200406 June PBM
MINUTES OF THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
June 3, 2004
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, June 3, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the
County Court House, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting.
Members Present: Staff Present:
McKinley Dull, Chairman Dexter Hayes, Planning Director
David Girardot Baird Stewart, Senior Planner
Michael Keenan Sam Burgess, Planner
David Adams Linda Keough, Administrative Secretary
Robin Robinson
Members Absent:
Walter Conlogue, Vice Chairman
Frank Smith
Chairman McKinley Dull opened the meeting by welcoming the audience to the public
hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Chairman
Dull proceeded with the approval of the minutes. Robin Robinson moved to approve the
May minutes. David Adams seconded the motion. The Board approved May 2004
minutes by a vote of 5-0.
Chairman Dull proceeded with the first hearing item.
Item 1: Special Use Permit: Request by Grace Patterson for a Special Use Permit to
operate a Child Daycare Facility for 12 children in a R-15 Residential District
located at 111 Cannon Road between El Ogden Subdivision and the Cedars at
Gorman Plantation (5-519, 05/04).
Baird Stewart presented the slides and gave a brief review of the site's history, land use,
zoning and related information.
Grace Patterson applicant, stated that she is currently caring for five (5) children and is
licensed by the State of North Carolina. She added that her residence could
accommodate up to ten (10) children based on the measurements of her home. Ms.
Patterson also stated that they would be adding a paved turn around to the existing
driveway and will continue staggering the arrival times for the parents to avoid any traffic
problems.
Ms. Patterson stated that she talked to the neighbors on both sides of her home who had
no problem with her increasing the number of children. She also stated that she is
requesting increasing the number of children to twelve for ages 0-5 but would agree to
ten, if necessary.
1
Mr. Keenan asked where the turn around would be located on the site plan. Ms.
Patterson replied by pointing out the location on the site plan.
Don Jarboe 208 Cannon Road, stated that he is concerned with the logistical location
regarding the driveway. He stated that the driveway width does not allow two cars to be
in the driveway at the same time. Mr. Jarboe presented photos of the road and driveway.
Mr. Jarboe emphasized that he is not concerned with Ms. Patterson's abilities as a
daycare provider but is concerned with the traffic on the road. He stated that there is a
bend in the road and that there is often a semi-trailer parked along side of the road, which
would cause a problem with someone walking their child along side of the road to get to
the Patterson's residence. He explained that there are no shoulders and no sidewalks.
Therefore, there would be little room for additional traffic with a semi-trailer parked
along side of the road.
Michael Keenan asked if adding five (5) more children would cause significant traffic
problems. Mr. Jarboe replied that he felt that it would.
David Adams asked if Mr. Jarboe drove this road daily and Mr. Jarboe replied that he
did. David Adams asked Mr. Jarboe if he had any education in traffic. Mr. Jarboe stated
that he did not but has held a North Carolina driver's license for several years.
Robin Robinson asked if staggering the times of pickup and drop-off would alleviate
some concerns. Mr. Jarboe replied that it would.
Linda Page. 110 Cannon Road, stated that she felt that the driveway is too small to handle
additional traffic. Ms. Page also showed photos of the driveway adding that four school
buses travel the road every day. Ms. Page provided a petition and additional photos.
Phyllis Trierwiler. 120 Cannon Road, stated that she and her husband are retired and
would like to keep it a nice, quiet neighborhood with no increase in traffic.
Mr. Patterson stated that the semi-trailer truck is typically not there. He usually uses a
storage unit.
PRELIMINARY STAFF FINDINGS:
1. The board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health
or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as
submitted and approved.
A. The subject property is located within the Ogden VFD.
B. The site has access to Cannon Road, which is a public right-of-way.
C. The site is served by City Water and County Sewer.
D. The proposed use will occur in an existing home that is currently used as an in-
home daycare for less than 5 children.
2. The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and
specifications of the zoning ordinance.
2
A. Parking for 1 employee and 4 off street spaces is proposed adjacent to the
driveway.
B. Additional area may need to be provided to accommodate drop off and turn
around in a manner to provide access without backing onto the public right of
way.
C. There is an existing fenced play area.
D. Outside signs for the facility shall not exceed 2 square feet. No sings are proposed
E. Operation of the facility shall comply with the provisions of the General Statutes
of the State of North Carolina and other applicable federal state or local codes.
F. No new buildings are proposed, however the applicant may need to convert a
portion of the existing Garage to accommodate the proposed number of children.
3. The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of
adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity.
A. The subject property is located in an R-15 residential district.
B. Child daycare facilities are permitted by special use permit in all residential
districts.
4. The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed
according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the
area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of
development for New Hanover County.
A. The site is classified as resource protection by the New Hanover County
Comprehensive Plan and is within the urban growth boundaries. The purpose of
the Resource Protection class is to provide for the preservation and protection of
important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife and recreational resources.
B. Several policies in the comprehensive plan support establishing programs for
elderly, special needs, and children.
STAFF CONCERNS:
1. Given the limited space for parking, drop off & turnaround and given the limited size
of the existing home, the Board may consider reducing the proposed number of children
from 12 to 8 or 10.
David Girardot asked if the existing structure could accommodate ten children. Dexter
Hayes replied that it could.
David Adams stated that he is concerned if the parking area is adequate or not and asked
staff if the parking is adequate for ten children. Dexter Hayes replied that the ordinance
requires adequate turn around without having to back into the street. Baird Stewart
replied that a turn around area and four parking spaces is required
Robin Robinson asked what the square footage requirement is for over ten children.
Grace Patterson replied that 25 sq. ft. per child is the minimum requirement.
Michael Keenan made a motion to approve the request with staggered parent arrival
times with no more than two drop-offs within a ten minute period between 7:00 a.m. and
3
8:00 a.m., allowing up to nine (9) children and establishing the turnaround by widening
to the property line for adequate space. Robin Robinson made a motion to amend the
motion to allow up to ten (10) children which was seconded by Michael Keenan.
Chairman Dull stated that he felt that ten children compounds the other problems and
does not see how four cars can pull into the driveway and turn around and get back out.
David Girardot stated that he did not see where there is a danger to safety.
Robin Robinson withdrew her amendment to the motion and seconded Michael Keenan's
motion allowing up to nine children and requiring a scaled drawing showing the four
parking spaces. The Board voted 4-1 in favor of the motion, with Chairman Dull
opposed. This item will be heard at the July 12, 2004 County Commissioner's meeting.
Item 2: Zoning Text Amendment: - Request by Staff to amend Section 62 The
Accessory Building/Use Section of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance to
allow Stormwater Management Facilities on contiguous properties with different
zoning (A-334, 06/04)
Baird Stewart gave a brief review of the Staff's request.
If approved language in Section 62 would be placed in a new section 62-1 and a Section
62-2 would be added to the Zoning Ordinance with the underlined text:
62-2 Retention and detention facilities serving nonresidential developments shall be
permitted on contiguous residential tracts abutting the development served provided:
(1) There is no encroachment of the commercial activity onto the adjacent
residential site, and
(2) provided the adjacent residential property is in the same ownership as the
commercial tract and
(3) the residential site is not part of an existing residential subdivision except in
the case of shared stormwater facilities.
(4) The stormwater facility shall be setback twice the corresponding residential
minimum side or rear yard measured from the top of slope to the adjacent
property line. %A minimum 20' bufferyard within the setback shall be provided.
(5) The stormwater management facility shall be constructed as an aesthetic
amenity with maximum slopes of 5:1.
(6) If fencing of the facility is necessary then it shall not be chain link.
STAFF SUMMARY
Under the current regulations stormwater management is considered an accessory use and
is not permitted on adjacent properties with different zoning classifications. Many
applicants have approached the planning staff with proposals that make good site
planning sense but cannot be accomplished because the stormwater system is within an
adjacent residential district. In some situations staff has allowed stormwater management
within residential districts if the system is a shared facility for residential and commercial
projects. Many of the County zoning district boundaries were established as offsets from
right of ways, and many of the district boundaries continue to parallel these right of ways.
4
As a result there are numerous locations where parcels have split zoning or there are
landlocked parcels between commercial frontage and subdivisions. Often these types of
parcels end up as the subject of marginal rezoning cases and end up as conditional use
districts because that is the only way to ensure that the new zoning area is used for
stormwater management.
Ultimately it is preferable for commercial and residential developments alike to utilize a
site sensitive approach to development and work with the natural topography and natural
features rather than specifically engineering a site around the zoning regulations.
Allowing developments to utilize low areas for stormwater management regardless of
zoning and the source of the runoff leaves the opportunity for more sensitive site design,
preservation of vegetation and possibly a reduction of conditional use zoning.
Michael Keenan moved to approve the staff request for a zoning text amendment with a
correction to the first sentence changing serving nonresidential developments to serving a
nonresidential develol2ment. David Adams seconded the motion which was approved
unanimously.
Item 3: Zoning Text Amendment: - Request by Staff to amend Section 59.6 The
Special Highway Overlay District Section of the New Hanover County Zoning
Ordinance to address situations where there are overlapping Special Highway
Overlay Districts (A-335, 06/44)
If approved Section 59.6-3 would be amended to add (7) to the ordinance. The
underlined text shown below would be added:
59.6-3(7) Any parcel of land that falls within overlapping Special Highway Overlay
Districts shall be subject to all of the setback requirements of this section for one of
the two designated highways. Setbacks from the right of way of the secondary
highway frontage as determined by the applicant may be reduced by 50%.
STAFF SUMMARY
The Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD) regulations were established in 1986. The
purpose as defined in section 59.6-1 is to protect the natural beauty and scenic vista that
exists along Interstate Highways and other specially designated roadways that serve as
major access ways and gateways into New Hanover County. The SHOD regulations
accomplish this objective with additional front and side setbacks, regulations for location
of parking and loading, and additional regulation of signs.
In the Unincorporated County, the SHOD has been established along three major
corridors; Interstate 40, North Market Street, and most recently I-140 (17 By-pass).
Establishment of the SHOD along the By-pass created situations where there are
overlapping Special Highway Overlay Districts. The Overlapping SHOD requirements
occur at the Market Street Interchange and the I-40 Interchange. Nothing in the
Ordinance specifically addresses this situation, therefore, any parcel falling within the
overlapping SHOD districts is subject to additional setbacks and parking and loading
5
regulations from two sides. Although no specific development proposals have been
received for any of these quadrants, applying the additional SHOD regulations to two
sides of a project could severely impact the develop ability of certain parcels.
The ordinance dictates special provisions for corner lots in two other sections, which
could be adapted to address the Overlapping SHOD situation. Section 23-19 of the
Zoning Ordinance addresses setbacks, "The front of a lot shall be construed to be that
portion abutting on a street, including the side dimension of a corner lot. For the purpose
of determining yard requirements for corner lots in Residential Districts, the minimum
width of a side yard along an intersecting street shall be fifty (50) percent greater than the
minimum side yard requirements of the district in which the lot is located, or one-half
(1/2) of the minimum front yard setback along the side street, whichever is greater. Side
yard requirements of corner lots in Business, Office and Institutional, and Industrial
Districts shall be the same as the front yard requirements of the district in which the lot is
located. Through lots shall be considered to have two (2) front yards. (1/4/93)." Section
67-10(8) of the Ordinance addresses Streetyard Landscaping requirements on corner lots,
"Streetyards shall be required along all street frontage. For sites with 2 or more street
frontages only the primary street frontage shall contain the full amount of streetyard as
indicated in the table. All secondary street frontages shall contain 1/z the required square
footage amount. Based on the consistency with other sections of the Ordinance Staff
recommends the proposed changes to the Special Highway Overlay District.
After discussion and additional clarification between the Board and staff, David Adams
moved to approve the request for the zoning text amendment. Michael Keenan seconded
the motion. The Board voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.
Item 4: Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendment - Request by Staff to amend
Section 41-1(6) of the New Hanover County Subdivision Ordinance to re-establish a
minimum lot width for conventional subdivisions (A-336, 06/04).
If approved Section 41-1(6)(g) of the Subdivision Ordinance would be amended to
add the following underlined text:
(g) Each lot of a subdivision shall individually abut or be adjacent to an approved
public or approved private street or private access easement. Condominium and
townhouse-style subdivisions may be exempted from this requirement at the
discretion of the Technical Review Committee, provided that in all cases each
individual lot shall be assured safe and reasonable vehicular access to and from an
approved street. (3/03). Every Conventional residential lot shall front a public or
private street or access easement for a distance of at least 34 feet.
STAFF SUMMARY
Until recently when the County adopted the Subdivision regulations from the
Unified Development Ordinance there was a minimum 40-foot lot frontage requirement
for all residential lots. The proposed amendment would strictly apply to conventional
subdivision lots and by default minor subdivisions. The minimum frontage requirement
prevents subdivisions with multiple flag lots, which are not a desirable subdivision
6
pattern. Although staff has not received a significant number of proposals with multiple
flag lots, there have been some presented and recorded.
Previously there was a 10 foot discrepancy between the required 40' lot frontage and the
30' private access easement. It makes logical sense that the minimum lot frontage should
be consistent with the minimum access easement width. Anticipating the adoption of
some other portions of the UDO, Staff recommends making the frontage requirement
consistent with the proposed 34' private access easement that is recommended by the
UDO committee.
David Adams asked how it would affect other properties and cul-de-sacs. Baird Stewart
stated that 95% of the subdivision applications are performance subdivisions and this
only pertains to conventional.
Michael Keenan stated that this change would create less lots per acre with less land
being available in New Hanover County.
Mr. Keenan made a motion to continue this item to the July meeting requesting the staff
to bring some examples for the Board's review. David Adams seconded the motion. The
Board voted 5-0 in favor of the motion to continue.
Other Items of Business:
Sam Burgess gave an update on the Technical Review Committee's activity during the
month of May 2004.
Mr. Burgess stated that the committee met to discuss six preliminary site plans in the
month of May. The six site plans were reviewed as performance projects. Two of the
projects were new, one was a revised site plan, and the other three were preliminary
extension requests.
1. Deer Crossing, was the revised site plan and classified as a Resource Protection on
the County's Land Use Plan. The plan contains a total of 159 lots in which 119 are
single family and 40 are town homes. The project is served by city water and county
sewer. The TRC voted 5-0 to continue the project on May 12'' until a water capacity
letter was received from the City of Wilmington, placement of the fire hydrants
displayed on the plan, and a road realignment study at Deer Hill Drive and Middle
Oaks Drive were received. On May 26th the project was brought back to the TRC
with placement of the hydrants, water letter, and road realignment. It was approved
with a 5-0 vote.
2. Woodlake at Lord's Creek was reviewed by the TRC on May 12th and on May 26th.
It is classified as a limited transition and a conservation area. The project contains a
total of 386 lots of which 176 are single-family lots, 120 condos, and 90 multi-family
units. It will be served by City water and County sewer. The project was continued
by the TRC on May 12ffi based on the uncertainty of City water capacity and water
pressure to support fire plugs and the method of preservation for the designated open
7
space in the project. On May 26th the TRC voted 4-1 to approve the project. The
project came with four conditions.
3. Addenbury Subdivision was reviewed by TRC on May 12 and is made up of two
parcels of land. The TRC approved 17 lots for this project by a vote of 5-0 with no
significant conditions.
4. Three (3) preliminary site plans were reviewed by the TRC and extended for one
year:
a. Johnson Farms - 551 lots
b. Kirkwood Estates - 354 lots
c. Interstate Business Park- Industrial Park with 44 lots
Dexter Hayes informed the Board that a Planning Board member should attend the neat
County Commission meeting on July 12th.
Being no further business, David Adams moved to adjourn the meeting. Robin Robinson
seconded the motion, which the Board unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at
8:20 p.m.
Dexter Hayes, Planning Director
8