Loading...
2022-08-04 PB MINUTES 1 | P a g e Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board August 4, 2022 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on August 4, 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 Donna Girardot, Chair Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning Jeff Petroff, Vice Chair Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Colin Tarrant Robert Farrell, Senior Planner Hanson Matthews Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Jeffrey Stokley Jr. Pete Avery Absent Members Clark Hipp Chair Jeff Petroff called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and excused the absence of the new Planning Board Member Mr. Clark Hipp. Director of Planning, Rebekah Roth led the Pledge of Allegiance. Election of Officers Board Member Jeffrey Stokley Jr. made a MOTION to ELECT Donna Girardot as Planning Board Chair. Motion to approve elected Chair carried 5-0 Board Member Donna Girardot made a MOTION to ELECT Jeff Petroff as Planning Board Vice Chair. Motion to approve elected Vice Chair carried 5-0 Chair Donna Girardot read the New Hanover County Code of Ethics, welcomed the audience, and provided an overview of the procedures of the meeting. Approval of Minutes Minutes from the June 2, 2022 Planning Board meeting were presented to the members. No changes or amendments were identified. Board Member Pete Avery made a MOTION, SECONDED by Vice Chair Jeff Petroff to approve the minutes as drafted. Motion to approve minutes carried 6-0. NEW BUSINESS Transportation Projects Update - 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Ballot Initiative. Director of Planning and Land Use, Rebekah Roth introduced team members from New Hanover County, the City of Wilmington, and Wave Transit who had been working together over the past several months to prepare a public education campaign to explain what the ¼ cent sales tax proposed in the upcoming referendum would entail and the types of projects it could potentially fund. She stated the team would be providing details that would be communicated to the public over the coming weeks. Ms. Roth stated that she wanted the board to have the opportunity to hear the information because some of what could be possible with this funding source may help address some of the planning questions that the Planning Board deals with on a regular basis and may impact some decisions moving forward. 2 | P a g e Ms. Jessica Loeper, NHC Chief Communications Officer gave a general overview of what the sales tax was and what it could be used for. She stated the sales tax would improve the quality of life in our community for the county beaches, the City of Wilmington, as well as unincorporated areas and was intended to help increase access and mobility across the entire county. She stated the referendum would appear as a Yes/NO vote on the November 8 ballot whether to implement the sales tax or not and would then go to the Board of Commissioners to potentially levy the tax around April of 2023. Ms. Loeper stated that the tax would be 25 cents per every 100 dollars spent on eligible goods but would not apply to groceries, fuel, and prescriptions. She stated the sales tax could bring in around $14 million dollars a year based on current projections and provide a sustainable source of revenue. She stated the funds could also be leveraged for state and federal funds for a larger investment in public infrastructure needed in the community. Ms. Loeper stated the funding framework was separated into three separate components; 1) 45% to Wave Transit, 2) 39% to bicycle and pedestrian pathway improvements, and 3) 16% to the Rail Realignment Project and was estimated over the first 10 years of the sales tax. Ms. Abby Lorenzo, WMPO Deputy Director gave an overview of the bike/pedestrian priorities. She stated the implementation of the sales tax would allow for a dedicated funding source to either design and build these projects or use the revenues to leverage other funding sources such as federal grants. Ms. Tara Duckworth, NHC Parks and Gardens Director, gave a brief overview of opportunities for trails, sidewalks, bike paths, and crosswalk/intersection improvements. She stated that North College Road and South College Road were where staff were concentrating for a design which would allow for north-south movement, then east-west connections to Masonboro Loop Road and the downtown multi-use path. She stated the sidewalks and intersections were being looked at collectively for areas that the county knows are being used by the community and where safety needed to be improved. Ms. Marie Parker, Wave Transit Executive Director, gave a brief overview of how Wave Transit would be able to utilize the funding. She stated the changes would support more available, convenient, and consistent service. Ms. Parker indicated that during the first five years their first task would be to expand hours. She stated they would also expand the Micro Transit Service area, which was launched less than a year ago, and currently served north and south New Hanover County with smaller vehicles and covering more area. She stated the sales tax would cover additional vehicles and areas. Ms. Parker stated they would be able to increase frequency on routes which were currently on 60-minute frequency which was not convenient. She stated that the intent was to utilize the funds to expand the routes and add more 30- or 45-minute routes making it more convenient and usable to the county citizens. She stated that they would also be able to invest in passenger amenities such as new benches, new shelters, and purchase new technology so that passengers could see real time arrival times, free passenger Wi-Fi on buses, and a mobile app where citizens could purchase passes as well as track their bus. She stated that Wave Transit would be able to implement free youth passes for all children younger than 18 years of age, which would help support transportation to school or other events at no cost to the parents. Ms. Lorenzo shared information provided by Mr. Aubrey Prisley, City of Wilmington’s Director of Economic Development, about how the ¼ cent sales tax would be used to support the Rail Realignment Project. She stated if approved by the voters, the sales tax would give the growing area the chance to invest in other areas of transportation besides highways. She stated the funds could be used for the rail realignment that sought to build a new railroad route to the port eliminating 32 at grade crossings in the county and city in the process. She stated the funds could be used as important seed money for other state and federal grants and help by applying local funds toward a more comprehensive project. She stated the hope was to leverage local funds with state funds, and possibly federal funds for multi-model infrastructure. 3 | P a g e In response to questions of the Board about who would be responsible for administration of the funds, Ms. Loeper stated that based on the state statute, the interlocal agreement that established Wave was between the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County. She stated the funding would go to those two entities to determine how the funding would be utilized. She stated the plan that was discussed between the County Commissioners and staff, was to develop a committee that was devoted to this that evaluated projects, determined timelines, and where the funding would go, and then to the respective entities to approve. In response to questions of the Board about the percentages provided, Ms. Loeper stated nothing was set in stone at this point the framework described was recommended from staff and what the Board of Commissioners had committed to for the first 10 years. She stated that it came about based on the priority projects, the needs in each of those areas, knowing what WAVE needed to accomplish their priorities, and rail realignment. Ms. Loeper stated that funding allocated to railroad realignment was less than for other funding categories, but the hope was that funding would be leveraged. In response to questions of the Board about educating the public, Ms. Loeper stated that staff were currently building an education campaign. She stated that the first start was a website for the public to learn and get information. She stated they were building upon that with flyers, postcards, and posters. She stated that they were reaching out to different organizations, boards, and other businesses and organizations to educate them about the sales tax. Ms. Loeper stated that there were plans in the fall to have community information sessions for persons to learn from the subject matter experts. Transportation Projects Update - Wilmington Metropolitan Transportation Organization (WMPO) Update. Ms. Rebekah Roth stated that Ms. Abby Lorenzo would provide an update both on upcoming WMPO projects that may influence planning conversations over the coming months and an update on the NCDOT projects that the county heard about on a regular basis and were integral to decisions that must be made by the board. Ms. Abby Lorenzo, WMPO Deputy Director, gave an overview of the WMPO’s congestion management process and some of the major roadway projects scheduled for the unincorporated areas of New Hanover County. She stated the WMPO was a federally designated regional transportation planning organization and that anytime an urbanized area reached 50,000 in population, it was a federal requirement that a metropolitan planning organization be formed to provide regional transportation planning. She stated the current population for the WMPO region was estimated at 280,000 people and under the federal requirement of when a population reaches 200,000, it would be designated as a Transportation Management Area (TMA). She stated the WMPO reached this designation after the 2010 census and in 2012 was designated TMA which came along with additional requirements and the opportunity to receive federal funds directly from the federal government. Ms. Lorenzo stated that a Congestion Management Process (CMP) was a major federal requirement. She stated that the CMP was a methodical, data-driven approach for managing congestion in the region, and that the county adopted their original CMP in 2013. She stated that WMPO’s process was established as a monitoring report that produced on a biennial basis. She stated WMPO would look at congestion from a regional level and a corridor level analysis. She stated congestion from a multimodal approach was also monitored and transit, bicycle, and pedestrian data was collected. She stated that WMPO worked closely with NCDOT, Cape Fear Public Transit Authority to collect information for their reports; 1) Regional Evaluation, 2) Corridor Evaluation, 3) Mitigation Strategy Identification and 4) National Performance Research Data Set (NPMRDS). Once all data is collected a Segment Snapshot would be created that included the multimodal and travel time scores intended to measure congestion along the 4 | P a g e corridor. She stated the CMP was a tool used to help inform their long-range transportation plan update that was performed every five years and was known as the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Ms. Lorenzo provided the following 2020-2029 State/MPO Transportation Improvement Program projects in the unincorporated areas of New Hanover County and gave a brief description of each: ▪ U-5402B College Road Access Management Improvements ▪ U-5790 Carolina Beach Road Widening and Intersection Improvements ▪ U-5881 College Road Upgrade ▪ U-6202 Gordon Road Widening ▪ U-4571 Military Cutoff Extension ▪ U-6202 Gordon Road Widening ▪ U-4751 Military Cutoff Extension ▪ U-5863 Castle Hayne Rd. Widening ▪ U-5954 NC 233 at B, 23rd Str. Roundabout ▪ R-3300A Hampstead Bypass ▪ U-5731 Isabel Holmes Bridge Trumpet Interchange ▪ U-4902D Market Street Access Management Ms. Lorenzo stated that regarding the 2024-2033 draft STIP Development, which the state updated every four years, due to revised project cost estimates and anticipated transportation revenues, no new projects would be programmed. She stated that the draft STIP was anticipated for release in August/September of 2022 and that NCDOT had worked through a process in determining which projects would remain within the document and which would have to be resubmitted for potential funding. She stated WMPO would work with Division 3 to determine if there were opportunities to swap some of the projects. She stated that the final 2024-2033 STIP was anticipated to be adopted by summer May 2023. In response to questions of the Board about congestion management, Ms. Lorenzo stated that the months selected were to get an idea of what the average time looked like when travel would be typical, except for holidays and days where travel would not be considered typical. In response to questions of the Board about the increase in density to make Wave and other means of public transportation more effective and efficient, Ms. Roth stated that the amount of funding that was available in this area for transportation was limited. She stated that as an unincorporated area, the county did not have the same reliance on other funding sources that may be available for an incorporated area. She stated that conversations had been about looking at what other funding opportunities may be available to help address some of the common questions received. She stated that a big consideration of the Planning Board in addition to transportation regarding roadways, was the bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. She stated if they did look at additional density and a mix of uses, the county would also need to figure out a way to encourage that type of connectivity, and without some sort of funding available to create the spines, it limited the county’s ability to require it piecemeal as new developments came in. She stated if that were to pass staff could consider those type of linkages, leveraging both the public and private investment in a different way that than that of the past. She stated that one of the things less evident in regard to WAVE, is that another big consideration often seen was Housing Affordability. She stated that one of the ways to guarantee affordability in a project, or for projects that had the low-income housing tax credits were the projects specified and required to be in places where there were public transportation options. Discussion Item: Unified Development Ordinance Amendment Concepts. Ms. Roth provided information pertaining to some potential Unified Development Ordinance text amendment concepts. She stated that staff had been regularly putting forward maintenance housekeeping amendments since the completion of the Unified Development Ordinance project in 2020 to make sure that the ordinance stays up to 5 | P a g e date and remained effective at encouraging the type of development that we want to see in the unincorporated county. Ms. Roth provided concepts of the ongoing UDO Maintenance Amendments that would fall into three categories; 1) new provisions to make sure that the ordinance remained modern, 2) clarifications so all ordinance users understood the provisions in the same way, and 3) updates to tools so that they would continue to work in the way they were intended. Ms. Roth stated that during the concept presentation, she would be providing information on each potential amendment to determine whether the Board felt comfortable with moving forward, if it needed additional consideration, or if it should not be on the table. She stated that based on the Board’s feedback, staff would finalize amendment drafts that would be released for public comment prior to a public hearing in front of the Planning Board and a final Board of Commissioner public hearing and decision. Ms. Roth stated that staff had identified five potential additions or modernizations to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO): 1. The addition of the current county Stormwater Ordinance to the UDO document, a specific place, Article 7 which was provided for these provisions when the UDO format was adopted in 2019, 2. To expand the ordinance’s provisions for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, 3. Lighting fixture standards. She stated the proposed amendment would replicate language used in several recent conditional rezoning requests, which limited the height of lighting structures adjacent to single-family residential neighborhoods and required full cut-off fixtures to reduce the visual impact on those adjacent properties, 4. A potential amendment intended to solve increased zoning complaints for properties in residential neighborhoods being used for the non-commercial storage of multiple inoperative boats, and 5. Allowed encroachments into setbacks. In response to questions for he Board, Mr. Galen Jamison, Chief County Engineer stated that the updated Design Manual was scheduled to go before the Board of Commissioners in September 2022. Planning Board Chair, Donna Girardot indicated she had heard concerns about challenges to industrial development especially on Highway 421 related to current tree retention standards, and asked if staff could also look into an amendment to address them. Ms. Roth stated that staff would look into this to see what could be added as part of the maintenance amendment. Ms. Roth stated that staff had identified several clarifications to the ordinance that were relatively small in scope. She stated the first was regarding the freestanding sign standards for the O&I district. She stated they were not included in the same table that outlined provisions for other districts, and some sign information was included in the district-specific standards instead. She stated that the intent would be to provide all freestanding sign standards in one table, so that it was clear to users what applied. The next was to clarify that specimen tree standards were intended to apply to existing residential lots as well as other lots in development projects. She stated this had been staff’s understanding of the amendment adopted in 2019 that established specimen trees but had not always been clear for the code users because of conflicting language. She stated next would be language to clarify that zoning district height maximums were not intended to apply to utility structures, such as power poles and water towers. She stated that when staff modified the definition for “building” to align with the change to the state general statutes last year, it created some confusion for some code users. 6 | P a g e Ms. Roth stated that staff wanted to add a provision to make sure it was clear that Independent Living Facilities, while not having use-specific standards of their own, should follow the use specific standards required for the type of development, single family projects should comply with single family standards, multi- family projects should comply with multi-family standards. The next proposed amendment was to clarify that district specific provisions were eligible for variances. She stated that there were development standards in multiple section of the ordinance and wanted to articulate that no matter where the standard was located in the Unified Development Ordinance, it should be eligible for a variance. She stated that this would not apply to conditions placed on conditional zoning districts but could allow applicants to request variances for standards not subject to conditions the same as anyone else. Ms. Roth stated that staff had received a request to clarify the height provisions for development in the airport area and specify that FAA approval was a requirement for buildings to exceed the general height maximum for the Airport Commerce zoning district. She stated that staff wanted to make sure that it was clear that the minimum acreage required for a Planned Development was intended to be contiguous to allow for a coordinated project. Ms. Roth stated that staff wanted to clarify the building separation requirements for structures in performance subdivisions. She stated now that the county’s ordinance used more terms other than single- family and multi-family, staff wanted to make sure it was understood which separation requirement applied. Ms. Roth stated that over the past several years, staff had recognized places where the ordinance may have needed to be updated to make sure it remained as effective as possible. She stated that staff learned that the current provisions for administrative approval of minor deviations may have needed to be tweaked. Under the new state 160-D statutes, the situations where staff could approve minor deviations had been clarified to include only the specific situations outlined in the code. She stated that last year, the county adopted a list of instances where administrative modifications were possible for site plans associated with conditional zoning districts, special use permits, or master planned developments. Any other modifications would require a developer to go back through the rezoning or special use permit process in order to update the site plan. She stated that staff had learned that current authorities may lead to changes greater than those anticipated by the reviewing and approving boards or the outside stakeholders involved in the original process. She stated in other situations, some of the county’s current authorities may not reflect the types of changes that occurred as site plans moved through the engineering and technical permitting phases. She stated that it should be noted that deviations to ordinance standards or specific conditions placed on an approval would not be allowed. Ms. Roth stated that as a result, staff was recommending the following changes: 1. Expanding the current authority to allow deviations to building or structure placements that did not violate setback standards or specific conditions by also allowing changes to building configurations 2. Replacing the authority to allow increases in building size and height with the more specific ability to allow increases in square footage of a use type, for instance commercial or residential, not to exceed 10% and to limit increases in height to 10% or 10 ft, whichever was less to reduce potential impacts now that taller buildings were allowed in the code. 3. Staff would recommend specifically allowing the ability to approve changes to internal circulation patterns that didn’t impact public safety. Ms. Roth stated that staff would like the board to consider an update to codify a change to the development review process to adjust the review timing for tree removal permit related landscaping plans and lighting plans. She stated that the current tree removal permit process required both the tree removal authorization and mitigation plan be approved up-front as one step before a developer could receive an erosion & sedimentation control permit. She stated now that there were incentives built into the ordinance that allowed 7 | P a g e retention of existing trees to be used for mitigation and built into the project’s landscaping plan, staff had found that those approved plans often had to be revised after stormwater and construction plan approvals because the location of infrastructure and other sign design had shifted through the engineering process. She stated that this often required staff to duplicate efforts and review mitigation plans multiple times and required additional administration to adjust fees paid in lieu of plantings. She stated as an alternative, staff would like to retain the existing tree removal authorization portion of the permit as part of the initial approval, remove the mitigation plan requirement at that phase, and instead finalize the mitigation/landscaping plan at the time of construction plan approval once all engineering had taken place. Ms. Roth stated that staff would also like to allow lighting plan submittal at the construction approval stage, still prior to when the conduit for the lights was installed, in certain pre-approved instances. She stated lighting design work had been taking longer in recent years, and this would allow developers to move forward with parts of a project even if their lighting design were delayed. She stated the next potential update was to increase the number of residents allowed in a Group Home from 6 to 8. She stated this was a use that had more stringent standards than other residential uses and was intended to allow for safe living situations for residents with disabilities. The Board of Adjustment had received 7 requests for reasonable accommodations, covered under the Federal Fair Housing Act, in the past 7 years regarding this item. She stated that in general, if the Board of Adjustment received and approved multiple requests for the same action, it was usually better practice to amend the ordinance rather than de- facto require a Board of Adjustment hearing. Ms. Roth stated that the final proposed update would add domestic partnerships and civil unions but no longer address domestic servants. She stated that like many jurisdictions with nearby colleges, the county currently limited the number of unrelated members in a household to no more than 3, and this was not proposed to change however, the parameters of what counted as a household would generally be expanded and be more in line with what was commonly used in other jurisdictions. Ms. Roth stated that based on the process staff had developed over the past several years, the next step was to release drafts for public comment. She stated staff generally allowed at least 1 ½ weeks for public comment and currently anticipated being able to release the drafts next week, which would allow staff to move forward with a Planning Board public hearing in September. She stated that if the release were delayed, those meeting dates would need to be adjusted, but staff wanted to make sure there was sufficient time for upfront vetting of any draft language prior to a public hearing. OTHER ITEMS Ms. Roth provided an update of the Western Bank discussions that the Board of Commissioners had been having. She stated the second work session had been scheduled for August 18 at 2:00 p.m. prior to the Commissioners’ agenda review. She stated prior to the meeting staff would be providing information on the spectrum of development scenarios that the board requested be prepared for them: conservation, limited use, working waterfront, small scale mixed-use, and urban scale mixed-use. Ms. Roth stated at the meeting they would provide details on the different scenarios, trade-offs, how each aligned with current policy recommendations and would identify what may be next steps moving forward. She stated staff had been working for the past several months with a variety of stakeholders and would continue to have conversations that would be included as part of the information in the presentation. She stated after discussions she would be able to let the board know in September if they would have a presentation or if there would be another update. Ms. Roth stated the presentation would take place at 230 Government Center Drive in the Lucy Harrell conference room and would also be streamed live and recorded. Chair Donna Girardot adjourned the meeting at 7:25 PM. 8 | P a g e Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.