Loading...
03-30-2023 PB MINUTES 1 | Page Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board March 30, 2023 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on March 30, 2023, at 5:00 p.m. in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina. Members Present Staff Present Jeff Petroff, Vice, Chair Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning Colin Tarrant Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Hansen Matthews Robert Farrell, Senior Current Planner Kevin Hine Zachary, Dickerson, Current Planner Clark Hipp Amy Doss, Current Planner Pete Avery Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney Members Absent Chair Donna Girardot Vice Chair Jeff Petroff called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. and excused the absence of Chair Donna Girardot. Planning Manager Ken Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance. Vice Chair Petroff called for a moment of silence in honor and memory of County Commissioner Deb Hays upon her unexpected passing. The motion to approve a continuance to the May 4, 2023, Planning Board Meeting carried 6-0. NEW BUSINESS Vice Chair Petroff stated that he wanted to bring to the attention of the Board and the public that staff was recommending that item number two, Z23-09, be continued to the May Planning Board Meeting. Rather than wait until later in the meeting, consideration of that continuance was moved to the start of the meeting. Rezoning Request (Z23-09) – Request by Rob Tanner with Impeccable Development, applicant, on behalf of Andrea Jones, Gwendolyn Horton, Christin Deener, Dwayne Barr, and Kimberlee Barr, property owners, to rezone seven (7) parcels totaling approximately 11.77 acres of land located at 6800, 6808, 6814, 6818, 6820, 6824, and 6828 Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residential to 2.37 acres to (CZD) B-1, Neighborhood Business and 8.66 acres to (CZD) RMF-M, Residential Multi-Family – Moderate Density for a convenience store with fuel stations and a maximum 128 unit multi-family development. Vice Chair Petroff recognized the applicant. Attorney Amy Schaefer, representing the applicant, requested a continuance to the May 4, 2023, Planning Board meeting in order to provide information from the Traffic Impact Analysis and make modifications to the site plan with the recommended staff conditions. Board Member Pete Avery made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Clark Hipp, to approve the request for a CONTINUANCE to the May 4, 2023, Planning Board Meeting. The motion to approve a continuance to the May 4, 2023, Planning Board Meeting carried 6-0. Rezoning Request (Z23-06) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant, on behalf of Giovanni Ippolito and Tanya Vlacancich, property owners, to rezone approximately 4.65 acres of land located at 6634 Carolina Beach Road from R-15, Residential to (CZD) RMF-M, Residential Multi-Family – Moderate Density for a maximum 72-unit multi-family development. This item was rescheduled from the March 2, 2023 meeting. 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. 2 | Page Mr. Farrell stated that the request was to rezone 4.56 acres from R-15 to RMF-M. He stated that the site was originally zoned R-15 in the 1970s, and at the time the purpose of the district was to ensure housing densities remained lower due to the need for private wells and septic systems. He stated that since then public water and sewer had become available in the area. Mr. Farrell stated that the proposed conceptual plan included six three-story, 12-unit multi- family structures totaling a maximum of 72 units and included an amenity center, recreation area, and open space. He stated that the multi-family structures and amenity center were in a circular formation facing towards the center of the parcel, and that the parking area with a sidewalk circled the buildings providing an additional spatial buffer between the multi-family units and neighboring residential uses. Mr. Farrell stated that the subject property had direct access to Carolina Beach Road, an NCDOT maintained Urban Principal Arterial Highway. He stated that access was right-in / right-out and that there was an existing U-turn for northbound movement approximately 1800 feet to the south. Mr. Farrell stated that the developer had proposed the voluntary addition of a right-turn lane extending south to the entrance to Glenarthur Drive which would be subject to NCDOT requirements and permitting. Mr. Farrell provided information for estimated trip generation for the site and stated that the proposed development would generate an estimated 45 AM peak hour trips and 52 PM peak hour trips. He stated that the estimated traffic generation from this site was under the 100 peak hour threshold that triggered the ordinance requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Mr. Farrell stated that due to the size of the property and access onto Carolina Beach Road, this property was less likely to be developed with lower density detached single-family housing. He stated that the density of 15.7 dwelling units per acre was slightly higher than that recommended for the Community Mixed Use Place Type, however the additional density amounted to approximately 4 additional dwelling units. He stated that site features such as landscape buffers, parking, and stormwater at the boundaries of the project provided a transition between the residential uses. He stated that the applicant had also provided an additional condition of 10 percent, or 8 total units, whichever was greater, be dedicated for workforce housing for a minimum of 15 years. Mr. Farrell stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan designated this parcel as Community Mixed Use which was intended to promote a mix of retail, office and residential development at moderate densities up to 15 units per acre and a building height range of 1 to 3 stories. He stated that the RMF-M district was intended to act as a transitional district between residential and commercial development. He stated that the proposed project would provide a buffer between the highway and single-family development; however, the proposed density of the project was slightly higher than what was recommended for the place type at 15.7 dwelling units per acre. He stated that the site design and additional conditions assisted in mitigating potential impacts to adjacent land uses and acted as a transition between the highway and lower density residential to the west. He stated that while at a slightly higher density than generally recommended for the Community Mixed Use place type, the proposed rezoning request was generally consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan’s intent for development to act as a transition between major roadways and higher intensity uses and existing residential areas and providing a range of housing types, opportunities, and choices. He stated that an additional voluntary condition by the applicant also ensured workforce housing affordability for 10 percent of the units, or 8 total units whichever was greater, for a period of 15 years. Mr. Farrell stated that as a result staff recommended approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged or shielded so as not to cast illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to the ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that light spillage and glare are not directed at adjacent property, neighboring areas, or motorists. Light posts shall be no taller than sixteen (16) feet. 2. The proposed right turn lane must be approved and permitted by NCDOT. Changes to the concept plan to meet NCDOT requirements for the turn lane may be approved administratively by county staff. 3 | Page 3. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to the onset of land clearing and grading along a minimum 15- foot offset from the edge of the outer drive. No disturbance of existing vegetation or grading will be permitted. Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy, a minimum 8-foot-tall solid wood screening fence shall be installed along a 3-foot offset from the driveway pavement. 4. The project will include a minimum of 10% of the units or seven (7) total units, whichever is greater, as workforce housing units that will be made available for a period of no less than 15 years with rental limits based upon HUD HIGH HOME standards. An agreement between the developer and county will be required before the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project. The agreement shall specify: • The number of affordable units provided; • The income limits; • Rent limits subject to annual change; • The period of time workforce housing units must remain affordable; • Any other criteria necessary for compliance and monitoring. • An established timeframe for annual reporting from the developer or owner of the development to New Hanover County. Annual reports shall provide the following minimum information: o Unit number o Bedroom number o Household size o Tenant income o Rent rate • The developer or owner of the development shall report any mid-year lease changes to workforce housing units to New Hanover County to ensure lease changes remain compliant with the agreement. If the total number of workforce housing units falls below the minimum of 10% of the units or seven (7) total units whichever is greater before the expiration of the minimum 15-year period of affordability the development will be subject to enforcement measures found in Article 12 Violations and Enforcement of the Unified Development Ordinance. Mr. Farrell stated that if the proposal were approved any future development would be subject to the Technical Review Committee and Zoning Compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. In response to questions from the board about whether there was a threshold on what was generally consistent when the density of a project exceeded what the land use plan recommended, Mr. Farrell stated that there was no specific number but that this was a guiding plan, so that there was some level of flexibility to determine what was consistent. Vice Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Ms. Cindee Wolf, applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed project and agreed with the information provided by Mr. Farrell. She stated that the subject site was designated as a Community Mixed Use place type, that promoted higher density development. She stated that rezoning this property for a multi-family residential community would be consistent with the concept of transitioning uses and infilling vacant parcels where utilities already exist and urban services are available. She stated that multi-family residential housing could be a temporary solution to evolve into homebuilding, but in some cases was a simply housing preference for versatility. She stated that a mix of housing types also helped create a broader range of residents to support a vibrant community. Ms. Wolf stated that comments provided at the previous hearing when there was a different plan dealt with the mass and the height of the single building and the additional density above and beyond the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations; and the applicant responded to the comments and proposed multiple smaller structures at the more customary 3-story height. She stated that there was a total of 72 one-, two- and three-bedroom units oriented around a common area of existing trees and a recreational amenity as described by Mr. Farrell. She stated that the building height was a maximum of 40-feet. She stated that the rear setback prescribed by ordinance was 30-feet, but the applicant designed the project to provide a minimum of 73-feet from those adjacent property lines. She stated that parking was single loaded along that boundary to provide extra distance between the required buffer and the parked vehicles. The 4 | Page applicant has committed to installing a tree protection fence along a 15-foot offset prior to the onset of clearing and grading with no disturbance of existing vegetation in that area. She stated that there was not an issue with stormwater and that the applicant had set aside a more than adequate area for a detention pond which was located at the low side of the site. She stated that the existing stream that carried drainage under Carolina Beach Road would continue to traverse off site flow past the site and provide for mandatory pond overflow. She stated that a public drainage easement would be dedicated so that the county would have access to a regional drainage system, and that the wetlands along the stream border had been delineated, reviewed and approved by the Army Corp of Engineers. Vice Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Mr. Frank Stanton, 7637 Vancouver Court, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with traffic concerns north and south on Carolina Beach Road and that the residents had submitted a petition requesting to maintain the R-15 zoning. Ms. Jess Anderson, 6918 Ontario Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern about overcrowding in schools. She stated too much growth without the proper infrastructure was not smart. Ms. Nancy Steele, 816 Mackay Court, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern about density of the project. She stated that she did not see a shortage of apartments that would justify the need for another apartment complex along Carolina Beach Road. She expressed her concern with the area not being walkable and the safety of pedestrians. She expressed her concern with cumulative traffic and congestion in the area. She also expressed her concern with decreased property values. Mr. Thomas Toby, 6605 Oliver Court, spoke in opposition to the project. He stated his opposition had not changed since the last presentation and expressed his concern with the increased density of developments and cumulative effect to his neighborhood. He expressed his concern with the increased traffic and stated the community would like to be included in the traffic study. He expressed his concern with maxing out nearby properties with high-density multi-family instead of low-density single family residential. He stated that the project would not be affordable housing in regard to Workforce Housing. He expressed his concern about flooding during hurricane season. He stated that he felt it was a great project but was not appropriate for this area. In rebuttal to the opposition, Ms. Wolf stated that interconnectivity was a policy of the county and having multiple routes to get from point a to point b was definitely a strategy to address traffic congestion. She stated that the project would increase tax values to the area and would not affect the school system, recreation and libraries. She stated that this was a free-market economy, and she could not respond directly to Ms. Steele and Mr. Toby’s research on rental availability; however, guidance continues to be provided that there is a housing deficit. She stated the density was appropriate along a major roadway and has not been shown as having an adverse effect to property tax values. In response to questions from the board about the turn-lanes, Ms. Wolf stated that there was almost 450 feet between the driveway and where Glenarthur driveway was, and that part of the permitting process was for the applicant to go to the NCDOT with a very detailed driveway plan and permit request. Ms. Beth Bergan, 821 Glenarthur Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed her concern with the excessive increase in density, housing costs and the area not being safe or walkable. She asked if the board could wait until the traffic study was complete to compare the differences since the pandemic. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan needed to be revised to reduce density. Neil Rick, 819 Glenarthur Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with the dumped trash and the effects on the environment and that it would take a major clean up in the area. Vice Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened for Board discussion. Board discussion focused on stormwater and the existing infrastructure, the density of the project. Ms. Wolf offered the condition to reduce the height of two buildings in the rear from 3 floors to 2 floors reducing the number of units in each 5 | Page building from 12 units to 8 units. Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Kevin Hine, to RECOMMEND APPPROVAL of the proposed rezoning with the following conditions: 1. Exterior lighting, including luminaries and security lights, shall be arranged or shielded so as not to cast illumination in an upward direction above an imaginary line extended from the light sources parallel to the ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting are maintained, but that light spillage and glare are not directed at adjacent property, neighboring areas, or motorists. Light posts shall be no taller than sixteen (16) feet. 2. The proposed right turn lane must be approved and permitted by NCDOT. Changes to the concept plan to meet NCDOT requirements for the turn lane may be approved administratively by county staff. 3. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to the onset of land clearing and grading along a minimum 15- foot offset from the edge of the outer drive. No disturbance of existing vegetation or grading will be permitted. Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy, a minimum 8-foot-tall solid wood screening fence shall be installed along a 3-foot offset from the driveway pavement. 4. The project will include a minimum of 10% of the units or seven (7) total units, whichever is greater, as workforce housing units that will be made available for a period of no less than 15 years with rental limits based upon HUD HIGH HOME standards. An agreement between the developer and county will be required before the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project. The agreement shall specify: • The number of affordable units provided; • The income limits; • Rent limits subject to annual change; • The period of time workforce housing units must remain affordable; • Any other criteria necessary for compliance and monitoring; • An established timeframe for annual reporting from the developer or owner of the development to New Hanover County. Annual reports shall provide the following minimum information: o Unit number o Bedroom number o Household size o Tenant income o Rent rate • The developer or owner of the development shall report any mid-year lease changes to workforce housing units to New Hanover County to ensure lease changes remain compliant with the agreement. If the total number of workforce housing units falls below the minimum of 10% of the units or seven (7) total units whichever is greater before the expiration of the minimum 15-year period of affordability the development will be subject to enforcement measures found in Article 12 Violations and Enforcement of the Unified Development Ordinance. 5. The site plan proposed be modified to reduce the height of the two buildings to the west from 3-stories to 2-stories and the reduction of units from 12 units each structure to 8 units each structure. The Board found it to be generally CONSISTENT with the purposes and intent of the Comprehensive Plan because while the proposed density of the development slightly exceeded the recommendation for the Community Mixed Use place type, the development scale was in line with the plan’s recommendation and would provide additional housing diversity in the area. The Board found recommending APPROVAL of the rezoning request was reasonable and in the public interest because it provided an alternative housing type that acted as a buffer for lower density residential contributing to the kind of transitional development desired along highway corridors. An additional voluntary condition by the applicant also ensured workforce housing affordability for 10 percent of the units, or 7 total units, whichever was greater for a period of 15 years. The MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed (CZD) RMF-M rezoning request carried 6-0. 6 | Page Rezoning Request (Z23-10) – Request by Jarrod Covington with Hermitage Property Holdings, LLC, applicant and property owner, to rezone approximately 17.9 acres of land located at 4012 Castle Hayne Road from R-20, Residential to CS, Commercial Services. Current Planner Zach Dickerson 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. Dickerson stated that the proposal was to rezone five parcels totaling 17.9 acres at 7012 Castle Hayne Road to a CS, Commercial Services district. He stated that the subject property was located on the eastern side of Castle Hayne Road and the surrounding area to the north, east and south was primarily residential. He stated that to the west, across Castle Hayne Road, was the GE Campus, zoned I-2 and to the east, along Hermitage Road, there was a Conditional CS district along with some I-1 zoned parcels. He stated that the subject site had access on both Castle Hayne Road and Hermitage Road and that because this was a straight rezoning, access to the site would be based on review of a specific development proposal in the future. Mr. Dickerson stated that under the site’s current zoning, the development would generate approximately 28 AM and 36 PM peak hour trips. He stated that the CS district permitted a wide variety of uses by-right and that staff had outlined some of those uses with typical and proportionate buildouts on this acreage, along with the corresponding trip numbers provided by the WMPO for those uses and intensities. He stated traffic impact analyses were not required for straight rezonings, as a specific development proposal was required to thoroughly analyze potential trip generation. He stated that per the WMPO, with this large plot of land and several different land uses available to be developed under CS zoning, a TIA would more than likely be required in the future, especially if the site was developed with multiple land uses. He stated that the property had frontage on Castle Hayne Road and Hermitage Road and was just north of the I-140 interchange. He stated that because of its proximity to that interchange, this area was likely to transition to a service node in the coming years, serving both local and highway traffic. He stated that to the east, the Hermitage Road corridor was developed for heavy commercial and some light industrial, while the Castle Hayne Road corridor in this area, aside from the GE campus, remained largely low-density residential. Mr. Dickerson stated that the 2016 Comprehensive Plan classified this area as both Community Mixed Use and Employment Center. He stated that because of the general nature of place type borders, sites located in more than one place type could be appropriately developed with either place type, and that this project was generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendations for the Employment Center and Community Mixed Use Place Type. He stated that staff found that while the proposed CS zoning district was consistent with the recommended uses for the Employment Center and Community Mixed Use place types and with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, the straight rezoning to the proposed CS district and its wide variety of by-right development permitted may allow developments and uses that would not be compatible with the surrounding low-density residential uses. He stated that staff would prefer a conditional rezoning or a more limited application of the CS zoning district for this site. He stated that as a result, staff recommended denial of the proposed straight rezoning to a CS district. Mr. Dickerson stated that if the rezoning were approved it would be subject to the Technical Review Committee and zoning compliance review processes to ensure full compliance with all ordinance requirements. Ms. Roth made mention that there was a presentation slide that was incorrect. She stated that as a straight rezoning, conditions were not allowed, and the proposed conditions shown were not for this project. In response to questions from the Board about the uses that would be allowed within the CS district, Mr. Dickerson stated that the CS district did allow a wide variety of uses including some waste and salvage and light manufacturing. He stated that some of the uses staff did feel were compatible but because this was a straight rezoning, it would then by default allow any of the uses permitted in the CS district. He stated that although staff did not believe it was the applicant’s intent, if in the future the property were to change hands, it would then be a by-right development for those permitted uses. Vice Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Mr. Matt Nichols, representative for the applicant, provided a summary description of the proposed project and agreed with the information provided by Mr. Dickerson. Mr. Nichols stated this proposal was appropriate based on the particulars 7 | Page of this property and the surrounding vicinity. He focused on the uses of the surrounding properties and the compatibility with the CS district and stated that it was consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Nichols provided information that indicated uses in the CS district would complement nearby industrial and commercial uses in the area. He stated the rezoning was compatible with existing development patterns in the area and an excellent opportunity to expand employment opportunities for New Hanover County. He stated there was excellent access to I-140 and increased and diversified the New Hanover County tax base. In response to questions from the Board about providing a conditional plan for this project, Mr. Nichols stated that currently there was no plan in place, the highest and best use for the property would be very similar to the uses in the surrounding area. He provided information regarding potential peak hour trips and referred to Dutch Square in the Ogden area and stated there would be very little difference in impact. In response to questions from the Board about the impact on existing residential, Mr. Nichols stated that in the CS district there was a minimum setback of 35 feet and a Type-A Opaque buffer as required by the Unified Development Ordinance. He stated any added or enhancements requirements would need to go before the Technical Review Committee. Vice Chair Jeff Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. With no one signed up to speak in opposition or with questions, Vice Chair Petroff allowed for public opposition. Mr. Melvin Watkins, a New Hanover County resident, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with flooding in the canal ditch behind his home. He stated if the proposal was approved, he wanted to be sure that the canal/ditch would be able to flow, and that the applicant was not going to fill in or cover it up to stop the flooding. He expressed his concern about his family being protected from contaminated well water and that there was not a junkyard behind his home. Mr. Rick Meadows, Castle Hayne resident, spoke about his concern about the potential negative effects on his property. He agreed with the previous resident regarding not having a junkyard behind his home. Ms. Rowena Daughtry expressed her concern with the entrance on Castle Hayne being a dangerous location to the project. In rebuttal to public opposition, Mr. Nichols stated that through the TRC process this project would have to be fully engineered and that the drainage would be addressed. He stated that the main entrance would be off Hermitage Road as per staff it was more developed for heavy commercial and light industrial. In response to questions from the Board regarding wetland delineation, Mr. Jared Covington, property owner, stated that a wetland delineation had been accomplished on this property and the stream would be improved for better flow. He stated that the northeast portion of the property, 4 acres, was considered wetlands. Vice Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. Board discussion focused on the benefits of a conditional rezoning, the range of allowed uses in the CS district, and providing a plan for the public. Ms. Roth clarified that the only uses that were allowed by right in this district considered to be waste and salvage, were recycling collection facilities and would require additional approval through the special use process. The property owner would have to go through additional hearings to prove that there was no impact to the adjacent property owners to alleviate some of those contamination issues. Mr. Nichols requested a continuance to the June 1, 2023, Planning Board meeting. Board Member Colin Tarrant made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Hansen Matthews, to approve a request for a CONTINUANCE to the June 1, 2023, Planning Board Meeting. The motion to approve a continuance to the June 1, 2023, Planning Board Meeting carried 5-1. Vote: Yes – Clark Hipp, Pete Avery, Jeff Petroff, Colin Tarrant, Kevin Hine; No- Pete Avery. Text Amendment (TA23-01) - Request by New Hanover County Planning & Land Use to amend Section 5.7 Conservation Resources to clarify the applicability of provisions. Ms. Roth stated that this item was a staff-initiated amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance to clarify the current conservation resource standards applicability to new development. 8 | Page Ms. Roth stated that these standards were located in Section 5.7 of the UDO, part of the General Development Standards—like parking, landscaping, and tree retention—that applied to properties across the county regardless of zoning district. She stated that they were originally established in 1984, becoming effective on December 1st of that year, and included setbacks, conservation requirements, and additional stormwater requirements for specific conservation resources, including swamp forests, savannas, marshes, maritime shrub thickets, and architectural and historical resources such as cemeteries. Ms. Roth stated that these provisions were intended to reduce the impact of new development on these resources. Ms. Roth stated that when originally adopted, the conservation resource standards were applied as a zoning overlay district. She stated that with the creation of the Unified Development Ordinance in 2019, standards were converted to general development standards, and the requirements were reorganized. She stated that recently, staff had received questions about whether the provisions applied to lots created after the original regulations’ effective date of December 1, 1984, because the reorganized text in the UDO was less clear than the previous text in the Zoning Ordinance. She stated to be sure that there was no confusion, for readers and users of the code, this amendment clarified that the provisions applied to all lots created since December 1, 1984 as well as any lot in existence prior to that effective date unless the development activity or subdivision activity met limited exceptions outlined in the ordinance. She stated that the only activities that would be exempted from these standards would include: 1) The development of one single family home, one residential duplex, or the location of no more than two mobile homes on a parcel of record existing prior to December 1, 1984. 2) Non-residential development disturbing less than one acre on a parcel of record existing prior to December 1, 1984. 3) The development of a parcel of record existing prior to December 1, 1984, when no part of the development or parcel is within a required setback from a conservation resource on any parcel even if it’s adjacent AND that isn’t part of the upper drainage basin for a conservation resource. She stated that because this amendment was only a clarification of existing and longstanding provisions, staff did not prepare a public comment draft prior to this public hearing and was anticipating that this item would be considered by the Commissioners at their May meeting. In response to questions from the Board about whether this item was a result of a legal action, Ms. Roth stated that because staff had received a question about a particular piece of property that was still being discussed, staff wanted to make sure that provisions are clear before moving forward so that it was not possible for someone to think that it reads a certain way and challenge staff interpretation of something that has been established by the county for quite some time. Vice Chair Jeff Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. With no one signed up to speak in opposition or with questions, Vice Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to Board discussion. Board Member Hansen Matthews made a MOTION, SECONDED by Board Member Kevin Hine, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance to clarify that the County’s conservation resource standards apply to development on all properties, excluding specific exceptions for parcels of record on December 1, 1984, the original effective date of the provisions. The Board found it to be CONSISTENT with the purpose and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it continues efforts to conserve and enhance our unique sense of place, promote environmentally responsible growth, and conserve environmentally sensitive areas. The Board also found RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the proposed amendment reasonable and in the public interest because it clarifies current conservation resource standards applicability for stakeholders and code users. The motion to approve the proposed amendment carried 6-0. 9 | Page Preliminary Forum Special Use Permit Request (S22-01) - Request by Joseph Kass with Graycliff Capital Affordable Housing, LLC, applicant, on behalf of Thomas Burriss, Sr, Phillip Burriss, and Dannen Properties, LLC, property owners, for an Additional Dwelling Allowance to increase the allowed density up to 10.2 dwelling units per acre for four (4) parcels totaling approximately 6.24 acres of land located at 633, 635, 641, and 649 Piner Road currently zoned R-15, Residential and O&I, Office & Institutional. Current Planner Amy Doss stated that this was a Preliminary Forum for a Special Use Permit request for an Additional Dwelling Allowance to allow up to 10.2 dwelling units per acre in a district where the base density is 2.5 dwelling units per acre. She stated that neither the Planning Board or staff would be making a recommendation for this request, but that the purpose of the Preliminary Forum was for the Board, public and applicant to discuss and consider the matter before it moved to the Board of Commissioners for a quasi-judicial hearing. Ms. Doss provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, 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. Ms. Doss stated that the Additional Dwelling Unit Allowance was a request to increase the density allowed in particular zoning districts up to maximum densities established by the Unified Development Ordinance. She stated that both the current R-15 and O&I zoning districts allowed a density of 2.5 units/acre, totaling 16 units for the subject site and that the additional dwelling allowance for both the R-15 and O&I district permitted up to 10.2 dwelling units per acre, potentially allowing up to 64 units. She stated that the applicant was requesting to only increase the allowed maximum density to 9.6 units per acre for a maximum of 60 dwelling units and had offered a condition to restrict the buildings to 3 stories. She stated that while the Additional Dwelling Allowance permitted an increase in density it also required additional development standards to ensure higher density development was appropriately developed and placed in the county. She stated that the site had direct full access onto Piner Road, an NCDOT maintained minor arterial road. She stated that the intersection of Carolina Beach Road and College Road was located just to the west and that the proposed development would increase traffic by approximately 13 AM and 19 PM peak hour trips. Ms. Doss stated that the conditions included preserving the tree save area, limiting the density to 9.6 units per acre and building height to 3 stories, and restrictions to only permit residential uses requiring tax credits for affordable housing. 1. Density was not to exceed 60 total units (9.6 units per acre). The current conceptual site plan shows 54 total residential units at 8.7 units per acre. The site plan showed a mixture of 3 story and 2 story buildings. If an additional 6 units were added to the shown 54 units, the 2 story building portions would be raised to 3 stories without altering building footprints. 2. Proposed development must be awarded LIHTC housing tax credits through the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency 3. Restricted to residential uses only, no commercial uses. 4. Buildings not to exceed 3 stories in height. 5. Site plan to retain undisturbed tree save area within the area labeled as 50' Buffer Easement in NE corner of property adjacent to single family homeowners. Ms. Doss stated that as a reminder the Unified Development Ordinance outlined the purpose and intent of preliminary forums, which was to allow the Planning Board, public, applicant, and staff to review and discuss a proposed project before it reached the Board of Commissioners for a quasi-judicial hearing and that the Planning Board and Planning staff did not make recommendations on Special Use Permits at preliminary forums. In response to questions from the Board about the actual height requirement, Ms. Doss stated that there were no additional height requirements. 10 | Page Vice Chair Petroff opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Mr. Joseph Kass, applicant, provided a brief description of the proposed project and agreed with the information provided by Ms. Doss. He stated that the project was located in a growth node as identified by the Comprehensive Plan which called for additional density and Mixed-Use Urban place type. He stated that the land was currently underutilized with portions of it being vacant and portions that were single-family homes which was not the highest and best use for this location which was located adjacent to shopping and other amenities. He stated there was a small wetland area in which they did have a wetland survey conducted and were proposing to leave that area undisturbed. He stated that there was a tree save area around the site plan and that the intent was to utilize as much of that area as possible. He stated that along the back part of the property that faced a cul-de-sac of single-family homes, there was a 30-foot setback along the back property line adjacent to the homes; however, in their Special Use application they had requested a 50-feet setback. He stated that the moderate density of 9.6 units per acre was a livable standard and that this was an appropriate growth node for this area. He stated that the project was an appropriate level of density to transition to the large shopping centers immediately across the street. He stated that because the O&I and R-15 did allow for multi-family, they were not seeking a rezoning, only a special use permit to increase the density. He stated that they planned to build 54 units and were applying to the IRS Tax Credit Program. He stated that if financing made sense, they wanted to have a little bit of flexibility for 60 units. He stated that the additional 6 units would not increase the building footprints. Mr. Kass provided information regarding affordability of the project stating that the average monthly rents would be $1000 per month; however, the actual range would be from $435 to $1435 per month. He stated that the reason for the difference was because they were using an IRS election called Income Averaging in which various tiers from 30 percent of area median income to 70 percent of area median income were blended together allowing the ability to offer housing to people with a variety of income levels. He stated that the residents must earn 2.5 times the monthly rent and the project would provide affordable housing that would serve the residents of New Hanover County. In response to questions from the Board about the impact of the traffic study when looking at the schools, Mr. Kass stated that there was data collected on Piner Road which was an NCDOT controlled road. He stated that while they had a proposed entry location and proposed entrance type, NCDOT would determine exactly where the entrance would be. Mr. Don Bennett stated that they were approached about a traffic study for this location and in keeping in compliance with the rules and standards for preparing a traffic study, counts were collected during school hours and local school activity would have been reflected in the counts. Vice Chair Petroff opened the hearing to those with questions or in opposition. Mr. Gordon Fonville, 5816 Wood Duck Circle, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed his concern with increased traffic along Piner Road. He stated that with the surrounding schools there were no provisions for pedestrians. He that there had not been any Improvements to the roadways from Myrtle Grove Road back to Carolina Beach Road. He stated expressed his concern regarding stormwater and the proposed retention pond runoff negatively impacting the neighborhood. He stated that there was a 50-foot easement behind the property, and he wanted to make sure that the wooded area behind the property retained the easement already in place. With no further comments or questions, Vice Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened to board discussion. Ms. Doss stated that following the Preliminary Forum this evening, staff would prepare the staff report and materials to be submitted for the Monday, May 1st meeting of the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners would hold a quasi-judicial hearing, an evidence-based procedure requiring sworn testimony and expert witnesses. She stated that the hearing would be advertised again including mailed notice and legal notice in the newspaper. She stated that there were four (4) principal findings of fact the Board of Commissioners must answer in the affirmative in order to approve a Special Use Permit and that following the public hearing the Board of Commissioners would consider a motion on the request. 11 | Page OTHER ITEMS Staff Presentation Community Information Meeting Text Amendment Director of Planning, Ms. Rebekah Roth stated that last month staff presented the board concepts for the amendment of the current standards for Community Information Meetings. She stated that tonight staff wanted to present the drafts that were anticipated to be released for public comment tomorrow and were hoping to get feedback from the Board so that staff could modify the proposed language as needed before its release. She stated that this amendment was to clarify for all code users the requirements for the community information meetings that are required for applications for conditional rezonings, planned developments and intensive industry special use permits. She stated that they wanted to make sure that applicant teams, adjacent residents and board members had a common understanding of the meeting’s intent, what was acceptable in terms of format and the type of information that would be included when an application moved forward to a public hearing. She stated that the release included more than just an ordinance update. Staff were also releasing for comment and review draft administrative guidelines, a notification template, and application documents for the community information report that must be submitted with an application. She stated that the amendment itself, which must be approved by the Board of Commissioners after review and recommendation by the Planning Board and which could only be changed after future public hearings, included a few key features. She stated it specified that submitting an application for conditional rezoning, planned development and intensive industry special use permits, without holding an actual meeting was no longer an option. Ms. Roth stated that an actual community meeting must be held in order for an application for any of these items to be complete. Ms. Roth stated that currently the county ordinance allows for applicants to provide a report detailing why a community meeting was not held, but the county had been unable to identify situations where it would be appropriate for someone to move forward with one of these types of applications without actually holding that meeting for the community to understand more about the application. She stated that the amendment would however allow for meetings to be in person, hybrid or virtual. She stated that the draft amendment also clarified that the meeting was to inform the adjacent residents to the project to allow them to learn about the proposal and ask questions and for the applicant to explain the review process and identify ways the proposal could be modified in order to address concerns. Ms. Roth stated that the amendment specified that a meeting must be held prior to submittal of an application and that notice should be provided to the planning department when it was sent to the property owners that we could send out to the Sunshine email list and post them to the county website. She stated that the amendment specified that a list of everyone invited must be submitted as part of the application and allow for staff to establish administrative requirements which would be approved by the Board of Commissioners. In response to questions from the Board regarding the mode that meetings would be held, Ms. Roth clarified that there were three different types of meetings which consisted of either in person, virtual or hybrid meeting. In response to comments from the Board regarding the expectation of responses from the Board at this meeting, Ms. Roth stated that if the Board had responses after tonight's meeting, staff would accept them as well. She stated that she just wanted to make sure that the Board was aware of what staff was releasing for public comment before anyone else saw it so that if there was something that staff was off base on regarding the overview, staff could adjust it and it would be taken off the table. In response to questions from the board about whether all meetings would go to virtual meetings, Ms. Roth stated that was not anticipated. She said both virtual and in-person meetings were currently allowed but there were no administrative guidelines as to when they were appropriate, so language was proposed in the draft guidelines that would allow staff to determine whether a virtual meeting were appropriate based on the demographics of the adjacent property owners and residents. She stated that right now staff were not imposing a lot of new restrictions, the item was more of a clarification, but that could be adjusted moving forward depending on if there were any issues. She stated that there were no actions tonight but in general if the Board saw no concerns with the concepts, then staff would release the drafts for public comment and if anything did come up during the comment period or the public hearing, the Board would have another discussion about this. 12 | Page Staff Presentation – Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Amendment Concepts Update Director of Planning, Ms. Rebekah Roth stated that this presentation was to outline amendment concepts regarding Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations. She stated that some of the concepts were outlined at the last meeting and originally presented to the Board this past fall as part of the maintenance amendment. She stated that because recently proposed legislation would impact some of the county’s previous concepts, staff had decided to revise and present them again before coordinating with stakeholders and developing a public comment amendment draft. She stated that as a reminder this was being considered by staff due to recent state and federal goals increasing the number of EVs being sold, and a desire to ensure that the county was prepared for the shift in the type of fueling infrastructure anticipated for residents’ and visitors’ vehicles. She stated that over the past 5 years the number of electric vehicles registered in New Hanover County has increased by over 1100 vehicles, more than quadrupling in that period of time. She stated that from a development standpoint there were four key factors that staff considered when identifying amendment concepts that might be necessary at this early stage in the process. She provided information indicating the three types of EV charging stations, each of which may be appropriate in different settings. She stated that in order to prepare for the anticipated need for EV charging stations as part of development projects, and to support gaps in standards for space design and coordination with parking standards, staff was exploring the following amendment components: 1. Expanding the existing definitions for charging stations to differentiate between the different types of EV charging stations. 2. Including standards that would allow for easier retrofitting of parking spaces to EV charging stations. 3. Establish provisions for when EV stations are considered parking spaces. 4. Incentivize workplace EV charging stations. 5. Outline standards for charging station design (including ADA). She stated staff was looking for any feedback that the Board may have tonight and would spend the next few weeks working with stakeholders to develop the initial public comment amendments which were anticipated to be released at the May meeting. Staff Updates Ms. Roth stated she did want to let the Board know that staff did provide an update to the Commissioners on the Western Bank question and that staff would be moving forward with at planning study of the area that would be coordinated with some other projects that staff was working on. She stated that staff did provide an overview to the Board of Commissioners of some updates to the Comprehensive Plan that staff would want to consider. Vice Chair Petroff adjourned the meeting at 8:42 PM. Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Planning Board Meeting.