2016-01 January 7 2016 PBM
Page 1 of 11
Minutes of the
New Hanover County Planning Board
January 7, 2016
The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a
public meeting.
Planning Board Present: Staff Present:
Donna Girardot, Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director
Anthony Prinz, Vice Chairman Ken Vafier, Planning Manager
Tamara Murphy Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Jordy Rawl Sam Burgess, Senior Planner
Ernest Olds Brad Schuler, Current Planner
Edward “Ted” Shipley, III Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney
David Weaver
Absent:
Tamara Murphy
Chairman Donna Girardot opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing.
Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chairman Donna Girardot reviewed the procedures for the meeting.
Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-942M, 1/16) – Request by Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions on
behalf of the Krueger Family Trust, property owner, and Stephen Fasul, contract
purchaser, to rezone 3.15 acres located at 7755 Market Street from (CZD) B -2, Conditional
Highway Business District, to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business District, to amend
a previously approved conditional zoning district for a mini-warehouse use. The property
is classified as Transition according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan.
Current Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification,
access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the
property and the surrounding area.
This application seeks to modify an existing Conditional Zoning District. Conditional
zoning districts have an attached site plan, which the property must be developed in
accordance with. Upon review, staff determined that the proposed modification to the
approved site plan was a major change; therefore, it must be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. The subject conditional zoning district was
originally approved by the Planning Board in August 2015 and allows for a mini-
warehouse use to be developed. The applicant is seeking to modify the approved site plan
Page 2 of 11
attached to the district, specifically, by changing the size and location of the proposed
storage buildings.
The subject property is located on Market Street near other commercially zoned properties.
The commercial uses in the area include office, retail, and warehouse uses. Adjacent the
property to the west and along Alexander Road is a residentially zoned area which contains
a number of single family dwellings. To the east of the property, across Market Street,
there are a couple of multi-family developments, specifically the Amberleigh Shores
apartment complex and The Parks at Three Oaks apartment complex. The subject property
is undeveloped, currently wooded and contains a pond in the rear portion of it. The
property fronts and will have direct access to Market Street.
According to the NCDOT traffic volume maps and to the WMPO traffic counts, the
adjacent segment of Market Street operates at a Level of Service of “E”, meaning its
operation is near or at the street’s capacity level. That being said, mini-warehouse uses do
not generate a lot of trips. Specifically, the proposed use is expected to generate just 12
AM peak hour trips and 21 PM peak hour trips; which is well below the 100 peak hour trip
threshold which would require a TIA be completed.
The 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan classifies the property as Transition. The purpose of that
classification is to provide for future intensive urban development on lands that have been
or will be provided with necessary urban services.
The current approved conceptual site plan for the district includes four (4) single-story
storage buildings and one two-story office building. The buildings total over 52,700
square feet in area. In order to fit them all on the property, the existing pond will have to
be drained and filled in.
Two conditions were placed on this district. One was that the existing vegetation be
preserved along the rear bufferyard. The second condition limited the hours of operation
for the business from 6AM to 10PM.
The newly proposed site plan proposes to increase the gross floor area of the buildings
from just over 52,700 square feet to 79,000 square feet. While the proposed site plan does
increase the gross floor area of the buildings, it also reduces the amount of pervious
coverage on the property. This is because much of the storage area is now proposed to be
within a larger 2-story building; whereas the current site plan proposed only single-story
storage buildings. The reduction in impervious coverage will allow for the existing pond
on the property to be preserved and for the width of the rear bufferyard to be increased.
Further, the pond will be modified as necessary in order to be utilized for stormwater
retention.
The applicant has provided architectural renderings of what the main two-story building
will look like. The building incorporates a few design elements including wall offsets,
glazing, and corner design features.
Page 3 of 11
Staff recommended approval of the application with the same conditions currently on the
district. The first condition is that the existing vegetation within the rear bufferyard be
preserved. The second condition is that the hours of operation be limited from 6:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m.
Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant.
Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions represented the applicant. She explained that storage facilities
aren’t what they used to be. They have really made a difference in the market as far as the
architectural style of the buildings and climate control features. She stated they were very excited
because this project will be the first multi-story storage facility in the Wilmington area. It gives
the developer the opportunity to get more storage space and is still climate controlled. Freight
elevators will be installed to provide easy access for customers. The new plan makes the project
more feasible because there is more gross square footage for storage use, and also doubles the
rear buffer to 45 feet, providing a much larger area for the vegetative buffer to screen from those
residences, whose owners had concerns about the original site plan. The same proposed eight
foot high solid fence will be installed, but it will be at a 45 foot offset instead of the previous 22-
1/2 foot offset. Circulation around the back of the buildings has also been eliminated so the rear
neighbors will have more of a buffer from any noise; therefore, reducing one of the concerns
previously expressed by those residents. Overall impervious surface has been reduced to less
than fifty percent. With a heavy business use like a storage facility, less than fifty percent
impervious surface is a high point. Now there is no pavement in front of the building, which also
allows a much nicer streetscape. She presented an architectural sketch of the buildings, pointing
out the fenestration and interest in the building. She noted the buildings will not be big box
buildings. The pond can now be preserved and used rather than be covered up with impervious
surfaces. Ms. Wolf concluded the presentation, noting although this is a major modification of
the initial approval of the conditional district, there are a lot of pluses to the new plan, including
the greater square footage for the developer.
Chairman Girardot inquired if the board had any questions for the applicant.
Mr. Weaver stated he had never heard of a multi-story storage unit, but thought it was a great
idea. He inquired about access to the upper story.
Ms. Wolf explained there were multi-story storage facilities in Charlotte, Atlanta, and other
bigger cities. She explained that the proposal is for at least three accesses across the back, along
with emergency accesses. Within the building itself, there are interior hallways, which have
access to all the doors, and then there are freight elevators in certain parts of the building.
Dollies/carts are provided. In response to Mr. Weaver’s inquiry regarding parking issues, Ms.
Wolf explained there wouldn’t be any problem with parking because no one parks in the front
parking area, the aisles are 30 feet wide, and traffic is so spread out over the course of the days
that even if a dozen people were there at the same time, they would be able to parallel park along
the back of the building and there would still be room for traffic circulation.
Page 4 of 11
Chairman Girardot stated the two-story building will have higher area lighting, but the ordinance
requires cut off lights and directional lighting be installed. She asked if Ms. Wolf anticipated any
problems associated with the lighting for the neighbors.
Ms. Wolf stated she didn’t anticipate any problems with area lighting for the surrounding
neighborhoods, noting that the two-story building is on the front of the property so there is more
room. If the two-story directional lights in that alleyway between the front building and the back
building, it shouldn’t go beyond. In addition, there are trees at the back that will be preserved in
the 45 feet.
In response to a question from Ernie Olds regarding the height of the two-story building, Ms.
Wolf stated the building would be 30 to 35 feet high with a flat top and be similar in height to a
typical two-story office building.
Per an inquiry regarding the front yard landscaping, Ms. Wolf explained that the front yard will
have to be an enhanced landscape streetyard because they are taking advantage of the 25%
discount on the 100 foot SHOD setback. The building is setback at the 75 foot mark, but whereas
there used to be pavement in front to get around the buildings where we would have only had
foundation planting around the building, in this case, there will not only be the streetyard, but
also foundational plantings as well.
Mr. Olds stated he would encourage landscaping plantings as well. That is one of the things he
likes about that part of Market Street, noting Walmart had done a reasonably nice job with the
trees in front of their space. Ms. Wolf said there would be some landscaping to break up that
wall, along with the difference in materials.
In response to Mr. Olds’ inquiry, Ms. Wolf stated she wasn’t sure if the pond would hold water.
They had reviewed the pond and determined it was dug out for the purpose of farming at some
point in time. It appears to hold water now so she felt it would hold water, but it will need to be
redesigned to meet the stormwater pond criteria.
In response to a question regarding fencing from Chairman Girardot, Ms. Wolf explained the
building will serve as part of it on the northern side. Fencing is located down the property line on
the northern side, but will be some sort of security fencing, not necessarily solid wood fencing.
Across the back, there is privacy fencing and then there would be some type of fencing on the
south side along the drive aisle.
In response to David Weaver’s inquiry regarding whether the building design featuring the nice
corner structures was part of the special use permit application, Mr. Schuler explained no
architectural standards could be required unless it was added as a condition to the district.
Jordy Rawl inquired about the signage plan for the project.
Ms. Wolf stated there is some signage on the buildings, but typically it would be a low profile
monument sign within the appropriate setbacks. Per the signage ordinance, only a certain amount
Page 5 of 11
of square footage is permitted for the signage. The buildings in place now have some signage
across the building on the façade and then a monument sign in front.
No one from the public spoke in opposition to the rezoning request.
Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the board discussion period.
Ted Shipley stated the proposal is a great solution. He noted the last time the property was before
the board, they had discussed traffic and several neighbors were concerned about the prospect of
being able to see and hear activity there. The new configuration and the greater buffer is a much
better solution for those folks and will actually be much better looking from Market Street,
which is huge concern on that road. He stated he would like to preserve some of the more
attractive features of the northern part of Market Street and this proposal does that so he will
definitely support it.
Chairman Girardot read the procedure and appeals statement.
Ms. Wolf confirmed the applicant would like to proceed to a vote by the Planning Board.
Vice Chair Prinz agreed with Mr. Shipley’s comments that the revised proposal is a win-win. It
is a win for the developer because they get more productivity out of the site and for the residents
because they get a better buffer, less impervious surface, etc. It is also a win for the traveling
public because it will look better when they drive by. He felt there was some value in attaching a
condition to the approval that the actual development be consistent with the renderings that were
presented to the planning board. While he wasn’t sure if the board could stipulate that the
building look like that, but he would like for it to be given it was presented to the board as an
improvement and benefit of modifying the plan. He would like to see a condition go into the
approval saying that the final product should be consistent with the renderings presented here.
Ms. Wolf stated she was agreeable to the request, noting she had presented the renderings in the
presentation so they become part of the record. She explained they were lagging behind getting
the architectural renderings to the submittal or they would have been part of the submittal
package. She restated that Mr. Prinz’s request was fine with the applicant, noting there is
certainly leeway of the exact detail but the general character and materials and the fact that there
is architectural featuring is fine.
Vice Chair Prinz stated belief that the applicant was moving forward with good intent on the
architecture as the project evolves to the building permit and construction process.
Vice Chair Prinz made a motion to recommend approval, as the Planning Board finds that the
request for a zoning map amendment of 3.15 acres from (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway
Business District, to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business Zoning District, to amend an
existing conditional zoning district as described is:
1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the
Transition classification allows for future intensive urban development. The subject site
Page 6 of 11
is along a major thoroughfare, adjacent to existing commercial uses, and is best suited for
non-residential uses.
2. Reasonable and in the public interest because it maximizes the effectiveness of
commercial uses by assuring that land is available for commercial uses within close
proximity to the market they serve and by ensuring that such commerci al uses do not
diminish the quality of life in nearby residential areas.
With the following conditions:
1. The existing vegetation must be preserved within the rear bufferyard to the maximum
extent practicable. The rear bufferyard shall consist of the preserved vegetation, which
shall be supplemented as necessary to provide a fully opaque screen, and an eight-foot
tall solid-wood fence. (Underscore reflects approved amendment to motion).
2. The hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
3. The proposed buildings shall be designed and constructed consistent with the
architectural renderings included in the application, including using similar building
materials and incorporating similar design elements such as wall and color offsets,
glazing, and corner design features.
David Weaver seconded the motion.
During discussion, Chairman Girardot asked if Mr. Prinz would consider an amendment to the
motion to read “The existing vegetation must be preserved within the rear buffer yard and will
consist of both vegetation and an eight (8’) foot tall solid wood fence and existing vegetation
buffer will be supplemented as necessary to make it fully opaque. Ms. Wolf agreed to accept the
condition to add an eight foot fence and supplement the vegetation until the buffer is fully
opaque.
Vice Chair Prinz accepted the amendment to the motion. David Weaver seconded the amended
motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-942M
with three conditions.
Technical Review Committee Report (December 2015)
Sam Burgess presented the following TRC Report:
The County’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) met once in December 2015 and
unanimously approved one preliminary plan.
Bella Port Subdivision
The project is located in the Southeastern quadrant of River Road and Halyburton
Memorial Parkway in the southern part of New Hanover County. The performance
residential project contains 39 lots supported by 15-1/2 acres and will be served by public
water and sewer. The road network is private with a sole entrance at Halyburton Memorial
Parkway. Four conditions were attached to the plan, which included a sidewalk extension
Page 7 of 11
to the county school property on the north side of Halyburton Memorial Parkway. These
conditions are included in the agenda package.
The next TRC meeting will be January 13, 2016 to discuss three items.
Other Business
Jennifer Rigby stated at the recent Planning Board Work Session the board discussed Chapter 4
of the New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan, the Future Land Use Map and the Exceptional
Resource Map, which the board had previously adopted. Staff provided additional information
from CAMA about the requirements for CAMA, as well as a letter at the board’s request
summarizing that meeting. Staff presented the letter to the Planning Board as an item for the
board to forward to the Board of Commissioners if they wished to provide additional information
in light of the information provided by the CAMA representatives.
Ted Shipley apologized for not attending the work session, noting he had reviewed the letter and
felt it did a great job of reciting the narrative of what was discussed, however, he couldn’t speak
from first-hand experience and would rely on the other board members who attended as to the
accuracy. Mr. Shipley stated that because the Planning Board is making a recommendation to a
board that receives a lot of documentation from various parties, he would like to better
summarize what the recommendations are in the first full paragraph of Page 2. His edits pertain
only to the second sentence of that paragraph which begins “Because the aquifer recharge
area…” It was his recommendation to break it down into two or three different recommendations
in order to give the parties reviewing the document a clear understanding of what the Planning
Board is trying to get across. Those recommendations would be:
1. The Exceptional Resources Map should be in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The Primary Aquifer Recharge Area should be separated out, maybe as a part of an
appendix.
3. If there is a recitation or some language that the Aquifer Recharge Area is important to
the future of New Hanover County, that it is simply a statement and not binding on the
plans or the interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan aside from what is apparent from
the index.
Mr. Shipley felt that if the information was broken down into three bullet points, it would be
easier for the county commissioners to discuss and move forward.
Dave Weaver asked if, under Mr. Shipley’s scenario, the board would be able to use the plan as
policy to decide whether or not to recommend approval of a rezoning to heavy industry in a
sensitive area at the aquifer recharge area.
Mr. Shipley explained he would not want to limit the consideration of any aquifer recharge area
from any presentation by staff or consideration by the Planning Board. He was simply talking
about the document itself. For folks that use it and rely upon it in the future, if it is cited as
something that is inherently important, we also want to clarify the limits to which that is to be
considered. If someone felt there was way to create a caveat to answer that, he would welcome
Page 8 of 11
any language. He certainly wouldn’t want to keep it from being considered by the pertinent
parties.
Mr. Weaver expressed concern about clarifying the limits to which the aquifer recharge area can
be considered and asked Mr. Shipley to clarify that statement. He felt it either could or couldn’t
be considered.
Mr. Shipley explained it is not determinative of what can and can’t be decided upon in the future.
It’s not something that will be an outright prohibition or we are going to clarify that if it is
important to us, it doesn’t mean that any consideration of future planning and development is
therefore affected simply because it lies within that area.
Mr. Weaver commented that all of the policies within the plan are a nice soup of factors that
have to be considered when a rezoning application comes along and he is fine with that. He
wouldn’t want any single policy in the plan to be the determining fail or succeed factor as to
whether a rezoning is approved. As he understood it, the way that plan is laid out now, it would
not, but all the factors would be considered. He would prefer the Aquifer Recharge Areas to be a
separate map in the plan, not as an appendix that might be eliminated. He thought it was the
consensus at the Planning Board work session that the Aquifer Recharge Areas should be put on
a separate map in the plan, but not be on the exceptional resource map.
Vice Chair Prinz offered the following clarifications on what the board is trying to accomplish
with the letter and what the future actions will be with reference to the comprehensive plan. The
issue has three dimensions. First, whether the aquifer protection area should be shown on the
map. The board had decided it shouldn’t be on the Exceptional Resources map, but it should be
provided for information somewhere in the plan as referenced in bullet point number one.
Second, how that showing that information on the map may influence county policy or potential
regulation. Third, how that information may influence staff recommendations or how it is
interpreted. He felt the last two issues are for future consideration in Chapter 5 of the plan
because Chapter 5 will take the information that comes before it and make reference to how it
should be utilized and interpreted by setting up implementation initiatives and guidelines. He
completely agreed with Mr. Shipley’s points that the board should make it very clear in the letter
what they intend to do with the map, but then leave the issue as to what the actual policy is
behind it and what the interpretation is to the Chapter 5 discussion. Noting he writes a lot of
correspondence to elected officials, he agreed it is important to make it very clear what your
bottom line is and bullet points work very well. The board would also be better served if they
could get the letter down to one page. He felt the board should move forward the concept and
leave the wordsmithing to after the meeting.
Chairman Girardot stated she thought everything in the letter was very important so she didn’t
want to edit it to one page. She was comfortable leaving it as it is and agreed that the translation
and important parts come in at Chapter 5 and in the actual writing of the zoning ordinance. She
also agreed it was very important that the Planning Board make their recommendation very clear
to the commissioners. Chairman Girardot entertained additional comments or a motion to either
edit the letter or accept it as drafted.
Page 9 of 11
Jordy Rawl asked if it would technically be considered an edit if the board condensed some of
the subject matter in the letter into bullet points as suggested by Mr. Shipley. He asked Deputy
County Attorney Huffman to comment on whether the board was technically making a motion to
edit the letter if they extracted some subject matter and formatted it into bullet points to be more
easily understood by the commissioners or if that would be more like adding supplemental
information or digressing it into a more palatable form.
Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman stated it was her impression that the letter being
reviewed would be accepted by the board per motion for the chairperson to sign and then be
forwarded to the county commissioners. She didn’t see an issue with Mr. Shipley’s suggestion to
slightly edit the first paragraph on Page 2, but it sounded like Mr. Rawl wanted the letter
rewritten.
Mr. Rawl apologized for the confusion, noting he was looking for a way to condense some of the
subject matter in the letter into bullet points because he didn’t believe the commissioners would
be able to read the entire letter during their meeting.
Attorney Huffman was uncomfortable with the board voting to approve the letter, and then
allowing someone to re-write it, even into bullet points.
Mr. Rawl explained he wasn’t suggesting rewriting the letter; just taking the subject matter in the
letter and creating bullet points without changing any of the content to highlight the suggestions
made by fellow board members.
Attorney Huffman explained if the motion was to do that and the board voted to approve the
motion, there would be no problem with condensing the information into bullets.
David Weaver suggested they make a motion to approve the letter as written, but empower the
chairwoman to wordsmith it as she felt motivated to do simply because he would trust the
chairwoman’s judgment in terms of arranging things in bullet points. She attended the workshop
and knows what the board is trying to say.
Mr. Rawl apologized for opening Pandora’s Box, noting he was simply trying to get clarification
from the Deputy County Attorney before the board did offer a motion.
Ted Shipley made a motion to accept the letter as written with the following edits:
After “Because the aquifer recharge areas are a complex issue, the planning board
recommends”:
1) Keeping the Exceptional Resources Map in the plan;
2) But removing the Primary Aquifer Recharge area from the map and placing it on a
separate map, which includes all of the recharge areas.
During discussion, Mr. Weaver stated it sounded like Mr. Shipley was eliminating the
language which reads, providing language that illustrates the importance of the aquifer
recharge areas and careful consideration in the development process. He asked for
clarification that Mr. Shipley was suggesting eliminating that language.
Page 10 of 11
Mr. Shipley acknowledged that was something, based on their earlier conversations, he felt
wasn’t necessary, but he may be wrong.
Mr. Weaver stated he felt that it is an important consideration and thought the board members at
the Planning Board Work Session generally agreed that it was an important consideration. He
felt it was a critical consideration, but everybody weighs the important of different factors in
different ways. He felt that it should be an important consideration like anything else the board
would consider. Mr. Weaver stated he was agreeable to approving the letter as written and letting
the chairwoman wordsmith it into bullets, but he would not want to revise anything that the
board members had come to an agreement on at the work session.
Vice Chair Prinz recommended that the board focus the letter on what the board is trying to
accomplish with Chapter 4, which is whether or not that layer belongs on that particular map or
should be an appendix or a separate map. The level of importance of the aquifer recharge areas
is a matter for Chapter 5. Since the letter is a statement from the chairwoman, the planning board
as a group should agree on the concept of what they wish to convey to the commissioners, and
vote upon that, and then the chair at her discretion can make ex actly what her statement is to the
county commissioners.
Vice Chair Prinz explained the board needed to approve the bullet points. The text is what it is.
Most of it is just a delineation of what happened at the meeting. We are really only approving the
recommendation to the county commissioners, which are those two bullet points and the third
bullet point which we got hung up on. That last statement is a discussion for next month when
we get into Chapter 5. In response for Mr. Weaver’s concerns, Vice Chair Prinz explained the
board has only approved the broad, overarching goals as a part of the county policy. The details
of the policy drilling down from the goals into the initiatives and guidelines will come in Chapter
5 so the goals are very general.
Ms. Rigby explained in Chapter 3 the Citizens Advisory Committee refined the work of all the
citizens that participated in this process into 21 overarching goals. They also explained what they
were trying to accomplish with each goal and then established implementation strategies, which
are a plan for how they saw the goal being implemented. The fifth chapter is the implementation
plan, which takes apart the strategies and puts them into guidelines and initiatives.
Vice Chair Prinz said Chapter 3 was at a higher level and the details come in at Chapter 5 on
how those goals are actually implemented, meaning how this layer is interpreted and whether
county policy or regulations are attached to it.
Ted Shipley made an amended motion to accept the letter as written with the following edits:
After “Because the aquifer recharge areas are a complex issue, the planning board
recommends”:
1. Keeping the Exceptional Resources Map in the plan;
2. But removing the Primary Aquifer Recharge area from the map and placing it on a
separate map, which includes all of the recharge areas and providing language that
illustrates the importance of the aquifer recharge areas.
Page 11 of 11
David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to accept the letter as written
with two edits.
Chairman Girardot adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m.