Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTA22-01 Staff Report 2.3.22TA22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 1 of 6 STAFF REPORT FOR TA22-01 TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION APPLICATION SUMMARY Case Number: TA22-01 Request: To amend Articles 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Unified Development Ordinance to update permissions and standards for wireless telecommunications facilities and to perform technical fixes to various ordinance provisions. Applicant: Subject Ordinances: New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance Purpose & Intent: The key intent of this amendment is to update standards and permissions for wireless support structures to reduce the potential visual impacts of wireless towers on nearby residential properties, require collocation when feasible, and prioritize nonresidential districts when new towers are needed. The amendment also includes a maintenance component to clean up and clarify various existing provisions and to codify current Staff interpretations. Telecommunications Update • Incorporation of state law that allows counties to require applicants collocate new antenna and equipment onto existing nearby towers when feasible • Requirement that balloon tests be conducted at proposed tower sites in order to better simulate perceived visual impacts of residential towers • Refinement of aesthetic design standards like prohibiting lattice towers and requiring equipment be fully screened or hidden in non-industrial districts • Update to apply faux tree stealthing to towers proposed in residential districts except where certain site conditions exist or as allowed by condition of approval by the Board of Commissioners • Modernization of tower setbacks in commercial and industrial districts to reflect modern engineered fall zone practices • Adjustment to principal use permissions to allow new towers by right in commercial districts to incentivize developers locate within those districts rather than in residential areas Maintenance Amendment • Clarification of the County’s current method of rounding fractions • Addition of a definition for Major Subdivision for clarity • Modification of superseding dimensional standards to allow Special Purpose Utility Lots for necessary public infrastructure TA22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 2 of 6 • Correction of a clerical error to allow Assisted Living Facilities within the B-1 Neighborhood Business District with a special use permit • Modernize outdated provisions for the submittal, review, approval, and appeals processes for Traffic Impact Analyses • Incorporation of a current Staff interpretation of how street yard standards apply to multi-family districts • Clarification of how foundation planting areas are calculated to better align with the increased building heights recently allowed by the code BACKGROUND In response to concerns raised during a special use permit review process in Summer 2021 regarding telecommunications facilities in residential areas, the Board of Commissioners requested that Planning Staff work with Legal Staff to examine state statutes and explore potential amendments to the County’s current telecommunications standards that would help address the concerns routinely brought up in these types of residential tower special use permit cases. Based on existing residential development patterns and ongoing demand for telecommunication services in residential areas, it is likely that towers will continue to be proposed near existing residential communities. Additionally, current standards may make it more difficult for needed towers to locate in nonresidential areas. As a result, Staff has drafted an amendment to the UDO with three goals in mind: (1) reduce the potential impacts of wireless towers on nearby residential properties; (2) require collocation onto existing towers when possible; (3) and prioritize nonresidential districts when new towers are needed. Modifying the code to address these goals also provides Staff an opportunity to incorporate a few technical fixes into the amendment to clarify various code provisions that have been identified over the past several months. As mentioned during the UDO Project process and with past amendments, this type of maintenance amendment will be part of Staff’s ongoing efforts to ensure that the tools in the ordinance continue to work the way they are intended. This request consists of two primary categories: a telecommunications standards update and a maintenance amendment component. TELECOMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Collocation onto Existing Towers The amendment incorporates a state law provision that allows the County to require evidence that new antenna and equipment cannot be collocated onto an existing tower in the applicant’s search ring. Applicants for new towers would be required to submit information with their application package explaining why collocation is not reasonably feasible. Per state law, collocation is not reasonably feasible if collocation is technically or commercially impractical or if the owner of an existing tower is unwilling to enter into a contract with an applicant. Staff has already modified the special use permit application to include this provision, but this amendment would codify the requirement in the UDO. TA22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 3 of 6 Balloon Tests The amendment requires that applicants now conduct balloon tests at proposed residential tower sites as a way of demonstrating a proposed tower’s perceived visual impact on surrounding residential areas. Currently, balloon tests are not mandated by the code but are sometimes voluntarily performed by tower applicants. The amendment establishes a standard procedure for tests to ensure consistency across applications, including a minimum size of balloon used (3-feet in diameter), and that tests now provide the basis for the photographic simulations required by the code, which previously had no method of determining scale or quality assurance. Aesthetic Design Standards The amendment clarifies that monopole structures are permitted and that lattice type structures are prohibited in residential and commercial districts. Towers in those districts are also required to conceal antenna, cables, and other equipment, either within the cannister or through an alternative method of screening. The amendment also reorganizes wireless support structure provisions to clarify that these new aesthetic standards do not apply to towers in industrial districts, where towers have always been allowed by right and visual impacts to residential areas have been less of a concern. Faux Tree Stealthing The amendment requires new towers that are proposed within general residential districts (RA, AR, R-20, R-20S, R-15, R-10, R-7, or R-5) utilize faux tree stealthing unless located within an area containing existing dense tree clusters that would otherwise shield it from view from nearby existing single-family or duplex homes or platted residential lots. As drafted, the type of faux stealthing must match a species of tree located within the nearby tree clusters. The amendment includes a provision where the Board of Commissioners could exempt a residential tower from utilizing faux tree sheathing with a condition of approval on the special use permit, which may be helpful in preventing situations where a faux tower would result in a greater visual impact than a standard monopole structure. Setbacks in Commercial and Industrial Districts The amendment reduces setbacks for towers in nonresidential districts to reflect modern engineering practices and to incentivize developers to locate within those areas rather than in residential districts. Changes in engineering over time have resulted in wireless towers utilizing engineered fall zones, where towers are designed in a way where if they were to fall, they would do so well within an area the height of the tower. Currently, tower setbacks are applied from residentially zoned areas at a distance equal to the height of the tower, and in no case may be less than 50 feet from the property line. As drafted, any tower in a nonresidential district would be subject to that tower’s specific fall zone, which is required to be certified by a licensed professional engineer to maintain public safety at a setback distance less than the height of the tower. Wireless Support Structures Allowed By-Right in Commercial Districts The amendment proposes allowing wireless support structures by right in commercial districts to incentivize developers to locate towers within those districts rather than residential districts. Tower developers would be subject to administrative Technical Review Committee approvals in these areas, whereas developers proposing new towers in residential areas would still be TA22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 4 of 6 required to go through the existing quasi-judicial special use permit process. Towers are currently allowed by right in the I-1, Light Industrial, and I-2, Heavy Industrial, districts. MAINTENANCE AMENDMENT Method of Rounding The amendment clarifies and codifies the County’s current practice of rounding, which applies the general mathematical rule that any calculation or measurement less than 0.5 rounds down to the nearest whole number, and anything 0.5 or greater would round up. For example, a parking calculation that results in a required minimum of 21.2 parking spaces would be rounded down to 21 parking spaces, and a calculation resulting in 21.8 parking spaces would be rounded up to 22 parking spaces. Major Subdivision Definition The amendment adds a definition for Major Subdivision to further clarify that a major subdivision is considered any subdivision exceeding the criteria for a minor subdivision. As currently applied, a major subdivision would be any subdivision that exceeds five lots, includes any new street, or requires drainage improvements or easements to serve the subdivision. Traffic Impact Analysis Process The amendment modernizes outdated provisions for the submittal, review, approval, and appeals processes for Traffic Impact Analyses (TIAs) to reflect the procedures implemented by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO), who exercise such authority over TIAs. Since these requirements were added to the ordinance in 2002, the TIA process has changed, and the section can now be misleading for applicants as it is not aligned with current practices. This amendment addresses this confusion, and potentially alleviates the need for further revisions to this section of the code, by stating that developments within the County that trigger the 100 peak hour trip generation threshold established by the ordinance must follow the current TIA process established by the NCDOT and WMPO. Street Yard Standards for RMF Districts The amendment incorporates a current Staff interpretation that multi-family developments in multi-family districts (RMF-L, RMF-M, RMF-MH, and RMF-H) are subject to the same street yard standards as multi-family developments in other districts. Foundation Plantings The amendment clarifies how foundation plantings are calculated to better align with the increased building heights recently allowed by the code. The change makes clear that the foundation planting area is based on the area of the first floor of a building face rather than the entire façade with the goal of preventing unintended excessive landscaped areas for taller structures. As drafted, the required foundation planting area is 12% of the area of the first- floor building face, or building face up to 25-feet in height, whichever is less, adjacent to parking area or internal drive, consistent with current intent. TA22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 5 of 6 PROPOSED AMENDMENT The proposed text amendment drafts and supplemental summary sheets are attached, with red italics indicating new language and strikethrough indicating provisions that are removed. Any changes to the summary sheets and drafts made in response to public review comments are shown in either blue strikethrough or blue italics. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment and suggests the following motion: I move to APPROVE the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to modify permissions and standards for wireless telecommunication facilities and to perform maintenance to various identified provisions throughout the code. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it aligns with the Plan’s implementation guidelines that aim to support business success, workforce development, economic prosperity, and public safety while preserving the character of existing residential neighborhoods, and advances the County’s efforts to ensure the tools in the code continue to work as they are intended. I also find APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it incorporates zoning tools that address compatibility between necessary wireless infrastructure and established residential neighborhoods and provides needed maintenance for clearer and more consistent standards. TA22-01 Staff Report PB 2.3.2022 Page 6 of 6 Subject Articles and Sections Article 2: Measurements and Definitions • Section 2.1: Measurements • Section 2.3: Definitions and Terms Article 3: Zoning Districts • Section 3.1: General o Section 3.1.3, Superseding Dimensional Standards Article 4: Uses and Use-Specific Standards • Section 4.2: Allocation of Principal Uses o Table 4.2.1, Principal Use Table • Section 4.3: Standards for Specified Principal Uses o Section 4.3.3, Civic & Institutional Uses Article 5: General Development Standards • Section 5.2: Traffic, Access, and Connectivity o Section 5.2.4, Traffic Impact Analysis • Section 5.4: Landscaping and Buffering o Section 5.4.6, Street Yard Standards o Section 5.4.7, Foundation Plantings