Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04-01 PB MINUTES 1 | Page Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board April 1, 2021 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on April 1, 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, Director of Planning Jeffrey B. Petroff, Vice Chair Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Colin J. Tarrant Brad Schuler, Senior Planner Donna Girardot Ron Meredith, Current Planner H. Allen Pope Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Thomas “Jordy” Rawl Marty Little, Long Range Planner Members Absent Ernest Olds 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 March 4, 2021 Planning Board meeting were presented to the members. No changes or amendments were identified. Board Member Allen Pope made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Colin Tarrant to APPROVE the minutes as drafted. Motion to approve minutes carried 5-0. NEW BUSINESS Rezoning Request (Z21-04) – Request by RSC Engineering, PLLC, on behalf of the property owner, Cape Fear Habitat for Humanity, Inc., to rezone approximately 4.9 acres of land located in the 3200 block of Reminisce Road from R-20, Residential-20 District, to (CZD) R-10, Conditional Residential-10 District, in order to develop an 11-lot subdivision. Planner Ron Meredith 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. Meredith explained that the current R-20 zoning would allow up to nine lots, and the proposed R-10 zoning would allow two additional lots for a total of 11 lots. He stated according to the applicant, the required stormwater facilities would be provided via a roadside swale and the proposed roadway would be constructed to the county’s private roadway standards. Mr. Meredith stated the addition of the two lots would increase the estimated trip generation for the subdivision by two to three trips during peak hours. He stated there was interconnectivity in the area which allowed for two different access points to Castle Hayne Road, including a signalized intersection at 2 | Page Oakley Road. He stated there was an NCDOT project to improve Castle Hayne Road which was expected to begin about 2029. Mr. Meredith stated the rezoning would allow for two additional homes on the site and would have minimal impact in the area as they were similar in size and character to the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Meredith stated the project was generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density was in line with the residential housing densities outlined for General Residential areas. He stated the proposed rezoning is also consistent with the existing development pattern of the surrounding area. He stated if this rezoning were approved it would need to be reviewed by the Technical Review Committee to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations. Chair Boney opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Ms. Lauren McKenzie, Executive Director of Cape Fear Habitat for Humanity stated she agreed with staff’s recommendation and was open to questions of the Board. In response to the Board’s questions, Ms. McKenzie stated that Habitat for Humanity did not own the property that the private road was stubbed to, but the plan’s intent was to provide for future access if the property were to be available so a connection could be made to the adjacent road. In response to the Board’s questions, Mr. Esmond Anderson, Director of Construction for Cape Fear Habitat for Humanity, stated that there was an easement on the back side of the property where the proposed pump station would be located, and it would be owned and maintained by the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. He stated they had been in talks with engineers regarding the design of the pump station and cost. He also stated the applications for stormwater permits had been submitted to the state and the county. He stated the plan was to begin construction as soon as permits were issued and filed, with a probability of at least by spring of next year. In response to the Board’s questions, Ms. McKenzie stated that the private road, roadway and right-of way maintenance and lighting would not be turned over to the Homeowners’ Association and Habitat would retain responsibility for the roadway. She stated the HOA was also prefunded so that if there was any issue, the HOA had reserves in place. 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 Board questions, Rebekah Roth, Planning and Land Use Director, stated that it was her understanding that one of the reasons why the applicant had requested an R-10 zoning was that the project was designed with lots that were slightly larger than was required so they had some flexibility built into their project to make changes regarding their stormwater. The site was only subject to the layout itself and not the lot dimensions. After further discussion from the Board, member Jordy Rawl made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member, Allen Pope to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a conditional R-10 district. The Board found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan because it was in line with the residential housing densities outlined for General Residential areas. The Board also found the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal was also consistent with the existing development pattern of the surrounding area. The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 6-0. 3 | Page Rezoning Request (Z21-05) – Request by Design Solutions, on behalf of the property owner, Bonnie D. & David M. Narron, to rezone approximately 0.8 acres of land located at 3419 N. Kerr Avenue from AR, Airport Residential, to (CZD) B-1, Neighborhood Business, in order to develop a vehicle service station. 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 that the applicants were the owners of First Quality Imports, a vehicle service station currently located in Wrightsboro. He stated they were seeking this rezoning in order to relocate the business to land that the applicants’ own, as they were leasing the building at the current location. He stated the current Airport Residential zoning was established in 1974, and at that time the purpose of the district was to promote low density housing in the vicinity of the airport and discourage uses where large numbers of people tend to congregate like schools, hospitals, and nursing homes. He stated the proposed B-1 zoning district was intended for low scale commercial services. He stated the proposal would allow for a 6,000 square foot service station. He explained that under the proposed B-1 district, vehicle service stations were limited to minor repairs and maintenance such as tune-ups and oil changes. He stated body work and major engine work was prohibited. Mr. Schuler stated the applicant had agreed to the condition that would require a parking lot cross-access to the undeveloped portion of the property east of the site. He stated the proposal was estimated to generate about 15-20 trips during the peak hours and that there was one NCDOT project planned for the area that would make improvements to Castle Hayne Road scheduled for construction after 2029. He stated the Comprehensive Plan classified the site as Community Mixed Use and that the proposal was generally consistent with the plan. Chair Boney opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Ms. Cindee Wolf representing Bonnie and David Narron, the property owners, provided a summary of the history of the existing automotive business. She concurred with the information Mr. Schuler had presented and provided additional information on the applicants’ request for rezoning. Ms. Wolf stated the applicants currently operated their business from a leased facility. She stated the applicants own the subject property and were proposing to subdivide it to develop a lot for their automotive services business. She stated the rezoning would be an extension of the existing business district. She stated the proposal would be subject to all the current restrictions and regulations for landscaping, screening, and buffering. She stated the building would be set back consistent with other buildings along the corridor, and that there was no parking that would be facing N. Kerr Avenue. Ms. Wolf stated that since the applicants owned the entire property, a shared driveway and parking lot cross access would be provided to the adjacent lot. Ms. Wolf stated existing trees along the property’s frontage were located in the right of way and therefore would remain except for the driveway area and clearing of the underbrush. In response to the Board’s questions, Ms. Wolf stated the nature of the business was basic automotive services with no heavy engine repair, body repair or painting. She stated the applicant understood the ordinance and was proposing to continue with the current services allowed in the ordinance. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Wolf stated that the applicant would submit for the adjacent lot to be subdivided and the rest of the parcel would remain Airport Residential. The intent was that the area of the property included in the rezoning request would become its own parcel. 4 | Page In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Wolf stated the proposal incorporated elements to help protect the adjacent properties including an 8-foot fenced buffer. She stated in addition the existing trees would remain along the frontage of the property. Ms. Sandra Styles spoke in opposition and cited concerns of commercial development encroaching closer to the residential homes on N. Kerr Avenue. She stated the commercial development would create more impacts to the homes including noise and pollution. She stated she would not be opposed to residential development on the property. Mr. Robert Herren spoke in opposition stating he agreed with Ms. Styles’ comments. He stated he would like the property to remain the same, offering nice views of the fields across the roads. Ms. Wolf provided information regarding a prior straight rezoning request for the property. She stated that she expected that the property along North Kerr Avenue going was going to transition away from low density residential development in the future. 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 questions from the Board, Ms. Wolf stated the existing trees along the property’s frontage were located within the right of way and only the underbrush and area needed for the driveway would be cleared. In response to questions from the Board, Rebekah Roth, Planning and Land Use Director, stated that the county’s current standards regarding metal buildings applied only to self-storage buildings along major corridors. After further discussion from the Board, member Allen Pope made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member, Vice Chair Jeff Petroff to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a conditional B-1 district. The Board found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed business is consistent with the types of commercial uses that would be encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place type. The Board also found APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because the site was located on a minor arterial street near existing commercial services, the use would have limited traffic impacts, and approval supports the success of an existing businesses with the following conditions: 1. Connection and easement for future parking lot across access shall be provided to the undeveloped land adjacent to the site. 2. Business operation hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 6-0. Special Use Permit Request (S21-02) – Request by TowerCo 2013, LLC, on behalf of the property owner, Cornelia Nixon Davis Inc., for a Special Use Permit for a wireless support structure within the R-20, Residential-20 District, located at 719 Champ Davis Road. Planning Manager Ken Vafier 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. Vafier explained that the property currently lies within a conditional use R-20 district and the request was to add an additional principal use to the district. He stated wireless support structures were 5 | Page permitted by Special Use in all zoning districts, except for I-1 and I-2 where they are permitted by right. He stated currently there was a cellular antenna supporting carriers located on a water tank in the center of the main Davis Campus and to complete the planned expansion, the water tank was proposed to be decommissioned and removed. He stated the applicant was seeking to relocate the antenna on a 150- foot-tall monopole style tower within the associated equipment storage area, within a 110’ by 110’ area on the subject parcel. Mr. Vafier explained that the tower would total 155 feet with the inclusion of a five-foot tall lightening rod. He stated the antenna would be place at heights of 145, 130 and 120 feet with the space for a fourth carrier to locate at a height of 110 feet. He stated the tower would be situated within a 60’ by 60’ fenced in area with required buffers and landscaping that would meet the Unified Development Ordinance requirements. He stated the carrier lease storage areas would be within that area. He stated access to the tower site would be provided via a new 30-foot-wide access easement with a gravel, 12-foot-wide travel surface from Porters Neck Road, 155 feet in length to the tower site and that Porters Neck Road was an NCDOT collector road and an NCDOT driveway permit would be required for the proposed use. He explained that as far as compatibility to the surrounding area, currently the carrier antenna was located on the site on the existing water tank which was proposed to be removed, and relocation of the antenna to a new monopole tower in the new location was expected to maintain or improve cellular coverage. He stated mature vegetation would assist in mitigating the tower’s appearance and was largely proposed to remain except for areas that would be cleared for the stormwater infiltration basin, the tower equipment, and the access easement. Mr. Vafier stated the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classified the property within the General Residential place type. He stated while wireless support structures and other infrastructure were common in the county’s contemporary land development patterns, the plan did not specifically address their location. However, the plan’s implementation guidelines did aim to support business success, workforce development, and economic prosperity and that telecommunications infrastructure, when place to best serve the needs of the surrounding residents, businesses, and institutional uses, could help advance those goals. Mr. Vafier stated that preliminary staff findings addressed the utilities, fire protection, environmental features, and traffic impact. He stated the findings addressed compliance with various UDO requirements, FCC Regulations and FAA Regulations. He stated that staff findings addressed existing site conditions and land uses and referenced an impact analysis submitted by the applicant that found the proposal would have no significant adverse impact on adjoining or abutting properties as well as compatibility with the surrounding area and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Vafier stated the only approval received on the subject tract was the stormwater pond. He stated if in the future anything additional was to be proposed, it would be highly likely to require a major modification or Special Use Permit. Chair Boney opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Ms. Karen Kemerait, Attorney for TowerCo 2013, LLC, stated she was open to questions of the Board and to provide additional information regarding the proposed project. Ms. Kemerait stated her application for the new monopole cell tower was so that the major wireless carriers would be able to continue to provide service in the area. She stated the carriers utilize the towers located at 6 | Page the Davis Community property. She stated the towers were located at the top of the water tank which would have to be removed to make room for expansion. She stated the Davis Community had been on the property since 1966 and consisted of a 123-unit assisted living facility, a pharmacy, and the water tank. She stated in June 2020, the County Commissioners approved the Conditional Use district request so that the main campus could be expanded to the adjacent 18-acre parcel. She stated with the expansion, there was going to be a 150-unit independent living facility and 32 assisted living duplexes. She stated a new infiltration basis would be located on the property where the cell tower would be located. Ms. Kemerait stated the tower would be in a very heavily wooded area which would allow it to be well buffered and have no visual impact on the surrounding properties. She stated the property was 12 acres and the tower would be located a significant distance from the adjoining properties. She stated the tower would also provide broadband coverage to the first responders in the area for use during disasters, emergencies, and daily public safety work. She stated the applicant met or exceeded the requirements of the ordinance which stated a 150- foot monopole was permitted in an R-20 zoning district with a Special Use Permit as well as the setback and buffer requirements. She stated the applicant has also provided a certification that demonstrated compliance with FCC standards for radio frequency emissions. Mr. David Smith, Real Estate Appraiser, stated he conducted an analysis of the subject property and found that the tower would not adversely affect the values of the properties adjacent or that abut the subject property. With no further questions and no further information from the applicant, Chair Boney closed the public hearing and opened Board discussion. In response to questions asked by the Board, Mr. David Hockey of TowerCo 2013, LLC stated the tower was positioned where it was because there were several wetlands identified. He stated the previous applicant’s engineer had conducted the delineation and identified the wetlands, and they had checked with the Army Corps of Engineers to confirm that if the tower were placed in this area, it would not have any impacts on the wetlands. He stated because there was such a large landscape buffer, they would only develop a 60’ by 60’ area, and the existing trees would be maintained as a buffer. He stated minimal fill was expected by placing only a layer of gravel with expectations to disturb as little as possible. In response to questions asked by the Board, Mr. Hockey stated that typically the support structures are designed with maximum hurricane standards so that if a tree were to fall against the structure it would not bring the site down. It could damage the equipment, but they were trying to use the buffer to protect it recognizing there was a safety factor. In response to the questions from the Board, Mr. Hockey stated that moving the tower closer to adjacent neighborhoods would not degrade the service provided. Coverage would still be provided. He stated that when the equipment was moved over it would be replaced with new equipment with the idea of migrating towards the 5G standard. He stated initially it may be the same thing, but providers would come in eventually and swap the antennas out. After further discussion from the Board, Vice Chair Jeff Petroff made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member, Jordy Rawl to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed Special Use Permit to a wireless support structure within the (CUD) R-20, Residential-20 District because it met the four required conclusions based on the findings of fact in the staff report. The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 6-0. 7 | Page Item 4: Text Amendment Request (TA21-01) – Request by New Hanover County to amend Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Unified Development Ordinance to comply with recent state law and to perform ongoing maintenance to refine and clarify assorted ordinance provisions. Board Member Girardot requested, and Chair Boney granted, a moment to make a statement about the changes included in state legislation regarding the Planning Board’s involvement in the special use permit process, noting that the previous item was probably the last time the Board would hear a special use permit in a quasi-judicial manner. She mentioned that in her opinion, the existing role of the Planning Board relieved a burden from the Commissioners that would have otherwise added considerable time to their review and discussions. She said she had a concern the Planning Board would not receive the same quantity and quality of testimony as the Board of Commissioners. She said she worried what the Planning Board considered may not be what the Commissioners would consider, as applicants may be reluctant to pay their attorneys, engineers, and other professionals to attend the Planning Board meeting. Board Member Girardot reiterated, and Chair Boney emphasized, that this was a state mandate and not a policy of the County Commissioners. Member Girardot left the meeting and Chair Boney introduced the request. Long Range Planner Marty Little explained he was presenting text amendment 21-01 for compliance with a recent change in state law and to perform maintenance to various provisions of the code. He mentioned that the amendment was presented to the Board at the last meeting and tonight would include a brief review and information on stakeholder feedback. Mr. Little stated that, as mentioned last month, the amendment was comprised of two components: the state law update component to bring the ordinance into compliance with North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 160D and the ongoing maintenance component to update various provisions of the code that have been identified over the past several months. Mr. Little stated New Hanover County was already in compliance with most of the changes with the state law, but there were six significant areas where New Hanover County’s current code would need to be amended, as well as some minor changes. He stated that the law removed the two-part Conditional Use district zoning process which required all uses associated with the rezoning to obtain a Special Use Permit. Existing Conditional Use districts would automatically become Conditional Zoning districts. He explained that uses that were required by the code to obtain a special use permit will still need one in conditional districts. He stated the amendment also clarified that the Planning Board could review a special use permit prior to the Commissioners’ quasi-judicial hearing by providing a preliminary forum. The board would still review SUP applications, hear applicant presentations, receive public comment, and provide advice to the applicant, but the two key differences would be that the Board would not require sworn testimony and would not vote to recommend approval or denial of a project. He stated the preliminary forum review was the most policy-neutral approach to addressing the change in state law. Mr. Little stated the amendment would update the ordinance to reflect the law’s requirement that the applicant must give written consent to all conditions of approval. The law also prohibited third-party downzoning, which was defined as any map or text amendment submitted by anyone other than the County or property owner that would either (1) reduce the number of allowable uses on a property or (2) reduce the allowable density of a property. He stated the amendment also incorporated new laws regarding permit choice and vested rights which guaranteed an applicant certain rights that allow a project to continue to move forward if development regulations changed during permitting or construction. The last significant change assigned subdivision variances to the Board of Adjustment and clarified the County’s existing practice that Reasonable Accommodations would require a 4/5 majority 8 | Page vote. Mr. Little mentioned that most of the changes in the amendment involved minor fixes. These included adding or modifying definitions to align with the statute, updating where old statutes were referenced in the code, incorporating state and federal maps by reference to the most updated version, and clarifying existing County practices. Mr. Little discussed the six updates associated with the maintenance component of the amendment. First, the amendment modified the self-storage design standards that were implemented last fall by allowing architectural metal paneling on high-visibility facades. The original intent of not allowing metal was to prohibit prefabricated sheet-steel structures along high-visibility corridors and near residential development where self-storage facilities are commonly located and was commonly a condition added to a conditional rezoning. It was realized after the fact that metal was a material commonly used to achieve the type of architectural design the amendment was intended to encourage. He mentioned that Staff’s original draft specified insulated metal paneling, but through conversations with stakeholders, found that the insulation requirement would have dictated construction standards beyond the scope allowed for planning-related regulations -- those types of issues are covered by the building code. Staff discovered that there was no objective, distinct name for the type of aesthetic trying to be achieved, but Staff continued to work with stakeholders during the public comment period to narrow the applicability to the types of fastener systems used. As revised, Mr. Little explained the amendment would allow either (1) concealed fastener metal panels or (2) a combination of concealed and non-concealed fastener panels, as long as non-concealed fastener panels did not exceed 50% of the total metal paneling used on a façade. The Exceptional Design Planned Development (EDZD) district requirements had been amended to update outdated provisions for green building certifications. The draft also designated the EDZD as a legacy district, where no property could be rezoned to the district, but existing EDZDs would remain as part of the zoning map and were regulated under current UDO standards. The amendment clarified that multi-family developments in multi-family districts were subject to the same standards as multi-family dwellings in other districts, including standards for open space set-asides that were passed last year. Sizes for required landscape plantings had been drafted based on County and stakeholder feedback to improve viability, allow for greater range of species, and coordinate with tree mitigation standards. The text was refined based on additional stakeholder input during the public comment period to clarify and ensure definitions were not only consistent with industry standards but also made sense for the coastal environment. The amendment updated other definitions based on Staff’s past interpretations or to better align with state law and recent ordinance amendments. And lastly, the amendment makes a few technical corrections, including a modification of the flood ordinance to better align with the National Flood Insurance Program, a transfer error correction for duplex minimum lot sizes in the R-20 district, and alignment of the uses included in the separation requirements for Adult Entertainment Establishments with the use terms listed in the UDO’s Principal Use Table. Mr. Little explained that drafts of the proposed amendments were released for public comment on March 11 and were posted to the Planning Department’s Development Activity webpage. He stated that the amendment was scheduled to be considered by the Board of Commissioners at the May 17 hearing, and that if recommended by the Planning Board and approved by the Commissioners at that time, the code 9 | Page would be compliant with the state law by the July 1 deadline. Mr. Little later clarified that the Board of Commissioners would hear the item on May 3 instead of May 17. Chair Boney opened the public hearing. Mr. Robert High with Robert High Development, LLC spoke on the topic of self-storage design standards and mentioned he was in favor of the amendment, complimenting Planning Staff on their effort in working with stakeholders to craft the ordinance language. Mr. High expressed discouragement with self-storage facilities being held to design standard limitations that other uses were not and explained that self-storage is an essential business that fulfilled a need for the community. After further discussion from the Board, member Allen Pope made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member, Vice Chair Jeff Petroff to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance that updates the ordinance for compliance with North Carolina General Statute 160D and performs technical fixes to various identified provisions throughout the code. The Board found it to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, because it aligns the county’s land use and development standards and procedures with the recent changes in state law and advances the county’s efforts to ensure the tools in the code continue to work as they were intended. The Board also found approval of the proposed amendment was reasonable and in the public interest because it brought the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance into compliance with the state law and allowed for a clear and consistent administration of the code. The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 5-0. OTHER BUSINESS Mrs. Rebekah Roth gave an update to the Board about the results of the Comprehensive Housing Study and Survey presented by Ms. Rachel LaCoe during last month’s meeting, stating it would be presented to the Board of County Commissioners at their April 5 meeting and on the following night it would be presented to City Council. She stated some of the items that would be discussed impacted the items that had been talked about at Planning Board meetings pertaining to density, water, appropriate infrastructure, investment, and what would be the long-range needs in terms of housing for the community. Chair Paul Boney adjourned the meeting at 8:01 p.m. Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.