Loading...
2022-06-02 PB MINUTES 1 | P a g e Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board June 2, 2022 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on June 2, 2022, 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 Colin Tarrant Robert Farrell, Senior Planner Paul Boney Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Jeffrey Stokley Jr. Pete Avery Absent Members Hanson Matthews Chair Jeff Petroff called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and introduced the new Planning Board Member Mr. Pete Avery. Planning Manager Ken Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of Minutes Minutes from the May 5, 2022 Planning Board meeting were presented to the members. No changes or amendments were identified. Board Member Jeffrey Stokely Jr. made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Paul Boney to approve the minutes as drafted. Motion to approve minutes carried 6-0. NEW BUSINESS Rezoning Request (Z22-16) - Request by Kelly Summerlin with Integral Commercial Group, applicant, on behalf of Bethany Presbyterian Church, property owner, to rezone approximately 2.42 acres of land located at 2311 Castle Hayne Road from O&I, Office and Institutional, to CB, Community Business. Senior Planner Robert Farrell 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. Farrell stated that the applicant was proposing to rezone approximately 2.42 acres from O&I to CB. He stated that the proposed rezoning was a straight rezoning and that conditions could not be applied. He stated the parcel was originally zoned R-15 in the early 1970s until the owners rezoned the property to the current O&I designation in 1999. He stated the parcel was surrounded by a mixture of commercial zoning districts to the north and residential zoning at varying densities on all other sides. He stated that under the current zoning district, the parcel could accommodate both residential and commercial development. He stated the site had direct access onto Castle Hayne Road through an existing driveway entrance. Mr. Farrell stated that typical development under the current zoning would generate approximately 40 AM peak hour trips and 42 PM peak hour trips. He stated that the proposed zoning district would generate approximately 45 AM peak hour trips and 125 PM peak hour trips. This would result in a net increase of 5 PM peak hour trips and 83 PM peak hour trips. He stated that there was an existing Traffic Impact Analysis for the Wrightsboro Commons multi-family project that required a new signal plan for North Kerr and Castle Hayne Road intersection with an anticipated build 2 | P a g e out in 2023. He stated that there was also a State Transportation Improvement Project for the widening of Castle Hayne road with construction scheduled to begin after 2029. Mr. Farrell stated that the property was in the Wrightsboro area between two commercial nodes. He stated that the proposal was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan which classified the property as Community Mixed Use which promoted small scale, compact, mixed-use development patterns that act as an attractor for county residents and visitors and would generate infill commercial development between two commercial intersections along an established corridor. Mr. Farrell stated that if the rezoning were approved, development of the site would be subject to full technical and zoning review to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Farrell referred to the Principal Use Table of the Unified Development Ordinance and provided information about the differences between the uses allowed in the current O&I zoning district and the proposed CB zoning district. In response to questions of the Board, Mr. Farrell stated that the setbacks for O&I and CB were very similar. He stated the buffer types required for CB and O&I were also identical. He stated that the residential structure on the property was referenced in the New Hanover County Architectural Survey but not listed in the National Registry or a local historic district. Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Ms. Kelly Summerlin, applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed project. She concurred with the information Mr. Farrell had presented. Ms. Summerlin stated she believed that if the rezoning application were approved it would activate the area by allowing businesses that were not currently allowed in the area. Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. With no one signed up to speak in opposition or with questions, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. After further discussion, Board Member Jeff Stokely Jr. made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning to a CB district. The Board found it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the types of uses allowed within the Community Mixed Use place type would support small scale commercial centers of a transitional nature in the Wrightsboro area and would generate infill commercial development between two commercial intersections along an established corridor. The Board also found recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request reasonable and in the public interest because the CB district provides areas for commercial growth to serve existing and future residential development and act as a buffer between higher density/intensity development and moderate to low density residential neighborhoods. The motion to approve the rezoning request carried 6-0. Rezoning Request (Z22-10) – Request by Adam Shanks with Carolina Beach Villa, applicant on behalf of the Elizabeth B. Harris LLC and Cordelia Hinnant, property owners, to rezone two (2) parcels of land: Approximately 7.11 acres of land located at 924 Seabreeze Road from R-15, Residential and B-2, Regional Business to R-7, Residential, and approximately 3.66 acres of land located at 1001 Seabreeze Road from R-15, Residential and B-2, Regional Business to RMF-L, Residential Multi-Family Low Density. Director of Planning and Land Use, Rebekah Roth 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. 3 | P a g e Ms. Roth stated that the proposal was to rezone two parcels totaling 10.77 acres from R-15 and B-2 to R-7 and RMF-L. She stated that the existing R-15 and B-2 zoning had been applied in 1971 when this portion of the county was first zoned and reflected the historic development pattern in the area which was historically an African American beach resort community, before beaches were desegregated in the 1960s. She stated that density had historically been limited in this area in part by no water and sewer services, as a typical 3-bedroom single-family dwelling would require a lot of approximately 13,000 square feet in size to support well and septic. She stated Aqua had lines nearby and had provided a letter of commitment to provide service for up to 50 single family units and 25 townhomes on these tracts if they were to be developed. Ms. Roth stated that both sites were undeveloped and heavily wooded, and regardless of the zoning designation, the same number and types of trees would need to be retained if the properties were to be developed. Ms. Roth stated that the county allowed for two different types of residential development. She stated under the first type, conventional subdivisions, new developments must meet minimum lot sizes and setbacks from property lines. She stated that these projects required a minimum of 10% open space as most land was part of single-family lots and individually owned by each property owner. She stated the county’s general residential districts, which included R-15 and R-7, were designed to allow single-family development for conventional lots and a minimum of 7,000 sf or about 1/6th of an acre. Ms. Roth stated that the second type of project, performance developments, units were allowed to be clustered on smaller lots and 20% open space was required, which was generally maintained by a property owners association, which was historically how attached residential homes, like townhomes and condominiums, had been allowed. She stated that while the RMF-L district did have minimum lot size and frontage requirements, when this district was added to the code in 2019, it was anticipated projects would primarily use performance residential standards or apply to existing lots where subdivisions of land were not required. She stated that performance residential development was not an option in this area, however, as the ordinance limited density in AE and VE flood zones to no more than 2.5 dwelling units per acre. She stated that any development of the subject tracts at higher densities would have to be conventional and must meet minimum lot size requirements. She stated that the parcels had direct access to Seabreeze Road which ran in a loop and connected directly to Carolina Beach Road. She stated to the west was a signalized intersection at River Road and on the southern connection and that there was a right in/right out on the northern connection, just south of Myrtle Grove Road Seventh Day Adventist Church. Ms. Roth provided information indicating that compared to the type of development typical under the current R-15 zoning, the requested zoning districts could generate an additional 29 AM peak hour trips and 36 PM peak hour trips. This would result in an increase of 10 in each peak hour. She stated the estimated trip generation for the project was under the 100 peak hour trip threshold that triggered the ordinance requirement for a traffic impact analysis, but any development would still be subject to NCDOT review through the driveway permitting process. Ms. Roth stated that development in the area had generally been lower density, with low intensity water- based businesses located closer to the Intracoastal Waterway. However, the long-term vision for development in this area had included a revitalization of the Seabreeze beach resort as outlined in the 1989 Seabreeze Small Area Plan. She stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan incorporated this vision by designating this area as Community Mixed Use so that higher residential density and a mix of uses could be allowed. She stated that while this Seabreeze area was one of the types of areas where staff would have preferred a conditional rezoning request to ensure the preservation of the cultural heritage and historical context of this area, based on the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and because higher density residential development could encourage revitalization, staff recommended approval of the request to rezone the 4 | P a g e western parcel to R-7. She stated that because the RMF-L district was intended to allow for development of performance residential projects and it was not clear how a conventional project would be able to support the density allowed by this district, given the flood hazards and potential environmental constraints, staff recommended denial of the request to rezone the eastern parcel to RMF-L. In response to questions of the Board, Ms. Roth stated because this proposal was a straight rezoning, nothing had been proposed or submitted formally as to the number of stories of the structures. Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Mr Tracy Pettigrew, Carolina Beach Villa, on behalf of Elizabeth B. Harris LLC and Cordelia Hinnant, property owners, provided a summary description of the proposed project. He concurred with the information Ms. Roth had presented. Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Mr. Kenneth Lovitt, 7639 Scout Camp Hatila Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with the density of the project, traffic, no site plan being presented to support the proposal and potential flooding. Dorian Cromartie, 51 Lennon Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with climate change, flooding, and overdevelopment of the area. He stated that hurricane evacuation issues would worsen further down the road and expressed his approval for a more sustainable development other than businesses for future generations. Mr. Chris Capone, 104 South Seabreeze Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with the traffic and the shoulder on the road not being sufficient for pedestrians. Mr. Raymond Struble, 1054 South Seabreeze Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with traffic, insufficient shoulder on the road, flooding along Seabreeze Road, and Beach revitalization; He cited the Comprehensive Plan’s Hazard mitigation Plan - Appendix E - Strategies 21-26, and referred to retaining ….. in floodplain areas. He spoke about flooding activity on the tract. Mr. Jon Rimer, 7605 Scout Camp Hatila Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with flooding. Ms. Gabrielle Childs, 1017 Saltspray Lane, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with the increase in traffic and flooding. In rebuttal to public comments, Mr. Pettigrew stated that the goal was not to negatively impact the community. He stated because the proposal was a straight rezoning, he was not required to present a site plan. In rebuttal to public comments, Mr. Scott Baggie, resident of Cypress Center Drive, stated that they would be providing water and sewer. He stated regarding traffic there would be a one entrance horseshoe, one-way in and out, that would mitigate traffic. He stated that a traffic impact study would be conducted, and the proper departments and agencies would need to approve the proposal. He stated as for revitalization of the Beach Plan, there would be public access granted and it would open areas that had been closed to the public. He stated road improvements would be necessary down the line on Seabreeze Road but, would potentially be part of the state’s plan to improve the area regarding traffic. He stated all lots were not 7,000 square feet and that the homes would be priced between $300,000 to $500,000. He stated that there would be impervious surface regulated to each lot. Mr. Baggie stated the influx of purchases would open more traffic and the need for commercial businesses such as fuel stations. He stated they would be revitalizing properties that had been empty for years. Chair Petroff opened the rebuttal period for those with questions or in opposition 5 | P a g e Ms. Kathy Tylee, 1056 South Seabreeze Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern with the proposed zoning request, the flood plan and reducing density in the flood zone. She expressed her concern with changing the historical character of the community. Ms. Sandy McKeithen, 7622 Scout Camp Hatila Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern with the proposed density of the project, flooding and changing the historical character of the community. She stated there was a need to protect the existing homes. She expressed her concern with no site plan being provided. Caroline Meeks, 7601 Scout Camp Hatila Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed here concern with ingress and egress, and there being no community greenspace for recreation. She expressed her concerns about the increase of traffic on Seabreeze Road along with construction and vehicles. Mr. Donovan Taylor, 7600 Scout Camp Hatila Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with extensive flooding in the area, and increased traffic. With no further opposition or questions, Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. After extensive discussion from the Board regarding increased traffic, flooding and the absence of a site plan, Mr. Pettigrew requested a continuance to the July 7, 2022 meeting. Board Member Paul Boney made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member, Peter Avery for a CONTINUANCE of the proposed amendment to the July 7 Planning Board meeting to allow the applicant to provide additional information. The motion for continuance of the rezoning request carried 6-0. OTHER ITEMS Chief Project Engineer, Galen Jamison provided an update to the New Hanover County Stormwater Design Manual stating it was in the process of being updated and was anticipated to be presented to the Board of Commissioners. He stated that this was the first update to the manual in 22 years. He stated they would be removing discrepancies, adding NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall data, adding additional safety factors, and providing provisions for downstream analysis. In regard to the analysis of historical downstream problems of concern, he stated that with the design manual and some of the changes made to the Stormwater Ordinance in 2021, the county would have an opportunity to ask developers to look at the downstream area from a qualitative perspective. He stated that developers would be held responsible to provide a preliminary plan to improve some off-site drainage concerns. He stated they would also be adding a drainage plan requirement for smaller infill projects that did not qualify for a stormwater management permit. Mr. Jamison stated that the goal was to get all changes incorporated into the Unified Development Ordinance and anticipated the design manual would be completed by the end of July. Chair Jeffrey Petroff adjourned the meeting at 7:43 PM. Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.