Loading...
TA21-03 Public CommentsTA 21-03 Public Comments Note: Paraphrased comments received from phone or in-person conversations are shown in italics. Written comments received via email are shown in quotes. Punctuation may have been added to increase clarity, but comments are otherwise verbatim. A full list of sources and the dates comments were sent are provided at the end of this document. Relevant Amendment Section (s) Source Comment General Comments Paramounte Engineering Based on the way the allowance is structured, future text amendment requests are likely based on individual projects to add specific uses to the list of exceptions for more stories. Rich S. “The roads in the area from Monkey Junction to Carolina Beach are already overcrowded. At this point, adding more ‘vertical’ buildings will only make matters worse. Traffic has become dangerous, and we no longer leave our home during certain hours of the day because of the traffic on Carolina Beach Road. Please consider LESS density, not more. Thank you.” James Hansen “As a life long citizen and native of Wilmington, NC, I have watched my beloved town grow by leaps and bounds. Most of which, I believe has been beneficial growth. But as time goes by, I see more and more neighborhoods and business developments pop up, seemingly overnight. I truly believe we are at a point where if we continue on this path of clearing land and paving it over for new building projects [t]hat our problems with flooding the lower lying areas down stream from these projects will only continue to get worse. Leading to the continuing and worsening pollution of our rivers, creeks, streams and ground water. Killing our wildlife and removing their habitat. All for the sake of the all mighty dollar. Further enriching the wealthy developers and flooding the not so wealthy residents and land owners downstream. Some of which have been living here their whole lives. All to feed their greed. Please do not allow these people to continue to ruin my beloved hometown. Allowing them to build taller structures is surely not going to help. I’m sure there is no true ‘answer’ to this issue. Although, by possibly making it more difficult and much more expensive to obtain permits for these already wealthy developers to build anything at all in or around our beautiful and beloved hometown. Maybe, it will possibly help keep them from continuing to ruin our local environment and our town at the same dizzying pace they have been for the past several decades. Rant over. Thank you.” Jacque McAllister, Jr. “Being a resident of New Hanover, it concerns me anyone could possibly think all developers would not request the max elevation is foolish [as] these properties are investment tools. Land is at a premium, cheaper to go up than out. The problem that is created for city managers it creates higher tax money for NH Co. but at the cost of the home owners. You must choose who to placate. Wilmington is a town on the grow and decide which direction to go. Please choose carefully. We all know which families own the premium land; put the developers in touch with them, don’t build over height in somebody’s back yard. You don’t want it in yours; I don’t want it in mine.” Stakeholder Group The cost of land dictates the feasibility of parking structures—given the growing land costs, parking decks should be encouraged. Using height in stories can result in very different building scales. Story height is quite variable—it all depends on how tall ceilings are. For sites not adjacent to single family uses—what about when commercial or multi-family goes in first? More height can be an incentive to reduce impervious coverage—currently O&I development is about 50-55% impervious, shopping centers around 65%, etc. Maybe if a development includes more greenspace, it can be allowed more height. Demand for height is in the residential market, but the proposed amendment provides more height in commercial districts where demand isn’t as great. Mixed use buildings would likely need additional height allowances as well. Relevant Amendment Section (s) Source Comment General Comments Ronald and Linda Bayless “Yes to growth, but no to 3 and 4 story buildings near residential neighborhoods: As my subject states, I realize our town is growing but we need to manage the growth so that Wilmington remains a town that people want to live in. Let’s not turn it into a mini city. It’s a beach town enjoyed by college kids and many retired people like myself. Thank you for your consideration.” Bobby Rudder “I am many (hundreds) of my neighbors, friends and family are fully AGAINST raising the height of any structure near residential areas. It’s not needed, wanted or welcome in our residential areas, particularly near the coast.” Christopher Cea and Kelly Baker “…Nearly all residents in the Sycamore Grove and Motts Landing neighborhoods to the addition of 4 story apartments that will cause traffic and safety issues, create even more problems with schools that are already over-capacity, destroy local wildlife habitat, increase our vulnerability for hurricanes, and potentially lower the property values of the existing community.” Michael Davis “…Rezoning to change the height of buildings needs to be voted down. Adding a vegetative barrier does not help anything or buffer the current residents from the eye sore. The last thing we want is to see giant buildings from our porch or backyard. Nothing says welcome home like drinking your morning coffee with a family looking down into your home…Wilmington has become a concrete jungle. We need more natural areas and parks. I understand we are growing and need affordable housing. However, there has to be a better way. Please reconsider the rezoning to allow taller buildings…” Section 2.1 Measurements Paramounte Engineering The terms “base plane” and “finished ground level” used in the draft Height in Stories definition are unclear. Would like a simpler way to measure with illustrating graphic(s). Section 2.3 Definitions and Terms Paramounte Engineering A definition for “architectural stepback” is needed. Stakeholder Group It is not clear what is included and excluded in the definition of “story,” i.e., mezzanines, etc. Take a look at the city’s definition—it seems straightforward. Section 3.1.3 Superseding Dimensional Standards Paramounte Engineering Removing Table 3.1.3.C(1) and incorporating it into each district profile section would reduce the need for ordinance users to navigate two different sections to determine one setback. This Table isn’t as necessary now that setbacks are fixed and not determined by the multiplier used before 2020. The CB information in Table 3.1.3.C(1) doesn’t belong in this table as the additional setback would be imposed regardless of building height (same setback for a 15 ft. tall building and a 30 ft. tall building) and this district is intended to go next to residential districts and usually on smaller lots. The amendment also increases the rear setback of the CB district from residential properties from 25 feet to 30 feet regardless of building height. The Option 2 shown in Table 3.1.3.C(2) should just say “architectural stepback” or one term to avoid confusion with a building setback, which is listed in Option 1. Option 3 should be incorporated more prominently in buffer standards, even if it means duplicating information, as it would be easy for UDO users to miss the footnote in the buffer standards. It is also preferable to avoid having users need to consult two sections in order to determine one standard. Stakeholder Group The additional setback option for an additional height allowance could be problematic—on some lots, large setbacks aren’t possible because of the lot’s shape or dimensions. Relevant Amendment Section (s) Source Comment Section 3.2 Residential Zoning Districts Sarah Hooton “If MF units are allowed to be 50 feet tall, they should not be permitted adjacent to R15/R20 zoned neighborhoods—at least not without imposing a significantly larger buffer. A 25-foot setback is insufficient to protect single-family homes from 50-foot-tall buildings looming over them.” Stakeholder Group It may make sense to allow more stories when developers are preserving areas or designing a site to reduce sprawl and impervious surfaces. Four stories may not be enough based on market demand—5 or 6 stories may be needed. Stephanie Shreiner “Please do not allow apartment buildings of 3 or more floors be built next door to single family homes, as is being proposed along Carolina Beach Road and Jacob Motts Road.” James Taylor “Any RMF adjacent to a residential district needs a 40-50’ buffered setback.” Section 3.3 Mixed Use Zoning Districts Stakeholder Group Please clarify how permit choice would impact master plan approvals. Section 3.4.3 Neighborhood Business (B-1) District Paramounte Engineering The ‘adjacent to commercial and industrial uses’ inadvertently excludes when adjacent to O&I, which currently applies. Also need to clarify the setbacks adjacent to mixed uses and zoning. Consider rewording ‘if required for structure,’ which is confusing. The reasoning behind the 40 ft. base height and 50 ft. additional height if needed is unclear. Would likely just result in a de facto 50 ft. height limit. 50 ft. seems excessive for a two-story structure. It is not clear why a 50 ft. tall building of 2 stories and a 50 ft. tall building of 3 stories should be treated differently. Stakeholder Group It is unclear what the 50 ft. maximum height for a two-story building is trying to do as 2-story buildings aren’t generally that tall. Section 3.4.4 Community Business (CB) District Paramounte Engineering The ‘adjacent to commercial and industrial uses’ inadvertently excludes when adjacent to O&I, which currently applies. Also need to clarify the setbacks adjacent to mixed uses and zoning. Consider rewording ‘if required for structure,’ which is confusing. The reasoning behind the 50 ft. base height and 65 ft. additional height if needed is unclear. Would likely just result in a de facto 50 ft. height limit. It is not clear why a 65 ft. tall building of 3 stories and a 65 ft. tall building of 4 stories should be treated differently. Stakeholder Group It shouldn’t matter how many stories you can get with a certain maximum height. Relevant Amendment Section (s) Source Comment Section 3.4.5 Regional Business (B-2) District Paramounte Engineering The ‘adjacent to commercial and industrial uses’ inadvertently excludes when adjacent to O&I, which currently applies. Also need to clarify the setbacks adjacent to mixed uses. Consider rewording ‘if required for structure,’ which is confusing. It’s possible to get more than 5 stories in 100 ft., and it’s not clear the difference between a 3-story structure at 100 ft. and 5-story structure at 100 ft. if the mass/visual impact or obstruction is the main concern with height next to residential. It is not clear why stories should be limited under an additional allowance if they’re not being limited under the base district height. More than 5 stories may be necessary for hotels or motels in the B-2 district. Stakeholder Group It shouldn’t matter how many stories you can get with a certain maximum height. Section 3.4.6 Office & Institutional District Paramounte Engineering The ‘adjacent to commercial and industrial uses’ inadvertently excludes when adjacent to O&I, which currently applies. Also need to clarify the setbacks adjacent to mixed uses and zoning. Consider rewording ‘if required for structure,’ which is confusing. The reasoning behind the base height and additional height of 50 ft. if needed is unclear. Would likely just result in a de facto taller height limit. It is not clear why a 125 ft. tall building of 5 stories and of 7 stories should be treated differently. Stakeholder Group It shouldn’t matter how many stories you can get with a certain maximum height. Section 3.4.10 Light Industrial (I-1) District Paramounte Engineering Consider rewording ‘if required for structure,’ which is confusing. Stakeholder Group It shouldn’t matter how many stories you can get with a certain maximum height. Sources: • 8-11-2021, Paramounte Engineering via phone call • 8-12-2021, Susan Hooton via email • 8-15-2021, Rich S. via email • 8-16-2021, James Hansen via email • 8-16-2021, Jacque McAllister Jr. via email • 8-17-2021, Stakeholder Group of Homebuilders Association and Business Alliance for a Strong Economy members • 8-17-2021, Stephanie Shreiner via email • 8-17-2021, James Taylor via email • 8-21-2021, Ronald and Linda Bayless via email • 8-21-2021, Bobby Rudder via email • 8-22-2021, Christopher Cea and Kelly Baker via email (also included comments regarding a specific development proposal which were not included in this document) • 8-22-2021, Michael Davis via email (also included comments regarding a specific development proposal which were not included in this document)