Loading...
04 APRIL 2019 PB MINUTES - APPROVED Page 1 of 19 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board April 4, 2019 The New Hanover County Planning Board held a regular meeting on Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the André Mallette Training Facility of the New Hanover County Government Center, 230 Government Center Drive, Wilmington, NC to hold a public hearing. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Jordy Rawl, Chairman Wayne Clark, Planning & Land Use Director Donna Girardot, Vice-Chairwoman Ken Vafier, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Paul Boney Rebekah Roth, Senior Long Range Planner Ernest Olds Brad Schuler, Senior Current Planner Jeffrey Petroff Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Allen Pope Edward “Ted” Shipley, III Chairman Jordy Rawl opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing. Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ken Vafier led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Jordy Rawl reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z19-05) – Request by Michael Nadeau, on behalf of the property owner, WPE Holdings, LLC, to rezone approximately 23.25 acres of land located in the 9000 block of U.S. Highway 17, from (CUD) B-1, Conditional Use Business District, R-15, Residential District, and (CZD) O&I, Conditional Office and Institutional District, to B-1, Business District. Senior Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Senior Planner Schuler presented the following staff report. Senior Planner Schuler stated the proposal is a straight rezoning; therefore, there is no site plan attached to it and no conditions of approval can be attached to it. The zoning map of the subject property shows that the proposal is currently made up of three zoning districts; however, most of the property, about 80%, is zoned (CUD) B-1. That zoning was approved in 2007 and allows for the development of a medical park, consisting of a mixture of office, retail, and service-related uses, with a maximum gross floor area of approximately 200,000 square feet. On the bottom western side, four acres of R-15 zoned property is also included in the proposal, as well as one-half acre of conditional Office and Institutional zoned property along the roundabout. Page 2 of 19 Planner Schuler stated the property directly abuts conditional Office & Institutional zoning to the northeast. There are some existing medical related uses on that property, including the New Hanover Regional Medical Center Emergency Department. He presented a map showing the existing development pattern of the Scotts Hill Medical Park and Scotts Hill Village. The site is buffered from the Scotts Hill Village residential subdivision by an existing wetland area and the Coastal Preparatory Academy. The Board of County Commissioners recently approved the issuance of revenue bonds for Coastal Prep to acquire the undeveloped parcel directly across the street from the school. Planner Schuler stated the property is currently a wooded, undeveloped tract consisting of approximately 23.25 acres, and the majority of the property is zoned (CUD) B-1. On the current conceptual site plan attached to the district, he highlighted the lots which were included in a recent preliminary subdivision approval, noting two of the lots would allow for development as shown. If this rezoning is approved, the third lot, along with the four (4) acres of residentially zoned land would be allowed to be developed in accordance with the standards of the B-1 zoning district. The B-1 district permits a total of 59 uses by-right and 11 uses with a special use permit. In general, the district permits agricultural, commercial, and institutional uses. Planner Schuler said regarding transportation, four projects in the area have conducted a traffic impact analysis. Additional details of those developments are included in the staff report. The applicant has recently obtained an approved scope for a Traffic Impact Analysis for the subject property. Per that scope, the full build of the site would consist of office, medical, and shopping center uses, totaling about 190,000 square feet in gross floor area, which is about 10,000 square feet less than what is approved in the current site plan. Planner Schuler reported in regard to the NCDOT projects in the area, noting that Project 44328 proposes to make improvements at the Market Street/I-140 interchange by widening the existing ramps to and from Highway 17. That project is currently unfunded. STIP Project U-4751 (Military Cutoff Extension) is currently underway. Once that is completed, STIP Project R-3300A (Hampstead Bypass) will begin. Completion of those projects will give another option for motorists traveling to and from Pender County. Planner Schuler reported that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classifies the property as Community Mixed Use. That place type promotes higher density residential and supporting commercial uses. Overall, the proposed B-1 rezoning is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because commercial districts are identified as a typical zoning category for the Community Mixed Use place type and the B-1 district allows for the types of retail, office, housing, and recreational uses recommended for this area. Chairman Rawl asked if board members had any questions for staff. In response to Board Member Olds inquiry regarding the southern boundary of the subject property, Senior Planner Schuler responded that it is currently a property line, but it was his Page 3 of 19 understanding that property line was based off a proposed road that ran adjacent to the wetlands. Hearing no other questions from board members, Chairman Rawl opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Michael Nadeau, of Creative Commercial Properties, stated he represented the property owner and applicant, WPE Holdings LLC. He explained this property has a long history. His client acquired the property over ten years ago, designing a major office complex. They were offering 200,000 square feet in five very large buildings intended to be leased to medical users. They started in 2007-2008 and had some pretty good activity pre-leasing, etc., but that went on hold when the recession hit, as one might expect. Through that time and since they’ve continued to seek tenants, large and small, without success. Mr. Nadeau stated that the market had changed very dramatically over that time. The sheer number of medical practices has declined very, very dramatically, certainly well over half. Consolidation and acquisition have been the trend of the last decade. The small users are by and large a thing of the past. These larger practices that have done these acquisitions we find are not tenant prospects. They want to own their own facility. They don't want to share with another so they’re finding interest and demand for individual lots. Mr. Nadeau stated that a great deal of time and effort and money has been expended in the grand scheme, and they’ve finally given up on that and admitted defeat on the megaproject there. Mr. Nadeau said they do see a market for practices that want to serve this fast-growing area in northern New Hanover and southern Pender counties. The grand scheme is no longer working so the applicant is asking for this rezoning to accommodate the sale of individual lots for stand‑alone practices or businesses. Mr. Nadeau commented that they believe this change will finally open this 20‑acres to the commercial services needed in the area. He offered to answer any questions the board may have. Board Member Jeffrey Petroff asked if the applicant is a member of a property owners’ association that manages the roads and stormwater systems on this project. Mr. Nadeau responded that this 25-acres site has its own stormwater pond in place as shown on the map. It was built originally to accommodate this 25-acres, the surgical center and that section of road and is completely built, finished and done. Mr. Nadeau stated there will be an owners’ association within this 25-acres to maintain that pond and the private road. He stated, additionally, a separate association manages the private road within the larger project there, which includes the hospital, Scotts Hill Village, and the charter school, which are all members of that road maintenance association. Mr. Nadeau stated that the stormwater pond will be tied directly to this tract. He added that, as mentioned, the seven acres behind is a deep wetland. He just met with the Tax department to walk around the site, and they reduced the value to approximately $4,000 for the seven acres, recognizing that there is no developable high ground. He noted it does create a very significant buffer for the school there. Board Member Petroff stated he would be remiss to not bring up an issue brought to the planning board’s attention during a public hearing several months ago on a parcel southeast of Page 4 of 19 here for the future Coastal Preparatory Academy, that downstream of that property there were some stormwater impacts to some of the adjacent properties due to a short circuiting of a storm water system. He said he understands they were going to a different treatment pond than this one. Mr. Nadeau responded that he was present at that meeting. He said that engineer had clearly misdiagnosed the problem. Trees had fallen on the pond itself over the outlet rupturing it and that entire system rose up. He had talked about the places where the storm drains were open. They were at the right height and they stay open. You put a little grade over them. He had said they needed to be capped, but you don’t cap storm drains in a road. They take in water. He commented that he thought that situation was more a function of the thirty inches of rain than anything else. Mr. Nadeau said he was stunned when he was speculating on the cause of that situation was, which torpedoed that project. In response to Board Member Petroff’s inquiry, Mr. Nadeau confirmed that system is a wholly separate system from the system on this subject property. He noted that other system is twenty feet downhill easily. He added that whole thing is being built out, that road is being built out in that part of the system and was only missing the pavement. In response to Vice-Chairwoman Girardot’s inquiry regarding the existing pond, Mr. Nadeau confirmed that the existing pond will serve the conceptual plans for the property and is permitted for the entire twenty-plus acres in the original permit. Chairman Rawl stated no one else had signed up to speak in support of the rezoning and inquired if anyone else present would like to speak in support of the rezoning. Fred Lang, 313 Victoria Charm Drive, stated he would like to know how traffic would be accommodated for this proposal. Chairman Rawl replied it was his understanding that the applicant has a joint roadway agreement to utilize the Scotts Hill Medical Drive to access this property, and that would be what accommodates traffic to enter and exit. Mr. Lang stated their primary concern is the traffic and how it will be accommodated if the rezoning is approved. He wondered if there would be a Market Street access to allow traffic to come out or if it would come down their road. Chairman Rawl explained that the request is a straight rezoning so there isn’t a conceptual site plan attached to it to show how traffic will flow. Mr. Nadeau confirmed that the frontage of the proposal is on Market Street and Scotts Hill Medical Drive provides the main access. He noted that Scotts Hill Medical Drive does connect with Pandion Drive, which goes over to Scotts Hill Loop Road, so there certainly is another way out. Someone who lives in Scotts Hill Village or whatever would come up Pandion Drive and then Scotts Hill Medical Drive to get to the site. Mr. Nadeau stated that is the primary access, Page 5 of 19 and then in the course of our buildout anticipate, we anticipate another connection to Market Street at the south end of the property. Mr. Nadeau stated they were seeking the straight rezoning tonight, but their plan is to bisect that tract, and have it tie back to Market Street. In response to Board Member Allen Pope’s inquiry, Mr. Nadeau confirmed that a driveway permit would be required for the development and the proposal’s traffic impacts would be mitigated at that time. He added that NCDOT is currently debating those required improvements and they are looking at off-site improvements. Mr. Nadeau pointed out that 200,000 square feet of space is currently permitted there now, so the applicant is kind of moving parallel in terms of a traffic impact as opposed to increasing the impact. Chairman Rawl stated since nobody else had signed up, the board would grant the gentleman in the audience time to ask his question. Mr. Lang stated that Pandion Drive and his street, Victoria Charm Drive, don’t want to be impacted by any more traffic. He cited the 400 plus cars per day that go through that area to the school. If there’s no way to cross back over on Market Street, all those cars will come down to get to the proposed rezoning area. All those cars will come down, but might travel back through their residential streets to get back to Market Street instead of going back up by the hospital. He again expressed concern about the traffic pattern, noting we build and build in Wilmington, but we don’t do anything to address the additional traffic situation. Chairman Rawl asked if anyone else from the public would like to speak in opposition or in support of the rezoning request. Hearing none, Chairman Rawl closed the public hearing and opened the planning board discussion period. In response to Board Member Paul Boney’s inquiry, Senior Planner Schuler clarified for the planning board members and residents that the traffic generated by the proposed rezoning would be less because the subject property is currently zoned for a conditional business use. The proposed rezoning wouldn’t result in an additional 200,000 square feet because the property can already be developed under the current approved zoning; therefore, the potential traffic is already there. It may be made better by the proposed rezoning. Planner Schuler provided the current approved site plan for the property, noting it reflected what the current zoning could allow to be developed. He added that Mr. Nadeau could pull buildings permits for the subject property under the current existing conditional permit. Board Member Jeffrey Petroff inquired what the minimum parcel size is in this zoning if the property was subdivided to accommodate the building type mentioned by the applicant. Senior Planner Schuler responded that there is no minimum lot size for a B-1 zoning district. Board Member Olds stated he is always reluctant to recommend approval of rezoning from a conditional use to a straight rezoning without conditions and asked staff to clarify that the Page 6 of 19 setbacks and buffering in the proposed B-1 zoning district would be as strong as what is already shown in the current conditional zoning district. He didn’t think they were going backwards in terms of diminishing what they may have gotten in the conditional zoning district. Mr. Olds commented that from his perspective the proposed rezoning would open the development for a greater variety to better address market conditions. He added he doesn’t want to go backwards by backtracking on a condition. In response to Board Member Olds’ question, Senior Planner Schuler explained the main change is that some R-15 land is included in the request and could be developed. He noted Lot 1 in the corner is mostly a tree-save area so it has limited uses that could be developed so it would allow that lot to be developed as well. In response to an inquiry from Chairman Rawl, Planner Schuler clarified that the subject property which is in the Highway 17 corridor overlaps with the special highway overlay district and that the applicable setback is reflected on this site plan. Hearing no further comments or questions from board members, Chairman Rawl entertained a motion from the planning board. MOTION: Board Member Ted Shipley MOVED, SECONDED by Board Member Paul Boney, to recommend approval, as the Board finds that this request for a zoning map amendment of approximately 23.25 acres to the B-1 district, as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the B- 1 zoning district allows for the types of uses recommended by the Comprehensive Plan for this area, and is identified as a typical zoning category for the Community Mixed Use place type. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal supports business success by increasing access to basic goods and services for residents in eastern New Hanover County and north of Scotts Hill, which may reduce the need to travel to the Porters Neck and Ogden areas. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance requires the site to provide a transition to the abutting residential property with the installation of a buffer yard along the shared property lines. The Planning Board voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend approval of Rezoning Request (Z19- 05). Item 2: Text Amendment Request (TA19-01) – Request by New Hanover County to amend Articles V and VI of the Zoning Ordinance to add five new residential zoning districts, two new commercial districts, one new mixed use district, and to amend the existing Planned Development district. Page 7 of 19 Senior Long Range Planner Rebekah Roth presented the text amendment request. She stated the amendment is the result of many discussions held with the planning board members, stakeholders, and staff. It will result in the full spectrum of zoning district options that we need to complete the vision for New Hanover County’s future development patterns that was established when the comprehensive plan was adopted back in 2016. The proposed amendment is a major change as it will establish eight new zoning districts, the same number of districts added to the zoning ordinance in the past forty years. All these districts have been used in the City of Wilmington for several years, so many people may be familiar with them already, and there is a track record of how they’ve worked over time. Senior Planner Roth stated she would review the proposed amendment to ensure there would be plenty of opportunity to address any questions board members might have about the districts, as well as briefly touch on how this amendment fits with the larger development code update, how it reflects the discussion they had last August, and to explain how each district is intended to work. Senior Planner Roth stated, as presented last month, the county has engaged Clarion Consulting, a nationwide firm with a strong reputation in North Carolina, to help reorganize all our development ordinances into one unified development ordinance document. She noted that will take a couple of months. She stated staff didn’t want to hold up the process if there were things that could be done right away to make sure the county moves forward with allowing the type of development that we want to see. She explained that the proposed new districts will provide new tools to allow for the types of development envisioned, and along with the code reorganization that Clarion is working on, will result in the unified development ordinance, that core part of the project we’ve been working toward. After the completion of that, staff will continue to work with Clarion on targeted code updates to improve the way the districts work together and how they work with the county’s site development standards and subdivision standards. Noting that the planning board had provided direction on key drafting choices at their August 2018 work session, Senior Planner Roth reported that the core project will address all those points of direction, and those shown in red are incorporated into the new zoning districts. She added that the proposed text amendment only adds new districts and amends some of the standards of the county’s existing Planned Development or PD district. Ms. Roth confirmed that none of the uses on the county’s list will be changed and none of the permissions for existing zoning districts, including the industrial uses discussed in 2017, will be affected by the proposed amendment. Senior Planner Roth announced that the proposed amendment will add eight new zoning districts to the county’s zoning ordinance and revise the Planned Development or PD district, increasing the number of base zoning districts to 25. In comparison, the City of Wilmington has 31 zoning districts. Ms. Roth explained this will allow the county to increase the diversity of development options available within its jurisdiction, allowing more variation on what can be applied on the ground. Page 8 of 19 Senior Planner Roth elaborated, because the county has more specific development regulations, this will reduce the uncertainty regarding potential impacts that come along with discussions about general districts or straight rezoning that don't include any conditions. She noted, as previously discussed, conditional rezonings as a regular practice have some drawbacks because they add a lot of uncertainty for the applicant, sometimes resulting in the investment going towards going through the meeting process, rather than actually putting it on their site or into their business. Senior Planner Roth said it also might end up that applicants are in a position where the market changes, but they’re locked into a site plan or set of uses and they must go back through the process again. However, both the planning board and the public want to have some sort of comfort level, some certainty as to what you’re going to get when these uses are put on the ground, and that is what this proposed amendment is aiming to provide. Senior Planner Roth stated the permissions and standards for the proposed districts are generally based on the City of Wilmington’s current requirements. The list of permitted and special uses have been converted into the terms used in the county, and the same supplemental standards used in the city have been included, unless things are already covered by a state statute, such as some of the standards for adult day cares, or if the county has a different practice in place. For instance, some of the city's requirements are minimum lot sizes for things like skating rinks, but the county doesn’t treat different types of indoor recreation differently so that was left out of this proposed amendment. Senior Planner Roth reported that staff has made sure the proposed dimensional requirements allow for the performance subdivision option for residential districts, and has worked to ensure that commercial properties that meet the minimum lot size requirements are still buildable. She noted the districts on the ground in the city have been there for a while and are not always next door to residential districts. They’re usually larger districts. Given the fact that along many of the county’s commercial corridors, there are R-15 or other residential zoning districts, there’s more likelihood that when these districts are applied here, they might be next to some residentially zoned or used properties. Senior Planner Roth stated the proposed amendment also adjusts the height standards. She explained the city allows higher heights than the county currently allows, up to 96 feet in some districts, which is not in line with what the county has now or with the comprehensive plan. Therefore, those height standards have been adjusted down to 45 feet in the proposed amendment, which is in line with what the comprehensive plan requires, and is also in line with the 35- to 40‑foot height limit that the county currently has in most of its districts. Senior Planner Roth explained that the proposed amendment will not rezone any properties. The new zoning districts are considered floating districts, meaning that they're on the books. People can ask to use them, but before they're used, the applicant will have to come to the planning board and county commissioners for approval. The text amendment will not make any changes to existing permissions for zoning districts. The new districts will just provide more Page 9 of 19 options. Senior Planner Roth reported that a big part of the proposed code amendment is the addition of five new districts to the county's residential district line‑up. The basic intent of these new districts is to allow for the full range of residential densities and housing types that were outlined in the 2016 comprehensive plan. Senior Planner Roth stated according to the plan's future land use map, there are areas in New Hanover County where very low density is appropriate, where lower densities are appropriate, and where moderate and high densities are appropriate. In the rural residential place type, which is the more agricultural land in Castle Hayne, very low density is intended, which would be half‑acre lots or larger. The general residential place type is one of the county’s largest place types, and is where very low and low densities are intended and quarter-acre suburban lots are standard. More moderate densities of ten units per acre for single-family and 15 units per acre for multi-family are intended for the community mixed use place type. The urban mixed‑use place type is where higher densities might be appropriate. Senior Planner Roth stated as discussed in August 2018, the county's current residential zoning districts don't allow the full range of density outlined in the comprehensive plan. Basically, by right, the county’s existing residential districts pretty much only allow very low density. She noted with the high-density development special use permit, density might be achieved into the moderate range, but there’s nothing really on the higher end that is what we intend for the urban mixed‑use areas. She stated the five new residential districts will start to fill in those gaps, and will potentially also add to more affordability when it comes to housing. She noted the greater by right densities and the little bit greater height allowance could result in some reduced construction, infrastructure, and land cost per unit than if you had a larger lot, single- family home. She stated that all these districts allow for accessory dwelling units or garage apartments like they do in the city of Wilmington. Senior Planner Roth stated the R-5 district would allow for single‑family homes, town homes, and attached condo or apartment style buildings of about three or four units. The maximum density would be eight units per acre, which is on the lower end of that moderate portion of the spectrum so it could potentially be a good fit in that transitional area between community- mixed use and general residential. The proposed RMF districts run the spectrum of the lower end of the moderate range to the highest end of high density, and while they allow for single- family dwellings, they are primarily intended to be places where multi‑family building types - apartments, condos and town homes - are expected. Senior Planner Roth stated, as outlined in the planning board packet, staff would like the board to consider two additional recommendations. The rule of thumb applied in preparing this amendment was to go with the city standards unless it is in opposition to what we currently do in the county. Regarding the supplemental standards for accessory dwelling units, the county doesn’t have any current provisions for accessory dwelling units. The city's current standards require the maximum of an accessory dwelling unit to be 35% of the primary structure or 1,200 Page 10 of 19 square feet, whichever is less. Staff has received feedback that that standard has caused some limitations of the use or the provision of accessory dwelling units in the city, and it was recommended that the county allow a higher percentage of the gross floor area of the primary structure. Staff would feel comfortable going as high as 50% of the primary structure, and in either case, 1,200 square feet would still be the maximum limit regardless. Second, staff would also like for the board to consider adding senior living, independent living facilities as a permitted use in the R‑5 and RMF districts. It's not specifically addressed in the city’s code, but in the county’s code historically we have allowed them in fewer districts than we allow other similar building types that are not age restricted. Ms. Roth stated that given the fact that the impacts on the surrounding area may be less than they are for nonage‑restricted property, staff would recommend that these be added to the R-5 and RMF districts. In response to Vice-Chairwoman Girardot’s inquiry, Senior Planner Roth confirmed that she was referring to less traffic impacts. She explained generally, when senior living facilities, and independent living facilities are treated differently in an ordinance, it's because fewer parking spaces are required, or because traffic patterns might be looked at a little differently because people who are seniors don't always travel at the same times or in the same ways as younger people who are going to work at rush hour and coming back at five o’clock. The county has historically treated them more stringently because when they were first adopted, we weren’t familiar with what the impacts would be. In response to Board Member Boney’s inquiry, Senior Planner Roth confirmed the senior living facilities, independent facilities would have the same 45-foot height limitation. She explained staff had gotten some questions about the height for residential. At this point, staff is thinking of looking at changes in heights across the spectrum of all the county’s districts. She stated for this amendment, staff wanted to ensure that that the heights were kept in line with the county’s current practices and what was already allowed. Then, when working with Clarion over the next few months, staff can reconsider how the county’s height standards are applied across all districts. Chairman Rawl commented as he understands it, these height limitations coincide with an emergency ingress/egress issue more so than the zoning requirements supplied by the county, i.e., the fire trucks for New Hanover County can't raise themselves higher than 45 feet to either extinguish a flame or extract a person from a building that tall. Is that still applicable? In response to Chairman Rawl’s inquiry, Senior Planner Roth stated it was her understanding that when the 30‑foot height limit was adopted in many places, it was when fire apparatus couldn’t go higher, but that has changed and so it is no longer a limitation. There are questions about making sure that infill development fits in with the surrounding neighborhoods, as well as concerns about taller buildings next to someone's backyard where they want some privacy. Noting there are some things to consider in addition to that, Senior Planner Roth said staff didn’t want to hold things up while we have that larger discussion that needs to happen. Planning Director Clark added that staff has tried to have a couple of meetings with people that Page 11 of 19 had built in urban areas like Raleigh, but hadn’t gotten far enough along to answer the question appropriately. He thinks board members will see in the next phase more flexibility on the height. He assured board members that staff wasn’t conveying that they think the height limits in the text amendment are as high as the county can go. Staff expects to better address the height issue in the next phase. Board Member Ernest Olds asked regarding the RMF-H district, which the county doesn’t currently have, if there was a project located in the city that would be an example of that level of density. Senior Planner Roth replied that the only RMF-H project they were able to find in the city was the South Front apartments. They are achieving their density because of the size of the units, as opposed to the height limits so it may not be the best example. Board Member Olds commented that he didn’t want to convey the idea that they were looking for 20-story apartments either. He noted that’s still not anywhere close to the kind of urban density that one could achieve so there’s quite a lot of room left over to go higher. Senior Planner Roth stated that it was discussed whether the maximum density in any of these districts was practical, given building code restraints and the needs of the market, but it basically allows for incremental increases in density without having to go through a special use permit process. You might not be able to get 36 units, but you might need 26, so the RMF-H would get you there even if you don't max it out. Vice-Chairwoman Girardot stated she was pleased that Ms. Roth had explained the floating district concept because she had been asked about it by members of the public, who had read the narrative. She noted that some of those uses are not always appropriate on some pieces of property and the safeguard is that they will still be coming back to the planning board and the county commissioners for approval. Chairman Rawl inquired if one of these code changes comes before the planning board, for example, an RMF-M application, and it falls inside where the comprehensive land use plan categorizes residential mixed use, whether staff would provide a recommendation to support that rezoning based on its geographic location within the comprehensive land use map. Senior Planner Roth confirmed staff would make those recommendations as to consistency with the comprehensive land use plan. She noted whether something is reasonable or in the public's interest would be based on each particular property that was requested a rezoning. In response to Chairman Rawl’s inquiry, Senior Planner Roth confirmed that requests for the new zoning districts would be subject to the same process as other rezoning requests, for example a B-2 or R-15 request. Senior Planner Roth stated that two new commercial districts adapted from the City of Wilmington zoning line-up are also included in the proposed amendment. The primary intent of Page 12 of 19 these districts is to provide some alternates to the existing commercial designations, most specifically B‑2, the most common commercial designation in the county. These options will be key to our development future in the county because the historic zoning of many of our commercial corridors has been R-15 lower density residential zoning districts; therefore, we do anticipate people coming forward with rezonings along these corridors as the market changes and they want more flexibility because having a larger lot, single‑family home right off Market Street or Carolina Beach Road is not where the market or the public is trending. There will be more requests for these commercial districts. Senior Planner Roth reported that one of the new districts, CB or Community Business district, is designed to be appropriate closer to residential neighborhoods. Think of it as a predesigned conditional district that already has safeguards intended to be applied to each property with that zoning designation that make you feel comfortable moving forward with it on a particular property. Senior Planner Roth stated the Commercial Services or CS district provides an alternate zoning designation for those uses in B‑2 that might be less desirable on high traffic corridors. The B‑2 district currently allows for a very wide spectrum of commercial uses. From what we have heard in the past, the board and members of the public aren’t comfortable that you have enough certainty of what the impacts will be if a straight, non-conditional rezoning goes forward in this district. It means that areas in the county that already have the B‑2 zoning applied to them are sometimes disjointed and not very cohesive so there might be a nice restaurant next door to an RV storage facility or you might have a mini-storage located where you are hoping to have a shopping destination. She added that in general, there's a balance between flexibility and permitted uses and design features that reduce the impacts on neighboring properties. Because of the large number of uses in the B‑2 district, there are 90 permitted uses and there are 42 uses permitted with a special use permit in that district. The county requires a very large setback for B-2, and it’s needed for some of these uses, but for a neighborhood drugstore, it just means that it cost a lot more to development it, and you're inefficiently using the land you have. Ms. Roth said to provide new options, the numbers and types of uses for these districts have been reduced and these uses have been reduced and dimensional standards have been designed to that there will be enough protection for nearby residential properties based on the uses that are allowed in those districts. The proposed CB district is intended for small scale and community scale commercial uses. The spectrum of uses is reduced from B‑2 down to about 60 permitted uses and from 42 down to six special uses. It's basically B‑2 without the light industry and manufacturing and without the contractor yards or mini-storage, but with the full spectrum of retail and office uses, personal services, and restaurant uses. In order to further reduce concerns, the size of retail businesses is capped at 60,000 square feet, which is about the size of a grocery store, and outside storage is prohibited. The way this district should be designed, staff hopes the board would feel comfortable they could apply it to a property without adding additional conditions. It is intended to be in community mixed use areas, especially as infill along our commercial corridors and at intersections of multiple neighborhoods that could become commercial nodes Page 13 of 19 for nearby residents’ basic goods and service needs. Planner Roth added that a minimum 20- foot setback and buffer yard would be required when lots are next to residential properties, and the scale of buildings is limited by a size maximum and by parking lots. This potential structure location area is probably not going to be the entire structure area, but is just the envelope that the building could be placed in. In response to an inquiry from Board Member Jeffrey Petroff regarding the maximum size of retail business uses, Senior Planner Roth confirmed the maximum size of a retail business is 60,000 square feet. She noted that 100,000 square feet is one of the city codes for uses like shopping centers. Planning Director Wayne Clark added that the maximum is 60,000 square- feet for an individual use so a grocery-anchored shopping center could be done that totals more than 60,000 square feet. It wouldn’t include the larger box stores like a Bass Pro Shop that would draw regional traffic. Senior Planner Roth stated the alternative Commercial Services District is intended for uses currently allowed in B‑2 that are less desirable on high visibility corridors like Market Street, South College Road, and Carolina Beach Road. It will allow for uses like contractor yards, equipment storage, and light industry. These types of uses play an important role in our economy and often require more land, easier truck access, and more outside storage than might be appropriate along major corridors that tend to be more expensive. She noted there’s a lot more scrutiny because many times these corridors are the gateways to tourist destinations. The CS district is designed to encourage those types of uses primarily in areas on the outskirts of industrial areas or near similar uses. In this district, larger setbacks will be required if they happen to be next to residential property. She asked if planning board members had any other questions about the two proposed commercial uses. Vice-Chairwoman Girardot stated she really liked the CS, Commercial Services, district because it allows a developer a lot more flexibility, and the developer doesn’t have to choose between the ninety uses in the B-2 district, or between that and the I-1 district. In response to Board Member Allen Pope’s inquiry, Senior Planner Roth confirmed that churches would be allowed in both the CS and CB districts. Senior Planner Roth reported staff has continued to have conversations with stakeholders since the August 2018 work session, and has received feedback that the mixed-use districts will be important in achieving the development pattern and mixture of uses outlined in the comprehensive plan. She explained that staff will be working with the consultant, Clarion, to develop those neighborhood-scale, community scale, and Main Street scale mixed use districts discussed in August, but also wanted to move forward with making some improvements to what we have so as to not limit the possibility of high quality mixed use projects to be submitted in the meantime. Senior Planner Roth stated two changes are included or the board’s consideration. First, an adaption of the city’s UMX district, which balances having a wide spectrum of permitted uses Page 14 of 19 with some very specific design and form standards for streets, sidewalks and buildings. This district does permit the board to review a specific conceptual plan, making sure that the project makes sense and is appropriate where and how it’s proposed. Depending on its scale and the scale of the buildings proposed, it could be appropriate in some community mixed use place, but probably more appropriate in the urban mixed-use places on the future land use map. Senior Planner Roth stated, in addition, staff has recommended a couple of changes to the county’s existing PD, Planned Development, district. The PD district was basically created to allow for that integrated mixed use project generally under common ownership, and in the past, it was on very large lots. However, there aren’t many large lots in common ownership left in the county, and since the recession, there have been additional challenges to getting financing for projects that are multi‑phase and take long periods of time to develop so staff is proposing two changes. First, reduce the current 100-acre minimum district size requirement down to ten acres per the conversations in August 2018. Ten acres generally large enough to accommodate a mix of uses, and allow for fewer development phases and a shorter development timeframe. Second, Reduce or eliminate the fringe use restrictions in the PD district. Currently, on the perimeter of a planned development, when it is next to residential property, there is 200 feet that a developer is not allowed to use for anything other than residential. That restriction is unique to the PD district because the county doesn’t require that large of a separation from B-2 or from I- 1 if you were to develop these as single sites; therefore, staff’s recommendation is to eliminate the fringe use area, and instead, apply those same setbacks, the CB setbacks if retail or commercial is proposed or the I-1 setbacks if manufacturing is proposed, which will allow the same level of protection provided for other properties within the county's jurisdiction. Ms. Roth offered to answer questions specific to the mixed-use districts. Board Member Jeffrey Petroff stated he thought the proposed text amendment was incredibly well done, but he had one question regarding the UMX district. He commented that he had done a couple of projects in the city under the UMX district, and that zoning was pushed onto those properties by the City, not selected. He wondered if five acres was the appropriate minimum, noting all the projects he had worked on were smaller than five acres and he would imagine many properties could be infill. Senior Planner Roth explained staff had based that minimum requirement on the fact that in the UMX zoning district, they anticipate a mix of uses within the same project. From the feedback received, they determined that five acres is about as small a piece of property that would still allow for that type of mix of uses. Planning Director Clark added that not having worked with it, it was his understanding that the City had applied the UMX district to a large area south of Dawson and Wooster streets. Since then, individuals have come in on Military Cutoff Road and maybe a couple of other places and picked spots and applied that district out in the suburbs. Planning Board members who do this for a living may have more insight into that minimum size requirement. Staff was trying to start with five acres, thinking of some of the larger areas, but they don’t want to limit it. The three or Page 15 of 19 four people who said they may have an interest in using that district in the county were all looking at bigger sites. He noted Mr. Petroff may have a very valid point that a five-acres minimum may limit something very useful. Board Member Petroff commented that he wasn’t making a recommendation, but wanted a clarification on the basis for the requirement, which seems sound. Board Member Paul Boney commented that as staff studies it, they’ll figure out whether the appropriate minimum acreage for the district is five or two and one-half or ten acres. Mr. Boney said he would urge staff to think about the height because in all the buildings they are doing, the floor‑to‑floor heights are getting higher to get all the gee whiz stuff in there. He noted that some of the heights were based on building an 8‑foot ceiling and having two feet of structure, etc., and then you get three stories and a roof. Mr. Boney stated he thinks we in the county need to update our thinking about what’s going on in the world around us. He added that the height limitation also limits that density and what you can do as we look at infill projects which are really needed in some areas. If you can't get the density, which often requires structured parking, and around here, that is a big number, but it will come to that. He noted that in the future there will be those projects that will have that. Mr. Boney stated the opinion that the county should look a little further into the future than the 45- and 35-foot height maximum and he hopes they will consider that. He commented that staff had done a brilliant job with the amendment. He urged staff to think further along the height and density equation because that’s what you’re seeing everywhere and you’re going to see it here. Planning Director Wayne Clark expressed agreement and appreciation for the value of the board members’ architectural knowledge in designing buildings and helping staff understand what goes in between the floors, and then the public demand for 10‑foot ceilings instead of 8‑foot ceilings. He commented that staff had tried to go to a stories height with some kind of maximum, so that developers could put another four inches in height in order to put everything in between the floors, and in general, allow architects the flexibility to design a quality building, but they hadn’t gotten there yet. Senior Planner Roth stated, in the end for tonight we recommend approval of the proposed amendment as presented, with the addition of increasing the size maximum for accessory dwelling units to no more than 50% of the gross floor area of the primary structure and by permitting independent senior living by right in the R-5 and RMF districts. We believe this amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan as it provides those tools that are needed to provide for the development patterns that we said we wanted to see in the plan. We also believe it's reasonable and in the public interest because it provides more options. We want to provide more options while we work on the rest of the project. It can support our current county goals for helping to encourage more affordable housing, the development of more efficient and complete communities, and is adapted from districts that are already in use in the city of Wilmington, so we know that there has been some success there. Ms. Roth concluded her presentation and stated she was available to answer any other questions the board may have. Page 16 of 19 Vice-Chairwoman Girardot stated that the text amendment was a beautiful piece of work and Ms. Roth and Mr. Clark had done an incredible job. She thanked them for all the hours of work that had gone into the process. Ms. Girardot asked if it would be appropriate to bring up a couple of questions on the table of permitted uses that she had received regarding, for example, commercial parking lots being labeled as “P” in the AI, Airport Industrial district on page 1 of 39, or if those questions should be asked later because we’ll get to those other uses. Senior Planner Roth confirmed that it was staff’s intent to limit the scope of the discussion to the new districts because the table and the list will be reworked as staff works with the consultant, Clarion, over the next few months to reorganize it. She noted it was, however, the board members’ prerogative if they felt that something was necessary in the meantime. Chairman Rawl stated he would echo Vice-Chairwoman Girardot’s comments. This amendment is easy to understand. He thanked staff for putting in the effort to make it easy on the board members and for putting together a nice list of options for the county to move forward with. Chairman Rawl opened the public comment portion of the public hearing. Cameron Moore, of the Wilmington Homebuilders Association, stated he also echoed the planning board’s sentiments. The staff has done a wonderful job on this amendment. He said they have been a stakeholder in this process for approximately a year, injecting comments and providing feedback. He noted that they had travelled around the county with staff to visit seven different developments with houses. He commented that to Mr. Boney’s earlier point, construction is changing. We went out and looked at it to show how construction is changing on the residential side. He noted it is also changing on the commercial side. Mr. Moore stated they are certainly supportive of the new districts and the amendments proposed. He explained that they looked at three different things in their vetting process: 1) Density - more-dense projects; 2) Height variations - more height variations, moving up and down the spectrum of height in residential, commercial, and multi-family; and 3) Overall mixture of housing types. He commented that one of the slides shown earlier showed where everything is slid to one side. Noting that is why the county has developed like it has, he said that is not how the county needs to continue to develop. Mr. Moore stated this is a historical moment for the county to move this amendment forward, and his organization fully support it. Tyler Newman with BASE, Business Alliance for a Sound Economy, said he had sent the board members an email earlier that day. He thanked staff for their hard work and commented that the amendment is a brilliant document because they put the time and effort in on the front end to look at other communities and at the city, and tried to find something that will work in New Hanover County; and put some tools in the toolbox so that we will see continued investment and to give us the type of development that we need and the comprehensive plan calls for. He remarked that, at the same time, it is important to have continuing discussion about the height issue. If we’re talking about flooding and resiliency, the base for the floors will go up, and if we're stuck on the top end, the building envelope is going to be a little square. He doesn’t know Page 17 of 19 that we necessarily want to do that. Mr. Newman said that is something that they’ll continue to pursue going forward, but all in all, the proposed amendment is great, and he would encourage the planning board’s support of it. In response to Vice-Chairwoman Girardot’s inquiry regarding the anticipated timeline for approval of the text amendment, Director Wayne Clark confirmed staff would like to move forward with a recommendation by the planning board if the board members were comfortable with the text amendment. Director Clark explained that the intent was to take the amendment forward for consideration by the county commissioners at their July 1 regular meeting due to budget discussions and hearings in May and June. He noted staff has had the opportunity to do work sessions with the planning board and spend quality time talking about the amendment, and it would give staff time to talk with the commissioners about the proposed amendment between now and July 1. Director Clark commented if something needed to be done to make the text amendment better, staff could make those changes and bring it back in May; however, if planning board members were comfortable making a recommendation, staff would use the time until the July 1 commissioners meeting to talk to the commissioners about the proposed amendment. Vice-Chairwoman Girardot explained that the basis for her question was a discussion she had earlier that afternoon with the realtors’ association. There was an understandable oversight and they didn’t get a copy of the amendment until last week. Their legislative committee reviewed it last night, but they haven’t received their feedback yet, and their UDO task force hasn’t seen it. She remarked that the realtors’ association is a very integral and large part of this community, and the business community, and is very relevant to what the planning board is considering recommending for adoption. She stated she was certainly comfortable with voting to approve the proposed text amendment, but would rely on the other board members as to whether they would like to give that community another month to provide input to the planning board or should provide that input to the county commissioners. Chairman Rawl stated no one else from the public had signed up to speak in support or in opposition to the proposed text amendment. Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Rawl closed the public hearing and opened the planning board discussion period. Chairman Rawl stated he found it a little remiss that the realtors’ association didn’t have an opportunity to review the amendment more thoroughly, however, he did feel that staff had done a good job of promoting the material and preparing the information in the different zoning districts. He didn’t know if was necessary to continue the item, but he was certainly open to the other board members’ opinions on Vice-Chairwoman Girardot’s comment that the board might consider delaying the item until May to allow the realtors’ association to provide their comments. In response to Chairman Rawl’s inquiry, Vice-Chairwoman Girardot clarified that her earlier comments were not a recommendation to delay the planning board’s recommendation, but were only to provide the information she had received to the other board members. She Page 18 of 19 explained that the realtors’ association had been part of that larger organization, and staff rightly assumed the realtors’ association was working through the larger association when, in fact, they had broken their association and were not included in all of the discussions on the draft amendment being considered. She commented that delaying the planning board approval was an option, however, she was perfectly comfortable proceeding with a vote on the text amendment. She would also like hear comments from the other planning board members. Board Member Paul Boney asked for clarification that the realtors were part of the group that helped put the amendment together, but were not part of that group anymore. Vice-Chairwoman Girardot explained that the realtors’ association is no longer part of BASE; however, staff assumed, and rightly so, that BASE was going to review the proposed amendment for them and make comments for them. Director Wayne Clark explained that he thought the realtors were part of BASE until Christmas 2018, and were parts of teams all the way through from the August 2018 Planning Board workshop; it’s the perfection of the details that are different from that point. He stated that he had done presentations to the commercial realtors and attended a couple of quarterly sessions for realtor relicensing and certification training to make presentations, so the realtors haven’t been left out. Mr. Clark commented that when the realtors’ association changed their leadership, planning staff was not informed that the relationship between the realtors’ association and BASE had been dissolved. They were in multiple meetings with them. He reported that one realtors’ association member had reached out earlier that day to let him know they would be inviting planning staff to a meeting to take them through the amendment proposal. He said he would be surprised if there was anything in the amendment that the realtors would be worried about. Director Clark added he didn’t want to suggest what’s right or wrong, but staff has spent a lot of time with the realtors and have not left them out. He acknowledged they are very important to the process. Board Member Allen Pope expressed the opinion that the planning board should proceed with a vote on the text amendment, noting the realtors would still have an opportunity to bring whatever issues they may see at the county commissioners’ level. Board Member Ernest Olds added that this is by no means an absolute document that can’t be amended in the future. We're talking about height limits and density numbers, which are flexible, and improvements can always be made in the future. He didn’t feel that the realtors would be shortchanged in any way if the planning board moved forward with a recommendation. He also thought the board should honor staff’s hard work and push the amendment along. Chairman Rawl reiterated that the county staff had done a superior job putting the text amendment together. He asked if there were any other suggestions, comments, concerns, or questions from board members. Page 19 of 19 Vice-Chairwoman Girardot stated it would be her pleasure as the planning board’s UDO representative to make the motion for recommendation of the text amendment. Hearing no other comments from board members, Chairman Rawl closed the planning board discussion period and entertained a motion on the text amendment. MOTION: Vice-Chairwoman Donna Girardot MOVED, SECONDED by Board Member Paul Boney to recommend approval of the amendment as the board finds this request, as described, is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it will provide zoning tools needed to incorporate the development patterns envisioned in the plan. The new residential districts will allow the full range of housing types and densities outlined on the Future Land Use Map and support an increase of the supply of workforce/affordable housing. The new commercial districts will provide zoning designations that are designed to be located where accessible to nearby residents, and the new and revised mixed use districts will provide options for planned developments that include the mixture of uses and development forms encouraged in the Community Mixed Use and Urban Mixed Use places. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed amendment will provide additional options for residential, commercial, and mixed-use development potentially appropriate in community mixed use, urban mixed use, and general residential areas of the county and are adapted from zoning districts already successfully used in the City of Wilmington. The Planning Board voted unanimously, 7-0, to recommend approval of Text Amendment TA-19-01. With no further business, Chairman Rawl adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Note: The above minutes are not a verbatim record of the meeting.