Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA-423 Staff Summary BOCA-423, (05/16) Page 1 of 5 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST CASE: A-423, 05/16 PETITIONER: Design Solutions REQUEST: Amend Zoning Ordinance Section 81: Minimum Parking Requirements to create parking requirements for multi-family residential projects based on the bedroom unit types PLANNING BOARD ACTION: This application was heard at the May 5, 2016 Planning Board meeting. The five Planning Board members present at the meeting heard staff’s presentation of the petitioner’s request and the staff-recommended version. During her presentation, the petitioner indicated no objection to the staff-recommended version. Ultimately, the Planning Board passed a motion 3-2 to recommend approval of the staff- recommended version of the text amendment. Of the two members who voted against the motion, one member felt the change would be more appropriate as part of the upcoming project to evaluate and amend the county’s land use regulations, and the other member was supportive of the staff- recommended version but preferred increasing the recommended requirement of two spaces per 2+ bedroom units to two and a half (2.5) spaces per 2+ bedroom units. The motion to recommend approval found that the recommended version of the amendment is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of Policy 5.2 of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the amendment provides more design criteria that results in more efficient land use and impervious surface reduction. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest as the amendment would maintain adequate minimum parking requirements while offering more flexible design criteria and lowering impervious surface coverage for multi-family residential projects. PETITIONER’S REQUEST: The petitioner is requesting to amend the parking standards in the Zoning Ordinance to differentiate parking standards for multi-family residential development uses, and base the minimum parking requirement for a multi-family residential project on the types and number of bedroom units. The petitioner is proposing to require 2.5 spaces per three-bedroom units, 2 spaces per two-bedroom units, and 1.5 spaces per one-bedroom units. Red and Underline/Strikethrough – Petitioner’s Proposed Additions/Deletions Section 81: Minimum Parking Requirements 1 81-1: The following off-street parking space shall be required and maintained: 2 3 Uses Required Off-Street Parking Any residential use consisting of one (1) or more dwelling units Two (2) parking spaces on the same lot for each dwelling units Single-Family or Duplex Residential Two (2) parking spaces on the same lot for each dwelling unit A-423, (05/16) Page 2 of 5 Uses Required Off-Street Parking Multi-family Residential One and one-half (1.5) spaces per 1 bedroom unit Two (2.0) spaces per 2 bedroom unit Two and one-half (2.5) spaces per 3 bedroom unit 4 STAFF POSITION: Currently, the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 2 parking spaces to be provided on the same lot for each dwelling unit, regardless of whether the residential use is single-family, duplex, or multi-family residential. Staff is supportive of the petitioner’s proposal to differentiate parking requirements based on the residential use type and reduce the requirement for one-bedroom multi-family units, but is reluctant to recommend increasing the minimum requirement for three-bedroom units (or larger) to 2.5 spaces per unit at this time. The proposed change aligns the county’s regulation more with the City of Wilmington’s residential parking standards shown in the following table: USES REQUIRED NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES Residential Uses Maximum Minimum Residential 2.5 per unit 0-1 bedroom 1.5; 2 bedrooms 2; 3 bedrooms or more 2.25. If the city determines that the parking requirements of the anticipated resident population requires additional parking, the City may require up to 2.5 spaces per unit. Elderly housing may be reduced up to 1 space per 2 units. Staff also researched what other jurisdictions across the state are requiring for minimum parking requirements for multifamily residential uses, as shown in the table on the following page that also compares the exiting county requirements, the petitioner’s proposal, and the staff recommended version. A-423, (05/16) Page 3 of 5 Bedroom Unit Type 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3+ bedroom NHC Existing 2 2 2 Petitioner’s Proposal 1.5 2 2.5 NHC Staff Recommendation 1.5 2 2 Wilmington 1.5 2 2.25 Elizabeth City 1.5 1.75 2 Mebane 1.5 1.75 2 plus 0.5 per bedroom over 3 bedrooms Garner 1.5* 2* 2.5* *Plus 1 space for every 4 units in complex Johnston Co 1.5 1.5 2 Onslow Co 1.5 2 2.5 Harnett Co 1.5 per bedroom + 1 per bedroom over 2 Currituck Co 1.8 1.8 1.8 Wake Co 1.5 1.5 1.5 Durham Co 2 2 2 CharMeck 1.5 1.5 1.5 The discussed parking requirements are minimum requirements, and at this time the county’s Zoning Ordinance does not have parking maximums or any type of additional requirements for parking that exceeds the minimum or any other threshold. For example, some zoning ordinances require that any parking that is provided beyond 150% of the minimum be constructed of pervious material. As such, a project may provide additional parking beyond the minimum requirement at their discretion and without consequence. Staff recommends a minor change to the petitioner’s proposal to keep the existing requirement of 2 spaces for 2+ bedroom multi-family residential units, as noted below. At this time, staff has no information or reason to support increasing the minimum requirement for 2+ bedroom units from 2 spaces per unit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Red and Underline/Strikethrough – Petitioner’s Proposed Additions/Deletions Blue and Underline/Strikethrough – Staff’s Proposed Additions/Deletions Section 81: Minimum Parking Requirements 5 81-1: The following off-street parking space shall be required and maintained: 6 7 Uses Required Off-Street Parking Any residential use consisting of one (1) or more dwelling units Two (2) parking spaces on the same lot for each dwelling units A-423, (05/16) Page 4 of 5 Uses Required Off-Street Parking Single-Family or Duplex Residential Two (2) parking spaces on the same lot for each dwelling unit Multi-family Residential One and one-half (1.5) spaces per 1 bedroom unit Two (2.0) spaces per 2+ bedroom units Two and one-half (2.5) spaces per 3 bedroom unit REVIEW AND ACTION: This request has been processed and reviewed per Section 110 – Amending the Ordinance. Notices of the petition request have been disseminated per the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the minor changes to the petitioner’s proposed amendment under the Staff Recommendation above. The amendment supports Policy 5.2 of the 2006 Wilmington-New Hanover County CAMA Land Use Plan, which states: Encourage innovative development strategies while providing flexible design guidelines that enhance the aesthetics and minimize adverse environmental impacts of the built environment. Lowering the parking requirement for one-bedroom multi-family residential units to 1 parking space per one-bedroom unit is logical as the parking demand realized from these types of units is minimal. The amendment also indirectly reduces environmental impacts realized from stormwater runoff, and also increases site design flexibility by reducing the area of a site that must be dedicated to parking. Action Needed  Motion to approve the either the petitioner’s proposal, staff’s recommendation, or another version of the amendment  Motion to “table” the item in order to receive more information  Motion to deny of the petitioner’s request based on specific reasons Example Motion for Approval: Motion for approval, as the Board of Commissioners finds that this request for a zoning ordinance amendment is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because [Describe elements of controlling land use plans and how the amendment is consistent]. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because [Briefly explain why. Factors may include public health and safety, applicable plans, or balancing benefits and detriments.]. Example Motion for Denial: Motion for denial, as the Board of Commissioners finds that this request for a zoning ordinance amendment is: 1. Not Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because [Describe elements of controlling land use plans and how the amendment is not consistent]. 2. Not reasonable or in the public interest because [Briefly explain why not. Factors may include public health and safety, applicable plans, or balancing benefits and detriments.]. A-423, (05/16) Page 5 of 5 Staff Suggested Motion: Motion to approve the staff-recommended version of the amendment, as the Board of Commissioners finds that this request for a zoning ordinance amendment as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of Policy 5.2 of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the amendment provides more design criteria that results in more efficient land use and impervious surface reduction. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest as the amendment would maintain adequate minimum parking requirements while offering more flexible design criteria and lowering impervious surface coverage for multi-family residential projects.