Loading...
2021-10-07 PB MINUTES 1 | Page Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board October 7, 2021 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on October 7, 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 Jeffrey Petroff, Chair Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning Donna Girardot, Vice Chair Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Allen Pope Nicole Smith, Senior Planner Jeffrey Stokley Jr. Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Hansen Matthews Colin J. Tarrant Members Absent Paul Boney Chair Jeff Petroff called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and excused board member Paul Boney’s absence. Planning Manager, Ken Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of Minutes Minutes from the September 2, 2021, Planning Board meeting were presented to the members. No changes or amendments were identified. Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Colin Tarrant to approve the minutes as drafted. Motion to approve minutes carried 6-0 NEW BUSINESS Rezoning Request (Z21-12) - Request by James Yopp on behalf of Jack Carlisle and Rockhill Road Investments LLC to rezone approximately 117.58 acres from R-20 to R-15. Planner Nicole Smith provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, transportation, and zoning. She 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. Ms. Smith explained that the site had been zoned R-20 since 1985 when it was initially zoned to allow for larger lot residential uses at a time when utilities were not available. Ms. Smith stated the intent of the proposed R- 15 district was to provide lands that accommodate very low to low-density residential development that could serve as a transition between very low-density residential development patterns and small lot more dense residential areas of the county. Ms. Smith stated that access would be provided to the subject site east of the I-140 overpass by Rock Hill Road, a local street, and access west of the overpass would be provided off Alvernia Drive, also a local street. She stated while the site was currently vacant and generating no traffic, current zoning paired with the environmental constraints would permit up to 79 dwelling units under the performance residential standards. She stated a development of that scale was estimated to generate between 61-81 trips during peak hours. She stated the proposed rezoning would increase density to a maximum of 104 dwelling units under the performance residential standards, and that a development of that scale was estimated to generate between 2 | Page 79-105 trips during the peak hours for a net difference of 25 dwelling units and an additional 18-24 trips during peak hours. She stated the proposal was generally consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan because it provided for the types of uses recommended in both the General Residential and Conservation place types and R-15 was identified as a typical zoning category in both place types. She stated if the rezoning were approved, the project would be subject to technical review and zoning compliance review processes to ensure full compliance to all zoning requirements. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Smith stated that a convenience store would require a Special Use Permit in the R-15 zoning district which would require the applicant to return before the Planning Board as well as the Board of Commissioners. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Smith provided information identifying the coastal wetlands located on the property as well as identifying the upland areas that would be more likely to see building activity. Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Mr. James Yopp, Manager of Rockhill Road Investments, on behalf of Jack Carlisle and Rockhill Road Investments LLC provided a summary description of the proposed project. He concurred with the information Ms. Smith had presented. Mr. Yopp stated the property was consistent with surrounding properties in the area. He stated the property was split by I-I40 which limited normal R-20 development that would happen in the area. He stated the applicant was looking to provide a diversified housing type that would allow views and use of natural resources and not normally found in riverfront properties especially when adjacent to high thoroughfare roads. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Yopp stated that the applicant was not looking to provide access through the Walnut Hill subdivision He stated there would be a possibility of having access onto their site from Rockhill Road on the eastern side of I-140 that would reach the uplands area on the east side, and that there was an upland pocket on the western side that was along the river frontage that shored against the overpass. He stated those areas would be utilized as the primary building sites and accessed through Alvernia Drive. He stated there were one or two acres of uplands where the applicant had not explored options to use the area because there would be significant conservation setback requirements that would limit building design. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Yopp stated sewer would be provided through a main line extension. He stated years ago the property did not have the current water and sewer capability with the connection of force mains going into River Bluff. He stated on the western side of the property, there was direct access to sewer, and they would have to explore a force main that would come from Walnut Hills if the eastern side was to be developed, however there was water and sewer capacity available. Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Yopp stated there was no information regarding potential project design provided to neighbors since there were no immediate residential homes near the subject property and the surrounding properties were vacant and buffered by either wetlands or conservation. With no opposition or further questions, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. After further discussion from the Board, Board Member Jeffrey Stokley made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member, Allen Pope to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to an R-15 district. The Board found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district allows the types of uses that would be encouraged in the General Residential and Conservation place types and would serve as an appropriate transition between the river, interstate, and the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The Board also found APPROVAL of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest because the site was located in an area with a variety of zoning districts and densities and would be restricted due to the environmental constraints. 3 | Page The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 6-0 Text Amendment Request (TA21-03) – Request by New Hanover County to amend Articles 2, 3, and 5 of the Unified Development Ordinance to update height standards and setback requirements for multi-family and non-residential structures and provide for additional height allowances to accommodate changing construction standards and structure types envisioned for multi-family, mixed use, and nonresidential zoning districts. This request was continued from the September 2, 2021 meeting. Director of Planning and Land Use, Rebekah Roth stated this consideration of an amendment to adjust height standards in multi-family, mixed-use and nonresidential districts was a continuance of the public hearing held at the last Planning Board meeting held on September 2 and part of an ongoing conversation held over the past several months. Ms. Roth stated that the primary intent with the amendment was to allow for taller multi-family structures to improve access to housing, to allow for the building scales that were recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, and to accommodate structures that required buildings taller than what may be typical in a district, such as hotels or hospitals. She stated it also included mitigation options to balance allowances for taller structures with reducing impacts on existing residential neighborhoods. Ms. Roth stated that in the draft amendment, maximum height limits had been increased for the county’s multi- family district to allow for four stories, which required elevators, improving access to units not located on the ground floor for residents with reduced mobility. She stated mitigation was required for the taller structures. In the RMF-H district, the draft amendment would allow up to five stories but only with a conditional zoning approval. Ms. Roth stated that maximum height limits had been removed from the UMXZ and PD districts. She stated that the Master Development Plan approved as part of the rezoning to one of these districts would establish maximum height. She stated this was proposed because of the wide variety of places these districts could be applied made it difficult to determine appropriate maximum heights across the board. She stated the Master Development Plan would also establish any mitigation requirements beyond the base district setbacks. Ms. Roth stated the maximum height limits had also been increased for nonresidential districts to allow for the building scales and uses that were recommended in the Comprehensive Plan and to accommodate structures that required buildings taller than what may be typical in a district. She stated the maximum mitigation was required when taller structures, generally taller than 50 feet, were proposed for properties adjacent to existing residential development in one of the county’s general residential districts: Rural Agricultural, Airport Residential, R-20, R-20-S, R-15, R-10, R-7, and R-5, because homes in these locations are generally built on smaller scales. She stated less mitigation was required when taller structures were adjacent to undeveloped land and multi-family projects built in those residential districts. She stated no mitigation requirements were drafted to be required when taller structures were adjacent to nonresidential uses in any district to single-family neighborhoods when separated by a roadway or two multi-family districts. Ms. Roth explained the first mitigation option was for increased structure setbacks, which were intended to push taller structures further away from adjacent residential properties. She stated based on the comments at last month’s meeting the mitigation requirements had been updated to differentiate standards when taller structures were adjacent to existing homes versus undeveloped multi-family land and to refine the height-to-setback scales. Ms. Roth explained that the second mitigation option was for architectural stepbacks where taller portions of a structure must be further away from the property line. She stated the draft for this mitigation option incorporated the same features outlined for structure setbacks based on the Boards comments at last month’s Planning Board meeting. Ms. Roth explained that the final mitigation option allowed for alternate techniques based on site specific conditions as part of a conditional zoning district. She stated this option allowed features such as existing tall trees, grade changes or other factors to shape the development’s design and was subject to the full rezoning process. The intent was to provide flexibility and mitigation options that could not be anticipated as part of the code standards balanced with a legislative review process. 4 | Page Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. With no opposition or further questions, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. With no further discussion from the Board, Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member, Allen Pope to APPROVE the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to increase height in multifamily, mixed-use, and commercial and industrial districts. The Board found it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it supported accessible housing and was in line with the height recommendations of the plan. The Board also found APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it incentivized the types of commercial development desired in the unincorporated county and mitigated potential impacts of taller buildings on adjacent residential neighborhoods. The motion to approve the proposed amendment carried 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS Director of Planning and Land Use, Rebekah Roth provided an overview of updates to two staff text amendments presented at last month’s meeting, one to add the county stormwater ordinances to the UDO and another to address the Board of Commissioners’ request to modify the county’s telecommunications facility standards. She stated staff was continuing to work with legal staff on the concepts for the amendments. Ms. Roth stated staff had also identified a few other items that they would like to discuss with the board conceptually. She stated that the agenda for the November meeting included several public hearings, and if the board had no concerns, once the agenda was finalized in the next week, staff may contact the board to schedule a separate workshop to discuss the amendment concepts to avoid overloading an already heavy agenda or delaying the amendments unnecessarily. Chair Jeffrey Petroff adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m. Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.