Loading...
2016-05 May 5 2016 PBM Page 1 of 9 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board May 5, 2016 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Donna Girardot, Chairman Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Jordy Rawl Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Ernest Olds Sharon Huffman, Deputy County Attorney Edward “Ted” Shipley, III David Weaver Absent: Tamara Murphy Anthony Prinz, Vice Chair Chairman Donna Girardot opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing. Ken Vafier led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Donna Girardot reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of Minutes for December 2015 and January 2016 Ted Shipley made a motion to approve the December 3, 2015 Planning Board meeting minutes. Ernest Olds seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the December 3, 2015 Planning Board meeting minutes. Ernest Olds made a motion to approve the January 7, 2016 Planning Board meeting minutes. David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the January 7, 2016 Planning Board meeting minutes. Due to the lack of a quorum of planning board members who attended the March meeting, approval of the March 3, 2016 Planning Board meeting minutes was postponed to the June 2, 2016 meeting. Item 1: Rezoning Request (Z-952, 4/16) – Request by Wilmington Builders, applicant, on behalf of the property owners, Noelle Holdings, LLC and The Stokley Family Trust, to rezone 0.45 acres located at 2 Silva Terra Drive from R -15, Residential District, to (CZD) O&I, Conditional Office and Institutional District, in order to develop an office building. Page 2 of 9 Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Andrea presented the following staff report: • The property, located at 2 Silva Terra Drive, at the intersection of Silva Terra Drive and Carolina Beach Road, has been zoned R-15 since zoning was applied to this area in 1971. The zoning in the vicinity consists of a mixture of commercial and residential zoning districts. On the southwest side of Carolina Beach Road, the zoning is predominately R-15, including Silva Terra and the surrounding parcels. An area of conditional R-7, known as Adams Landing, exists in the 4800 block of Carolina Beach Road. Across Silva Terra Drive from the subject site is a 1.06 acre conditional Office and Institutional district that was approved in 2005 and consists of a multi -tenant office building. Another conditional O&I district was approved in December 2002 and is conditioned to several uses, including computer audio/video service, recording studio, personal real estate rental office, barber shop, service station, lawn mower repair shop, rental tool business, and real estate business. • The area across Carolina Beach Road is a variety of zoning types under either city or county jurisdiction. A large area along Belle Meade Drive was subject to a conditional zoning district approval in 2008; however, areas of that site have been annexed into Wilmington and are under development with multi-family residential projects. A remnant of the 2008 conditional zoning approval site is the subject site for a proposed multi-family residential project recently heard by the Planning Board (Case Z-958 – Aaronfield Cove) and approved by the Board of Commissioners. Other zoning across Carolina Beach Road from the subject site includes MF-L (City), R-10, and R-15. • The property subject to the rezoning request is 0.45 acres and hosts a brick ranch style house that was constructed in 1970 and is proposed by the petitioner to be repurposed for use as an office building. The proposal would convert the existing residential structure for use as an office building and full compliance with NC Building Code would be required as part of the plan review process. Additionally, the proposal includes using the existing driveway. A driveway permit from the NC Department of Transportation will be required. The Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization staff has indicated that the existing driveway will most likely need to be widened to accommodate two-way travel, and is in a location that may conflict with the signalized intersection of Silva Terra Drive and Carolina Beach Road. • Additional landscaping that is not shown on the site plan will be required to meet zoning compliance, including streetyard plantings along both Silva Terra Drive and Carolina Beach Road, foundation plantings around the building perimeter, and interior parking lot landscaping. • A variance from the nonresidential structure setback and buffer yard requirements was approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment on April 26, 2016 and was necessary because the existing structure and driveway location would not have met the Page 3 of 9 requirements of Section 60.3 and Section 62.1-4. A fence and two staggered rows of vegetation will be required as a condition of the variance approval. • The site and surrounding area is classified as Urban b y the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. The purpose of the Urban classification is to provide for continued intensive development and redevelopment of existing urban areas. With the changes that have occurred to the area surrounding the site since residential zoning was applied and a residential use was established on the site in the early 1970s, staff concluded that non- residential zoning would be appropriate for the site and consistent with the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. J.C. Hearne stated he was attorney for the applicants and asked for the board’s support of the zoning petition. He stated the applicants had obtained the necessary variance for the property from the Zoning Board of Adjustment on April 26, 2016. As noted in the staff report, the Planning staff is in support of the conditional rezoning request and finds it to be consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because it calls for continued development and redevelopment of urban areas; and it is reasonable and in the public interest because it maximizes the effectiveness of commercial uses by locating them within close proximity to the markets they serve and ensuring such commercial uses do not diminish the quality of life of existing residential communities. He noted staff also concluded that the rezoning request is consistent with the Urban land use classification, and is also in compliance with the draft comprehensive plan. Mr. Hearne stated they are basically retrofitting an old house to become an office in a heavily commercial area at the corner of Silva Terra Drive and Carolina Beach Road. Noting the house had fallen in disrepair, he stated that the applicants felt the proposal would be the highest and best use of the property. They will not disturb the outside of the house or the look of the house. The applicants currently have some offices in the Office & Institutional node located directly across Carolina Beach Road from the subject property and would like to have this house conditionally rezoned to assist them in their business. Mr. Hearne submitted for the record their answers to the questions on the rezoning petition. In regard to how the requested change would be consistent with the County’s policies for growth and development, this parcel abuts a busy commercial corridor, including Office and Institutional zoning across the street. The 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan classified this parcel as Urban, which calls for the continued development and redevelopment of urban areas. He felt the proposal would develop an urban parcel on the property. In regard to how the requested zoning change would be consistent with the property’s classification on the land classification map, the property is currently classified as Urban on the land classification map and would be consistent with redevelopment. In regard to what significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate and how the land involved is unsuitable for the uses permitted under existing zoning, Mr. Hearne stated because Carolina Beach Road has become very busy, an abutting residential use in longer suitable there. Even if the residence could be rented, the applicants would have to rent it for an amount less than its highest and best use. They felt a Page 4 of 9 moderate conditional rezoning would be appropriate there. In regard to the conditions that would mitigate the impacts of the proposal, they propose to use the existing footprint of the residential structure and will not be erecting lights that would reflect in neighbors’ houses. The proposal would be a very well-kept office, which would be consistent and mitigate any impacts. The use may in fact lessen the impact somewhat because an office would be open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and the flood lights would be left on. Mr. Hearne concluded the presentation and asked for the board’s support of the rezoning. He reported that Steve Niemeyer of the applicant group was also present to answer any questions the board may have. Chairman Girardot inquired about the ingress and egress for the property, noting the staff report indicated the site would be subject to turn restrictions and improvements on Silva Terra Drive and requested that the driveway be widened. She commented, after visiting the site, it seemed the better ingress and egress to the site would be off Carolina Beach Road. Chairman Girardot asked Bill McDow of the Wilmington MPO to address that issue. Bill McDow of the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO) stated he was concerned about the location of the driveway, noting the driveway is located approximately 2-3 car lengths distance from the traffic signal. Because of that distance, he was concerned about the possibility of someone being able to make a left turn out of the driveway across two lanes of traffic. Mr. McDow said if the driveway was installed on that side you may have a restriction on traffic turning left out of the driveway. Chairman Girardot noted she was also concerned about that issue, as well as a vehicle making a right turn off Carolina Beach Road and then a left into the subject property’s driveway, which might result in cars stacking behind it. She commented she turned into that driveway and had to turn onto the grass to come back out. She felt it would be problematic and for that reason, she asked if it would be an option to go further down Carolina Beach Road past the property and then come in behind the property off Carolina Beach Road. Mr. McDow stated there is a potential for a shared driveway with the lot beside the subject property. He didn’t know if the applicant had requested a driveway permit from NCDOT for Carolina Beach Road or what the NCDOT’s response would be. Traditionally, it has been sometimes difficult to obtain a driveway permit for a small business on a major thoroughfare lik e Carolina Beach Road, but he felt it should be pursued. Steve Niemeyer of 5212 Carolina Beach Road stated he also represented the applicant. He felt the NCDOT would deny the request to have a driveway onto Carolina Beach Road. He stated he had been in contact with NCDOT, but had not yet received a written response. From a practical standpoint, there will be four employees working out of this space on a daily basis from 8am to 5pm. He said from an intensity of use standpoint, a family of five would create more trips per day that the proposed use so the traffic impact would be minimal and less. From a practical standpoint, there would be less left turns as well. Mr. Niemeyer stated he would be happy to put a no-left turn arrow on the site plan. He noted the left turn is not an issue. One would not normally turn left and go back into the neighborhood from there. Most people would turn right and get back out on Carolina Beach Road and the employees will do that as well. He felt that NCDOT would want the driveway located as far back on Silva Terra from that intersection as possible and would not want the proposed use to put additional traffic and turn lanes on Carolina Page 5 of 9 Beach Road. Mr. Niemeyer said he would make that request to NCDOT if asked by the Chairman to do so. David Weaver agreed on Mr. Niemeyer’s assessment on the building from Carolina Beach Road to this. He also wouldn’t see a lot of going onto Silva Terra Drive as most people would be turning right onto Silva Terra Drive to get back out on Carolina Beach Road. He noted he understood those concerns, and there isn’t a perfect situation, but it’s probably not any worse that it currently is. Mr. Hearne stated there would be a large pervious parking area behind the building so there would be no reason for visitors to back out onto Silva Terra Drive. He also pointed out there is an 8,000 square foot Office & Institutional property containing approximately six units located directly across Silva Terra Drive. No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the rezoning application. Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing. Chairman Girardot read the procedure and appeals statement. Mr. Hearne confirmed the applicant would like to proceed with a vote on the application by the planning board. Mr. Weaver asked if county staff or the applicant had received any input or communication from the neighbor to the south on Silva Terra Drive. Mr. Andrea replied that staff had not been contacted by any of the neighboring property owners . He noted for the record a sign was posted as early as March regarding the variance request and then for the rezoning public hearing, and notices were mailed for both public hearings to all property owners of parcels within 500 feet of the subject property. David Weaver made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request as the Planning Board finds that this application for a zoning map amendment of .45 acres from R-15, Residential District, to (CZD) O&I, Conditional Office and Institutional District, as described is: 1) Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the Urban classification calls for continued development and redevelopment of urban areas. 2) It is reasonable and in the public interest because it maximizes the effectiveness of commercial uses by locating them within close proximity to the markets they serve and by ensuring that such commercial uses do not diminish the quality of life of the existing residential communities. Ted Shipley seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-952. Page 6 of 9 Item 2: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request (A-423, 5/16) – Request by Design Solutions to amend Zoning Ordinance Article VII Section 81: Minimum Parking Requirements to create parking requirements for multi-family residential projects based on the bedroom unit types. Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea presented the staff report. • This is a request to amend the parking standards in the Zoning Ordinance for multi - family residential uses. • Currently, the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 2 parking spaces to be provided on the same lot for each dwelling unit, regardless of whether the residential use is single-family, duplex, or multi-family residential. • The request is to differentiate parking standards for multi-family residential development uses, and base the minimum parking requirements for a multi-family residential project on the types and number of bedroom units. • The petitioner is seeking to require 2.5 spaces for each unit for 3-bedroom units, 2 spaces per 2-bedroom units, and 1.5 spaces per 1-bedroom unit. • The proposed change aligns the county’s regulation more with the City of Wilmington’s residential parking standards shown here, which is 1.5 spaces per 1 bedroom unit, 2 per 2 bedroom unit, and 2.25 spaces for units with 3 bedrooms or more. • The city’s ordinance also allows a discretionary requirement of up to 2.5 spaces, and a reduction to 1 space per unit for elderly housing. • In conclusion, staff is supportive of the petitioner’s proposal to differentiate parking requirements based on the residential use type and reduce the requirement for one- bedroom multi-family units, but is reluctant to recommend increasing the minimum requirement for three-bedroom units (or larger) to 2.5 spaces per unit at this time. Staff recommends keeping the requirement for units with 2 or more bedrooms at 2 spaces per unit. Ernest Olds inquired about staff’s reluctance to increase the parking spaces for a three-bedroom unit to a higher number. Mr. Andrea explained staff has not heard any issues with the amount of parking that is required at a project like this multi-family residential project, and therefore, didn’t have any reason to justify making that increase at the present time. In addition, these requirements are minimums so there would be the ability to do 2.5 spaces if desired. He explained staff was also aware there is a significant ordinance update in the near future and felt that might be the time to more thoroughly analyze any changes. Chairman Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Page 7 of 9 Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions stated she is a landscape architect and will be designing projects. She noted her recent experience with projects had shown evidence of more one bedroom apartments and so she had approached staff about a text amendment regarding the parking standard. Her initial submission was to basically mimic the City of Wilmington’s parking requirements. Ms. Wolf explained her main concern was the requirements for two spaces per bedroom unit. She was fully supportive of staff’s suggested change to the text amendment to reduce the parking requirement to 1.5 spaces per bedroom unit. She commented that the City has certain maximums, which can be precarious for developers when there are 3 or 4 bedroom units. She noted with the current standard a project consisting of all one-bedroom units would have an amazing overage of parking, and with the sensitively to environments concerns, pavement, etc., reducing the requirement just made sense. Ms. Wolf stated in conclusion she fully supported the staff change to alter her text amendment request to 1.5 spaces per one bedroom apartment. No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition to the proposed text amendment. Chairman Girardot closed the public hearing and opened the board discussion period. Chairman Girardot stated she was very much in favor of cutting back as much pervious surface as possible and protecting the environment, and being consistent with the surrounding neighbors and with the City’s ordinances because we are a very small county and are becoming more urbanized. The County is completing the comprehensive plan, which will come before the board for consideration at the June meeting and then hopefully to the Commissioners in July. Chairman Girardot commented she was somewhat reluctant to do piecemeal zoning ordinance changes with the Comprehensive Plan so close to completion. If a specific applicant came before them, she would encourage an applicant to seek a variance to the zoning ordinance from the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Shipley stated he was of the opposite opinion in that he believed Ms. Wolf’s proposal made a lot of sense so he was supportive of Ms. Wolf’s request. He explained home ownership is at an all-time low, the lowest it has been in his lifetime. There are more people who don’t own homes and people are being forced to rent. Those people come from a variety of backgrounds. When looking at one bedroom units with two people, it would be appropriate to have 1.5 spaces per bedroom. He noted in regard to three-bedroom units, multifamily residential located in the unincorporated county is generally leased by families with two adults and children or an elderly person, which means two cars so a requirement of 2.5 spaces doesn’t seem out of line. Mr. Shipley added that generally when folks are leasing, they have guaranteed parking for a specific number of spaces in the terms of their lease contract so he would hesitate to intervene in the relationship between the lessor and the lessee as that is their private right to negotiate that issue. He concluded his comments, noting he thought Ms. Wolf’s proposed zoning amendment was not a bad amendment. Mr. Weaver commented he was more concerned about adequate parking for visitors, for example, when a resident has a party. He inqui red if most apartment complexes built in the county currently have excess parking beyond the ordinance. Mr. Andrea replied that would be a fair statement. Page 8 of 9 Mr. Weaver noted he had been in some apartment complexes where a visitor couldn’t find a parking space anywhere nearby, and he could see parking spilling out all over the place during a party. He commented that he liked the Garner approach, which is plus one space for every four units. Mr. Weaver said unless there was a specific development to which this text amendment would be important, he would support Ms. Wolf’s desire to move ahead with the amendment, but if not he would delay it and let the change be part of the new ordinance. Ms. Wolf replied that a rewrite of the ordinance will take at least a year, if not two years, given how long the comprehensive plan had taken to come forward. Both the City and the County are talking about revamping their ordinances, but those processes take a long time. She agreed the number of parking spaces is market driven as mentioned by Mr. Andrea. Ms. Wolf felt a text amendment is needed now and was concerned that a development with one bedroom units would be required to have twice as many parking spaces. The proposal still covers 1.5 spaces per one bedroom unit so there would be enough parking for guests. She felt parties would involve clubhouses and management. Ms. Wolf stated she felt 1.5 spaces per bedroom was reasonable and was concerned about the amount of time it may take to revamp the ordinance. Mr. Vafier offered staff’s perspective on the discussion regarding the UDO taking place, noting staff felt the amendment proposed by Ms. Wolf was an amendment that could be brought forward at this time because it is one that could be carried over within the UDO, without having to debate the specific provision again. It would bring this requirement in line with many other similar jurisdictions as shown by the research Mr. Andrea has provided. For that reason, staff doesn’t feel the amendment would be a temporary patch for the next two years, but instead would be something that could be incorporated going forward into the new UDO. Mr. Rawl stated his thoughts fell into line with the previous comments and he felt the amendment would give the UDO an opportunity to have a portion of its ordinance established now as opposed to as the ordinance is being written and really give us the opportunity to see how it will affect other elements of the new UDO. Mr. Rawl favored moving forward with the proposed text amendment and not waiting until the new UDO is implemented as there isn’t any specific time period yet when that might be. Ernest Olds agreed with the majority that a lot of places are over parked. He stated the 1.5 spaces per bedroom would mean half of the units will have two spaces and half will have one space and he felt that was a very reasonable middle ground. Mr. Olds stated he was in favor of proceeding with the amendment, however, the issue of parking for three bedrooms and beyond may deserve more consideration and study, which could be done during the UDO process. Chairman Girardot entertained a motion from the board. Ernest Olds made a motion to recommend approval of the staff-recommended version of the amendment, as the Planning Board finds that this request for a zoning ordinance amendment described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of Policy 5.2 of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the amendment provides more design criteria those results in more efficient land use and impervious surface reduction. Page 9 of 9 2. Reasonable and in the public interest as the amendment would maintain adequate minimum parking requirements while offering more flexible design criteria and lowering impervious surface coverage for multi-family residential projects. Jordy Rawl seconded the motion. During discussion, David Weaver said he would agree to approve the amendment now although he would rather wait. He thought it made sense to move forward with a decision, but restated his concern that two spaces per two-bedroom unit or greater was not enough parking, especially when including visitors. He said it sounded like the typical apartment complex coming into the county was already providing excess parking so he would like to see 2.5 spaces per unit for the two-bedroom or greater apartments to accommodate the need for a little excess parking. Mr. Weaver asked if Mr. Olds would be amendable to amending his motion. Mr. Olds stated he would prefer to continue with a vote on his original motion. The Planning Board voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the staff-recommended version of Text Amendment A-423. (Ayes: Olds, Rawl, and Shipley; Noes: Girardot and Weaver). Technical Review Committee Report (April 2015) No TRC Report for the month of April Other Business Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman reported on a discussion with Chairman Girardot and Planning & Inspections Director Chris O’Keefe regarding a proposed amendment to the Planning Board Rules of Procedure to specifically require that the Planning Board hearings would operate as quasi-judicial proceedings, and specifically state that the witnesses at the quasi-judicial hearings, which are the special use permits and conditional use matters, would be sworn in and that any exhibits by the witnesses would be provided to the County Attorney to be incorporated into the record. Ms. Huffman stated that a copy of the proposed amendment was provided to planning board members at their April meeting and asked if the board wished to discuss the amendment and vote on it or would prefer to move it forward to the next meeting. Following some discussion, Chairman Girardot suggested the board delay a vote on the amendment until the June Planning Board meeting so that Ms. Huffman could email, confidentially attorney-client, the proposed Planning Board procedures amendment to all board members again for review and comment. With no other items of business, Chairman Girardot adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m.