2012-08 August 2 2012 PBM
Page 1 of 10 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board August 2, 2012 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, August 2, 2012 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 Andy
Heath, Outgoing Vice Chair Shawn Ralston, Planning Manager Lisa Mesler Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Tamara Murphy Sam Burgess, Senior Planner Anthony Prinz Nicole Dreibelbis,
Current Planner David Weaver Tim Burgess, Assistant County Manager Absent: Dan Hilla Vice Chairman Andy Heath opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public hearing. Sam
Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Vice Chairman Andy Heath reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of the June Planning Board Meeting Minutes Anthony Prinz
made a motion to approve the June minutes as drafted. Richard Collier seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the June 2012 Planning Board meeting minutes. Election
of Officers Vice Chairman Andy Heath opened the floor for nominations for Chairman. Anthony Prinz nominated Richard Collier for Chairman. Tamara Murphy seconded the nomination. No other
nominations were made; Vice Chair Heath closed the nominations. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to elect Richard Collier as Chairman. Vice Chairman Andy Heath opened the floor for nominations
for Vice Chairman. Richard Collier nominated Dan Hilla for Vice Chairman. No other nominations were made. Vice Chair Heath closed the nominations. Anthony Prinz seconded the nomination.
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to elect Dan Hilla as Vice Chairman. Former Vice Chair Andy Heath turned the meeting over to the new chairman, Richard Collier.
Page 2 of 10 Chairman Richard Collier thanked the board members for nominating him as chairman; then announced the board also needed to elect a TRC Chair for the new term. Noting Mr.
Prinz had served in that capacity during the last year, Chairman Collier nominated Anthony Prinz for Chairman of the Technical Review Committee (TRC). No other nominations were made.
Chairman Collier asked Mr. Prinz if he was comfortable continuing his role as TRC Chairman. Anthony Prinz affirmed he was comfortable serving as TRC Chairman, noting it had been an honor
and a pleasure to serve. Andy Heath seconded the motion to nominate Anthony Prinz as TRC Chairman. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to elect Anthony Prinz as Chairman of the Technical Review
Committee (TRC). Planning & Inspections Director Chris O’Keefe recognized two new Planning Board members, David Weaver and Lisa Mesler, and thanked them for agreeing to serve on the
board. Chairman Collier also expressed appreciation to the new members for accepting the nominations nominations to the Planning Board. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-922, 08/12) -Request
by Tom Tucker to rezone 11.67 acres at 7641 Market Street and 115 Amaryllis Drive from B-2 Highway Business to CD(R-10) Conditional R-10. The site is identified as Transition and Wetland
Resource Protection on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification Map and is within the Market Street Corridor Plan. Nicole Dreibelbis presented the staff summary and provided information pertaining
to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning. Ms. Dreibelbis also showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Ms.
Dreibelbis reported the proposal is located in the northern portion of the County’s jurisdiction. The majority of both properties are classified as Transition; however, there is a pocket
of Watershed Resource Protection on the parcel addressed as 115 Amaryllis Drive according to the 2006 CAMA Land Classification Map. The Transition classification runs up the Market Street
Corridor, does not extend into Resource Protection areas, and is generally located in an area where typical urban services either exist or are anticipated to be available in the near
future. The Watershed Resource Protection Area subclass occurs along the tidal creeks and is identified as the area within a half mile of the 100-year flood plain for those creeks. The
Watershed Resource Protection Area is the portion of the property that is already developed. Ms. Dreibelbis noted all new development will be contained within the Transition area. Ms.
Dreibelbis stated the proposal consists of two parcels for a combined acreage of 11.87 acres, currently zoned B-2 Highway Business; however, the parcels are subject to a 2004 Special
Use Permit for a mixed-use development, which consisted of a 156 unit apartment complex, which is currently in place and a 21,600 sq. ft. commercial space. West of the subject property
is an operational boat sales and service business and a sweepstakes parlor. East of the subject property is is vacant B-2 currently undeveloped and heavily vegetated. Across Market Street
at the corner of Alexander and Market is a piece of Office and Institutional zoning currently developed
Page 3 of 10 is a veterinary office. Immediately North is a vacant piece of property zoned R-15 and northwest is a pocket of B-2 developed as the Pond’s Edge Office Suites. Ms. Dreibelbis
reported as of December 2011, the average daily trip (ADT) on Market Street, between Alexander Road and Amaryllis Drive has a volume of 43,275 vehicles per day (vpd); however, the capacity
of the road is 43,700 vpd; therefore, the level of service (LOS) for the portion of Market Street fronting the subject properties is E, meaning the roadway is operating at design capacity
and traffic is experiencing delays at intersections. Ms. Dreibelbis stated as part of the conditional use rezoning, the applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Worksheet, which estimates
an AM Peak of 21 trips and a PM Peak of 25 trips associated with the additional 45 one-bedroom units. Ms. Dreibelbis reviewed the proposed site plan, explaining the proposal consists
of 45 one-bedroom units to be constructed in three buildings for a total of 30,000 sq. ft. ft. of gross floor area, as well as an additional 90 parking spaces to accommodate the additional
units per the zoning ordinance. She also provided video reflecting the ingress and egress to the subject properties off Market Street, the existing vegetative buffer between the uses
on both the east and west sides of the property, and various site amenities. Ms. Dreibelbis stated in conclusion, the conditional rezoning required two actions. In regard to the rezoning,
staff noted the site plan poses two inconsistencies with the intent of the Market Street Corridor Plan: 1) the configuration of the proposed parking lot; and 2) failure to include construction
of an external sidewalk fronting Market Street to connect the existing internal sidewalks to adjacent services. She stated however the minimal impact on traffic and expansion of an existing
use in a Transition classification is consistent with the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan and the stated intent of both Conditional Use and High Density development; therefore, staff recommended
approval of the rezoning action. Ms. Dreibelbis reported staff suggested the majority of the findings are positive; however, proposed two conditions be placed on the conditional use
permit: 1) The owners must construct a sidewalk along the Market Street frontage of the subject properties, to provide connection with the internal sidewalks and adjacent services, consistent
with the Market Street Corridor Plan and Section 67B-3 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance; and 2) Documentation of an encroachment agreement with Progress Energy with regard
to the location of proposed Building 10. Chairman Collier asked if board members had any questions for staff. Hearing none, he noted the map still reflected the Progress Energy easement
on the site and asked for clarification on whether Progress Energy had provided documentation to the applicant stating the power line and easement could be relocated. Ms. Dreibelbis
stated understanding the applicant was in negotiations with Progress Energy, but no formal documentation had been submitted to staff. Chairman Collier opened the public hearing and recognized
the applicant.
Page 4 of 10 Luke Menius of Stroud Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant, noting Ms. Dreibelbis had accurately presented their proposed project. He offered to answer questions
and address any inconsistencies noted by the board. No one from the public spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Chairman Collier closed the public hearing and opened the discussion among
board members. Anthony Prinz stated he was primarily concerned about the sidewalk and asked the applicant if he had any concerns about adding the sidewalk as a condition to the special
use permit. Luke Menius confirmed the applicant had no objections to adding the sidewalk as a condition to the special use permit. He acknowledged the sidewalk had been discussed at
the meeting with planning staff, and explained the applicant had opted to leave it off the plan instead of submitting a new set; and to duly note the condition and add it to the final
plan. Anthony Prinz questioned the progress on the Progress Energy easement. Mr. Menius stated discussions had been held between the applicant and Progress Energy. He explained that
instead of an encroachment, Progress Energy would most likely move the easement to a different location and install an underground power line. He suggested that language be added into
the second condition, noting the applicant acknowledges the existence of the power line and has approached Progress Energy about it. David Weaver pointed out the apartment complex will
be located next to B-2, which is fairly intense highway commercial with a boat service facility He asked if there had been any consideration of a buffer, noting he would assume a boat
service facility could be noisy at times. Mr. Menius explained the apartments at the back of the property and the boat facility had been in place for a while. He wasn’t aware of any
particular noise-related problems resulting from the boat facility; however, the owner may be able to better address the issue. Mr. Menius added that the buildings are oriented so that
the sides of the building face the boat storage and there is a drive aisle between the buildings and the boat storage. He indicated there may be a proposal to install a fence there,
but he would defer to the owner for specifics. Mr. Weaver agreed that orienting the buildings to face away from the B-2 was a good idea. Chairman Collier expressed concern about items
listed in the 2004 special use permit that were not addressed on the current plan and didn’t seem to be included on the proposed plan either. He cited the twenty foot (20’) buffer, noting
it appeared that putting in that drive aisle would leave no room on the southern property line to add the 20’ buffer. He asked if that requirement had been alleviated at some point in
the past or if staff would press forward with the requirement. He commented the buffer was a landscape buffer put in place to protect against the southern property, which is a commercial
use.
Page 5 of 10 Mr. Menius stated belief the buffer was applicable to the commercial use that was approved in that special use permit. He explained the removal of the commercial portion
of the project should; therefore, eliminate the need for the buffer. Chairman Collier asked if the commercial project was located on the north side of their property. Mr. Menius explained
the commercial project was going to be located on the four-acre undeveloped portion of the property on the Market Street side and the proposed buffer was going to be installed there.
Chairman Collier asked for clarification the buffer was between a new commercial development and the applicant’s residential property. Mr. Menius clarified the buffer would have been
between their commercial project and adjacent residential property, but since they have proposed to remove the commercial, the need for the twenty foot (20’) buffer on their side has
been alleviated. Chris O’Keefe confirmed Mr. Menius was correct because the project was originally approved as a mixed-use project within a B-2 district, which required them to provide
a buffer to satisfy the requirements for the commercial portion of their project on the Market Street side of the property. Chairman Collier asked if all of the traffic improvements
had been made, commenting he was aware of the right turn lane and the five-lane section of roadway was in place. He expressed concern about access to the Foy tract north of the property
because no access alignment for that particular parcel is shown on the proposed plan. Chairman Collier explained the previous site plan included a connection extending north to the Foy
parcel, which was specifically listed in the County Commissioners approval in 2004. He commented the connection had been dropped from the proposed site plan so he presumed that meant
it was not currently built. Mr. Menius apologized, noting he had been told there is an easement between their parking lot and the Foy property to their north or east that is not shown
on the plan. He acknowledged there is an easement giving the Foy tract access to Market Street via the applicant’s property, which could certainly be shown on plans going forward. Chairman
Collier asked staff to confirm it would be sufficient to note the access as a recorded easement. Chris O’Keefe asked for a moment to review the easement. Anthony Prinz commented the
board had spent a tremendous amount of time discussing the buffering requirements between residential and commercial and asked if the ordinance contained a base requirement that must
be met for those two districts to be adjacent to each other. Stating he felt the access could be a significant cut-through given the considerable number of houses located to the east,
he asked the applicant if the easement was unimproved.
Page 6 of 10 Mr. Menius explained the easement is located between Building #1 and Market Street adjacent to the power easement and is currently unimproved. Mr. Prinz apologized, stating
he was mistaken about the location of the easement and had assumed it was located east toward the rear of the property where it is undeveloped. Chairman Collier informed the applicant
the SHOD setback should be overlaid and included on the site plan even though it will not affect the property because of the residential use, noting the SHOD applies only to commercial
use. In response to questions from Chairman Collier regarding stormwater, Mr. Menius confirmed the new proposal is in the Transition area and with the exception of a couple of parking
spaces would be outside the Watershed Resource Protection zone and the stormwater would be tied into the existing permitted system, which accounted for the proposed built-out project.
Chairman Collier asked if staff would like to address the buffer issue by including a condition if the buffer is required. Mr. O’Keefe agreed the buffer issue could be addressed by including
a condition, noting staff would determine the size of the required buffer based on the height of the residential structure. He stated a buffer is required, even for residential against
residential zoning, when one of the projects is high density. While the change from commercial to residential zoning would remove the larger commercial buffer requirement, a buffer would
still be required. Chairman Collier suggested, if it was acceptable to Ms. Huffman, the County’s attorney, the issue be addressed with a condition that if required, the applicant would
work with staff to provide the appropriate amount of buffering. Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman stated the size of the buffer did not to be determined. The board could address
the issue with a condition requiring the applicant to meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Chairman Collier requested direction from the board on the rezoning from B-2
to R-10. Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request from B-2 Highway Business to CD(R-10) Conditional R-10. David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning
Board voted 6-0 to approve Rezoning Request Z-922. Next, Chairman Collier asked for a motion from the board on the companion special use permit and asked the applicant if he was comfortable
with the conditions originally added by staff and the condition previously discussed regarding complying with all New Hanover County procedures in terms of buffering. Mr. Menius stated
the applicant was comfortable with conditions one and two; however, expressed concern about the buffer condition, questioning the possible impacts of the buffer on the drive aisle between
Building #10 and Building #11 and the southwestern commercial
Page 7 of 10 boundary. Mr. Menius acknowledge he didn’t believe the buffer would have any effect on Building #10, which is located approximately forty (40’) feet off the property line,
but if there was some prohibition on any improvements inside a buffer, it would obviously affect the alignment of that drive aisle and the functionality of the site. He asked for the
board’s thoughts on that issue and asked them to understand the applicant is less intense than the boat business. Chairman Collier stated some buffering is required; however, he wasn’t
sure if staff had found the particular standard. He also explained the buffering requirement could be reduced horizontally by installing a fence or an opaque type of device. Mr. Menius
then stated if the condition was for a buffer as required by the code, the applicant would have no objection to it. Chairman Collier clarified the condition would be for a buffer as
required by the code and the board was not adding an additional buffer. Anthony Prinz made a motion to to recommend granting the special use permit finding that all the findings of fact
are positive giving the condition that: 1) A sidewalk be added to the site plan in accordance with the Market Street Corridor Study recommendations and the staff recommended condition
in the staff report; and 2) The issues with the Progress Energy easement be resolved prior to plat recordation or building permit issuance, whatever the most appropriate level of approval
is there; and that 3) The buffer be resolved as well because there is a buffer requirement given that it is adjacent to a commercial district and this would be a residential R-10 lining
up against that so there would be some level of buffer required. Andy Heath seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the special use permit for Rezoning
Request Z-922. Technical Review Committee Reports – June and July Sam Burgess reported the Technical Review Committee met once in June and once in July. Two performance site plans were
reviewed, reviewed, along with a request to extend the validity period of an Exceptional Design Zoning District (EDZD). Shields Place Shields Place is located near the 7000 block of
Springer Road (near eastern end Murrayville Road) and is classified as Urban on the County’s 2006 Land Use Plan. The Urban classification provides for the continued intensive development
of land based on the availability of public infrastructure. The developer for the project requested TRC to consider preliminary performance approval of a nine (9) lot division on 3.54
acres of real estate. As noted on the site plan, access to the project will be through a platted road stub off Springer Road.
Page 8 of 10 The road serving the project has been designated for “public” use. Public water and sewer capacity is available. In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved Shields Place for nine
lots with three conditions, which were included in the Planning Board package. Tarin Woods Tarin Woods is located near the 6200 block of Myrtle Grove Road, adjacent and south of Sentry
Oaks subdivision and is classified as Transition on the County’s 2006 Land Use Plan. The Transition classification provides for future intensive urban development on lands that have
been or will be provided with necessary urban services. The project is nestled between Carolina Beach Road and Myrtle Grove Road. Access to the property will be through Battle Park with
a secondary access planned through the Sentry Oaks subdivision. Tarin Woods was originally approved as a preliminary performance project for 130 lots in October, 2005. Under new ownership,
the developer requested TRC to consider several road design adjustments to the original plan to mitigate several creek crossings that would be impacted with 404 wetlands. In a vote of
5-0, the TRC approved the road design adjustments with eight conditions based on the revised plan. The conditions were included in the Planning Board package. Middle Sound Village Middle
Sound Village is located near the 600 block of Middle Sound Loop Road and is classified as Watershed Resource Protection on the County’s 2006 Land Use Plan. Wilshire Management Group
requested that the validity period of the Exceptional Design Zoning District (EDZD) approved in August, 2010 for 47 townhomes on approximately 9.93 acres be extended for a period of
eighteen (18) months in accordance with Section 53.6-11 of the County Zoning Ordinance. EDZD’s are valid for a period of two years. The project was formerly a mobile home park in the
northern portion of Middle Sound Loop Road. There are several developments located adjacent and nearby. The access to the project is via Middle Sound Loop Road from Market Street. In
a vote of 5-0, the TRC extended the validity period of Middle Sound Village for eighteen (18) months with no conditions. Anthony Prinz requested an update on the status of the work session
to discuss text amendments, etc.
Page 9 of 10 Chris O’Keefe announced based on the previously adopted schedule, the next Planning Board work session would be held on Friday, September 7th at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Prinz commented
one of the issues we are talking about is conditional zoning with or without a special use permit is a potential issue for a future workshop. Chris O’Keefe reminded the board the County
had adopted the Conditional District language so the process could happen without a special use permit and asked if Mr. Prinz was referring to an additional special use permit item.
In response to Mr. Prinz’s request for clarification on the adopted language, Mr. O’Keefe confirmed the language for a conditional use zoning had already been adopted by the County.
Mr. Prinz questioned why the board had voted on a special use permit earlier in the evening. Mr. O’Keefe explained that both options are available to petitioners. Chairman Collier asked
for clarification on the options available to an applicant and whether they could ask for both in case one is turned down or has too many conditions. Mr. O’Keefe explained the conditional
district language established applies specifically to permitted uses within any zoning district and would not apply to high density development, which is only permitted with a special
use permit. Chairman Collier asked if the applicant could have requested a downzoning to an R-10 in a conditional district without needing a special use permit. Mr. O’Keefe stated the
applicant would still need to go through the special use permit process in order to achieve high density. Chairman Collier clarified his question was in regard to a straight R-10 use.
Mr. O’Keefe verified the applicant could have downzoned the property to straight R-10 in a conditional district without seeking a special use permit. Mr. O’Keefe announced that the Planning
Board is scheduled to give their annual presentation to the County Commissioners at their August 20th meeting, noting it is the Chairman’s responsibility to make that presentation. He
congratulated Mr. Collier on being elected Chairman for the new term and offered to assist him in preparing the presentation. Mr. O’Keefe then recognized and expressed his gratitude
for the service of Melissa Gott, a two-term Planning Board member who also served as chairman for a couple of years; and Troy Barboza, a one-term Planning Board member.
Page 10 of 10 In response to a request from Mr. O’Keefe, Anthony Prinz volunteered to serve as the Planning Board representative at the Tuesday, September 4th County Commissioners meeting
in lieu of Ms. Murphy. Next, Mr. O’Keefe recognized and introduced new Assistant County Manager Tim Burgess, who will be working closely with the Planning & Inspections Department. Mr.
Burgess replaces Chris Coudriet, who was recently appointed County Manager. Mr. O’Keefe reported an FTP site had been established to provide packages to the Planning Board in an effort
to resolve problems encountered due to the size of the documents. Board members will be emailed a link to the FTP site to access future agenda packages and other pertinent information.
Mr. O’Keefe announced new printed copies of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance containing the text amendments approved since the beginning of the year are now available. Board members
should notify staff if they would like to obtain a new copy. He noted the up-to-date zoning ordinance is also available online. Chairman Collier welcomed the two new Planning Board members,
expressing appreciation for their service. He then entertained a motion to adjourn. Andy Heath made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Tamara Murphy seconded the motion. The meeting was
adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _______________________________________ Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director