1990-01-22 Special Meeting
I
I
I
. - , .,
801
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING, JANUARY 22, 1990
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners and New
Hanover County Planning Commission held a Special Work Session on
Monday, January 22, 1990, at 7:30 o'clock P.M. in Room 501 of the
New Hanover County Administration Building, 320 Chestnut Street,
Wilmington, North Carolina.
Members present were:
Commissioner Jonathan Barfield, Sr.
Commissioner E. L. Mathews, Jr.
Commissioner Nolan O'Neal
Vice-Chairman Albert W. Corbett, Jr.
Chairman Fred Retchin
Planning Commission Members present were:
Ms. Bea Clemmons
Mr. Clarence Fredlaw, Sr.
Mr. William H. Grathwol
Dr. William E. Sisson, Jr.
Mr. Ernest J. Puskas
Chairman Paul Foster
Mr. Michael Jordan, Vice-Chairman
Commission, was absent due to flu.
Planning
of
the
Chairman Retchin called the meeting to order, welcoming
everyone present, and stated the purpose of the Work Session is
to discuss long-range planning for New Hanover County. He
requested Planning Director, Dexter Hayes, to proceed with a
presentation on the present Land Use Plan and proposed 1992
update of the plan.
DISCUSSION OF LAND USE PLAN
Planning Director Hayes expressed appreciation for
opportunity to meet with both boards stating since policy is
by the members present, it is an ideal time to discuss
direction of long-range planning in New Hanover County.
stated Assistant Planning Director, Dave Weaver, will explain
Land Use Plan with a question and answer period following
presentation.
an
set
the
He
the
the
Assistant Planning Director Weaver stated the presentation
will provide background information on the existing policy and
regulatory framework affecting the County's decision-making
concerning future land use, particularly in respect to commercial
and high density residential development; and strive to develop a
consensus concerning the direction of long-range planning efforts
and the ways and means to implement adopted policies.
Discussion was held on amending the Land Use Plan.
Assistant Planning Director Weaver commented on the difficulty of
amending the plan which requires approval by the City of
Wilmington and State of North Carolina. He stressed the
importance of not using this plan as a vehicle to establish
commercial nodes.
The following outline of the Land Use Plan was presented:
I. Existing Policy and Regulatory Framework for Land Use
Decision-Making
A. Land Use Plan
Components
a. policies for Growth and Development.
b. Land Classification Map.
~
. MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING, JANUARY 22, 1990 (CONTINUED)
802
Uses of Land Use Plan
a. Guidance in regulatory decisions.
b. Guidance in site plan review.
c. Capital improvement planning.
d. Consistency requirement for State and
Federal actions.
State Requirements
a. CAMA-mandated elements.
b. Schedule for updating.
Role of the City of Wilmington and Beaches
Only local government in coastal North
Carolina to have a joint City/County Land
Use Plan which has proven to be beneficial
in preparing a comprehensive plan for the
County. The beaches are not included;
however, they do review the Land Use Plan.
o
B. Neighborhood Plans
a. Address specific neighborhood issues.
b. Receive excellent public input.
c. Guidance for land use decisions in a
specific area.
d. Land Use Plans are being developed for
the Wrightsboro and Airport area of the
county.
C. Timing and Location Controls
a. Subdivision and Mobile Home Ordinances.
b. Zoning Ordinance.
D. Commercial Opportunities
a. Need for additional commercially zoned
property.
b. Critical role of the Land Use Plan in
rezoning decisions.
o
E. High Density
a. Definition of High Density.
b. Need for High Density Development oppor-
tunities.
c. Role of the Land Use Plan in the avail-
ability of land for High Density Develop-
ment.
Discussion was held on high density development and the
following concerns expressed by the County Commissioners:
1. Adequate opportunities, e.g, enough available land
for High Density Development.
2. Procedure for review and approval of High Density
projects should be straight-forward with a min-
imum of discretionary decision-making.
3. The need for greater development opportunities
with densities between 2.5 units per acre and
possibly 5 units per acre.
Assistant Planning Director Weaver presented the following
information with reference to High Density Development:
o
1. Sufficient areas
presently available for High
review of undeveloped parcels
the following characteristics:
of the unincorporated County are
Densi ty Development, based upon a
in the unincorporated County with
-Adjacent to major or minor arterials.
-Probable access to the County sewer within two years.
~
I
I
I
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING, JANUARY 22, 1990 (CONTINUED)
'803
"
2. High density and low income housing traditionally have
been more the functions of the City than the County primarily
because the City has the necessary services and infrastructure.
3. The Wilmington-New Hanover Land Use Plan will be updated
in 1992. Assuming that sufficient opportunities exist for the
next two years for High Density Development, it may be
appropriate to wait and address major changes to the requirements
at that time.
4. The County should continue to allow High Density
developments to be permitted by right in selected areas defined
by existing criteria. This action should help ensure the
availability of opportunities for a range of housing choices and
make the pursuit of such developments more attractive to
developers.
5. Performance Residential development density factors
could be increased to expand the opportunity for developments
approaching 4.0 units per acre. The proposed new factors listed
below are calculated by assuming that 10% of a parcel is devoted
to roads. The R-15 factor is not increased because the major
intent of the Land-Use Plan is not to allow residential densities
beyond 2.5 units per acre beyond the Transition areas. It should
be noted there is no existing vacant R-10 property beyond the
Transition areas, while there are considerable vacant acreages of
the other residential districts beyond the Transition areas.
Performance Residential Density Factor
Zoning District
Existing
Proposed
R-10
R-15
R-20
RA
3.3
2.5
1.9
1.0
3.92
2.5
1. 96
1. 31
The increase in the factor to 3.92 units per acre for R-10
could be combined with the selective rezoning of parcels to R-10
by landowner petition to the County Commissioners. These actions
would allow the opening up of more parcels on a selective basis,
to Performance Residential developments with density approaching
4.0 units per acre, without having to meet the added
requirements, e.g. open space and recreational land, of High
Density Development regulations. High Density Development, with
its added requirements, begins at 4.25 units per acre in R-20
districts and can go up to 17 units per acre in R-10 districts.
The above recommendations would conflict to a certain degree
with the County's policies for Growth and Development in the
Land-Use Plan. These policies state that any development with
density greater than 2.5 units per acre must have direct access
to a major arterial; however, under the proposed recommendations,
a parcel could be rezoned R-10 without direct access to an
arterial which may be justified as follows:
1.
Other policies encourage the opportunity for increased
density of development, including:
3.1(1) New development standards and incentives shall
be encouraged to insure the continued supply of a wide
range and sufficient supply of affordable residential
housing types.
3.1(2) Housing opportunities shall be improved for
the following selected groups: the elderly, the
handicapped, larger households headed by a single
parent, and the area's homeless population.
2. The County Commissioners have previously declined to
amend the Zoning Ordinance to require a connection
to a Class IV Sewer System and to require a community
~
8~ES OF SPECIAL MEETING, JANUARY 22, 1990 (CONTINUED)
water system for development exceeding 2.5 units per
acre, despite the fact that these are adopted polic-
ies in the policies for Growth and Development. The
decision not to codify the two policies for develop-
ment exceeding 2.5 units per acre sets a precedent
for giving reduced weight to the policy that all
development exceed 2.5 units per acre must be located
on an arterial. It is critical to note that the
policy not allowing development with densities
exceeding 2.5 units per acre in areas beyond the
Transition areas has been incorporated into the
Zoning Ordinance and has been consistently supported
in previous rezoning cases.
[]
Discussion was held on the amount of land zoned R-10.
Planning Director Hayes stated there is very little vacant land
presently zoned R-10. He stated Weatherwood Subdivision and
Wildflower Subdivision were recently zoned R-10 with an increase
of density in that area.
Discussion was held on predetermining specific locations for
commercial development. Planning Director Hayes stated specific
locations should not be predetermined; however, performance
criteria, values and impact indicators should be the factors to
determine the amount of commercial development as the County
grows.
Mr. Paul Foster, Chairman of the Planning Commission stated
in the past many areas were zoned for future commercial uses;
however, many zoning areas have not been developed commercially.
He stressed the importance of future planning to accommodate the
projected population growth and allow for orderly commercial
growth.
Commissioner Barfield commented on commercial and
multi-family development being encouraged at intersections and []
major arterials stating these areas are becoming less desirable
for this type of growth due to traffic congestion. He stated .
multi-family development should be encouraged off of major
arterials until a road system has been developed to handle
traffic. He commented on the intersection at Eastwood Road and
Military Cut-off stating this area has become a traffic disaster,
particularly when traffic signals are not working.
Chairman Retchin stated a cluster of commercial development
off of highways would be an ideal situation; however, it is
necessary for retail businesses to locate on major arterials in
order to survive.
A lengthy discussion was held on future commercial
development in New Hanover County and the 1992 Land Use Plan
Update. Planning Commission Member, William Sisson, emphasized
the importance of concentrating on upgrading the use of areas
already zoned commercially but being underutilized, such as
vacant used car lots and service stations, instead of approving
additional commercial rezoning. Planning Director Hayes stated
the determining factor to be considered when reviewing a rezoning
request is the impact of the use on the area; for example,
placement of a dry cleaning business will generate twice the
traffic of another business since two trips are involved with
each transaction. He recommended defining what is to be []
accomplished before separating the land uses.
Assistant Planning Director Weaver asked if the
Commissioners feel restrictive growth should be pursued, such as
establishing building permit quotas. Chairman Retchin
recommended that this option not be considered at the present
time.
Commissioner Barfield commented on the rapid growth of the
County and recommended that the Planning Staff and Planning
Commission review the present Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Plan
defining where we are now and what direction the County should be
taking to provide for long-range planning.
~
I
I
I
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING, JANUARY 22, 1990 (CONTINUED)
, 5 .,
.80.,
Planning Director Hayes stated Florida has implemented
"concurrency" planning where permits are not issued for
development until the infrastructure is in place or is in the
process of being developed, such as a bond issue. He stated
eventually New Hanover County will have to address the
infrastructure problems with the continuous demand for services.
Consensus: After discussion of the present Zoning Ordinance and
the fact that New Hanover County is both urban and rural without
an urban level of services, but yet serves as a regional center,
it was the consensus of the members present to request the
Planning Commission and Planning Staff to study and prepare a
report establishing guidelines to be followed in controlling
future land use in New Hanover County. The following issues are
to be addressed:
1. Review of the present Zoning Ordinance addressing
uses permitted by right in all zoning districts
with development of more specific classifications
that clearly define the density and uses allowed in
each zoning district.
2. Pursue developing reliable traffic data by working
jointly with the City of Wilmington since they are
capable of performing many of the studies in-house.
3. Continue to pursue drainage regulations for new develop-
ment.
4. Divide the county into districts with rezoning requests
grouped accordingly. Schedule Public Hearings for
each individual district on a quarterly basis. This
procedure will allow the Commissioners to analyze the
overall impact of proposed uses within the community.
Planning Director Hayes commented on the extension of water
and sewer services as a part of growth management stating recent
discussion had occurred between the City and County with
reference to establishing a Water & Sewer Authority. He
cautioned against establishing an autonomous, unaccountable Water
& Sewer Authority stating a structure of this type will eliminate
the control of growth by elected officials.
Commissioner Barfield expressed concern for 80% of the
members of the Planning Commission living in the northern end of
the County and stressed the importance of appointing
representatives from all areas of the County, particularly the
southern end. He stated the Commissioners should closely examine
geographical locations when appointing members to serve on the
Planning Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Mathews complimented the Planning Director,
Assistant Planning Director, and Planning Staff for an excellent
job on the Porters Neck Plan.
Chairman Retchin expressed appreciation to members of the
Planning Commission and Planning Staff for giving of their time
to attend the meeting.
Motion: Commissioner Barfield MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner
Mathews to adjourn. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Retchin adjourned the meeting at 9:35 o'clock P.M.
~~ctful~Yj/ubmitted'
if ;V~
L ie F. Harrell
Clerk to the Board
.~