Loading...
2021-03-04 PB MINUTES 1 | Page Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board March 4, 2021 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on March 4, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina. Members Present Staff Present Paul Boney, Chair Rebekah Roth, Interim Director of Planning Jeffrey B. Petroff, Vice Chair Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Colin J. Tarrant Brad Schuler, Senior Planner Donna Girardot Gideon Smith, Current Planner H. Allen Pope Ron Meredith, Current Planner Ernest Olds Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Rachel LaCoe, Workforce Housing Planner Marty Little, Long Range Planner Members Absent Thomas “Jordy” Rawl Chair Paul Boney called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Planning Manager Ken Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Boney read the procedures for the meeting and welcomed the audience. Approval of Minutes Minutes from the February 4, 2021 Planning Board meeting were presented to the members. No changes or amendments were identified. Vice Chair Jeff Petroff made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Ernest Olds to APPROVE the minutes as drafted. Motion to approve minutes carried 6-0 NEW BUSINESS Board Member Colin Tarrant requested recusal from rezoning request Z21-03 due to a conflict of interest. Board member Allen Pope made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Ernest Olds, to recuse Mr. Tarrant. Motion to recuse Mr. Tarrant carried 6-0. Rezoning Request (Z21-03) – Request by Terroir Development, LLC on behalf of the property owners, Charles R. Clay, Sr., and the Essie W. Clay Revocable Living Trust, to rezone approximately 5.12 acres of land located at 4615 Gordon Road from R-15, Residential District, to (CZD) RMF-M, Conditional Residential Multi-Family Moderate Density District, in order to develop an 84-unit multi-family project. Planner Brad Schuler provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation and zoning. He showed maps, aerials and photographs of the property and surrounding area and gave an overview of the proposed application as referred to in the staff report. Mr. Schuler explained the estimated trip generation for this proposal was less than the recreation center that was approved for this site in 2018. As currently zoned, it is estimated the site would generate about 14 trips during the peak hours if developed at the permitted density. He stated that due to the location and surrounding development patterns, the property was less likely to be developed with low density housing. 2 | Page He stated the site would share access with the Buy Quick Gas station and adjacent storage lot. He stated this proposal included conditions that would require striping be added to the access way to delineate two lanes of travel. Mr. Schuler stated in accordance with North Carolina fire code, parking would be prohibited within the access way, and No Parking signs would be installed. Mr. Schuler stated the Comprehensive Plan classified the site as General Residential, which was intended to provide for lower density housing of 8 units per acre or less. He stated the proposed development was inconsistent with the recommendations for this classification; however, staff was supportive of the proposed development as it was in line with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for providing affordable housing and creating complete communities. He stated it was also in line with the Comprehensive Plan intent of providing an orderly transition from higher intensity areas to lower intensity area and a range of housing types in the area. He stated the proposed multifamily housing was consistent with existing development surrounding the subject site. He stated the Board of Commissioners could still approve a rezoning application that was found to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that the Future Land Use Map would be concurrently amended to reflect the place type that most closely aligned with the new zoning. Mr. Schuler stated if the rezoning was approved, it was staff’s recommendation to amend the place type classification of the subject site from General Residential to Community Mixed Use because the proposal was more in line with the classification’s recommended density. He stated it was also more appropriate for the area because single-family homes were less likely to be built adjacent to major thoroughfares, and it would encourage the development of projects that would provide a better buffer and serve as a transition to the existing single-family residences along Gordon Road. He stated the proposal included two conditions that had been agreed upon with the applicant. The first would require the development to be awarded the Low Income Housing Tax Credits, and the second would require improvements be made to the access easement, including the installation of striping and No Parking signs. In response to the Board’s questions, Mr. Schuler stated that if the Tax Credits were not awarded the county could not issue any permits for a multifamily project on the site. He clarified that any other market rate development proposed for the site would have to go through the rezoning process to amend the condition or to seek another type of zoning. He stated that the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Landing at Lewis Creek Estates estimated that the intersection of College Road and Gordon Road would operate at a level of service of D when the improvements for that project were completed, which was an improvement over the delay estimated for the intersection if the development and its associated traffic improvements were never constructed. In response to the Board’s question, Mr. Schuler explained that density was based on the overall area of the project. He stated Hawthorne at Smith Creek was technically 7.72 acres; however, the density reflected a much larger area than what was actually developed. He stated if you look at the area that was developed, it was about 21 acres and equated to a density of 15 dwelling units per acre. He stated the project did not look like an 8 dwelling unit per acre site, but more like what would be appropriate for the RMF-M zoning district that the applicant was requesting. Chair Boney opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Ms. Stephanie Norris, managing member of Terrior Development gave a summary of the project and stated Tim Clinkscales and Jim Cirello were available for technical questions that the Board may have had about the site. 3 | Page In response to the Board’s questions, Ms. Norris stated that she was open to widening the existing concrete of the access drive being mindful of an existing drainage ditch. She stated no surveys had yet been completed; however, whatever distance would be allowed, they would be open to that extension and shifting any ingress or egress. She stated if it made sense to put a double yellow line to separate the egress and ingress they would do so, but she was not sure if they needed to have a white edge line or some type of median striping. She stated that they were open to delineate the gas station parking spaces and drive area from the actual ingress and egress in addition to No Parking signs. She stated the No Parking signs would be limited to the east side, which would possibly be striped-off similar to a fire lane. In response to the Board’s questions, Ms. Norris stated that regarding the access easement across the Hawthorne property, that she had touched base with the owner of the adjacent property to the west and intended to meet with them the next week. She stated she had not spoken to the owner of the Buy Quick property but was hopeful he would return her call. She stated that according to her attorney there was nothing that would prohibit the right for the requested improvements which would not deprive or deter the use by the other two owners or take away any of their rights. Ms. Norris stated they would work out an easement agreement to move forward with that and had no problem with what was proposed. Ms. Norris stated preliminary evaluations indicated there were about 0.7 acres of wetlands on the site. She stated the front corner of one building and some parking would impact about 0.2-0.25 acres of the wetlands and that if they did not shift or change anything they would be well within the threshold of what was allowed. Mr. Tim Clinkscales of Paramounte Engineering stated that based on the county contours, the elevation of the building would exceed the 16-foot base flood elevation. He stated regarding stormwater, they had a very defined outfall to Smith Creek, and the elevations were above the designated floodplain in this area. With no further questions and no further information from the applicant, Chair Boney closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion In response to the Board’s questions, Ms. Norris stated she would contact Wave Transit to inquire about public transit options. Ms. Norris stated that should the rezoning be approved the buildout would take about two years. In response to the Board’s questions, Mr. Clinkscales stated that the design capacity for the stormwater would follow the 25-year county requirement and would have a major drainage outfall to Smith Creek. After further discussion from the Board, member Ernest Olds made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member, Vice Chair Jeff Petroff to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a conditional RMF-M district. While the Board found it to be inconsistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the project exceeded the density recommended for the General Residential place type, the Board found approval of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal would provide an appropriate transition from a major thoroughfare to existing single-family housing, was consistent with the development pattern of the surrounding properties, and supports the County’s goals of providing for a range of housing types and opportunities for households of different sizes and income levels. In accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board moved to reclassify the property from the General Residential place type to the Community Mixed Use place type. The Board found the proposal was consistent with the recommended building types and densities of the Community Mixed Use classification. In addition, the Community Mixed Use classification would encourage the development of projects that would better serve as a transition between a major thoroughfare and single-family housing. The Board included the following conditions: 1. The development must be awarded Low-Income Housing Tax Credits through the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency. 4 | Page 2. Appropriate pavement markings shall be installed along the 60-foot access easement from Gordon Road to the subject site to identify two lanes of travel. In addition, no parking shall be permitted within the easement and “no parking” signs shall be installed in accordance with the North Carolina Fire Code. The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 5-0. OTHER BUSINESS Workforce Housing Initiatives Update - Workforce Housing Planner Rachel LaCoe Ms. Rachel LaCoe, Workforce Housing Planner, provided an update to the Planning Board on the initiatives of the joint City of Wilmington-New Hanover County Workforce Housing Advisory Committee. The Committee was in the process of finalizing their comprehensive housing study, which would be presented to the City and County elected boards. The Committee was also tasked with preparing a work plan to address the needs identified in the study. Ms. LaCoe stated one of the strategy themes of the work plan was how the City and County could use land use planning to support the production and preservation of affordable housing. If any recommendations included proposed code revisions, they would go through the normal process with staff presenting concepts to the Planning Board and then releasing a draft for public comments. She indicated that the community was in a better position than other communities developing housing work plans as both the City and County had included best practices as new tools in recent code updates. She informed the Board that the Workforce Housing Committee would be hosting a strategy team breakout session on March 16 in which committee members and other stakeholders could participate. She stated a public release of the consultant’s report would be presented to both the Board of Commissioners and City Council on April 5 and April 6. In response to questions from the board, Ms. LaCoe clarified that builders were delivering products at price points above what would be considered affordable for the workforce. To meet those price points, there would have to be an intervention either on the front end, with changes in density, or on the back end, with down payment assistance to the home buyer. She stated that the price range assumptions included in her presentation were based on a five percent down payment. Adding another fifteen percent to their down payment may allow them to qualify for another $25,000 to $50,000 in home price to help bridge that gap. She stated infrastructure was one of the front end costs that affected the price points and would probably be a strategy discussed in the work plan. She indicated that one of the recommendations that had been discussed focused on increasing the density of infill development to make housing products more affordable in both the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County. In response to questions from the board, Ms. LaCoe stated that products or investors that would offer a product with zero to two percent interest rates, it would make a big difference. Board Member Jeff Petroff stated that what was being seen was the impact that the land use changes have had on the final product. He stated tract builders were interested and working hard to build their product but our ordinances and regulations that were tailored to be more environmentally friendly have a huge impact on these costs. He stated the Board should be cognizant when requirements are initiated that they would impact the final cost of the entry level housing substantially. 5 | Page Unified Development Ordinance Update (State Law and Ongoing Maintenance Amendments) - Long Range Planner Marty Little Mr. Marty Little, Long Range Planner, provided a brief presentation to update the Planning Board on the concepts associated with the upcoming text amendment. Mr. Little stated that in 2019 the North Carolina General Assembly created 160D of the General Statutes. Staff was involved in the scoping of the UDO project while revisions to the statute were being considered, so because there were so many unknowns, they had held off on incorporating 160D into the UDO Project. He stated the revision was passed last year and extended the law’s effective date to July 1, 2021. He stated the county’s code would need to be updated to reflect the relevant changes by that time. Mr. Little stated coming into compliance with the law also provided the county with an opportunity to incorporate technical fixes into the amendment in order to clarify code provisions that had been identified over the past several months. This type of maintenance amendment would be part of ongoing efforts to ensure the tools of the code continue to work as was intended. The amendment that would be considered by the Planning Board at their meeting in April would consist of the state law update component and the maintenance component. Mr. Little stated per the state law update, that while county was required to come into compliance by July 1, any changes would be effective once they were incorporated into the ordinance. He provided an overview of General Statutes 160D, which consolidated the authority for counties and cities to enact development regulations into a single chapter and gathered miscellaneous laws throughout the statutes into one place. However, Chapter 160D did not involve any major changes to the way cities and counties currently regulate development and that New Hanover County was mostly in compliance with the consensus reforms that were introduced. He stated the amendment would include some minor changes, such as updating definitions to conform to the law, ensuring that those definitions were consistent throughout the ordinance, incorporating state and federal maps by reference to most recent adopted versions, and clarifying the limits of administrative approval of project modifications. He stated one major change that would impact zoning in New Hanover County was the removal of the Conditional Use District (CUD). He stated the new law replaced the two-part CUD district process with one-step Conditional Zoning District (CZD) process. Current Conditional Use Districts would assume CZD zoning once the amendment was adopted with no further action from the Board or staff. The draft amendment specified that if the code required a Special Use Permit in the base district it would still require a Special Use Permit in the CZD District. Mr. Little stated the law clarified that the Planning Board’s role in the quasi-judicial process. Under the proposed amendment, the Planning Board would be involved in the special use permit process as a preliminary forum but not in a Quasi-Judicial capacity. He stated the key difference with the preliminary forum would be that the Planning Board would not vote or provide a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Little stated the that Planning Board would give the applicant suggestions but they would not vote. He explained that keeping the board involved as part of the preliminary forum is a policy neutral approach to the change in law that provided the same opportunity for the public to remain involved in the special use permit process. Mr. Little stated the 160D law expanded on the current practice of having applicants agree to conditions. He stated that under the proposed amendment, applicants would be required to agree to conditions in writing, which usually would have been worked out by staff and the applicant prior to reaching the Planning Board. 6 | Page Mr. Little stated that 160D prohibited anyone from applying to rezone another person’s property in a way that would reduce the number of allowable uses or density on the property. Mr. Little described the changes to permit choice and vested rights. He stated staff was proposing criteria that a developer would have had received or maintained an erosion control permit and had begun grading, had installed on-site infrastructure, received a building permit for a structure, or had completed ten percent or more of the total cost of design and construction related activities, for a development to be considered to have substantially commenced. He described other changes associated with the 160D law and proposed amendment, stating that the Board of Adjustment would handle variances for subdivision regulations to be consistent with how variances for zoning regulations were handled and that the County’s current practice for Reasonable Accommodations would be codified to require a 4/5 majority vote. He explained that the 160D law also included changes that did not require a text amendment but would affect policies and procedures moving forward. He stated that the law broadened conflict of interest standards to include a close family, business, or associational relationship, and extended conflict of interest requirements to Staff. He stated that other changes included a requirement for an oath of office for all board and committee members, that rules of procedure are made available on the County website, and administrative documents like application forms would need to be updated. He also mentioned that the law introduced new rules for attorneys’ fees. Mr. Little then provided an overview of the concepts for the maintenance portion of the amendment. Mr. Little stated that the amendment proposed allowing architectural metal paneling to self-storage facilities that were in high-visibility areas. Board Member Girardot indicated that she was initially opposed to the use of metal on self-storage facilities, but after seeing examples of how architectural metal paneling was implemented, could be in support of the change to allow specific types of paneling. Mr. Little mentioned that the amendment updated an outdated provision for green building certifications in the EDZD district, and that Staff was proposing designating the EDZD as a legacy district. Board Member Olds advised Mr. Little to consider including WELL certifications in the amendment, and Board Member Girardot said she agreed with making the EDZD a legacy district. Mr. Little added that the amendment clarified that multi-family dwellings in multi-family districts were subject to the same standards as multi-family dwellings in all other districts, and that site-design standards like sidewalks and open space requirements had been clarified to apply to multi-family districts. Mr. Little stated that Staff from the County’s Parks and Gardens Department had provided feedback on the sizes and types of measurements for landscape plantings. He said Parks Staff recommended lowering the minimum size of canopy trees from 2.5” caliper to 2” caliper and to measure understory trees in feet in height rather than in caliper inches. Mr. Little said that based on this feedback, the amendment was proposing a 2” caliper minimum size for canopy trees at time of planting, 8’ for understory trees, both of which were consistent with recent changes to tree mitigation standards as well as the City of Wilmington’s standards. The amendment also proposed new or modified definitions for canopy tree, shrub, and understory tree. Mr. Little stated the amendment updated various definitions to align with state law and recent UDO changes or to clarify definitions based on past interpretations. Mr. Little said the amendment also cleaned up technical corrections, including an amendment to the flood ordinance to better align with Nation Flood Insurance Program requirements and a correction of a transfer error from the old Zoning Ordinance regarding the minimum lot size for duplexes in the R-20 district. 7 | Page He informed the Board that based on the feedback they had provided, he would finalize the proposed amendments and release them for public comment the next week. As with previous amendments, he would collect any comments received, staff responses, and draft updates as part of the information provided to them in their meeting packets prior to the April public hearing. Unified Development Ordinance Update (Stormwater Ordinance) – County Engineer Jim Iannucci Mr. Iannucci stated the Commissioners passed a resolution in December 2019 creating the county’s stormwater services program. He described the program and stated that due to COVID, there was a delay in implementation of fees and some of the maintenance. He stated that the county was looking to fully implement the resolution by July, which included the development of a new stormwater ordinance. The current ordinance had been in effect since September 2000. Mr. Iannucci stated that New Hanover County Engineering wanted to update the stormwater ordinance and put it in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). He stated there would also be a policy that would dictate the type of work performed by county crews and when they would conduct maintenance because there would be conveyances as part of the development in New Hanover County. Mr. Iannucci stated Session Law 2018-145 changed redevelopment in North Carolina in that increased stormwater controls could only be required if a development were adding additional impervious surface and was required to be in the local ordinances. He stated the consulting firm Raftelis assisted with the implementation study of the Stormwater Services division and WK Dickson had originally written their Stormwater Ordinance in 2000. He stated that the current re-write of the Stormwater Ordinance was being done by WK Dickson with some assistance from Raftelis to make sure the policy of Stormwater Services was addressed in the ordinance. Mr. Iannucci stated that there would be a part of the ordinance for appeals regarding an ordinance interpretation or a review decision. He completed the presentation by stating that the ordinance update was an opportunity to ensure the county’s regulations would help achieve its goals and would provide a link to lasting design requirements. He explained that Engineering Staff would also use this project as an opportunity to develop a policy that will control and dictate the type of work that was done. He stated staff was working with their consultants in anticipation of having the ordinance completed by spring and implemented in July when the new program comes into effect. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Iannucci stated if there was an appeal the abatement process would be to abate and put a lien on the property. The appeal would then be reviewed by himself, the County Manager, the Commissioners and the court systems. In response to questions from the Board regarding formed relationships with NCDOT, Mr. Iannucci stated county engineering had been in discussion with the District Engineer about an opportunity for a partnership with NCDOT and city owned properties that adjoin city limits. Mr. Iannucci stated there was consideration of aligning the ordinance with the NOAA Atlas 14 data adopted by other municipalities in NC. He stated the county already had the requirement that if there was not an adequate outlet, then the developer was required to design to the 100-year event. As part of the ordinance update, Staff was considering looking at the higher standard of the NOAA Atlas 14 data. Mr. Petroff explained to the Board that the NOAA data that Mr. Iannucci was referencing was based on rainfall data. He stated that in a previous presentation it was decided the county would design to the 100-year event but that the county’s 100-year rainfall data equated to the NOAA 25 year. He stated that the new standard to be adopted would be more conservative and provide a better end product going forward. Chair Paul Boney adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m. Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.