PB Minutes 20110106-Approved
Page 1 of 6 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board January 6, 2011 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, January 6, 2011 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, Chair Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director
Andy Heath, Vice Chair Jane Daughtridge, Current Planning & Zoning Manager Troy Barboza Sam Burgess, Subdivision Review Planner Melissa Gott Nicole Dreibelbis, Planner Dan Hilla Sharon
Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Tamara Murphy Anthony Prinz Chairman Richard Collier opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting
of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Collier reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of the December Planning Board Meeting Minutes Troy Barboza made a motion to approve the
December Planning Board meeting minutes as presented. Tamara Murphy seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to approve the minutes. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-909, 01/11)
– Request by Claud O’Shields on behalf of Liberty Baptist Church to rezone approximately 3.0 acres identified as Parcel ID R03600-003-042-004&005 located in the 7000 block of Market
Street from R-15 Residential to O&I Office and Institutional 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 explained the two parcels are bisected by a right-of-way for Raintree Road as it connects into Bump Along Road for secondary access to the Brickstone subdivision, making both
parcels corner lots. The R-15 zoning district continues immediately south and west of the subject properties. To the east across Market Street, the property is zoned B-2 Highway Business
and immediately north across Bump Along Road is an existing O&I -Office and Institutional zoning district. She noted Liberty Baptist Church and a bank are located within the O&I district.
Ms. Dreibelbis reported no traffic counts or level of service information is available for local streets, such as Bump Along Road and Raintree Road; however, the portion of
Page 2 of 6 Market Street which fronts the first subject parcel has a 2007 level of service of F, meaning traffic counts exceed the capacity of the roadway by a multiplier of 2 or more.
She pointed out the variety of uses located within the adjacent B-2 commercial zoning district across Market Street, noting the strip center includes a retail store, Port City Cycles,
Healthy 4 Life NC, Flow Fitness, and accounting offices. Ms. Dreibelbis also presented a photograph of a single family residence adjacent to the second subject property located off Bump
Along Road. Ms. Dreibelbis stated staff has concluded the request to rezone the parcel fronting Market Street is clearly consistent with the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan, as well as the stated
intent for the O&I Office & Institutional district in the ordinance. She noted access to the internal parcel makes it less clearly consistent with the description of the O&I district,
but may be construed to be reasonable in that access from Bump Along Road will not directly impact the residential properties further west. Ms. Dreibelbis explained access from Raintree
Drive through the Brickstone subdivision will be limited because the portion of Raintree Drive between the two subject parcels is not currently paved; therefore, staff is recommending
approval. Anthony Prinz asked the width of the right-of-way along Bump Along Road, commenting it appeared to be significantly more narrow than the right-of-way on Raintree Drive. Sam
Burgess estimated the right-of-way along Bump Along Road to be 30’ – 35’ wide. Claud (Buck) O’Shields spoke on behalf of the applicant, Liberty Baptist Church. Mr. O’Shields explained
the church had purchased the property during the 1980’s. He noted the property on which the church building is located was zoned O&I. The subject tracts across Bump Along Road were left
as R-15 Residential zoning. He stated the church is looking at options for these pieces of property due to the current economy and would like to have all of their parcels zoned the same,
Office & Institutional. Mr. O’Shields pointed out that the subject property contains some wetlands and is adjacent to a well site owned by the County; therefore, the usable property
is limited and will most likely be utilized for parking or a similar use. He also noted Bump Along Road would need to be widened to the rear property line. Arthur Kirner, owner of the
adjacent residence at 118 Bump Along Road, asked what uses would be permitted on the property if the rezoning was approved. Mr. Kirner commented he was told when he purchased his home
that Bump Along Road was a private road and the residents of the road were responsible for paving it. He expressed concern that the road is very narrow and noted that two cars can’t
pass at the same time. Chairman Collier explained there were no conditions on the rezoning request and offered to provide Mr. Kirner with the list of permitted uses in an O&I district.
Mr. Kirner asked if trailer parks or anything similar were permitted in an Office & Institutional district. Chairman Collier stated there are some odd uses allowed in the O&I district,
for example travel trailer parks may be allowed as a Special Use, but B-2 highly intensive commercial or industrial uses are not allowed.
Page 3 of 6 Jane Daughtridge explained that a travel trailer park would require a special use permit and would go through the public hearing process for approval. Buck O’Shields stated
his belief that the rezoning would not impact travel along Bump Along Road, noting that the church traffic moves over to allow other vehicles to pass. He estimated Bump Along Road to
be a maximum of 30’ wide. Chairman Collier noted that improvements to Bump Along Road would most likely be required if any new O&I development takes place on the parcels being rezoned.
Mr. Kirner agreed that church traffic is not a problem on Bump Along Road because the church traffic turns off immediately into the church parking lot. Chairman Collier closed the public
hearing. Dan Hilla asked if the church had any plans to sell the property. Buck O’Shields stated he was not aware of any plans to sell the property. He commented it would be difficult
for the church to sell the property because of the wetlands on it and again noted the property would probably be used for parking until the church reached a decision to sell all of their
tracts, including the church parcel. Marjorie Kirner, of 118 Bump Along Road, asked what would happen to the existing unpaved right-of-way to Raintree Drive and if the church would be
responsible for paving it. Chairman Collier explained that the right-of-way to Raintree Drive would most likely remain in its current unpaved condition until a site plan is brought forward
for the proposed O&I parcels. Ms. Kirner, stated her opinion the church might sell the property to build a synagogue or something of that nature. She noted she had no direct knowledge
of that, but would be agreeable to it. She also expressed concern about trailers or anything that would devalue her property being placed on the property. Chairman Collier reiterated
that the use of the property for trailers would require a special use permit and would also require public hearings before the Planning Board and the County Commissioners prior to approval.
Ms. Kirner also asked if development of the property would require the widening of Bump Along Road. Chairman Collier explained Bump Along Road would most likely be widened only to the
rear property line of the proposed O&I development. Ms. Kirner commented she would be agreeable to the road only being widened to the rear of the O&I parcel and had no other objections
to the requested zoning change.
Page 4 of 6 Anthony Prinz asked if there were any buffering or screening requirements for the O&I that could offer a level of protection to the surrounding residential properties. Jane
Daughtridge explained there are buffering requirements and differential setbacks for non-residential against residential zoning, for example, the rear setback would be 3.73 times the
height of the proposed building and half of that must be buffer. She also noted a provision which would allow the rear setback to be reduced if the buffer was slightly increased. Vice
Chairman Andy Heath asked if the existing church structure was currently in violation of the required setbacks based on the photographs presented. Jane Daughtridge stated she wasn’t
certain if the church structure would be non-conforming in regard to the setbacks because that particular parcel wasn’t included in the review process for the two parcels being considered
for rezoning. In response to a question from Chairman Collier, Claud (Buck) O’Shields stated the church purchased all three properties together in 1989. He then commented that approximately
4-6 years ago, the church had requested the parcels be rezoned to O&I, but were turned down at that point in time. Mr. O’Shields noted that on the map the road is shown as 30’ wide to
a point past Raintree Drive and the owner does understand that if the parcels are developed under O&I, the road will need to be widened. Dan Hilla commented that O&I appeared to be a
good transition between the Highway and the R-15 districts, noting mobile homes are a permissible use under R-15, but are not permissible under O&I. Dan Hilla made a motion to proceed
with approval of rezoning request Z-909. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-909. Item 2: Market Street Corridor
Study – Public comment period to consider recommendations outlined for the portions of the study relating to the unincorporated county. Chris O’Keefe stated the Planning Board voted
at their December meeting to delay the motion on the Market Street Corridor Study in order to accept additional public comment. At that meeting, no members of the public were present
to speak on the item. Mr. O’Keefe provided a brief history of the planning process for the Market Street Corridor, which began in early 2008 led by Kimley-Horn and Associates, along
with a steering committee consisting of planning staff from the City, County, MPO, and NCDOT. He explained that a fairly broad-based group of stakeholders was provided with constant
information about the plan during the process and was given the opportunity to provide feedback. Two separate surveys were also conducted on the corridor. The City Planning Commission
and the County Planning Board attended a joint work session with the planning consultants and the steering committee, which was televised live and has been replayed on both local government
public access channels.
Page 5 of 6 Mr. O’Keefe also reported that Mike Kozlosky, Wilmington MPO Executive Director, presented the corridor study plan in December to the Wilmington Homebuilders Association
and the Business Alliance for a Sound Economy. He stated he also attended that presentation, which included a general discussion with those groups. Mr. O’Keefe explained that the Market
Street Corridor Study Plan document includes an introduction, a description of the process, a description of existing conditions along the corridor, and a general development chapter
which discusses how the corridor could possibly develop in the future. The plan also looks at specific study sites and provides a land use scenario for each of those sites. He noted
there is also a chapter titled, “Envisioning Success”, which provides a roadmap of how to achieve the goals and objectives of the plan and an appendix, which contains a model ordinance
created by the consultant to be a guide for possible future ordinance development to assist City and County staff implement the corridor plan. In conclusion, Mr. O’Keefe stated no additional
public comments had been received since the December meeting and staff stands by their recommendation that the Planning Board recommend approval of the Market Street Corridor Study to
the County Commissioners. He recognized there had been some discussion about the Model Ordinance contained in the appendix of the study and what it might mean if the model ordinance
was included in the recommendation. Mr. O’Keefe assured board members that the adoption of the study plan with the model ordinance in the appendix does not mean that the model ordinance
will be inserted into the County zoning ordinance. He explained the board would only be recommending adoption of the study plan. He noted that Mike Kozlosky was present to answer any
questions the board may have related to the study. Chairman Collier asked if anyone present would like to make any comments about the Market Street Corridor Study. No one from the public
spoke on the matter. Anthony Prinz commented that the Corridor Study could have been beneficial to the Planning Board if it had been adopted to provide guidance on the O&I rezoning on
Market Street considered earlier in the evening. He stated his support for the plan and his desire to see it move forward. Chairman Collier stated the board seemed very comfortable with
the plan and with the concept of the plan. He noted the primary concern had been related to the model ordinance and whether it would seem to be adopted into the zoning ordinance. He
reported he had spoken with the consultant, who had assured him that the model ordinance was included in the study as a guidance document to be used in the future, not as a policy document.
Chairman Collier commented that he would support a motion recommending the study with or without the model ordinance in the appendix. He then asked for an opinion from Deputy County
Attorney Sharon Huffman. Sharon Huffman stated in her opinion it would make no difference whether the ordinance was removed or not from the document the Planning Board recommended go
forward as a guide and study document to the Commissioners. She explained the ordinance document will go through the Planning Board and the County Commissioners standing on its own merits
and will be
Page 6 of 6 enacted as it is now written or in whatever manner it is changed or possibly not at all. Ms. Huffman commented that the model ordinance simply being there for reference as
people review the study is perhaps helpful; however, it needs to be very clear to everyone that the ordinance will be reviewed and vetted and changes will be made to it along the way.
She also noted that the City of Wilmington will also be reviewing a similar document and will adopt an ordinance that will be an amendment to the City Development Code. Chris O’Keefe
commented that the consulting team included the model ordinance to provide the County with the tools used by other communities to achieve the results being sought in the study. He expressed
confidence that County officials will need to refer to those tools when they begin developing ordinance language to help achieve the results illustrated in the plan. Tamara Murphy made
a motion to recommend the adoption of the Market Street Corridor Study as a policy guide for development along the corridor. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. Daniel Hilla asked for
clarification that if the board recommended the study as presented, the ordinance would be an appendix and simply a reference guide for development. Chairman Collier confirmed the model
ordinance in the appendix of the corridor study is a reference guide for developing an ordinance in the future and will remain as such until it is appropriately vetted. The Planning
Board voted 7-0 to recommend adoption of the Market Street Corridor Study as a policy guide for development along the corridor. Chairman Collier thanked Mike Kozlosky for the work he
and his team put into the Market Street Corridor Study and noted that Mr. Prinz was also involved in the process. Technical Review Committee Report (December) Sam Burgess reported there
were no TRC meetings during the month of December. He stated there would be an item on the agenda for the January 12, 2011 TRC meeting. Richard Collier adjourned the meeting at 6:15
p.m. Respectfully Respectfully submitted, _______________________________________ Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director