and you have to have more towers. The whole idea is to limit the
range between the consumer and the tower and at the same time, limit the number of towers by
loading. That type tower would allow you to load more on it than a monopole. That doesn’t
mean the monopole won’t work, it will work but the higher up you go the more expensive they
get. When you get to about 200 feet they are about double to triple the cost of that tower and if
you go beyond 200 feet you are looking at triple to quadruple the cost.
Cellular companies do not wish to build towers, they wish to rent space on towers and it’s a
matter of economics. They do not want to go out and spend 2-3 hundred thousand dollars
building a tower they would rather give you the money and be on your tower, and they don’t
want to be it at 120 feet they want to be at 200 feet. I hope that will clarify the health question
you had earlier.
Page No. 9 of 11
September 14, 2009
Mr. King wanted to address the item just raised. One being distances, current ordinances say
that you can’t locate another tower within 3000 feet. This proposal drops it to 1500 feet; so you
are cutting it in half, so that’s an improvement if you look at it from their stand point. That is a
benefit to the applicant. Over the last three years, the towers that have come in have not had any
issues other than Mr. Terrell’s which our current ordinance does not allow him to bring down his
tower and re-erect one back to 275 feet which is considered non-conforming. Another tower that
another company was looking at once again it was non-conforming due to height. They couldn’t
bring it down and re-erect that tower. This ordinance does provide provisions for a replacement
tower. Loading, as far as skinny verses the other, I think you can put as many antennas on a
monopole tower, it just may be a more expensive tower. I think you can still load a tower the
same, you may have expert folks that can provide evidence otherwise.
Right now our max height is 120 feet and this new code will allow you to go up to 199 feet. So
you are getting another 79 feet, you are cutting the spacing in half. This ordinance is going to go
quite a bit the other direction from what we have operated under the last twelve years. If we look
at this, there are three things with the proposal before you tonight. The green, staff is in
agreement with; the areas in yellow can break down into two issues. One dealing with the excess
height of 199 – 300 feet is a Special Use permit, the other thing is the monopole issue. Staff will
go back and have discussions with Clarion and find out if there are some design standards to
where if you’re doing something beyond a monopole, you’ve got to do this, this and this. And
that language may be in Module 3 and we just have not seen it yet. But they may already answer
the question that if I would have asked that earlier, we would have had the answer to. That’s
why the second part of that yellow issue is because we don’t have that information I’m not ready
and staff is not ready to recommend anything other than monopole because we have not been
given any policy direction to do otherwise. So we are sticking to Council’s direction from 1997
and we are adding that back in because we don’t know what the other design standards may say.
They may say that it has got to be monopole unless you’re within 3,000 feet from a major or
minor thoroughfare and then you can go to another type tower. Another thing that the UDO
Steering Committee member brought up was it may be wooded today but it may be developed in
five years and then you’re going to have that tower sitting there. There are some other things to
consider. I think what Clarion has proposed is a swing back in the other direction that should be
of benefit to telecommunication industries. It definitely is going to increase their ability
compared to our current codes.
Chairman Lesan asked Mr. Howard if he had any questions. Mr. Howard replied that his concern
is of the 300 foot tower height with the option of the Special Use Permit. A couple of things that
may have been overlooked tonight is with the focus on monopoles. There is a height limit as to
which monopoles can be constructed. It is not only a manufacturing limitation but also a
structural limitation. The highest monopole I have ever seen was 225 feet. So when we get into
this situation where we are talking about some of the special products out there, we’re talking
about unique topographies and we’re talking about some kind of extraordinary radio coverage
need. I happen to agree with the UDO committee, I think the city is better served by saying
these unique situations may arise. If and when they do, we cannot rely on the monopole
structure to carry us forward because that simply will not work. I would suggest to you that just
as you have with the temporary tower sections of this and that is it is in there. In the event that
Page No. 10 of 11
September 14, 2009
something happens, the city is faced with a natural disaster and there is an emergency need, the
city is protected. We have the ability to get in and respond and continue to deliver the goods. I
would suggest to you that the same approach is for the same reasons appropriate with the
question of when we have to go above 199 feet or when there is a unique coverage situation,
shouldn’t we have something in place and have it in place now so we can address that on a
flexible needs basis, and I think that’s why the Special Use Permit provides all the protection to
the city that you can ask for and it also allows the carriers and the infrastructure companies to
come in and deal with those unique situations as the cases arise instead of saying no we’re
capped at 199 feet and by the way you can’t use anything other than a monopole and we give the
situation another six months or a year to see how it plays out. I ask on behalf of the
telecommunications industry that you take the larger view as you have with other sections of this
and say we can build in the protections that we need with the special use permit, the flexibility is
there for the carriers, the protection is there for the city. If you are worried about aesthetics, the
special use permit procedures require that you show harmony, that you show consistency with
the character of the area. I would point out that when you go back to that abomination of the
other self support tower; I think that it is extremely unlikely that the City of Jacksonville will
ever come across something like that. What you see there on those big large round antennas,
those are microwave horns. Those are not wireless carrier antennas. Microwave horns are used
basically to substitute for land line telecommunications. Jacksonville is not in a situation where
we can’t run a T-line or long distance line. The other situation I wanted to point out is the
question of monopoles. There are severe limitations from engineering and structural capacity on
what can be accomplished with a monopole. There are definitive height limitations on what we
can do and to say that it has to be a monopole, is also to almost unavoidably say and by the way
you’re never going to go beyond 200 feet because you can’t use anything but a monopole and
even you can maybe choose something for higher, you’re limited to a monopole and so we are
not going to get you the additional height even if you qualified. I think what I’m suggesting is
the protections are there. There have been a lot of people with a lot of input and a lot interest
that are brought together in the proposal here tonight. I think the City has done a very good job,
the Planning Department has done a good job, and the UDO committee has done a good job. But
we’re all on the right track there. Nothing that has been presented to you tonight, especially the
UDO committee suggestions isn’t in any way going to harm the City or compromise its long
term interest. They are built in with the flexibility that protects all of you and gives us the
maneuverability that we need to continue delivering the goods here in the City.
Mr. Warden asked about something that had been glossed over. The original says 3000 feet
separation, what makes us look at 1500 feet separation now? Mr. King replied that is what
Clarion is proposing. Mr. Howard replied that he may be able to answer that. One of the changes
that have occurred in the industry over the last 10-12 years is that along with all the tower
designs, we have switched from what used to be analog communications to digital and PCS
communications. That is among the changes from the 400-500 foot towers, the bag phones as
Mr. Terrell was making mention of, we could go for a distance with the analog. The digital and
PCS communications are completely different technology; they have much shorter wave lengths.
As a result the towers have to be closer together because the phones are smaller and they don’t
have the power and in addition, digital wave lengths are more interfered with vegetation,
building, and infrastructure.
Page No. 11 of 11
September 14, 2009
What we are trying to accomplish here is in building communications, specifically in the
downtown core and we cannot provide that unless we are close enough to go through those
barriers and we have to have the proximity and we can’t do it from 3000 feet which is a half mile
away. Mr. King replied there is a remote possibility we could have one of these, number two
Clarion recommended originally 300 feet for the new height limitation. That would be with what
the UDO is proposing that would be in line with what Clarion started out with. It was reduced to
199 feet from a staff standpoint primarily due to military base and FAA issues. Mr. Warden
asked has that been run by Cherry Point or New River, the 300 feet. Mr. King replied it has not.
Chairman Lesan asks for a recommendation from the board.
Robert Warden made a motion to approve the Text Amendment changes to include the
highlighted areas in yellow and green. Homer Spring seconded the motion.
The motion to approve the Text Amendment changes was approved unanimously by the
Board members present.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. King introduced the City’s newest planner Jeremy Smith. Mr. Smith came to us from the
town of Benson, Planning and Inspections Department where he served as the Planning Director
prior to coming on board with the City of Jacksonville. He has a BS degree in Urban and
Regional Planning and a Master’s in organizational management. On a sad note Ms. McCray will
be leaving us on Friday, staff wishes her and her husband the best. Also, I would like to welcome
Shannon Bryan, our new Chamber of Commerce Shadow member.
Chairman Lesan asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Sandra Wyrick made a
motion to adjourn and Theresa VanderVere seconded the motion at 7:25pm. The motion
carried by unanimous vote of the Board members present.
Adopted this 12th day of October, 2009, for the 14th day of September, 2009.
______________________________
Dr. Doug Lesan, Chairman
ATTEST:
Debbie Jefferson, Administrative Assistant
Request for Planning
Board Recommendation
Agenda
Item:
Date: 10/12/2009
1
Subject: Growth Management Plan Land Use Map Amendment – Ralph and Eva
Pollmiller – 420 Gum Branch Road
Department: Development Services
Presented by: Jeremy B. Smith, Planner
Issue Statement
Ralph and Eva Pollmiller have submitted a request to amend the Growth Management
Plan and the draft CAMA Land Use Plan Update by changing the Future Land Use
(FLU) designation of a .94 acre parcel, located at 420 Gum Branch Road. The
applicant is requesting to change the current Low Density Residential (LDR) FLU
designation to Neighborhood Commercial (NC).
In conjunction with this request, staff is recommending that an additional 6.79 acres
be amended from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Medium Density Residential
(MDR) in accordance with the Draft CAMA Land Use Plan map which is slated to
replace the Growth Management Land Use Plan
Financial Impact
None
Action Needed
Recommendation to amend the Growth Management Plan and the draft CAMA Land
Use Plan Update.
Recommendation
Staff recommends Planning Board move to deny the request to amend the subject
parcel from Low Density Residential (LDR) FLU designation to Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) and to recommend approval of amending the adjoining parcel
currently identified as Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Medium Density Residential
(MDR).
Attachments:
A
B
C
D
Future Land Use Map as Requested by the Applicant
Future Land Use Map as Recommended by staff
Existing Growth Management Plan Map
Zoning Map
Staff Assessment
Agenda
Item:
1
Growth Management Plan Land Use Map Amendment – Ralph and Eva Pollmiller – 420
Gum Branch Road
Introduction
Ralph and Eva Pollmiller have submitted a request to amend the Growth Management Plan
and the draft CAMA Land Use Plan Update by changing the Future Land Use (FLU)
designation of a .94 acre parcel, located at 420 Gum Branch Road. The applicant is
requesting to change the current Low Density Residential (LDR) FLU designation to
Neighborhood Commercial (NC).
In conjunction with this request, staff is recommending that an additional 6.79 acres be
amended from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) in
accordance with the Draft CAMA Land Use Plan map which will replace the current Growth
Management Land Use Plan.
Staff has reviewed the adopted Land Use and Growth Management Plans, as well as, the
proposed CAMA Land Use Plan Update and has determined that the requested amendment
does not support several of the goals and policies established in each document. They are
summarized as follows:
- The existing uses, even under an NC land use designation do not integrate well with
adjacent residential properties.
- Commercial development in this area would not protect the adjacent neighborhoods
from the encroachment of incompatible uses.
- The existing development does not promote pedestrian friendly environment.
Staff also reviewed the Land Use and Growth Management Plans, as well as, the proposed
CAMA Land Use Plan Update and has determined that the proposed modification of an
adjacent parcel supports several of the goals and policies established in each document.
They are summarized as follows:
- To make amendments to the Future Land Use Map that will be consistent with the
Plan priorities, be compatible with existing and future land uses for surrounding
areas of the City, will not create a shortage of any particular type of residential or
non-residential land, and will enhance the overall quality of life in the City.
- To establish desired Urban Growth Patterns that will encompass and support a mix
of urban uses, with variable densities, according to suitable provision of basic and
community support services, and adequate transportation access.
- To protect and preserve key Regional Commercial corridors and gateways to
encourage land use compatibility and improve corridor function and appearance.
- To identify where existing conditions conflict with adopted and proposed plans.
Procedural History
On September 8, 2009 the applicant submitted a rezoning request and a Future
Land Use Map Amendment request for the subject parcel.
On October 12, 2009 the Planning Board will provide a recommendation for this
request.
On November 4, 2009 the City Council will conduct a Public Hearing and then
consider amending the FLU Map.
Stakeholders
Ralph and Eva Pollmiller – Property Owner
Parker & Associates, Inc. – Surveyor/Applicant
Adjacent property owners
Land Use Assessment (requested amendment)
The Growth Management Plan, which updates and supplements the Land Use Plan
component of the CAMA Plan, identifies the subject parcel as being in an “Future
Urbanizing Area,” which includes areas that may have urban services in place and/or will
begin providing adequate residential and commercial growth past 2020.
The adopted Growth Management Plan and draft CAMA Land Use Plan Update
recommends a Low Density Residential (LDR) Future Land Use Designation. LDR is
primarily single-family detached residential development with home occupations, schools,
churches and other non-profit organizations.
The amendment request is to change of the subject parcel to Neighborhood Commercial
(NC), which in comparison to LDR is as follows; provides small areas for office and
professional services combined with limited retail uses, designed in scale with surrounding
residential uses. Land allocated to NC uses shall have access to a thoroughfare and be
integrated with the adjacent residential uses.
The Future Land Use designation of surrounding properties are proposed as Low Density
Residential.
When this property was taken into the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of the City felt necessary
to give it a residential designation therefore making any commercial uses on it
nonconforming. A change in FLU designation would propose to subjugate the previous
mentioned determination and encourage the continuance of nonconformity in-lieu of
rezoning. There is no other nearby commercial development on this side of Gum Branch
Road, and furthermore there is already a large amount of residential development in the
area.
Land Use Assessment (staff modification)
The Growth Management Plan, which updates and supplements the Land Use Plan
component of the CAMA Plan, identifies the subject parcel as being in an “Future
Urbanizing Area,” which includes areas that may have urban services in place and/or will
begin providing adequate residential and commercial growth past 2020.
The adopted CAMA Land Use Plan identifies the subject parcel as “Vacant” the adopted
Growth Management Plan recommends Neighborhood Commercial (NC) whereas the draft
CAMA Land Use Plan Update recommends a Moderate Density Residential (MDR) Future
Land Use Designation. Moderate Density Residential is composed of moderate-density
residential development, with average lot sizes of 7,500 sq. ft., and also services as a
transition between commercial and low-density residential land uses.
The Future Land Use designations of surrounding properties are proposed as Low Density
Residential.
In January 2009, a site plan was approved to construct a church on the 6.97 acre parcel.
One of the comments made in the staff report was that the Moderate Residential Density
designation would further serve as a buffer to higher commercial zones moving east on
Gum Branch Road.
Options
A. Approve the Amendment as requested by the Applicant as well as staff proposed
modification.
Pros: Allow the applicants request for rezoning to be consistent with FLU.
Approving the staff modification would make the current Growth Management
Plan consistent with the Draft CAMA Land Use Map.
Cons: Would create a situation where the FLU encourages development of
commercial areas in an area already with a heavy amount of residential FLU
designations.
B. Approve the amendment as requested by the Applicant, deny staff proposed
modification.
Pros: Allow the applicants request for rezoning to be consistent with FLU.
Cons: Would create a situation where the FLU encourages development of
commercial areas in an area already with a heavy amount of residential FLU
designations.
C. Deny the Amendment Request and Approve the Staff Amendment.
(RECOMMENDED)
Pros: Denial of the amendment request would ensure that future land uses
would remain consistent and compatible with surrounding low density residential
uses. Would mitigate potential off-site impacts, such as additional noise, traffic,
and glare that would infringe on neighbors. Would limit potentially premature
development of land within the ETJ that may not have adequate public facilities
available for higher density development. If denied, the proposed rezoning
request would be inconsistent with current FLU designation of the subject
parcels. Approving the staff modification would make the current Growth
Management Plan consistent with the Draft CAMA Land Use Map.
Cons: None.
D. Deny both Amendment Requests.
Pros: Denial of the applicant’s amendment would ensure that future land uses
remain consistent and compatible with surrounding low density residential uses
while allowing inconsistent and incompatible uses on the parcel staff is
recommending be changed.
Cons: Could allow inconsistent and incompatible uses on the parcel staff is
recommending be changed. No clear direction for staff on future, similar
requests.
E. Defer Consideration of the Amendment Request – (Provide staff with direction on
the specific information Planning Board would like to receive).
Pros: Would allow staff sufficient time to address any concerns the Planning
Board may have.
Cons: None.
Future Land Use Map as Requested
NU
GU
D
M
R TRL
R
CH
Low Density
Residential
City of Jacksonville
O
AK
RD
DR
AN
ER
Existing Cemetary
N A LN
BR
JU
S
M
UM
RD
OL
O
H
SC
L
L
SI
HOS AN
S
J U P IT E
VE
PI
Vacant
Neighborhood Commerical
TE
R
CT
Camp Lejeune
Requested
Neighborhood Commercial
Low Density
Residential
Vacant
Vacant
Low Density
Residential
D
Vacant
ER
E
R
IN T
RA
W
O
OD
CR
E ST CT
Disclaimer: This Map is intended to use for planning purposes only. City of Jacksonville
or its individual departments are not liable for any data inacuracies. Once again this map
should not be used for any legal boundary determinations and data displayed on this map
is collected from various different sources.
µ
Attachment
0 100 200
Feet
A
Existing Growth Management Plan
NU
GU
D
M
R TRL
R
Low Density
Residential
O
RD
DR
CH
AK
AN
ER
Existing Cemetary
N A LN
BR
JU
S
M
UM
RD
OL
O
H
SC
L
L
SI
HOS AN
S
J U P IT E
VE
PI
Vacant
TE
R
CT
Camp Lejeune
Project Property
Low Density
Residential
Vacant
Vacant
Low Density
Residential
D
Vacant
ER
E
R
IN T
RA
W
O
OD
CR
E ST CT
µ
Attachment
0 100 200
Feet
B
Zoning Map
U
S
R
D
N A LN
VACANT &
RESIDENTIAL
RA-20
M
SINGLE FAMILY
RS-7
CH
OA K
AN
DR
BR
E
C
LS
D
LR
GU
S
M
UM
IL
RS
O
HO
N
HOS AN
VE
RD
VACANT & RESIDENTIAL
RA-20
JU
T
PI
ER
TR
L
Camp Lejeune
VACANT
B-1
RA
R
IN T
RD
EE
Project Property
B
O
RO
O
SINGLE FAMILY
RS-7
BA
CR
RESIDENTIAL
TCA
E
Parcels
Water Features
Zoning TV Colors
CT
Zones
IND
CU-B
B-1
CU-B-1
B-2
CU-B-2
VACANT
B-1
W
OD
KS
R
HI
Centerlines
O&I
CU-O&I
TCA
RA-20
CU-TCA
CBD
OMU
NB
E S T CT
CU-NB
R-O
RA-20
CU-RA-20
RS-12
YB
RS-10
ER
RY C
T
R-7
RS-7
RA-20
RS-6
RM-6
RS-5
RM-5
µ
CU-RM5
0 100 200
Feet
RD-5
RD-3
CU-RD-3
MR
C
Attachment
Agenda
Item:
Date: 10/12/2009
2
Subject: Ralph and Eva Pollmiller – Rezoning from RS-7 to B-1 – 4240 Gum
Branch Road
Issue Statement
Ralph and Eva Pollmiller has submitted a request to rezone a .94 acre parcel from
Residential Single Family 7 (RS-7) to Business 1 (B-1). The subject parcel is located at
4240 Gum Branch Road across from the Raintree Subdivision.
This rezoning request is not consistent with the Council adopted Growth Management
Plan and draft CAMA Land Use Plan Update, but would be consistent if Council
approves the proposed FLU amendment included in Item #1 on this agenda.
Financial Impact
None
Action Needed
Consideration of the Proposed Rezoning request.
Recommendation
Based on findings of fact A-D being found in the affirmative and that the proposed
rezoning advances the public interest, staff recommends the Planning Board move to
deny.
Attachments
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Rezoning Worksheet
Proposed Ordinance
Section 32 RS-7 District
Section 73 B-1 District
Zoning Amendment Request
Site Survey
Rezoning Map (if approved)
Staff Report
Agenda
Item:
2
Ralph and Eva Pollmiller – Rezoning from RS-7 to B-1 – 4240 Gum Branch Road
Procedural History
On September 8, 2009 the applicant submitted this rezoning request.
October 12, 2009 the Planning Board will consider the rezoning request.
On November 4, 2009 City Council will conduct a public hearing and consider this
request.
Stakeholders
Ralph and Eva Pollmiller – Property Owner
Parker & Associates, Inc. – Surveyor/Owners Agent
Adjacent property owners within 100 feet of the area proposed for rezoning have
been notified that the Planning Board is considering this request. In accordance with
North Carolina General Statutes, property owners within 100 feet of the area
proposed for rezoning will be notified prior to the public hearing.
Zoning Assessment
The parcel proposed for rezoning is within the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) and is
located at 4240 Gum Branch Road, across from the Raintree Subdivision. The property
currently has a commercial building located on it used for a barber shop. The parcel is
bordered to the north by single family dwellings, zoned Residential Single Family 7 (RS-7);
to the east by multi-family dwellings, zoned Townhouse-Condo-Apartment (TCA); to the
south across Gum Branch Road by undeveloped land, zoned Business-1(B-1); and to the
west across Gum Branch Road by undeveloped land, zoned Business-1(B-1).
Public Hearing Notification
In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, all property owners within 100 feet
of the subject parcel will be notified of the proposed rezoning and public hearing.
Merits of Rezoning
In determining the merits of the rezoning request, the Planning Board should consider the
following: 1) is the proposal consistent with an adopted land use plan, 2) does the rezoning
advance the public interest, and 3) is the rezoning reasonable.
The following criteria must be applied to the proposal in determining the reasonableness of
the rezoning:
A. The size of the tract- The larger the area proposed for rezoning the more likely it
is to be reasonable. An individual lot that is within a large zoning district is more
suspect than creating a new zoning district involving multiple parcels and owners.
The .94 acres the applicant has proposed for rezoning is within an area with a
considerable amount of Residential-Single Family 7 (RS-7) zoning. There are two
tracts across Gum Branch Road that are zoned Business-1 (B-1); however, they are
undeveloped, but have sewer allocation, unlike the subject parcel. When looking at
Attachment E, the predominant zoning in 1/8th mile is residential.
B. Compatibility with an existing comprehensive plan- An action that is
inconsistent with the plan may indicate special treatment that is contrary to the
public interest.
The subject parcel is identified as “Low Density Residential” in the Growth
Management Plan and draft CAMA Land Use Plan Update. LDR primarily singlefamily detached residential development with home occupations, schools, churches
and other non-profit organizations, with 1-5 dwelling units per acre, average 20,000
square feet lot size.
Staff has reviewed both the Growth Management Plan and draft CAMA Land Use
Plan Update and has determined that the proposed zoning would be inconsistent
and incompatible with the existing comprehensive plans.
C. The impact of the zoning decision on the landowner, the immediate
neighbors, and the surrounding community. An action that is of great benefit
to the owner and only a mild inconvenience for the neighbors may be reasonable,
while a zoning decision that significantly harms the neighbors while only modestly
benefiting the owner would be unreasonable.
Attachments C and D show the contrast between RS-7 and the proposed B-1 zoning.
The intensity and allowances made under B-1 would impact the adjacent properties
and overall neighborhood significant in terms of traffic count, pedestrian flow, and
typical activities associated with moderate commercial. The property is bordered by
residential zonings (RS-7) to the east, west, and north.
D. The relationship between the newly allowed uses and the previously
allowed uses. The greater the difference in allowed use, the more likely the
rezoning will be found unreasonable.
Sections 32 (RS-7) and 73 (B-1) of the Zoning Ordinance can be found in
Attachments C and D. The RS-7 zoning district is a much more restrictive zoning
designation when compared to the B-1 zoning district. The RS-7 district allows
single family residential development and limited home occupations while the B-1
district is the City’s standard commercial district.
Options
A. Approve the rezoning as requested
Pros: Fixes a nonconforming use, allowing the property owner to develop or
redevelop on the market drives the need.
Cons: Encourages rezoning as a mechanism to fix nonconforming uses in areas
where current growth plans have designated a differing growth pattern then
commercial uses.
B. Deny the Rezoning Request (RECOMMENDED):
Pros: Keeps the zoning consistent with existing growth management and land
use plans, allows the property owner to continue the existing uses as
nonconforming, while encouraging any change of use to be residential
Cons: Keeps the property owner from redeveloping or expanding the current site
and its uses.
C. Defer Consideration of the Rezoning Request:
Pros: Would allow the property owner, staff and the residents to try and work
out any concerns that may be provided by the Planning Board.
Cons: None.
*Any rezoning application, other than those initiated by Council or City Staff, which is
denied by City Council may not be resubmitted within 12 months of the City Council
decision unless the application is determined to be substantially changed under the
procedures set forth in Section 136 of the City of Jacksonville Zoning Ordinance.
Legal Descriptions of Proposed Rezoning Boundaries
Ralph Pollmiller
Tract on Gum Branch Road, NCSR 1308
Jacksonville Township, Onslow County, NC
A certain tract of land on the Northeast side of Gum Branch Road, NCSR 1308, 80’ Right-of-Way,
near the intersection of Raintree Road, NCSR 1920, and being more particularly described as
follows:
Commencing at a PK nail found at the centerline intersection of Gum Branch Road and the
entrance lane for Raintree Road; thence South 88 degrees 22 minutes 41 seconds East, 45.19 feet
to an iron stake found on the Northeastern Right-of-Way Line of Gum Branch Road, said iron
having NC Grid NAD ’83, 2007 adjustment coordinates of North = 391,007.96, East =
2,464,247.42, the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE from said point of beginning and with said
Right-of-Way Line, North 26 degrees 00 minutes 28 seconds West, 25.84 feet to a point; thence
along the arc of a curve having a radius of 5769.58 feet and curving to the left, 122.18 feet (chord
North 26 degrees 27 minutes 49 seconds West, 122.18 feet) to an iron stake found, said iron stake
having NC Grid Coordinates of N = 391,140.56, East = 2,464,181.65; thence leaving said Right-ofWay Line and with the Oak Ridge Subdivision as recorded in Map Book 9, Page 20, North 64
degrees 01 minutes 21 seconds East, 330.44 feet to an iron pipe found; thence South 29 degrees
08 minutes 26 seconds East, 101.07 feet to an iron pipe found; thence leaving Oak Ridge
Subdivision, South 56 degrees 01 minutes 10 seconds West, 338.26 feet to the point and place of
beginning.
The described tract contains 0.94 acres, more or less and being that property as recorded in Deed
Book 421, Page 404.
All courses are referenced to NC Grid NAD ’83, 2007 adjustment.
description being prepared by Parker & Associates, Inc. from a survey in August, 2009.
______________________________
Edwin N. Foley, P.L.S., L-2884
ENF/avk
This
WORKSHEET FOR REZONING REQUESTS
Applicant: Parker and Associates, Inc.
Property Location: 4240 Gum Branch Road, across from Raintree Subdivision
Tax Map and Parcel ID: 328-27
Existing zoning designation: Residential Single Family-7 (RS-7)
Proposed zoning designation: Business-1 (B-1)
REASONABLENESS FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Size of the tractThe overall size of the tract of land proposed for rezoning is
reasonable when compared to the size of the zoning district in which
the subject property is located.
Yes
No
B. Compatibility with a comprehensive planThe proposed rezoning is consistent with any comprehensive plan,
small area plan or elements thereof.
Yes
No
C. ImpactThe impact to the adjacent property owners and the surrounding
community is reasonable, and the benefits of the rezoning outweigh
any potential inconvenience or harm to the community.
Yes
No
D. Comparison of usesThe allowed uses within the proposed zoning district are similar or
comparable to uses permitted as currently zoned.
Yes
No
GRANTING THE REZONING REQUEST
Motion to grant the rezoning upon finding that the rezoning is reasonable considering one or more
of the above findings of fact A-D being found in the affirmative and that the rezoning advances the
public interest.
DENYING THE REZONING REQUEST
Motion to deny the rezoning upon finding that the proposed rezoning does not advance the public
interest and is unreasonable due to the following:
__
__
__
__
A. The size of the tract
B. Incompatibility with the comprehensive plan
C. Impact to surrounding community and immediate neighbors
D. Proposed uses are dissimilar to those currently permitted
Attachment
A
ORDINANCE (2009-)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Jacksonville, North Carolina, that the
Official Zoning Map for the City of Jacksonville and its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, an element
of the City of Jacksonville Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended to reflect the rezoning of
the subject parcels to Business-1 (B-1) as shown on the map below (tax map parcel ID
numbers 328-27) and as described in the attached legal description:
This ordinance shall be in full force and effective upon its adoption. Adopted by the
Jacksonville City Council in regular session on this 4th day of November 2009.
Sammy Phillips, Mayor
ATTEST:
Carmen K. Miracle, City Clerk
Attachment
B
Section 73. Business 1 (B-1) Zone
The Business 1 Zone is established to accommodate businesses with a larger variety of services
than those found in Neighborhood Business. It is intended to include such businesses that would
be oriented to a shopping center or mall. This zone was intended for other uses such as
newspaper offices, automotive repair garages, and similar establishments with a heavier
concentration of business, still requiring off-street parking.
A.
Height regulations. In the Business l Zone every building erected or structurally altered
to exceed 50 feet in height, shall, above such height, be set back from the front lot line on
the ratio of l foot for each 2 foot rise over 50 feet in height.
B.
Area regulations.
l.
Buildings erected in Business Zone l for dwelling purposes exclusively shall
comply with the side yard requirements of the RM-5 Residential Multi-Family
Zone. Multiple dwellings or apartments shall comply with requirements of the
Office and Institutional Zone. (Multiple family dwellings in accordance with the
setback requirements of the RM-5 Residential Multi-Family Zone. There shall be
no limit to the amount of units or number of buildings that may be placed on l lot
except that there must be at least 1½ automobile parking spaces, not to be located
within the setback requirements, provided for each living unit.)
(Amended 2/3/98)
All lots shall comply with the applicable Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Standards, as amended, in accordance with the State Guidelines for AECs (15
NCAC 7H) pursuant to the C.A.M.A. of 1974.
(Amended 10/2/79)
C.
2.
Where a building is erected for mixed use, namely, for both dwelling and business
purposes, each story of such building used in any part for dwelling purposes, shall,
if more than 2 rooms in depth, be provided with 2 side yards, l on each side of the
building, neither of which shall be less than 6 feet in width; provided, however,
that this regulation shall not apply to the street side of a corner lot.
3.
Where a lot abuts upon the side of a lot zoned residential there shall be a side yard
of not less than 6 feet in width.
Right-of-way Setback Requirements
1.
(Amended 11/6/96)
Right-of-way Setback: Buildings shall be set back at least 50 feet from the rightof-way of all major or minor thoroughfares, as depicted on the amended City of
Jacksonville Thoroughfare Plan. When fronting on any other private or public
roads, buildings shall be setback at least 35 feet from the right-of-way. An
existing building that intrudes into the required setback may expand, but no
additional
73- 1
Printed 10/5/09
Attachment
C
construction shall be placed in any required setback unless the site qualifies under
Limited Setback Exceptions below, and all other provisions of this ordinance shall
be observed.
D.
2.
Limited Setback Exceptions: In situations where a non-residential building site
is located within 250 feet of a pre-existing primary use structure that is fronting on
the same right-of-way boundary, where such pre-existing structure has legally
been established within the setback area stipulated in paragraph (1) above, new
construction on said building site may locate closer to the right-of-way boundary
than the required setback distances identified in paragraph (1), provided that: 1)
the new construction be no closer to the right-of-way boundary than the identified
adjacent structure located within 250 feet of the subject building site, and that 2)
in no case shall any new construction on any lot be located closer than 25 feet
from the right-of-way boundary except for 3) the Bell Fork Road corridor between
US Highway 17 and NC 24 which in no case shall any new construction on any
lot be located closer than 5 feet from the right-of-way or future right-of-way
boundary.
(Amended 9/3/02)
3.
Corner lots: Buildings constructed on corner lots shall setback no
less than 35 feet from its non-frontage lot line abutting any public
or private road that is not a major or minor thoroughfare.
4.
Double frontage lots: No buildings, including accessory structures, constructed
on a double frontage lot, shall be permitted within 35 feet of its rear lot line.
5.
Signage and parking: Parking spaces and the installation of permitted signs shall
be allowed in the required setback of all lots, however, no portion of any parking
space or sign shall be allowed within 5 feet of the right-of-way. This 5foot space
shall be maintained as a planting strip for shrubbery and other similar landscaping
vegetation, with the exception of an approved driveway(s) servicing the property.
Driveway Limitations
l.
Two driveways entering the same street from a single lot shall be permitted only if
the minimum distance between the closest edges of the driveways equals or
exceeds 50 feet.
2.
Three driveways entering the same street from a single lot shall be permitted only
if the minimum distance between the closest edges of the driveways equals or
exceeds 150 feet.
73- 2
Printed 10/5/09
E.
3.
Four or more driveways entering the same street from a single lot shall be
prohibited.
4.
In no case may the total width of all driveways exceed 50% of the total property
frontage.
5.
No driveway (nearest edge) shall be located within 10 feet of a side lot property
line except in the case of a shared driveway (single curb cut/access point) utilized
by two or more lots.
6.
No driveway (nearest edge) shall be located within 50 feet of an intersection
except in the case where no other lot access to a public street or City approved
private road is available.
(Amended 9/8/87)
Permitted Uses:
Accessory uses
Adult Establishments*
Alcoholic beverage, package and retail sales
Animal hospitals
Apartments
Assembly halls and coliseums
Art galleries
Automobile sales lots, new and used
Bakery, retail
Banks
Beauty schools
Boarding houses
Broadcast Communication Towers
Builders supply and equipment sales
Bulletin boards, public, non-commercial
Bus terminals
Churches
Clinics
Clubs, lodges and other civic organizations, operating on a non-profit basis
Colleges or universities
Day care centers and nurseries
Department and variety stores
Drive-in or outdoor picture show
73- 3
Printed 10/5/09
Dry cleaning and laundry facilities
Dwellings, multiple
Dwellings, single
Family Care Homes
(Amended 7/17/07)
Family Childcare Homes
(Amended 3/16/04)
Florist
Funeral homes and mortuaries
Garages, automotive repair
Garages, private
Governmental uses and operations such as sewerage lift stations, water wells, fire
stations, maintenance and operations facilities, and similar governmental facilities
Greenhouses or horticultural gardens, commercial
Greenhouses or horticultural gardens, non-commercial
Group Homes
(Amended 7/17/07)
Heavy equipment sales and service
Highrise apartments
Home occupation
Hospitals
Hotels and motels
Institutions, charitable
Library, public
Lumberyard, retail sales
Machine shops
Meat processing and packing, other than slaughter
Mobile home sales and service
Museums, public
Newspaper offices
News stands
Non-Broadcast Communication Towers
Nurseries, non-commercial
Nursing homes
Offices - business, professional, and public
Parking garages, private
Parking garages, public
Parking lot, private
Parking lot, public
Parking or storage of commercial vehicles
Parking or storage of construction vehicles and equipment
73- 4
Printed 10/5/09
Parks and playgrounds, private
Parks and playgrounds, public
Pet shops
Pets, not objectionable because of odor, noise or health hazard
Pharmacy
Photographic studios and camera supply
Poultry, non-commercial
Printing and reproducing
Public utilities substations, storage and service yards
Recreation centers
Recycling collection points
Rest homes
Restaurants
Retail establishments such as hardware, appliance, notions, jewelry, music, art, antique,
gift, sporting goods, hobby, etc.
Rubber plant, tire recapping
Schools, private, with same curriculum as public schools
Schools, public
Service shops, such as beauty, barber, shoe repair, radio repair, etc.
Service stations
Sign or outdoor advertising structures5
Storage yard for building materials
Studios for artists, designers, photographers, and other similar activities
Tailor, dressmaking and millinery shops
Taxi cab office or stand
Theaters, indoor
Vegetable gardens, non-commercial
F. Special Uses1
Any use or combination of uses which involves a building or combination of buildings
that equals or exceeds 25,000 square feet on any lot or combination of lots under single
ownership, use or management.
(Amended 4/13/99)
Homeless shelter/missions
Nightclubs/dance halls/discotheques
73- 5
Printed 10/5/09
Public/Private Communication Towers
Taverns/bars
Temporary refreshment stands
Warehouses, personal storage
* All adult establishments shall meet the requirements of Section 107. Regulation of Adult
Establishments.
1
Special Uses (see details in zone text)
5
See size requirements
Sections 74-75. Reserved
73- 6
Printed 10/5/09
Section 32. Residential Single Family 7 (RS-7) Zone
The Residential Single Family 7 (RS-7) zoning classification is intended for older residential
subdivisions that were established prior to the 1940s and new neighborhoods that may be
modeled from these older subdivisions. These neighborhoods are characterized by single family
residences on smaller lots that are not normally found in the newer subdivisions of Jacksonville.
The purpose of this district is to increase buildable area while retaining the traditional character
of the neighborhood. In keeping with the original residential traits of the neighborhood, mobile
homes and mobile home parks are not permitted uses in this zone.
A.
Minimum Lot Size
All lots in the RS-7 zone shall be a minimum of 7,000 square feet.
B.
C.
Residential Density
1.
All lots in the RS-7 Zone shall be limited to one single family dwelling unit per
lot.
2.
All lots shall not exceed a lot coverage requirement of 50 percent.
Minimum Lot Width
All lots in the RS-7 Zone shall have a minimum lot width of 50 feet at the minimum
building line.
D.
Building Setback Requirements
Subject to the provisions of the section on Residential Zones - General Provisions and
this section, no portion of any building shall be located on any lot closer to any lot line
than is authorized in the tables set forth in this section.
Interior Lots:
Zone
Front Setback
Rear Setback
Side Setback
Lot Coverage
RS-7
25 ft
15 ft
7 ft
50 %
Corner Lots:
Zone
Designated Front
(Right of Way)
Setback
Designated Side
(Right of Way)
Setback
Side
Setback
Rear
Setback
Lot
Coverage
RS-7
25 ft
15 ft
7 ft
7 ft
50%
Attachment
D
Section 32. Residential Single Family 7 (RS-7) Zone
Double Frontage Lots:
E.
Zone
Designated Front
(Right of Way)
Setback
Designated Rear
(Right of Way)
Setback
Side
Setback
Lot
Coverage
RS-7
25 ft
15 ft
7 ft
50%
Accessory Building Setback Requirements
All accessory buildings must comply with the lot setback requirements set forth in
subsection D of this section with the exception of the side and rear setbacks which shall
be a minimum of 5 feet.
F.
Building Height Limitations
1. Building height in the RS-7 zone shall be limited to 35 feet.
2. Features exempt from the height limitations can be found in Section 16.
(Amended 10/2/01)
G.
Permitted Uses:
Community Docking Facility (Minor)
(Amended 6/5/07)
Family Care Homes
(Amended 7/17/07)
Family Childcare Homes
(Amended 3/16/04)
Home occupations
Non-Broadcast Communication Towers
Parks, playgrounds, public & private
Temporary Real Estate/Construction Offices
(Amended 12/03/2002)
Residence, Single-Family Detached, One dwelling unit per lot (excluding
mobile/manufactured homes)
H.
Special Uses
(The following uses require the approval of the Planning Board and the City Council
before they can be granted)
Broadcast Communication Towers
Churches
Clubs, lodges, other civic organizations, operation on a non-profit basis
Community Docking Facility (Major)
(Amended 6/5/07)
Day care centers, nurseries (as accessory uses to churches only)
Governmental uses
Libraries, public
Public/Private Communication Towers
Recreation centers, public
Schools, public
Schools, private, with the same curriculum as public
:
Section 33. Reserved
32-2
Printed 10/5/09
Zoning Amendment Request
U
S
R
D
N A LN
VACANT &
RESIDENTIAL
RA-20
M
SINGLE FAMILY
RS-7
CH
OA K
AN
DR
BR
E
C
LS
D
LR
GU
S
M
UM
IL
RS
O
HO
N
HOS AN
VE
RD
RA-20
JU
T
PI
ER
TR
L
Camp Lejeune
VACANT
B-1
RA
R
IN T
RD
EE
PROJECT SITE
RS-7
B
O
RO
O
SINGLE FAMILY
RS-7
BA
CR
RESIDENTIAL
TCA
R
HI
E
Parcels
Water Features
Zoning TV Colors
CT
Zones
IND
CU-B
B-1
CU-B-1
B-2
CU-B-2
VACANT
B-1
W
OD
KS
Centerlines
O&I
CU-O&I
TCA
RA-20
CU-TCA
CBD
OMU
NB
E S T CT
CU-NB
R-O
RA-20
CU-RA-20
RS-12
YB
RS-10
ER
RY C
T
R-7
RS-7
RA-20
RS-6
RM-6
RS-5
RM-5
µ
CU-RM5
0 100 200
Feet
RD-5
RD-3
CU-RD-3
MR
E
Attachment
Rezoning Map
U
S
R
D
N A LN
VACANT &
RESIDENTIAL
RA-20
M
SINGLE FAMILY
RS-7
CH
OA K
AN
DR
BR
E
C
LS
D
LR
GU
S
M
UM
IL
RS
O
HO
N
HOS AN
VE
RD
RA-20
JU
T
PI
ER
TR
L
Camp Lejeune
RA
R
IN T
RD
EE
RESIDENTIAL
TCA
B-1
VACANT
B-1
B
O
RO
O
SINGLE FAMILY
RS-7
BA
CR
KS
R
HI
E
Parcels
Water Features
Zoning TV Colors
CT
Zones
IND
CU-B
B-1
CU-B-1
B-2
CU-B-2
VACANT
B-1
W
OD
Centerlines
O&I
CU-O&I
TCA
RA-20
CU-TCA
CBD
OMU
NB
E S T CT
CU-NB
R-O
RA-20
CU-RA-20
RS-12
YB
RS-10
ER
RY C
T
R-7
RS-7
RA-20
RS-6
RM-6
RS-5
RM-5
µ
CU-RM5
0 100 200
Feet
RD-5
RD-3
CU-RD-3
MR
G
Attachment
Agenda
Item:
Date: 10/12/2009
3
Subject: Major Site Plan Modification – The Village at the Glen, Section I –
Carolina Forest Subdivision
Issue Statement
Carolina Forest Developers, LLC has submitted a major Site Plan modification to the
previously approved, 167,701 square foot, 142 unit townhouse development, adjacent
to Ramsey Road. The developer is requesting the ability to change some of the
original, proposed two-story units to three-story units, if there is a market for them.
In accordance with Section 112, L, b, 2, this requires a major Site Plan Modification.
The proposed development is located within the City limits and as proposed will impact
the City’s Sewer Allocation Policy.
Financial Impact
None
Action Needed
Recommendation of the Major Site Plan Modification
Recommendation
City staff recommends the Planning Board move to recommend approval of the site
plan modification.
Attachments:
A
B
C
Zoning and Land Use Map
Site Plan (sheet 1 of 2)
Staff Report
Agenda
Item:
3
Major Site Plan Modification – The Village at the Glen, Section I – Carolina Forest
Subdivision
Introduction
Carolina Forest Developers, LLC has submitted a major Site Plan modification. The original
request was for a 167,701 square foot, 142 unit townhouse development was approved for
a 16.39 acre parcel adjacent to Ramsey Road. The developer has requested the ability to
change some of the original, proposed two-story units to three-story units, if there is a
market for them. In accordance with Section 112, L, b, 2 which states any increase in the
number stories requires a major Site Plan Modification.
The property is zoned Townhouses, Condominiums and Apartments (TCA) and within this
zoning district townhomes are a permitted use.
Staff is recommending conditional approval of the Preliminary and General Plan and Special
Use Permit and Site Plan.
Procedural History
On February 17, 2009 City Council approved the Special Use Permit and Site Plan for
Villages at the Glenn, Section I.
On September 8, 2009 Parker and Associates, Inc. submitted a site plan modification
that the noted the addition of three story units.
October 12, 2009 the Planning Board will consider the modification.
On November 4, 2009 City Council will consider this request.
Stakeholders
Carolina Forest Developers, LLC – Owner/Applicant
Parker and Associations, Inc. – Applicant’s Surveyor/Land Planner
Adjacent Property Owners
Zoning Assessment
The property is located within the City limits and zoned Townhouses, Condominiums and
Apartments (TCA). It is bordered to the north across Ramsey Road by a transfer (refuse)
collection center, zoned Residential Agricultural 20 (RA 20); to the east by undeveloped
land (next phase of this development), zoned Townhouses, Condominiums and Apartments
(TCA); to the east by future single family homes (Ivy Glen at Carolina Forest), zoned
Residential Single family 7 (RS-7); and to the south by townhouses, zoned Townhouses,
Condominiums and Apartments (TCA).
City Council approved the Carolina Forest Master Plan on April 16, 2002. The approved
master plan identified this area as being developed as proposed.
Sewer Flow Allocation Assessment
The plans have identified water and sewer main extensions; therefore, this development
will require sewer allocation.
Long Range Plan Assessment
The subject parcel is identified as “High Density Residential” in the Growth Management
Plan and the current draft CAMA Land Use Plan Update. The Growth Management Plan
describes High Density Residential (HDR) as those consisting of high density residential
structures with average lot sizes of 2,500 square feet, as well as, mixed use structures with
commercial or service establishments on the lower floors. The HDR Future Land Use
designation is most appropriate when located adjacent to Regional Commercial centers or
when used as a buffer between commercial and less dense residential uses.
Parking Assessment
This 142 unit townhouse development requires 2 parking spaces per unit or 284 spaces.
The applicant is then eligible for a 48 space (20%) reduction; however, one is not being
proposed.
Options
A. Approve the Major Site Plan Modifications with original conditions.
(RECOMMENDED)
Pros: Adds flexibility for the developer to construct three story units if the
market warrants that type of unit.
Cons: None
Conditions (originally approved):
1. Correct “natural” buffer note (prior to the submission of a final plat or building
permits);
2. The minimum of double check valve assembly’s located in above ground hot boxes are
required. If the systems are to be pumped than RPZ’s located in above ground hot
boxes will be required. Show the proposed locations of these devices (prior to the
submission of a final plat or building permits);
3. Relocate “End of City Maintenance” sign on Glenhaven (prior to the submission of a
final plat or building permits);
4. Add a driveway onto Ramsey Road as part of the next phase of The Village at the
Glen; and
5. The developer change the impeller at the existing lift station should staff determine
necessary.
B. Deny the Major Site Plan modification request.
Pros: None
Cons: Limit a potential development from maximizing the use of proposed units.
C. Defer Consideration of the request.
Pros: Deferral would allow staff to research any issues the Board would have
Cons: Lengthens the time line for the developer process.
Village at the Glen, Section I and Section II
K
EE
Undeveloped
LN
CARO
LI N
IEL
D
D
R
Proposed
City
Park
O&I
Carolina Forest
O&I
BLVD
EST
OR
AF
ED G E F
HD
R
OO
SAVANNA
WY N B R
ST
CYP RE SS BAY D R
AG
TER R
Proposed
Single Family
Dwellings
Y
EC
LE
Camp Lejeune
Centerlines
Parcels
RAM
Project
Site
TCA
SEY
Water Features
RD
Zoning TV Colors
Zones
IND
CU-B
B-1
CU-B-1
B-2
CU-B-2
O&I
CU-O&I
Undeveloped
RA-20
TCA
CU-TCA
CBD
OMU
NB
Townhouses
TCA
E
CU-NB
R-O
RA-20
CU-RA-20
RS-12
RS-10
A
RS-7
RS-6
RM-6
DR
DR
ER
CH
R-7
NI
OA
L
Undeveloped
O&I / TCA
Transfer
Station
RA-20
RS-5
µ
RM-5
CU-RM5
0
0.05
0.1
Miles
RD-5
RD-3
CU-RD-3
MR
Exhibit
B
Agenda
Item:
Date: 10/12/2009
4
Subject: Major Site Plan Modification – The Village at the Glen, Section II –
Carolina Forest
Department: Development Services, Planning Division
Issue Statement
Carolina Forest Developers, LLC has submitted a major Site Plan modification to the
previously approved, 174,541 square foot, 148 unit townhouse development, adjacent
to Ramsey Road. The developer is requesting the ability to change some of the
original, proposed two-story units to three-story units, if there is a market for them.
In accordance with Section 112, L, b, 2, this requires a major Site Plan Modification.
The proposed development is located within the City limits and as proposed will impact
the City’s Sewer Allocation Policy.
Financial Impact
None
Action Needed
Recommendation of the Special Use Permit and Site Plan Modification
Recommendation
City staff recommends the Planning Board recommend to approved the special use
permit and site plan modification based on findings of fact A through G being found in
the affirmative.
Attachments:
A
B
C
Staff Report
Agenda
Item:
4
Major Site Plan Modification – The Village at the Glen, Section II – Carolina Forest
Subdivision
Introduction
Carolina Forest Developers, LLC has submitted a major Site Plan modification. The original
request was for 174,541 square foot, 148 unit townhouse development would be located
on a 14.18 acre parcel adjacent to Ramsey Road. The developer has requested the ability
to change some of the original, proposed two-story units to three-story units, if there is a
market for them. In accordance with Section 112, L, b, 2 which states any increase in the
number stories requires a major Site Plan Modification.
The property is zoned Townhouses, Condominiums and Apartments (TCA) and within this
zoning district townhomes are a permitted use.
Staff is recommending conditional approval of the Preliminary and General Plan and Special
Use Permit and Site Plan.
Procedural History
On July 7, 2009 City Council approved the Special Use Permit and Site Plan for Villages
at the Glenn, Section II.
On September 8, 2009 Parker and Associates, Inc. submitted a site plan modification
that the noted the addition of three story units.
October 12, 2009 the October 12, 2009 the Planning Board will consider this
modification.
On November 4, 2009 City Council consider this request.
Stakeholders
Carolina Forest Developers, LLC – Owner/Applicant
Parker and Associates – Applicant’s Surveyor/Land Planner
Adjacent Property Owners
Zoning Assessment
The property is located within the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) and zoned
Townhouses, Condominiums and Apartments (TCA). It is bordered to the north across
Ramsey Road by a transfer (refuse) collection center, zoned Residential Agricultural 20 (RA
20); to the east by undeveloped property (future Henderson Drive Extension), zoned
Townhouses, Condominiums and Apartments (TCA); to the east by proposed townhouses
(Village at the Glen at Carolina Forest), zoned townhouses, zoned Townhouses,
Condominiums and Apartments (TCA); and to the south by townhouses, zoned
Townhouses, Condominiums and Apartments (TCA).
City Council approved the Carolina Forest Master Plan on April 16, 2002. The approved
master plan identified this area as being developed as proposed.
The plans have identified water and sewer main extensions; therefore, this development
will require sewer allocation.
Long Range Plan Assessment
The subject parcel is identified as “High Density Residential” in the Growth Management
Plan and the current draft CAMA Land Use Plan Update. The Growth Management Plan
describes High Density Residential (HDR) as those consisting of high density residential
structures with average lot sizes of 2,500 square feet, as well as, mixed use structures with
commercial or service establishments on the lower floors. The HDR Future Land Use
designation is most appropriate when located adjacent to Regional Commercial centers or
when used as a buffer between commercial and less dense residential uses.
Parking Assessment
This 148 unit townhouse development requires 2 parking spaces per unit or 296 spaces.
The applicant is then eligible for a 59 space (20%) reduction; however, one is not being
proposed.
Options
A. Approve the Special Use Permit, Preliminary, General and Site Plans with conditions.
(RECOMMENDED)
Pros: Allows the process to move forward and adds flexibility to an approved
development.
Cons: Would not allow City Council to review and make a decision
Conditions (originally approved):
1. Indicate traffic patterns and the 20 foot perimeter buffer along Ramsey Road
(preliminary and general plan and on the site plan);
2. Provide proposed restrictive covenants (preliminary and general plan and on the
site plan);
3. Locations of exterior lighting should not conflict with required trees (site plan);
4. Annexation should occur prior to the issuance of sewer flow allocation, building
permits or final plat submittal (preliminary and general plan and on the site plan);
5. Reduce fire hydrant spacing to 250 feet (preliminary and general plan and on the
site plan);
6. Any other comments the Jacksonville Fire Department may deem required; and
7. Provide a right in-right out island in accordance with NCDOT standards and any
other improvements deemed necessary by NCDOT (preliminary and general plan
and on the site plan).
B. Deny the Major Site Plan modification request.
Pros: None
Cons: Limit a potential development from maximizing the use of proposed units.
Pros: Deferral would allow staff to research any issues the Board would have
Cons: Lengthens the time line for the developer process.
Village at the Glen, Section I and Section II
K
EE
Undeveloped
LN
CARO
LI N
IEL
D
D
R
Proposed
City
Park
O&I
Carolina Forest
O&I
BLVD
EST
OR
AF
ED G E F
HD
R
OO
SAVANNA
WY N B R
ST
CYP RE SS BAY D R
AG
TER R
Proposed
Single Family
Dwellings
Y
EC
LE
Camp Lejeune
Centerlines
Parcels
RAM
Project
Site
TCA
SEY
Water Features
RD
Zoning TV Colors
Zones
IND
CU-B
B-1
CU-B-1
B-2
CU-B-2
O&I
CU-O&I
Undeveloped
RA-20
TCA
CU-TCA
CBD
OMU
NB
Townhouses
TCA
E
CU-NB
R-O
RA-20
CU-RA-20
RS-12
RS-10
A
RS-7
RS-6
RM-6
DR
DR
ER
CH
R-7
NI
OA
L
Undeveloped
O&I / TCA
Transfer
Station
RA-20
RS-5
µ
RM-5
CU-RM5
0
0.05
0.1
Miles
RD-5
RD-3
CU-RD-3
MR
Exhibit
B
Agenda
Item:
Date: 10/12/2009
5
Subject: Preliminary Plan - Fieldstone At Haws Run, Section IV – Old Wilmington
Road and Wynstone Drive
Presented by: Paul Stockwell, Planner
Issue Statement
Eastern Properties, Inc. has submitted a preliminary plan application for a proposed 76
lot subdivision. The 87 acre site is located off of Old Wilmington Road and Wynstone
Drive.
This development is located within the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) and will
be served by individual septic systems; therefore, this subdivision will not be subject to
the sewer flow allocation.
City Staff has reviewed the preliminary plan and has determined that it meets all the
requirements for approval.
Financial Impact
None
Action Needed
Recommendation of the preliminary plan
Recommendation
City staff recommends the Planning Board move to approve the preliminary plan
conditioned upon the items identified within the staff report.
Attachments
A
Preliminary Plan
B
Zoning Map
Staff Report
Agenda
Item:
5
Preliminary Plan - Fieldstone At Haws Run, Section IV – Old Wilmington Road and
Wynstone Drive
Introduction
Eastern Properties, Inc. has submitted a preliminary plan application for a proposed 76 lot
subdivision. The 87 acre site is located off of Old Wilmington Road and Wynstone Drive.
This development is located within the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) and will be
served by individual septic systems; therefore, this subdivision will not be subject to the
sewer flow allocation.
Due to poor soil conditions, the previously approved subdivision has had to be redesigned
in order to accommodate septic systems for the proposed development.
Procedural History
On May 4, 2006 Jacksonville City Council approved the original preliminary plan for
the Fieldstone at Haws Run subdivision.
On December 19, 2006 Jacksonville City Council conditionally approved the General
Plan for Fieldstone at Haws Run.
On September 8, 2009 Parker and Associates submitted an application for
preliminary plan approval for Fieldstone at Haws Run, Section IV.
On October 12, 2009 Planning Board will review and make a recommendation on the
preliminary plan for Fieldstone at Haws Run, Section IV.
On November 4, 2009 City Council will consider the preliminary plan for Fieldstone
at Haws Run, Section IV.
Stakeholders
Parker & Associates – Applicant’s Surveyor/Engineer/ Land Planner
Eastern Properties, Inc. – Developer
Eastern Properties, Inc. and Dawson Cabin Properties, LLC – Property owner of site
Adjacent and nearby property owners
Zoning Assessment
The project is located within the City of Jacksonville’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) and
is zoned Residential Single Family 10 (RS-10). It is bordered to the north by Southwest
Creek and vacant/undeveloped parcels zoned Residential Agricultural 20 (RA-20); to the
east by vacant/undeveloped parcels zoned RS-10 and Residential Single Family 12 (RS-12);
to the south by three vacant/undeveloped parcels, a single-family dwelling and a utility
substation zoned Residential Multi-family 5 (RM-5), RS-10 and RA-20; and to the west
across Old Wilmington Road by several single-family dwellings within the County’s
jurisdiction zoned R-15 and a vacant/undeveloped parcel, zoned RA-20.
All lots will be served by individual septic systems; therefore, this subdivision will not
impact the City’s Sewer Flow Allocation.
Storm Water Assessment
All state stormwater regulations must be adhered to in the development of this subdivision.
As the City is now the permitting authority for the City’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction a
permit or modification will need to be obtained from either the City’s Stormwater Manager
or state permitting agency.
Transportation Assessment
The original plan approved in 2006 for the entire 185 lot subdivision exceeded the 1000
vehicle per day threshold requirement for a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). At that
time staff discussed the proposed subdivision with NCDOT and determined that instead of
requiring a TIA, a Signal Warrant Analysis should be required. As a result, the following
conditions were part of the previous approved General Plan and NCDOT driveway permit:
1) Construction of a right turn lane on Dawson Cabin Road. General dimensions to
be 150 foot full storage with a 200 foot taper. Improvement will be required
once 35 homes receive a certificate of occupancy.
2) Widen Old Wilmington Road (SR 1133) to separate the left and right existing
vehicle movements. Improvement will be required once 50 homes receive
certificates of occupancy.
3) Median crossover within US 17 at the Dawson Cabin Road intersection will be
modified to a “super street” design. The specific dimensions and design for the
“super street” will be determined by the NCDOT Area Traffic Engineer after a
field survey is conducted. The “super street” will be required once 75 homes
receive certificates of occupancy.
Options
Approve the Preliminary Plan as submitted by the applicant
Pros: The use of the property is consistent with future land use plans.
Cons: The conditions of the previously approved General Plan will not be
incorporated into this new approval.
Approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan with staff recommended conditions.
(RECOMMENDED)
Pros: The conditions of the previously approved General Plan will be incorporated
into this new approval.
Cons: None
Recommended Conditions:
1. Construction of a right turn lane on Dawson Cabin Road. General dimensions to
be 150 foot full storage with a 200 foot taper. Improvement will be required
once 35 homes in all sections or phases of Fieldstone at Haws Run receive a
certificate of occupancy.
2. Widen Old Wilmington Road (SR 1133) to separate the left and right existing
vehicle movements. Improvement will be required once 50 homes in all sections
or phases of Fieldstone at Haws Run receive certificates of occupancy.
3. Median crossover within US 17 at the Dawson Cabin Road intersection will be
modified to a “super street” design. The specific dimensions and design for the
“super street” will be determined by the NCDOT Area Traffic Engineer after a
field survey is conducted. The “super street” will be required once 75 homes in
all sections or phases of Fieldstone at Haws Run receive certificates of
occupancy.
Deny the request.
Pros: None
Cons: The proposed plan complies with all applicable City standards.
Defer Consideration of the request.
Pros: Deferral would allow staff and/or the developer more time to address any
comments or concerns that Planning Board may have.
Cons: Deferring would cause a delay for the applicant.
Fieldstone at Haws Run, Section IV
Vacant/ Undeveloped
Camp Lejeune
Site
Centerlines
DR
Water Features
Zoning TV Colors
Zones
IND
CU-B
B-1
CU-B-1
S/F Dwellings
B-2
CU-B-2
O&I
ST
ON
E
FI
C
R
K
E
E
Parcels
SW
EE
Vacant
TW
Vacant
ER
DR
Vacant
D AW S O N C
A B IN R D
TCA
CU-TCA
CBD
OMU
NB
CU-NB
R-O
RA-20
CU-RA-20
RS-12
HWY
AT
S/F Dwelling
Vacant
CU-O&I
W IL M IN G T O N
M
I
UR
LD
S/F Dwellings
EY
DR
MARS TON DR
RS-10
R-7
RS-7
RS-6
RM-6
RS-5
µ
RM-5
CU-RM5
0
0.125
0.25
Miles
RD-5
RD-3
CU-RD-3
MR
Exhibit
B
Agenda
Item:
Date: 10/12/2009
6
Subject: Special Use Permit and Site Plan – Country View Apartments – Drummer
Kellum Road
Department: Planning & Development Services
Presented by: Ryan King, Planning Administrator
Issue Statement
Elijah T. Morton has submitted an application for a special use permit and site plan for
an apartment development. The proposed 28 unit, 13,605 square foot apartment
complex would be constructed on a 5.27 acre parcel adjacent to Drummer Kellum
Road.
The proposed development is located within the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)
and will be served by offsite septic systems. Therefore, this development will not
impact be impacted by the City’s Sewer Flow Allocation Policy.
Financial Impact
None
Action Needed
Recommendation on the Special Use Permit and Site Plan
Recommendation
City staff recommends the Planning Board move to approve the special use permit and
site plan based on findings of fact A through G being found in the affirmative and
conditioned upon the items identified within the Staff Assessment.
Exhibits:
A
B
C
Conditional/Special Use Permit Worksheet
Special Use Permit and Site Plan (Sheet 1)
Staff Assessment
Agenda
Item:
6
Special Use Permit and Site Plan – Country View Apartments – Drummer Kellum Road
Introduction
Elijah T. Morton has submitted an application for a special use permit and site plan for an
apartment development. The proposed 28 unit, 13,605 square foot apartment complex
would be constructed on a 5.27 acre parcel adjacent to Drummer Kellum Road.
The property is zoned Residential Multi family 5 (RM-5) and within this zoning district all
lots that accommodate more than four dwelling units and/or apartments shall meet the
requirements for a Special Use Permit.
Procedural History
On September 8, 2009 the applicant made application for a Special Use Permit and
Site Plan approval.
On October 12, 2009 the Planning Board will provide a recommendation on the
Special Use Permit and Site Plan.
On November 4, 2009 City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider this
request.
Stakeholders
Elijah T. Morton – Owner/Applicant
Parker and Associates – Applicant’s Surveyor/Land Planner/Engineer
Adjacent property owners – All property owners within 200 feet of the proposed
development boundaries have been notified of the Planning Board meeting.
Family members of those buried in the existing cemetery at the rear of the property
– Living family members or friends wanting to access the existing cemetery (nonconforming) located at the rear of the property may be effected.
Zoning Assessment
The property is located within the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) and zoned
Residential Multi family 5 (RM-5). It is bordered to the north by a single family dwelling,
zoned RM-5 and undeveloped/agricultural land, zoned Residential Agricultural 20 (RA-20);
to the east by single family dwelling, zoned RM-5; to the south by a single family dwelling,
zoned RM-5; and to the east across Drummer Kellum Road by single family dwellings,
zoned RM-5.
The proposed development is located within the City Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) and
will be served by individual septic systems; therefore, the project will not impact the City’s
Sewer Allocation.
Parking Assessment
This 28 unit multi-family development requires 1 ½ spaces for each one-bedroom unit and
2 spaces for each unit with 2 or more bedrooms for a total of 42 parking spaces.
Open Space/Amenities
The proposed development identifies 2.63 acres of open space.
Public Hearing Notification
As a courtesy, staff has notified the adjacent property owners that the Jacksonville
Planning Board will be providing a recommendation on this development proposal. In
accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, all property owners within 200 feet of
the subject parcel will also be notified of the proposed public hearing conducted by City
Council. In addition, signs will be posted on site and legal ads published in the local
newspaper.
Options
A. Approve the Special Use Permit and Site Plan as presented.
Pros: None.
Cons: The proposed site plan does not meet all applicable City standards.
B. Approve the Special Use Permit and Site Plan with staff recommended conditions.
(RECOMMENDED)
Pros: Permits would be withheld until the outstanding items are adequately
addressed.
Cons: The Planning Board would not be afforded the opportunity to comment on
the revisions to the proposed plans.
Special Use Permit Conditions:
1. Maximum density not exceed 5 dwelling units per acre.
Site Plan Conditions:
1. Submit and record an exempt plat to increase the site area to bring the
density to 5 dwelling units per acre or less; and
2. Complete all the required site plan revisions listed below prior to the
issuance of any building permits.
a) Planning: 1) Adjust required sidewalk located adjacent to Drummer
Kellum Road; 2)Add curbing to protect landscaped island #9; 3)
Delete “optional” in front of note #18; and 4) adjust the boundary,
data block and other calculations associate with the recombination
plat (project area increase).
b) Inspection: 1) Building Data – correct “Sprinkler…No”; 2) Provide
crosswalk across traffic lanes at the dumpster end of the project to
provide access for buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 to the dumpster; 3)
On water and sewer plan, explain the rectangular boxes shown in
sewer lines;
c) Utilities: 1) Show water meter locations; 2) Master metering is in
contradiction with the City’s water conservation policies; 3)
Individual fire mains and apparatus are required for each individual
building.
d) Works: 1) Notify City’s stormwater section of the project; 2) Obtain
Erosion Control Permit form the state; and
e) Sanitation: 1) Provide at least 10’ 8” clear access to the dumpster
when doors are opened.
Pros: The plan does not meet all applicable City standards. Deferral would allow
the applicant time to address the outstanding items as well as any concerns the
Planning Board may have.
Cons: The outstanding site plan issues are minor and are already being
addressed. Would create a delay for the applicant.
D. Deny the Site Plan request.
Pros: The proposed site plan does not meet all applicable City standards.
Cons: Delays the applicant’s ability to proceed with development.
Merits of the Special Use Permit
Pursuant to Section 118, Special and Conditional Use Permits, of the Zoning Ordinance,
staff submits the following findings of fact:
a.
The proposed use is an acceptable use in the zoning district it is being located in;
Staff findings: The property is zoned Residential Multi family 5 (RM-5) and within
this zoning district apartments and lots that contain more than 4 dwelling units
require a special use permit.
b.
The application is complete;
Staff findings: The necessary applications, fees, special use permit and site plan
have been submitted in accordance with City policies and procedures.
c.
The location and character of the use will be in conformity with the City’s land use
plan and other comprehensive plan elements;
Staff findings:
The subject parcels are identified as “Low Density Residential” in
both the Growth Management Plan and the draft CAMA Land Use Plan Update. The
Low Density Residential designation provides for primarily single-family detached
residential developments with home occupations, schools, churches and other nonprofit organizations. Densities within these areas would be between 1-5 dwelling
units per acre, with average lot sizes of 20,000 sq. ft.
Staff has reviewed both the Growth Management Plan and draft CAMA Land Use
Plan Update and has determined that if a maximum density is just above the
recommended range of 1 – 5 dwelling units per acre and not single family dwellings.
If a maximum density is placed on the use permit and the applicant increase the
project site, the applicant could develop the property as proposed. Staff
recommends the site plan be approved conditioned upon the items listed below.
1. Submit and record an exempt plat to increase the site area to bring the
density to 5 dwelling units per acre or less.
d.
Streets, driveways, parking lots, traffic control and any other traffic circulation
features are designed and/or provided in accordance with current traffic engineering
standards and City regulations, and found to be appropriate for the conditional use;
Staff findings: City staff has determined that the site plan does not meet all
applicable standards. Staff recommends the site plan be approved conditioned upon
the items listed below.
1. Complete all the required site plan revisions listed below prior to the
issuance of any building permits.
a) Planning: 1) Adjust required sidewalk located adjacent to Drummer
Kellum Road; 2)Add curbing to protect landscaped island #9; and
Delete “optional” in front of note #18;
b) Inspection: 1) Building Data – correct “Sprinkler…No”; 2) Provide
crosswalk across traffic lanes at the dumpster end of the project to
provide access for buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 to the dumpster; 3)
On water and sewer plan, explain the rectangular boxes shown in
sewer lines;
c) Utilities: 1) Show water meter locations; 2) Master metering is in
contradiction with the City’s water conservation policies; 3)
Individual fire mains and apparatus are required for each individual
building.
d) Works: 1) Notify City’s stormwater section of the project; 2) Obtain
Erosion Control Permit form the state; and
e) Sanitation: 1) Provide at least 10’ 8” clear access to the dumpster
when doors are opened.
e.
The proposed special use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or
abutting properties;
Staff findings: The property is located within the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
(ETJ) and zoned Residential Multi family 5 (RM-5). It is bordered to the north by a
single family dwelling, zoned RM-5 and undeveloped/agricultural land, zoned
Residential Agricultural 20 (RA-20); to the east by single family dwelling, zoned RM5; to the south by a single family dwelling, zoned RM-5; and to the east across
Drummer Kellum Road by single family dwellings, zoned RM-5.
Staff has neither found nor been presented with any evidence that the proposed use
would substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting properties.
f.
The proposed special use will be compatible and in harmony with adjoining land
uses and the development pattern of the immediate area;
Staff findings: The property is located within the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
(ETJ) and zoned Residential Multi family 5 (RM-5). It is bordered to the north by a
single family dwelling, zoned RM-5 and undeveloped/agricultural land, zoned
Residential Agricultural 20 (RA-20); to the east by single family dwelling, zoned RM5; to the south by a single family dwelling, zoned RM-5; and to the east across
Drummer Kellum Road by single family dwellings, zoned RM-5.
Staff has neither found or been presented with any evidence that the proposed use
is not compatible and in harmony with adjoining land uses and the development
pattern of the immediate area.
g.
The proposed use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located
where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved;
Staff findings: Staff has not been presented with any evidence that the proposed
use would materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed.
WORKSHEET FOR SPECIAL/CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
Applicant: Elijah T. Morton
Location: Adjacent to Drummer Kellum Road (Tax Maps & ID# 344-7.8)
Proposed Use of Property: Apartments/dwellings, more than 4 units per lot
1.
FINDINGS OF FACT
a.
The application is complete
Yes
No
b.
The proposed use is an allowable Special/Conditional use in the
zoning district it is being located in
Yes
No
c.
The location and character of the use will be in conformity with
the City’s land use plan and other comprehensive plan elements
Yes
No
d.
Streets, driveways, parking lots, traffic control and other traffic
circulation features shall be designed and/or provided in
accordance with current traffic engineering standards and City
regulations, and found to be adequate for the proposed
Special/Conditional/conditional use
Yes
No
e.
The proposed Special/Conditional use will not substantially injure
the value of adjoining or abutting properties
Yes
No
f.
The proposed Special/Conditional use will be compatible and in
harmony with adjoining land uses and the development pattern
of the immediate area
Yes
No
Yes
No
g.
2.
The proposed use will not materially endanger the public health
or safety if located where proposed and developed according to
the plan as submitted and approved.
GRANTING THE SPECIAL/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Motion to grant the Special/Conditional use permit based on items (a) through (g)
found to be affirmative.
__ The Special/Conditional Use Permit is granted, subject to the following conditions:
1)
The applicant shall complete the development strictly in accordance with the
plans submitted to an approved by City Council.
2)
If any conditions affixed hereto or any part thereof shall be held invalid or
void, then this permit shall be void and of no effect:_______________
_________________________________________________________
3.
__
__
__
__
DENYING THE SPECIAL/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
motion to deny based on:
The Application is denied because, if completed as proposed, the development more
probably than not:____________________________________________________
Will not be in conformity with the City’s land use plan and other comprehensive plan
elements for the following reasons: ______________________________________
Will substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting properties for the
following reasons:_______________________________________
Will not be compatible and not be in harmony with adjoining land uses and the
development pattern of the immediate area for the following reasons:
Exhibit
_____________________________________________________________
A
Country View Apartments - Drummer Kellum Road
Undeveloped
or
Agricultural
SFD
Single
Family
Dwellings
R DR
SFD
Camp Lejeune
Project Site
Single
Family
Dwellings
Centerlines
parcel
U
DR UMM E R K E L L
J
EN
N
IF E
SFD
Parcels
Water Features
Single Family
Dwelling
Zoning TV Colors
Zones
IND
CU-B
Single
Family
Dwellings
Undeveloped
or
Agricultural
B-1
CU-B-1
B-2
CU-B-2
O&I
Undeveloped
or
Agricultural
CU-O&I
TCA
CU-TCA
CBD
OMU
NB
CU-NB
R-O
D
MR
RA-20
CU-RA-20
RS-12
RS-10
R-7
RS-7
RS-6
SFD = Single Family Dwelling
µ
RM-6
RS-5
RM-5
CU-RM5
0 0.02 0.04
Miles
RD-5
RD-3
CU-RD-3
MR
Exhibit
Agenda
Item:
Date: 10/12/2009
7
Subject: Zoning Text Amendment – Hotels/Motels as a Special Use in the O&I
Zoning District – James W. Donohue
Presented by: Jeremy Smith, Planner
Issue Statement
James W. Donohue submitted a request to rezone a parcel from Office and
Institutional (O&I) to Business-1 (B-1) in order to accommodate a proposed
hotel/motel. As a result of staff discussions, the applicant converted the rezoning
request to a zoning text amendment request. If approved, hotels/motels would be
added as a special use within the O&I Zoning District.
This proposal is consistent with the draft Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
prepared by Clarion Associates. In addition, the UDO Steering Committee concurs with
the draft UDO as it pertains to this request.
Financial Impact
None
Action Needed
Consideration of the Zoning Text Amendment
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning Board move to approve the zoning text amendment
found in Attachment A.
Attachments:
A
Proposed Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance
Staff Assessment
Agenda
Item:
7
Zoning Text Amendment – Hotels/Motels as a Special Use in O&I Zone – James W. Donohue
Procedural History
On James W. Donohue, the applicant submitted a request to rezone a parcel from
Office and Institutional (O&I) to Business-1 (B-1) in order to accommodate a
proposed hotel/motel. The rezoning request was withdrawn and converted to a
zoning text amendment request that would allow hotels/motels as a special use
within this zoning district. This is consistent with the draft Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) which has already been reviewed by the UDO Steering Committee.
On October 12, 2009 the Planning Board will provide a recommendation on the
proposed Zoning Text Amendment.
On November 4, 2009 City Council will conduct a public hearing and consider this
zoning text amendment.
Stakeholders
James W. Donohue - Applicant who requested the proposed Zoning Text Amendment.
Applicant believes these changes will be beneficial to the zoning district, adding
flexibility to the current use tables. Applicant also believes this is a needed use in the
O&I district to service various events that occur at the institutions within the district.
Participants in annual sport tournaments – Participants have found it difficult to find
rooms within Jacksonville during these events. This change would allow additional
areas to have the potential for a hotel development.
Military Families – Families currently have difficulties finding hotel rooms before and
after deployments.
Public Hearing Notification Assessment
“Before adopting, amending, or repealing any ordinance authorized by this Article, the City
Council shall hold a Public Hearing. A notice of the public hearing shall be given once a
week for two successive calendar weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the
area. The notice shall be published the first time not less than 10 days nor more than 25
days before the date fixed for the hearing.” Notifications in accordance with North Carolina
General Statutes will be followed.
Options:
1). Recommend approval of the zoning text amendment as proposed. (RECOMMENDED)
Pros: Allows greater flexibility in a transition zone where hotel or motel services
are required for the office and institutional uses needs. Hotels and motels have been
identified in the draft UDO as a special use in the Office and Institutional District.
Cons: None
2). Defer action on the zoning text amendment.
Pros: Would allow staff time to acquire additional background information as
requested by the Planning Board.
Cons: None
3). Deny the zoning text amendment
Pros: None
Cons: The O&I would continue to have little flexibility in regards to a transition zone
where hotel or motel services are required uses typically found in the O&I zones.
Hotels and motels have been identified in the draft UDO as a special use in the
Office and Institutional District.
ORDINANCE (# 2009- )
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Jacksonville City Council that Section 61, Office and Institutional
Zone of the City of Jacksonville Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows. Strikethrough
indicates the proposed deletion of text while underlining indicates a proposed addition to
the text:
Section 61, Office and Institutional (O&I) Zone
D.
Special Uses
Hotels/motels
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Jacksonville that the
Zoning Ordinance may be appropriately reorganized and/or renumbered in the order to set
the provisions of this text change in a logical and orderly fashion. All ordinances or parts of
ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effective upon its adoption. Adopted by the
Jacksonville City Council in regular session on this 4th day of November, 2009.
ATTEST:
________________________
Sammy Phillips, Mayor
______________________________
Carmen K. Miracle, City Clerk
Attachment
A

JACKSONVILLE PLANNING BOARD

Transcription

Similar documents

Creekside at Berkeley Hills

PLAN COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REPORT

VILLAGE BOARD STAFF REPORT REPORT TO

Get the pdf HERE.

May 22, 2014 - City of Steamboat Springs

MLK - Landcroc

Specialist Residential Risks

REAL PROPERTY TAX RATES IN HAWAII

multifamily development and investment

294 Pearl Road – Blue Apple Property