Loading...
Z22-10 PB Staff Report FINALZ22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 1 of 20 STAFF REPORT FOR Z22-10 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION APPLICATION SUMMARY Case Number: Z22-10 Request: Rezoning to an R-7 & RMF-L district Applicant: Property Owner(s): Tracey Pettigrew & Adam Shanks The Elizabeth B. Harris LLC an Ohio Limited Liability Company and Cordelia Ann Hinnant, widowed. Location: Acreage: 924 & 1001 N Seabreeze 10.77 acres PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type: R08514-003-001-000 & R08500-004-010-002 Community Mixed Use Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Undeveloped Uses listed for the R-7 and RMF-L districts in Table 4.2.1. Principal Use Table of the UDO Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: R-15, Residential & B-2, Regional Business R-7, Residential and RMF-L, Residential Multi- family Low Density SURROUNDING AREA LAND USE ZONING North Single-family Dwellings R-15 East Commercial Services; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway B-2 South Single-family Residential; Commercial Services R-15, B-2 West Single-family Dwellings R-15 Z22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 2 of 20 ZONING HISTORY April 7, 1971 Initially zoned R-15 and B-2 COMMUNITY SERVICES Water/Sewer Currently well and septic; Aqua has provided a non-binding committal agreement to provide water and sewer to the area Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Southern Fire District, New Hanover County Federal Point Station Schools Anderson Elementary, Murray Middle, Ashley High Schools Recreation Veterans Park CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Conservation No known conservation resources Historic While undeveloped, the parcels are located within the historical Seabreeze neighborhood. Established in the mid-1920s, the area was a prime vacation resort for African Americans within southeastern North Carolina from the 1930s through the 1950s before a decline stemming from Hurricane Hazel in 1954, financial trouble, and the end of segregation in the 1960s. Archaeological No known archaeological resources Z22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 3 of 20 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL • The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 10.77 acres split across two parcels from R-15, Residential and B-2, Regional Business, to R-7, Residential and RMF-L, Residential Multi-family, Low Density. • The western, 7.11-acre parcel is currently zoned R-15 and B-2 and is proposed to be rezoned to R-7. • The eastern, 3.66-acre parcel is currently zoned R-15 and B-2 and is proposed to be rezoned to RMF-L. • According to the applicant, the proposed zoning will allow for the provision of housing for future development in a land use pattern that is generally more consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS • The R-15 district in this area was established in 1971. At the time, the purpose of the R-15 district was to ensure that housing served by private septic and wells would be developed at low densities. Since that time, water and sewer services have become available to the surrounding area. • The R-7 district was established to accommodate lands for moderate to high density residential development on smaller lots with compact and walkable development patterns. The district also serves as a transition between nonresidential development and low to moderate density residential development. • The RMF-L district was established to accommodate lands for moderate density single family and low density multi-family development of varying types and designs. The intent of the district is to provide options for alternative housing types near or in direct relationship to single-family detached development. • The RMF-L district was intended to apply to existing lots or performance residential projects that included multi-family component. • Currently, the subject sites are undeveloped. • The entire eastern parcel and the majority of the western parcel are located within AE and VE flood zones. Roughly an acre of the extreme western portion of the western parcel is located outside of these flood zones. Performance residential developments within floodplains are limited to a maximum density of 2.5 du/acre. Any development of the sites at densities greater than 2.5 units/acre would require a conventional residential development and lots would have to meet minimum dimensional standards. • While there are no utilities available currently, utility provider Aqua has provided a non- binding commitment that would provide water and sewer to the subject sites. Water and sewer infrastructure would allow for denser development to be possible within the area. Without water and sewer, a typical three-bedroom single-family dwelling would need a lot size of approximately 13,000 square feet for well and septic. Z22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 4 of 20 • If developed conventionally, the approximate single-family dwellings that could be constructed on the western parcel increase from 18 under current R-15 zoning to 44 under the proposed R-7 zoning. • If developed conventionally, the approximate number of residential units that could be constructed on the eastern parcel increase from 10 single-family dwellings under the current R-15 zoning to 37 residential units under the proposed RMF-L zoning. • These approximate figures do not take into account the environmental features of the sites. • If approved, development on the parcel would be subject to Technical Review Committee and Zoning Compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements and specific conditions included in the approval. Only minor deviations from the approved conceptual plan, as defined by the UDO, would be allowed. Z22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 5 of 20 AREA SUBDIVISIONS UNDER DEVELOPMENT Z22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 6 of 20 TRANSPORTATION • Currently, access is provided to the subject properties by S Seabreeze Road and N Seabreeze Road, which are classified by NCDOT as local roads. • The sites are currently undeveloped and estimated to generate 0 trips. • If developed with the conventional standards of the proposed R-7 zoning district, approximately 44 single-family dwellings could be constructed on the western parcel. This would be estimated to generate 31 trips during the AM peak hour and 41 trips during the PM peak hour. • If developed with the conventional standards of the proposed RMF-L zoning district, approximately 37 residential units could be constructed on the eastern parcel. This would be estimated to generate 18 trips during the AM peak hour and 21 trips during the PM peak hour. Z22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 7 of 20 • Traffic Impact Analyses are not required for a straight rezoning, as a specific development proposal is required to thoroughly analyze access, potential trip generation, and roadway improvements. • Because a TIA is not required to analyze transportation impacts at this time, Staff has provided the volume to capacity ratio for the adjacent roadway near the subject site. While volume to capacity ratio, based on average daily trips, can provide a general idea of the function of adjacent roadways, the delay vehicles take in seconds to pass through intersections is generally considered a more effective measure when determining the Level of Service of a roadway. However, the available volume to capacity data indicates capacity currently exists in this area. NCDOT Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) – 2020 Road Location Volume Capacity V/C S Seabreeze Road Between US 421 and N Seabreeze Road 350 4,000 0.09 • The LOS of this portion of S Seabreeze Road is rated as ‘A’. WMPO Annual Daily Traffic (ADT) – 4/5/2021 Road Location Volume Capacity V/C Carolina Beach Road Between Snow’s Cut Bridge and S Seabreeze Road 34,555 41,368 0.84 • The LOS of this portion of Carolina Beach Road is rated as ‘D’. Intensity Approx. Peak Hour Trips Existing Development: Undeveloped 0 AM / 0 PM Typical Density under Proposed R-7 Zoning & Typical Density under Proposed RMF-L Zoning 44 Single-family Dwellings & 37 Residential Units 31 AM / 41 PM & 18 AM / 21 PM Z22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 8 of 20 Nearby Planned Transportation Improvements and Traffic Impact Analyses Z22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 9 of 20 Nearby Traffic Impact Analyses: Traffic Impact Analyses are completed in accordance with the WMPO and NCDOT standards. Approved analyses must be re-examined by NCDOT if the proposed development is not completed by the build out date established within the TIA. Proposed Development Land Use/Intensity TIA Status 1. Masonboro Golf Club • 141 single-family detached housing units • Approved August 16, 2018 • Full build out 2020 The TIA required improvements be completed at certain intersections in the area. The notable improvements consisted of: • Provide a southbound, left-turn lane on River Road with 50 feet of storage, 50 feet of full- width deceleration and appropriate taper on River Road at The Cape Boulevard. Nearby Proposed Developments included within the TIA: • None. Development Status: Development and improvements are currently under construction. ENVIRONMENTAL • The property is not within a Natural Heritage Area. The majority of the properties are located within the AE and VE Special Flood Hazard Areas, with approximately one acre on the extreme western portion of the western parcel located within the X floodplain. • The properties are within the ICW 13 and ICW 14 watersheds, which drain into the Intracoastal Waterway. • Wetlands appear to be present on the eastern subject site, according to the US Army Corps of Engineers. Any impacts on wetlands, if present, would be subject to permitting by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Development of the subject site may also require CAMA permitting. • Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the properties consist of Class I, (suitable and slight limitation), Class II (moderate limitation), and Class IV (unsuitable); however, the applicant has submitted documents indicating utility provider Aqua will provide services to the properties. Z22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 10 of 20 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Schools • Students living in the proposed development would be assigned to Anderson Elementary, Murray Middle, and Ashley High School. Students may apply to attend public magnet, year-round elementary, or specialty high schools. • Based on a generalized historic generation rate*, staff estimates that approximately 6 students would be generated if developed under the existing zoning. • Based on a generalized historic generation rate*, staff estimates that the increase in homes would result in approximately 12 additional students than the number of students who are estimated to be generated if developed under the existing zoning. • The general student generation rate provides only an estimate of anticipated student yield as different forms of housing at different price points yield different numbers of students. Over the past four years, staff has also seen a decline in the number of students generated by new development. Student numbers remained relatively stable between 2015 and 2020 (excepting the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic), while 14,500 new residential units were permitted across the county. In addition, the student population is anticipated to only grow by approximately 1,300 students over the next 10 years based on the recent New Hanover County Schools Facility Needs Study. Development Type Intensity Estimated Student Yield (current general student generation rate) * Existing Development Undeveloped Approximate** Total: 0 (0 elementary, 0 middle, 0 high) Typical Density under Proposed R-7 Zoning & Typical Density under Proposed RMF-L Zoning 44 Single-family Dwellings & 37 Residential Units Approximate** Total: 10 (4 elementary, 2 middle, 4 high) & Approximate** Total: 8 (3 elementary, 2 middle, 3 high) *The current general student generation rate was calculated by dividing the projected New Hanover County public school student enrollment for the 2021-2022 school year by the number of dwelling units in the county. Currently, there are an average of 0.22 public school students (0.09 for elementary, 0.05 for middle, and 0.08 for high) generated per dwelling unit across New Hanover County. These numbers are updated annually and include students attending out-of-district specialty schools, such as year-round elementary schools, Isaac Bear, and SeaTech. **Because the student generation rate often results in fractional numbers, all approximate student generation yields with a fraction of 0.5 or higher are rounded up to a whole number and yields with a fraction of less than 0.5 are rounded down. This may result in student numbers at the elementary, middle, and high school levels not equaling the approximate total. • Staff has provided information on existing school capacity to provide a general idea of the potential impact on public schools, but these numbers do not reflect any future capacity upgrades. Z22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 11 of 20 School Enrollment* and Capacity** (2021-2022 School Year) *Enrollment is based on the New Hanover County Schools enrollment projections for the 2021-2022 school year. **Capacity calculations were determined based on the projected capacities for the 2021-2022 school year, and funded or planned capacity upgrades were those included in the Facility Needs Study presented by New Hanover County Schools to the Board of Education in January 2021. This information does not take into account flexible scheduling that may be available in high school settings, which can reduce the portion of the student body on campus at any one time. • The 2021 facility needs survey prepared by Schools staff indicates that, based on NC Department of Public Instruction (DPI) student growth projections and school capacity data, planned facility upgrades, combined with changes to student enrollment patterns, will result in adequate capacity district wide over the next ten years if facility upgrades are funded. Level Total NHC Capacity School Projected Enrollment of Assignment School Capacity of Assigned School w/Portables Capacity of Assigned School Funded or Planned Capacity Upgrades Elementary 95% Anderson 618 563 110% None Middle 108% Murray 853 848 101% None High 100% Ashley 1584 1648 96% None Z22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 12 of 20 Existing Development Current Conditions of western parcel: Looking northeast from S Seabreeze Looking south along N Seabreeze Looking east along N Seabreeze Looking west along N Seabreeze Z22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 13 of 20 Current Conditions of eastern parcel: Looking south along N Seabreeze Looking east along N Seabreeze Looking west along N Seabreeze Z22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 14 of 20 Representative Developments Representative Developments of R-15: Clay Crossing Page’s Corner Z22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 15 of 20 Representative Developments of R-7: City of Wilmington City of Wilmington Z22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 16 of 20 Representative Developments of RMF-L: Wrightsville Place Lions Gate Z22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 17 of 20 Context and Compatibility • The properties are located within the southern portion of the County and accessed by N and S Seabreeze Road, which connects directly to Carolina Beach Road, a major arterial highway. • The subject sites are located within the historic Seabreeze community, which served as a beach resort community for African Americans from the 1930s to the 1950s. While the subject sites are undeveloped, a few structures from this community remain within the general vicinity. • This area was the focus of the Seabreeze Small Area Plan, created in 1989. The recommendations for the area included a revitalization of the businesses and a redevelopment of the waterfront. However, this revitalization has not been accomplished since the adoption of the plan, and some of the historic structures have been converted into luxury homes. • With straight rezonings, conditions may not be applied, including conditions related to historic preservation. • The existing land uses within the area include a mix of small and large single-family dwellings, boat and recreational vehicle storage, and dilapidated businesses. • The adjoining parcel, 1045 N Seabreeze Road, is under the same ownership and will retain the existing B-2, Regional Business zoning district. • While the majority of the land of the subject sites is located within the AE and VE flood zones, development at the scale proposed by the R-7 and RMF-L zoning districts exist within other portions of the County that share similar flood risks, namely the beach communities of Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach, and Kure Beach. Z22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 18 of 20 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The New Hanover County Future Land Use Map provides a general representation of the vision for New Hanover County’s future land use, as designated by place types describing the character and function of the different types of development that make up the community. These place types are intended to identify general areas for particular development patterns and should not be interpreted as being parcel specific. Future Land Use Map Place Type Community Mixed Use Place Type Description Promotes development of small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns. Types of uses encouraged include office, retail, mixed use, recreation, single-family, and multi-family residential. Analysis The Comprehensive Plan classifies the property as Community Mixed Use, which promotes development of a mix of residential, office, and retail uses at moderate densities. This classification intends for moderate to high densities while also providing a transition between the existing lower density housing and higher intensity employment centers. This land classification was applied to this area to support and encourage the mix of uses envisioned in the 1989 Seabreeze Small Area plan. Moderate residential density could assist in achieving the goals of a revitalized waterfront. There are few areas within the County where this level of density would be recommended within a flood hazard area, which the Comprehensive Plan generally recommends limiting to no more than 2.5 units per acre. Staff has historically interpreted that place type classifications seeking higher intensity and mixed uses override density limits generally placed in flood prone areas. Consistency Recommendation The proposed rezoning request is generally CONSISTENT with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the densities and range of housing types allowed in the proposed zoning district would support existing and future community-level nodes envisioned for the Seabreeze waterfront. Z22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 19 of 20 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Understanding that the revitalization is the long-term, envisioned goal of the historic Seabreeze area, a mixture of uses supported by appropriate housing may be appropriate in order to achieve that vision. The general area has been designed as Community Mixed Use within the Comprehensive Plan, which shares similar characteristics of density and form envisioned within the Seabreeze Small Area Plan. It is acknowledged, however, that the Comprehensive Plan recommends a limit on the density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre in areas that are located within the floodplain. Also, the floodplain would place limits on higher density performance developments, which is what the RMF- L district was intended to allow for. While staff would have preferred a conditional rezoning request for this area to ensure a preservation of the cultural heritage and historical context of the area, staff recommends approval of the R-7 request; however, because the RMF-L district was development to support clustered residential projects not possible within this location, staff recommends denial of the RMF-L portion of the request and suggests the following motions: R-7 Approval Motion: I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed R-7 rezoning. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the densities and range of housing types allowed in the proposed zoning district would support existing and future community-level nodes envisioned for the Seabreeze waterfront. I also find RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the proposal would benefit the community by providing diverse housing options and may spur a revitalization of the area as recommended within the Seabreeze Small Area Plan with the introduction of water and sewer capacity. RMF-L Denial Motion: I move to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the proposed RMF-L rezoning. While I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the densities and range of housing types allowed in the proposed zoning district would support existing and future community-level nodes envisioned for the Seabreeze waterfront, I find RECOMMENDING DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because it is not clear that the piece of property can support the level of densities allowed within the zoning district. Z22-10 Staff Report PB 6.2.2022 Page 20 of 20 Alternative Motions I move to RECOMMEND DENIAL of the proposed rezoning. I find it to be INCONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the district would allow for densities higher than what is recommended within the floodplain by the Comprehensive Plan. I also find RECOMMENDING DENIAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because of the uncertainty of negative impacts that a development allowed by-right within the proposed zoning districts could have on the adjacent land uses, the environment, and local infrastructure. OR I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed rezoning. I find it to be CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the densities and range of housing types allowed in the proposed zoning district would support existing and future community-level nodes envisioned for the Seabreeze waterfront. I also find RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the rezoning request is reasonable and in the public interest because the development would advance the revitalization of the historic Seabreeze neighborhood and provide utilities for future redevelopment.