Loading...
2021-11-04 PB MINUTES 1 | Page Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board November 4, 2021 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on November 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 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. Amy Doss, Current Planner Hansen Matthews Ron Meredith, Current Planner Colin J. Tarrant Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Paul Boney Members Absent None Chair Jeff Petroff called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Planning Manager, Ken Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of Minutes Minutes from the August 3, 2021, Agenda Review meeting were presented to the members. No changes or amendments were identified. Board Member Paul Boney made a MOTION to approve the minutes as drafted. Motion to approve minutes carried 7-0 Minutes from the October 7, 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 Paul Boney to approve the minutes as drafted. Motion to approve minutes carried 7-0 NEW BUSINESS Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z21-13) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, on behalf of Coastal Carolina Carwash, LLC, to rezone approximately 2.00 acres of land located at 6016 & 6100 Castle Hayne Road from B-2, Regional Business and R-15, Residential District to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Regional Business District for commercial flex space. Planner Amy Doss 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. Doss explained that the site had been split zoned R-15 and B-2 since 1985. She stated the intent of the R- 15 district was to provide land to accommodate low density residential development and to serve as a transition to more dense residential areas of the county. She stated the purpose of the proposed B-2 regional business district was to provide for the proper site layout and development of larger sized businesses and to provide for the appropriate location of auto-oriented uses or businesses that rely on pass-by traffic. Ms. Doss stated the applicant was proposing to rezone approximately 1.15 acres from B-2 and R-15 to (CZD) B-2 for the development of two structures, one 4,000 square feet and the other 7,000 square feet, both intended for commercial flex space. She stated access to the site would be provided by a 30-foot access 2 | Page easement through Coastal Carolina Carwash on Castle Hayne Road, a minor arterial road. She stated as currently zoned the subject site would permit up to 3 dwelling units at 2.5 dwelling units per acre under the R- 15 performance residential standards. She stated a development of that scale was estimated to generate approximately 3 trips during peak hours. She stated the highest intensity use possible under proposed rezoning was estimated to generate about 75 trips during the peak hours for an increase of 72 trips during peak hours. She stated the proposal was generally consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan because it classified properties along the Castle Hayne Road corridor as Community Mixed-Use. She stated the subject property was located in a transitional area near the Castle Hayne commercial services area and would provide for the needs of the adjacent residential neighborhood by locating community services in close proximity to nearby residents. Ms. Doss stated staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. Proposed uses of the flex office space buildings shall be limited to the following: a). Indoor Recreation Establishment, b). Repair Shop (no outdoor activity), c). Contractor Office (no outdoor storage), d). Offices for private business and professional activities, e). Personal Services (general), f). Instructional Services and Studios, g). Retail Sales (building and construction supplies), h). General retail sales, and i). Outdoor RV and Boat Trailer Storage. 2. An 8-foot fence shall be provided along with the required buffer where the CZD B-2 abuts residential uses. Ms. Doss 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. She stated as presented, there were no conditions prohibiting access to Blossom Street however, it would be appropriate for the board to add this condition. Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Ms. Cindee Wolf, on behalf of Coastal Carolina Carwash, LLC provided a summary description of the proposed project. She concurred with the information Ms. Doss had presented. Ms. Wolf stated the property was consistent with surrounding properties in the area and was split zoned. She stated that one of the big issues from a past community information meeting was that there would be no access to Blossom Street. She stated part of the proposal was to provide an 8-foot-high fence on the three sides of the property to maintain separation between the residential neighborhood and this type of unit. Ms. Wolf stated the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and reasonable and in the public interest because it was located in a transitional area near the Castle Hayne commercial services area and would provide for the needs of the adjacent residential neighborhood by locating community services in close proximity to nearby residents. She stated the applicant was in agreement to the conditions recommended by staff. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Wolf stated that the boat and RV storage was intended as a temporary use. She stated the applicant would use the 10-foot alternative buffer yard with fencing which would include six to 10-foot fencing. She stated the applicant had committed to the commercial style 8-foot-high solid wood fencing for the screening and separation. She stated the landscaping located between the pavement and fence was standard but did incorporate trees and shrubs for the versatility of the site. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Murphy stated that the temporary timeframe would be based on how the market would receive the project, but he would be okay with what the board suggested. Ms. Wolf suggested two years from the time the first building was occupied would be reasonable as a temporary timeframe. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Wolf stated there would be foundation plantings. Mr. Murphy stated that currently there was no information pertaining to the exterior material for the building pending approval of the proposal. 3 | Page In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Wolf stated to handle stormwater there would be under-pavement infiltration which would be maximizing the site however, if for some reason that was not possible then some of the southern building would be used for the pond. In response to questions to the Board, Ms. Rebekah Roth, Planning and Land Use Director, stated the maximum trip generation numbers were based on if the entire flex space was utilized for retail which was typical along that corridor. The estimated traffic count received from the WMPO indicated this type of use would generate more traffic during the evening peak hour as people commuted home as opposed to those in the morning peak hour when people were travelling to work or school. Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Mr. Clint Counsel, 6000 Blossom Street spoke in opposition and expressed his concern with construction workers utilizing Blossom Street and placing more of a burden on the neighborhood and with the maintenance of the 8-foot wooden fence. Mr. Robert Horrell, 5916 Blossom Street spoke in opposition and expressed his concern with the fencing and changing the area from a residential neighborhood. In response to questions of the Board, Ms. Wolf stated there would not be encroachment into the neighborhood and would include the fence to provide the safety and security to not interact with the neighborhood. She stated a stipulation that construction traffic would not access the site from Blossom could be possible and the fen ce could be installed prior to development to ensure that. In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Counsel stated if there was a fence his preference would be an 8-10-foot- tall poly-carbonate fence. With no further opposition or questions, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. After extensive discussion from the Board regarding the temporary use, the proposed buffer and long-term maintenance of the fencing, and the most appropriate transition between commercial co rridors and residential neighborhoods, Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member, Colin Tarrant to DENY the proposed rezoning to an (CZD) B-2 district. The Board found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district allowed for the types of uses that would be encouraged in the Community Mixed-Use place types. The Board found DENIAL of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal was not consistent with the desired character of the surrounding community, and the intensity would adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods. The motion to deny the rezoning request carried 5-2 (Voting no: Mr. Boney, Chair Petroff, Vice Chair Girardot, Mr. Tarrant, Mr. Stokely; Voting yes: Mr. Matthews, Mr. Pope). Item 2: Rezoning Request (Z21-14) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, on behalf of Carolyn Faye Barefoot, to rezone approximately 2.23 acres of land located at 137 Spring Road from AR, Airport Residential to (CZD) R-15, Conditional Residential District in order to create a 5-lot residential subdivision. Planner Ron Meredith 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. Mr. Meredith explained that the site had been zoned AR since 1974 after Sedgefield was platted, and at the time it was to promote low-density housing in the vicinity of the airport area to discourage uses that tend to concentrate large number of people like schools, hospitals, and rest homes. He stated the intent of the R-15 district was to serve as a transition between very low-density residential development patterns and smaller lot more dense residential patterns. 4 | Page Ms. Meredith stated that the applicant was proposing to rezone approximately 2.23 acres from AR to (CZD) R- 15 to construct a five-lot single-family subdivision. He stated the applicant had agreed to a condition that housing types in the proposed development would be limited to single-family detached homes. He stated driveways to the proposed lots will have a direct access to Spring Road, an NCDOT maintained road. Mr. Meredith stated as currently zoned the subject site would permit up to a maximum of 5 dwelling units. He stated the proposed rezoning was estimated to generate a total of 5 trips during peak hours which would be an increase of 3 trips during peak hours. He stated the proposal was generally consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan because it allowed for the types of uses recommended in the General Residential place type as identified as a typical zoning category in the place type and was also consistent of the development pattern for the surrounding area. He 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. Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Ms. Cindee Wolf, on behalf of Carolyn Faye Barefoot provided a summary description of the proposed project. She concurred with the information Mr. Meredith had presented. Ms. Wolf stated the property would have both water and sewer provided by Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and would not have septic systems or a well, and that it was an expansion of a current project that the applicant had already started. She stated there was an access easement along the northern boundary of the site that the applicant had agreed to maintain as it was deeded to them. She stated staff had provided wording of a covenant that would be included in any purchases of the lots to inform the owner that they were in an airport area. Ms. Wolf concluded that the project was consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan because it allowed for the types of uses recommended in the General Residential place type as identified as a typical zoning category in the place type and in the public interest because it was consistent with the development pattern for the surrounding area. She stated the proposed plan did conform to the conventional neighborhood standards so it was consistent with current development and would be a much more efficient land use than the current single-family residence that is located on the lot. Jim Specuzzo, Real Estate Agent spoke in support of the proposal stating it would not add any hardship to the neighbors or the airport to the neighbors and allow the applicant to build five more affordable homes. Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Jeanine Tadlock, 100 Water Street spoke in opposition to the proposal expressing her concern if the recorded easement would continue to belong to her and her family. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Meredith stated the easement did appear to be recorded and that it would probably be more of a civil matter. He stated if there was an argument regarding dissolving the easement, staff would not require a 30-foot access if a new easement was issued. He stated the applicant was willing to work with the adjacent neighbor. In response to questions of the Board, Ms. Wolf stated explained the information provided by the applicant showed a 20-foot access easement adjacent to the northern property boundary. Ms. Wolf stated it did not appear that the driveway was in the easement; she indicated that the applicant, however, would include deed restrictions indicating the proximity to the airport and agreed to the provision of a 20-foot access easement being a condition of the proposed rezoning. With no further opposition or questions, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. After further discussion from the Board, Board Member Allen Pope made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Donna Girardot to APPROVE the proposed rezoning to an (CZD) R-15 district with the following conditions: 1. Housing types 5 | Page in the development shall be limited to single-family detached homes; 2. The applicant shall record an access easement to align with the existing driveway for adjacent property; 3. A declaration statement indicating the proximity to the airport shall be included in a covenant for the subject property. The Board found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed density was in line with the residential area. The Board also found APPROVAL of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal was consistent with the existing development patterns of the surrounding area. The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 7-0 Text Amendment Request (TA21-04) – Request by Frank Pasquale with KFJ Development Group, LLC to amend Articles 3 and 4 of the Unified Development Ordinance to establish a new zoning district, the Riverfront Urban Mixed-Use Zoning District. Senior Planner Nicole Smith stated the applicant was requesting a text amendment to create a new zoning district, the Riverfront Urban Mixed-Use district. She stated the proposed amendment would revise Articles 3 and 4 of the Unified Development Ordinance. She stated Article 3 houses the county’s zoning districts and Article 4 contains use and use specific standards. Ms. Smith stated the intent of the request was to add an additional tool for redevelopment of the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Riverfront properties. She stated the proposal combined concepts from the existing RFMU, UMX and PD zoning districts. She stated the purpose of the proposal was to allow the by right height of 240 feet and accommodate a maximum density of 100 units acre when vertically integrated as part of a mixed-use building. She stated the district prescribed architectural and design elements and promoted multi modal transportation options. She stated similar to the existing mixed-use zoning districts, the proposed district would be established with a Master Development Plan approved by the county commissioners. Ms. Smith stated that the proposed district combined several of the features of the existing RFMU and UMXZ zoning districts and was intended to apply to properties too small for PD zoning which requires a minimum of 10 acres. She stated that the architectural standards would allow for more urban structures than currently allowed in the RFMU district and more residential density than allowed in either RFMU or UMXZ districts. She stated proposed building heights were similar to those provided for in the current the current RFMU district. She stated the portion of the unincorporated area that would qualify for this district had generally retained the initial 1970’s industrial zoning to date; however, across the Northeast Cape Fear River lies the urban downtown core of the City of Wilmington with primarily central district zoning and generally higher intensity land uses. Ms. Smith stated the proposed district did not provide a unique tool that is not currently offered in the county’s planning jurisdiction, instead the proposed district would provide for an updated version of the RFMU district which was not modified during the UDO project. She stated the dimensional standards paired with the purpose statement of the district, limited the number of riverfront properties that could apply for this Mixed -Use Masterplan district. Ms. Smith concluded that the applicant’s request was consistent with the existing adoptive policy recommendations as well as the established land use patterns east of the river. Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Mr. Frank Pasquale, KFJ Development Group, LLC provided a summary description of the proposed project. He concurred with the information Ms. Smith had presented. Mr. Pasquale stated the proposal to amend the text was consistent with what was intended when the RFMU district was originally created. He stated the property was approximately 8.8 acres and has been idle for the past fifty years. He stated the buildings were positioned as part of the text amendment to accommodate the goal to re-invigorate and revitalize the riverfront. He stated if approved this would be the only zoning district with environmental standards that would have to be upheld. Mr. Pasquale expressed his concerns with the current state of the riverfront and his goal to make improvements and be creative in future development that would preserve it. 6 | Page Mr. Gene Merritt, 3 Queen Street, spoke in support of the proposal and the proposal could be something that could be looked at in the future and all could be extremely proud of. Mr. Ron Peak, 1121 Turnberry Lane, spoke in support of the proposal and stated that the project should be allowed to improve the riverfront. Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Dr. Robert Parr, 6706 Falcon Point Road, spoke in opposition and expressed his concern with the public’s health, infrastructure, financial reserves, and welfare. He provided an overview of the environmental hazards related to flooding currently existing on the site, as well as information that indicated that flooding concerns would increase in the future. He also expressed his concern with the lack of data provided to the public and Planning Board specific to the proposed district. In response, Mr. Pasquale explained that tonight’s proposal was pertaining to a text amendment not to the Master Development Plan and that technical aspects of the project would be discussed at a later time once it has been reviewed by the engineering department, NCDOT, CAMA and the Army Corp of Engineers. He made it clear that the purpose the proposal was for a text amendment and not for project approval. Mr. Kirk Pugh co-applicant expressed his understanding of the concerns of Mr. Parr indicating that there would be design-insight to accommodate the risk of flooding. He stated that approval from the Technical Review Committee and other approval steps would be required to gain approval of any future development. He stated in order to pursue their project, they would be unable to do so without a text amendment to allow for the proposed development. Toby Keeton, Project Architecture, gave a brief description of the proposed project from an engineering perspective indicating the work that would need to be done to improve the site. In rebuttal, Mr. Parr continued his presentation and reiterated his concerns with flooding and lack of information provided. With no further comments or questions, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. After further discussion from the Board regarding clarification of amendment changes and to allow applicant to provide more information to the public, Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member, Colin Tarrant for a CONTINUANCE of the proposed amendment to the December 2 Planning Board meeting. The motion to continue the proposed amendment carried 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS Planner Marty Little provided an overview of the concepts of an amendment to the county’s wireless telecommunications facility standards. He stated earlier this summer the Board of Commissioners had approved a Special Use Permit for a new wireless support facility and concerns were expressed during the meeting regarding the county’s ability to effectively protect low-density residential areas from new wireless support structures. In response, the Board of Commissioners requested that staff work with legal staff to examine state statutes and explore potential amendments to the county’s current telecommunications standards. Mr. Little stated staff was looking into potential amendments that would reduce the potential impact of wireless towers on nearby residential properties, require collocation on existing towers if poss ible, and prioritize nonresidential districts when new towers were needed and were looking to the board to provide comments and direction regarding those concepts. Mr. Little explained that the first concept of collocation would require an applicant for new facilities to submit in their application package evidence that collocation onto an existing nearby tower was not reasonably feasible. The board was supportive to the concept. He stated the second concept was to require applicants to conduct the Balloon Test at proposed tower sites which were used to simulate tower visibility from surrounding properties. The board was supportive to the concept. 7 | Page Mr. Little explained that regarding the third concept, counties were authorized to dictate the design standards of new towers which included 1. structural design standards which would distinguish between a Monopole tower and a Lattice tower, 2. aesthetic design standards which would require a tower and equipment be fully contained within a cannister and limiting potential colors and, 3. stealthing technics whereas standards for towers in residential districts could be more stringent and required. He stated the Unified Development Code currently encouraged camouflage and concealment in all districts however the amendment could require any of these elements. The board members expressed their approval to the examples of the design standards shown. In response to questions from the board, Mr. Little stated to his knowledge there was not a height limit to the monopole to where it would not provide effective coverage and that the ordinance did not address maximum height for towers. Board member Allen Pope stated the height of the tower would be dictated by the size of the services that would be provided. Mr. Little stated the amendment could also modify the setbacks for structures in nonresidential districts to reflect modern engineering practices which had resulted in wireless towers utilizing engineered fall zones. The current UDO standard required a 50-foot minimum setback in all zoning districts with an additional tower height setback applied for residentially zoned area. He stated an established setback equal to a tower’s engineered fall zone would reduce the need for large lots in nonresidential districts. Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth stated the hope was with the amendment, it would make it easier to locate towers in areas that were already developed if that was where the county would prefer that they go. In response to questions of the board, Ms. Roth stated the county did not regulate placement of other aerial type poles and the hope was to become less restrictive in commercial areas. The board was supportive of the concept. Mr. Little outlined an amendment concept where tower setbacks in residential areas could be increased and aligned with the setbacks for taller structures included in the recent commercial height amendment adopted earlier in the week. He stated developers seeking to place a tower in a residential district would need to find a site that was farther away from existing single-family homes. Members of the board voiced concerns that this concept could make it more difficult to identify locations for towers than necessary. Mr. Little outlined the final concept of which if the board was interested the county could allow towers by right in commercial districts as a way to incentivize developers to locate within those districts. He stated this would mean developers would be subject to a staff-level TRC approval rather than a special use permit which would require a Quasi-Judicial Special Use Permit process. The board was supportive of the concept. With no further discussion Mr. Little expressed his appreciation to the board for their feedback and stated based on the discussion, staff would work to turn the concepts into a draft amendment to release for public comment in December and with a goal to return to the Planning Board in January or early 2022. Chair Jeffrey Petroff adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m. Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.