10-2010 October 7 2010 PBM
Page 1 of 9 Minutes New Hanover County Planning Board October 7, 2010 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, October 7, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the Historic
County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Richard Collier, Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director Troy Barboza
Jane Daughtridge, Planning & Zoning Manager Melissa Gott Sam Burgess, Subdivision Planner Andy Heath, Vice Chairman Nicole Dreibelbis, Planner Ken Wrangell Sharon Huffman, Assistant
County Attorney Absent: Tamara Murphy Tara Murphy (resigned) Richard Collier opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge
of Allegiance. Approval of the September Planning Board Meeting Minutes Ken Wrangell made a motion to approve the September 2, 2010 Planning Board meeting minutes. Andy Heath seconded
the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to approve the September 2, 2010 Planning Board meeting minutes. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-906, 10/10) – Request by Withers & Ravenel for Swartz
Properties to rezone 0.35 acres at 5946 Carolina Beach Road from R-15 Residential and B-2 Commercial District to B-2 Commercial District. The site is classified as Transition on the
2006 CAMA Land Classification Map. Nicole Dreibelbis provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning. Ms. Dreibelbis showed maps,
aerials, and photographs of the property and of the surrounding area. Ms. Dreibelbis stated the Island Appliance store is currently located on one of the parcels. The parcel requesting
rezoning is currently split zoning – R-15 Medium Density Residential and B-2 Highway Business. Zoning to the west of the property is a Conditional B-1 District, which provides a strip
center in the area and east is a current Highway Business District and medium density residential. A 2006 aerial was presented to illustrate the development at the current time. A bird’s
eye view view of the property illustrated the R-15 zoning district located on the property and the Island Appliance structure currently in the B-2 portion of the property, as well as
the Harris Teeter shopping center located in the Conditional district and the townhomes at Market Place.
Page 2 of 9 Ms. Dreibelbis presented a photo of the property as it currently exists, noting again there is split zoning on the property consisting of R-15 in the parking area, B-2 in
the appliance store, and a hint of the Conditional District behind the appliance store. She reported the 2007 level of service for Carolina Beach Road north of Sanders Road is F, meaning
traffic counts exceed the capacity of the roadway; however, it transitions south of Sanders Road in front of Island Appliance to E, meaning the roadway is operating at capacity. Jane
Daughtridge stated staff does believe the proposal is consistent with the Land Use Plan for this classification and is also reasonable to fill in the gap that was left R-15. She stated
staff was prepared to answer questions and the applicant was also present to answer questions. Cindee Wolf, of Withers & Ravenel, spoke on behalf of the applicant, Swartz Properties,
the owner of Island Appliance. She noted as shown on the old zoning maps, it was questionable how this strip was left out of the zoning, but best guess was that zoning was applied to
the intersection of Sanders Road and Carolina Beach Road, possibly 500’ in one direction. She explained this is more of a housekeeping type of request. She stated as pointed out by staff,
the particular zoning won’t change the trip generation whatsoever because the piece of land is already being used for the Island Appliance parking lot. There is no expansion of parking
or buildings as part of this rezoning. Ms. Wolf stated appreciation for the staff’s review and recommendation for approval of their proposal. No spoke in opposition to the rezoning request.
Chairman Collier closed the public hearing. Chairman Collier asked Ms. Wolf to confirm the Island Appliance store would remain in its current state. Ms. Wolf confirmed that she was unaware
of any plans to change the existing properties and explained the proposal was simply to correct a situation of the property being less than marketable with its current split zoning.
Andy Heath made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-906. Troy Barboza seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-906.
Item 2: Subdivision Text Amendments (A-387) – Request by the County’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) to amend Sections 20, 41-1, 52-4 of the County’s Subdivision Ordinance by incorporating
specific language, road profiles, and design standards for private streets. Sam Burgess explained that during the past year, a private road task force committee composed of several County
departments, NC Department of Transportation, Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization, and interested stakeholders had been working on a series of proposed guidelines that would
allow land planners, engineers, and surveyors flexibility in designing new
Page 3 of 9 site planning proposals that incorporate private streets. The intent on developing private street language provides a clear delineation between public and private streets,
maintenance responsibilities, reduction of impervious surface and also minimizes the elimination of significant trees through flexible geometric street standards. Mr. Burgess reported
the Task Force revised portions of Article II, Section 20 of the Subdivision Ordinance; which contains the definitions; made language adjustments in Article IV, Section 41-1, pertaining
to specific requirements; prepared a re-write of Article V, Section 52-4, pertaining to streets, which includes both public and private streets in terms of their standards; and also
revised Article VII: Appendices & Certificates, which includes the various certificates such as ownership, water & sewer disclaimers, etc., by adding a proposed matrix table for private
road design standards, a private street cross section, a private street cul-de-sac, and a private street turnaround. Mr. Burgess explained that revising portions of Section 20 of the
Definitions essentially revolved around bringing up to date the street or road terminology that dated back to the 1970’s and 1980’s to the 21st century language. A lot of the road definitions
would encompass for example the definition of a local street, an arterial, a cul-de-sac, a collector road, as well as a definition for a plaza area, along with stub-outs. A lot of the
definitions essentially revolve around the AASMTO Manual on which we lean quite a bit. He explained that manual was created by the American Association of State Municipal and Transportation
Officials. Mr. Burgess stated it was brought to his attention a week ago that some suggestions had been made to the street definitions. The suggested items were included in an email
sent to the board. One of those items was the revised definition of a double or reverse frontage lot. He reported staff had reviewed the proposed definition and did not have any issues
with modifying the language to reflect a continuous interior lot with frontage on two parallel or approximately parallel streets other than alleys. He noted again that information was
not included in the original package sent to the Planning Board. Mr. Burgess also pointed out the updated street definitions shown in red and the correction of two typographical errors
on the last page of the road definitions. Mr. Burgess reported under Section 41 Specific Requirements, there were only two word changes, which revolve around private streets designated
on new site plans. He stated, as noted in the board’s package, the word “local” was added as opposed to “minor” streets and under Section 41-1(7)(i) Public Street Projections, the word
“public” was added. Mr. Burgess noted that staff had opted for a complete re-write of Section 52-4 Streets of the subdivision regulations, adding a new section under Private Streets,
which includes several new elements which will need to be adhered to if successfully passed. Mr. Burgess pointed out that staff had received a suggestion from several local landscape
architects indicating that, in addition to a certified professional engineer, their profession (landscape architect) should be included in the list to certify that private streets are
constructed to minimum construction standards. They have recommended that the language under Private Streets (A) be changed to state “…and certified by a professional legally recognized
by a State of
Page 4 of 9 North Carolina licensing board as being licensed to perform such activities or undertakings”. He noted that recommendation may be worthy of discussion and commented that
no other changes had been made to the original Planning Board package. Mr. Burgess then reviewed the road matrix showing the road design standards for private streets, the road profile
(cross section) for private streets, the cul-de-sac profile for private streets, and the turn-around profile for private streets, all of which will be added to Article VII: Appendices
& Certificates. Chairman Collier opened the public hearing. Tyler Newman, of BASE and the Wilmington Cape Fear Home Builders Association, spoke in support of the proposed subdivision
text amendment. He stated the majority of their concerns have been addressed in the proposed changes. He noted Mr. Burgess omitted all the hard work he had done on this item and stated
Mr. Burgess and staff should be commended on all the work that went into the proposed document. Dan Blackmon, a landscape architect in Wilmington and the Coastal Section Chair of the
N.C. Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects, stated their appreciation of the last minute consideration for including landscape architects in the certification process.
He noted they had offered the General Statute that explains what landscape architects are and are not allowed to do and the regulations on their licensure and expressed their support
for the wording as presented earlier by Mr. Burgess. Howard Capps, a landscape architect in Wilmington, stated he had recently learned of the proposed text amendment and had spoken to
several local landscape architects, including Dan Blackmon. He expressed his support of the proposed text amendment and stated his hope that the proposed certification language would
also be approved. No one spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment. Chairman Collier closed the public hearing. Chairman Collier complimented Mr. Burgess and the other members of
the task force committee, noting they had spent 12-18 months on the revisions. He also commented that Anthony Prinz, formerly of the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization, had
also invested many hours on the amendment as well. On behalf of the task force committee, Chairman Collier apologized for inadvertently wording the certification language incorrectly.
Chris O’Keefe, stated for clarification purposes that staff’s recommendations were included in the original Planning Board package and did not contain the inclusion of other professionals
in the document language that Mr. Burgess suggested for discussion by the board. Chairman Collier suggested the board review each section of the proposed amendment individually and asked
if the board had any questions about Section 20.
Page 5 of 9 Melissa Gott asked if the board was considering the definitions included in the document received earlier that day or those contained in the original Planning Board package.
Chairman Collier stated the board was considering the definitions included in the document received earlier that day provided everyone had reviewed it, noting only the definition of
the double or reverse frontage lot had been modified. Mr. Burgess confirmed the modification to the definition of a double or reverse frontage lot and explained two typographical errors
had also been corrected as noted in his presentation. Chairman Collier then asked for a clarification of Section 41-1(7)(c), which read, “When a planned subdivision is adjacent to an
arterial or street, a marginal access street may be required to provide access for lots fronting on the arterial or primary street”. He asked if staff had intended to remove the word
“primary” near the end of the sentence. Mr. Burgess confirmed the word “primary” should be omitted from the sentence in Section 41-1(7)(c) of the proposed subdivision text amendment.
Chairman Collier also noted the inclusion of the word “Public” in Section 41-1(7)(i) changing “Street Projections” to “Public Street Projections”. Chairman Collier stated Section 52-4(1)(a)
regarding Private Streets, which originally read “Streets designated as private shall be constructed to minimum construction standards as adopted by New Hanover County and certified
by a licensed professional engineer recognized in the State of North Carolina” is proposed by the Landscape Architecture Board to be modified to read, “…New Hanover County and certified
by a professional legally recognized by a State of North Carolina licensing board as being licensed to perform such activities and undertakings”. Chairman Collier noted that modification
would not limit the certification to professional engineers, but would allow anyone duly licensed in North Carolina to certify the construction of road systems to certify them. He commented
that it it would also coincide with the definition in Plans and Construction, which includes the same language allowing anyone duly licensed by a North Carolina licensing board to perform
those activities. Melissa Gott made a motion to approve Subdivision Text Amendments A-387 with one typographical change under Section 41-1(7)(c) eliminating the word “primary” before
street. Ken Wrangell seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to approve Subdivision Text Amendments A-387 with one typographical change under Section 41-1(7)(c) eliminating
the word “primary” before street. Item 3: Subdivision Text Amendments (A-388) – Request by Staff to amend Section 54 of the Subdivision Ordinance to establish a procedure for confirming
the status of improvements and common areas prior to transfer to homeowner associations, and Section 52-4 and 54 of the ordinance to clarify the intent and procedure for publicly platted
roads and requests for redesignation of such to private road.
Page 6 of 9 Chris O’Keefe stated this item was generated by staff in response to questions from the County Commissioners, but staff would like more time to examine the item before it
is brought before a public hearing. Mr. O’Keefe requested the item be removed from the agenda and be considered by the board on a later date. He also asked members of the public to inform
staff of their interest in the item so they could be included in further discussions regarding the proposed amendment. Item 4: Zoning Text Amendment (A-389) – Request by Staff to amend
Article VI and Article VII of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for establishment of Farmers’ Markets and produce stands under certain conditions. Nicole Dreibelbis explained staff was recommending
adoption of a set of regulations for farmers markets and produce stands. Currently, the zoning ordinance permits such uses in commercial zoning districts, as long as they abide by normal
commercial standards or they are permitted by right in residential properties where the products are grown on the same site on which they are being sold. Staff is recommending that farmers
markets and produce stands be permitted by right in residential districts as long as they can meet a certain set of standards. These standards included a cumulative duration of sixty
(60) days of sales, satisfying an eligible products list, a minimum lot size, frontage on an arterial or collector roadway, adequate solid waste disposal methods, signage requirements,
parking regulations, an approved site plan through a zoning only permit, preservation of previously dedicated open space, and the prohibition of live animals, entertainment, alcohol,
and concessions. Proposals which exceed the standards or limitations outlines may be allowed via the special use permit process. No one spoke in opposition to the amendment. Melissa
Gott asked if there was a particular reason staff chose sixty days. She asked if other counties recognize that number of days and if that number of days is different from another section
section in the ordinance that allows permanent farmers markets. Ms. Daughtridge explained that other counties that were researched did have a sixty day cumulative total so that was the
model staff followed. She noted the sixty day cumulative total would actually work with most farmers market scenarios, which typically run from April to October and most often are only
held on Saturdays. Most farmers markets run on a very limited number of days so sixty days would capture that growing season and the one day per week of sales. Chairman Collier asked
for clarification that sixty days referred to a total of sixty sales days, not sixty calendar days in a row. Ms. Daughtridge confirmed that the sixty days requirement refers to sixty
cumulative sales days, not calendar days in a row. Melissa Gott asked if it was typical to require disassembly of tents or other shelters between sales days as stated in Section 61-5(12),
noting most of the produce stands she has seen appear to be lean-to type shelters, which are permanent structures that can’t be removed.
Page 7 of 9 Ms. Daughtridge stated the disassembling was intended for the farmers market scenario and refers to a tent situation that is usually operated once a week. Staff was reluctant
to allow those tents to remain in place because if there were storms, etc. the tents would turn into debris so the disassembly requirement was intended to capture those types of situations.
Ms. Gott stated she wasn’t concerned about the disassembly requirement for a tent situation, but if someone wanted to construct a more permanent, lean-to shelter structure on the edge
of their property, she wouldn’t want to prohibit them from using that structure as a farmers market or require them to disassemble it. Ms. Daughtridge explained that any farmers market
or produce stand that does not meet the criteria laid out on the permitted side would need to go through the special use permit process because they would be subject to setbacks and
other requirements. She noted permanent structures would be reviewed under a different scope. Chairman Collier stated that as long as the structures are considered temporary, which would
still have the sixty cumulative days, they would not be subject to special use permits or building permits in most cases, but if they wanted a physical farmers market on a larger piece
of property of 1 -2 acres, they would need to go through the special use permit process and then they would not be limited to the sixty cumulative days. Ms. Daughtridge confirmed Chairman
Collier’s statement, commenting that anything that deviated from this set of standards for residential areas would require a special use permit. Staff wanted to ensure there were plenty
of safeguards in place for farmers markets and product stands located in residential areas if they were allowed by right. She commented that anything that deviated from that, whether
it was the timing of it, the type of structure, the type of products sold, music or concessions onsite, would require a special use permit. Ms. Daughtridge explained that farmers markets
and produce stands located in a commercial district would not need to comply with these standards because they would be captured under the business review. Chairman Collier asked for
staff confirmation that the amendment would not have any effect on yard sales, garage sales, or that type of sales, but would apply only to produce sales and farmers markets. Ms. Daughtridge
confirmed the proposed amendment would not affect yard sales or garage sales and would apply only to produce stands and farmers markets. Ken Wrangell made a motion to recommend approval
of Text Amendment A-389 as presented. Andy Heath seconded the motion. Melissa Gott stated it was her understanding that amendment A-389 included Article IV Section 61-5 and Article VII
Section 72-40 and asked if the board needed to review Article VII Section 72-40 before approving the amendment. Jane Daughtridge explained that Article VII Section 72-40 contained the
Special Use Permit piece of the amendment and could be voted upon separately if the board so des
ired. Page 8 of 9 Ms. Gott commented she was simply wondering if there would be a presentation on that section of the proposed amendment as well, noting she finds the staff presentations
helpful in making decisions. Chairman Collier stated there was a motion to recommend approval of Text Amendment A-389, which includes Article VI and Article VII of the zoning ordinance.
The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Text Amendment A-389 as presented. Technical Review Committee Report (September) Sam Burgess reported the TRC did not met during
the month of September. Chairman Collier announced that a joint meeting of the New Hanover County and City of Wilmington Planning Boards will be held on October 26, 2010 from 4pm to
6pm in Human Resources Conference Room B of the New Hanover County Government Center to review and discuss the Market Street Corridor Plan. He stated a printed copy of the plan can be
obtained from Mike Kozlosky of the Wilmington MPO, whose offices are located on the fourth floor of the City offices downtown. He noted both the City and County Planning Boards will
be making a recommendation to their respective governing boards to approve or deny the Market Street Corridor Plan. Chairman Collier announced the resignation of recently appointed board
member Tara Murphy, who accepted a position with the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization. He stated the County Commissioners will appoint a new Planning Board member at one
of their upcoming meetings. Chairman Collier reminded board members that Ms. Murphy was scheduled to attend the November 15th Commissioners meeting on behalf of the Planning Board and
asked if another member would volunteer to serve as the Planning Board representative at that meeting, which will begin at 2:00 p.m. Ken Wrangell volunteered to serve as the Planning
Board representative for the November 15th meeting. Mr. O’Keefe asked if board members would be willing to dedicate an additional hour following the Joint City/County Planning Board
meeting on October 26th to discuss the proposed A-388 Subdivision Amendment. He stated the Corridor Plan would require the full two hours for review and discussion. Following a brief
discussion, it was the consensus of the board members present to discuss the A-388 subdivision amendment immediately following the Joint City/County Planning Board meeting on October
26, 2010. Jane Daughtridge reported that New Hanover County received an award for its Exceptional Design Zoning District as an outstanding planning implementation tool in the State of
North Carolina during the N.C. American Planning Association Conference held September 29 –
Page 9 of 9 October 1, 2010 in New Bern. She stated staff is very proud of that accomplishment and shares the honor with the Planning Board. Richard Collier adjourned the meeting at
6:15 p.m. ______________________________________ Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director