Loading...
10-05-2023 PB Meeting Minutes1 | P a g e Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board October 5, 2023 A regular meeting of the New Hanover County Planning Board was held on October 5, 2023, at 6:00 PM in the New Hanover County Historic Courthouse. 24 North Third Street, Room 301 in Wilmington, North Carolina. Members Present Jeff Petroff, Chair   Colin Tarrant, Vice Chair Pete Avery Kevin Hine Clark Hipp Hansen Matthews Cameron Moore Staff Present Rebekah Roth, Director of Planning & Land Use  Ken Vafier, Planning Operations Supervisor  Robert Farrell, Development Review Supervisor Karen Richards, Deputy County Attorney  Wendell Biddle, Associate Planner Zach Dickerson, Senior Planner Galen Jamison, Chief Project Engineer Chair Jeff Petroff called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and welcomed the audience. After the welcome remarks, Planning and Land Use Operations Supervisor Ken Vafier led the Pledge of Allegiance, and Chair Petroff provided an overview of the meeting procedures and read the Code of Ethics. New Business Rezoning Request (Z23-18) – Request by Cindee Wolf with Design Solutions, applicant to rezone approximately 1.63 acres zoned R-15, Residential located at 6218 Carolina Beach Road to (CZD) B-2, Highway Commercial for an office and warehousing facility. Associate Planner Wendell Biddle gave a brief overview of the proposal. He explained that the rezoning request was to allow the construction of a warehousing facility and moving truck rental service, similar to U-Haul but not the same brand. He stated that the site located at 6218 Carolina Beach Road had been zoned for R-15 since 1971 and that the purpose of the zoning district was to provide for homes on private septic and well systems to be built at low densities. He explained that the proposed site was in an area with a variety of zoning districts, the parcels directly north were zoned B-2, the parcels to the northeast were zoned R-15, the parcel to the east was conditionally zoned B-1, and the parcel to the south and west was the conditionally zoned R-10 district Sellars Cove. He then displayed various aerial photographs of the site, examples of homes in R-15 districts, and an example of a portable storage and moving container business similar to what the applicant had proposed. He explained that the purpose of the B-2 district was to allow for proper site layout and development of larger structure businesses like box stores and automobile dealerships, and to provide for the appropriate location for automobile-oriented uses and to meet the need of the motoring public. 2 | P a g e A concept plan, provided by the applicant, was then shown. Mr. Biddle explained that there was an existing single-family home on the lot that would be removed prior to development, that there were two existing accessory structures that would be repurposed into a rental office and a supply storage area, and the site was already had a septic and well system. He stated that the applicant intended to build a 3,200 square foot warehouse for the storage containers, a stormwater pond, a 10-foot utility easement to the north, a 20-foot buffer yard to south that would run along the private Condo Club Drive, and a 20-foot-wide easement that was expected to provide a future pedestrian and bicycle path. He noted that because of the adjacent residential lot additional setback requirements would be enforced, resulting in 35-foot rear setback that the applicant conditioned to be an enhanced Type-A opaque buffer consisting of several rows of evergreen shrubbery and trees, and a 30-foot interior side setback. He then explained that the site would have primary access onto Carolina Beach Road and that motorists could make a U-Turn within 800 feet in either direction. He added that there was one residential development and one State Transportation Improvement Program in a one-mile radius. He stated that the proposal would generate two fewer AM and three fewer PM peak hour trips in comparison to the current R-15 zoning and was under the 100 peak hour trip threshold to require a Traffic Impact Analysis. He explained that because of the size of the lot and its proximity to Carolina Beach Road it was unlikely to be developed for residential use and that the proposed use could act as a transition from the highway to the residential use behind it. He stated that the location was designated a Community Mixed Use place type in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan which included commercial and residential uses. He then stated that the proposed conditions for the project included: 1.The uses shall be limited to Offices for Private Business and Professional Activities & Warehousing 2.A minimum 20-foot-wide dedicated public access easement shall be required, extending from the northern property line to the southern property line parallel to Carolina Beach Road. Adjustments to the location of the easement along Carolina Beach Road may be approved administratively by Planning staff due to landscaping, tree preservation, driveway access, or utility requirements. 3.No commercial RV or Boat storage shall be permitted on site. 4.No outdoor storage of temporary U-Box storage containers shall be permitted on site. 5.The warehouse structure’s maximum allowed building height shall be 25 feet. 6.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 3 | P a g e line extended from the light sources parallel to the ground. Fixtures shall be numbered such that adequate levels of lighting be maintained, but that light spillage and glare are not directed to adjacent properties, neighboring areas, or motorists. Light posts shall be no taller than twelve (12) feet. 7.The entire 35-foot-wide setback behind the building shall be reserved as a buffer yard. No activities shall occur in that area. Two (2) staggered rows of Leyland Cypress or some other evergreen shrub that grows a minimum of 15 to 20 feet in height will be planted along the rear boundary in addition to the prescribed Type A Opaque Buffer, Option 1 requiring a minimum of three (3) rows of evergreen shrubs that shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height and provide full visual opacity within one (1) year of planting. Mr. Biddle concluded his presentation and stated that development of the site would be subject to additional development review, and that Mr. Johnson of the WMPO and Mr. Jamison of County Engineering were available to answer any questions. In response to questions from the Board regarding what types of businesses would be on site, Mr. Biddle replied that the site would be intended for portable storage containers and moving truck rentals. Chair Petroff invited the applicant for their presentation. Cindee Wolf, of Design Solutions, on behalf of owners Shirley and Michael Norris, gave a brief overview of the application. She stated that the parcel was subdivided in 2003 to create the Sellars Cove condominium which she designed and got approval for in 2006. She added that the proposed use for the location was a moving vehicle and equipment rental business, like U-Haul but not that brand. She emphasized that it was not a self-storage location and that it was expected to generate very little traffic and noise. She explained that the site would be designed to direct stormwater away from Sellars Cove. She explained that the proposed 35-foot buffer and storage container warehouse would block the view of labor activities and light exposure for Sellars Cove. She stated that the proposed use was reasonable as it would be near individuals that would use the service and is in line with other businesses along Carolina Beach Road. In response to questions from the Board regarding trash disposal, Ms. Wolf replied that it would be located towards the front of the property to prevent noise from the trash truck disturbing residents of Sellars Cove. In response to questions from the Board regarding operating hours, Ms. Wolf replied that it was expected to be 8 AM to 5 PM Monday through Saturday but the hours had not been finalized. In response to questions from the Board regarding fencing, Ms. Wolf responded that she expected to install security fencing. 4 | P a g e In response to questions from the Board regarding the existing water and sewer system, Ms. Wolf replied that it was anticipated to remain in place and be used for the proposed unisex bathroom but would have to be recertified by the County. In response to questions from the Board regarding the driveway, Ms. Wolf replied that any necessary improvements would be made to get NCDOT approval. In response to questions from the Board regarding the elevation of the site, Ms. Wolf replied that it was about seven feet lower than Sellars Cove. In response to questions from the Board regarding the stormwater outlet, Ms. Wolf replied that it would outlet to the north along a utility easement and then towards Carolina Beach Road. In response to questions from the Board regarding lighting on the property, Ms. Wolf replied that there would be wall mounted security lights on the buildings with some 12-foot pole lights around the property where vehicles would be parked. In response to questions from the Board regarding LED lighting, Ms. Wolf replied that there would not be any lights facing Sellars Place. Chair Petroff then opened the floor for opposition. Eric Harris, 632 Condo Club Dr, Unit #205, on behalf of the Sellars Cove community, expressed his concerns that the proposed use was not consistent with the UDO or Community Mixed Use place type as he believed that the use should be considered Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing which is not permitted in B-2 districts. He added that he doubted the need for the new moving vehicle rental business in the area. He was also concerned about noise made in the warehouse, the possibility of hazardous materials stored in the containers, the potential impact on air quality due to loss of trees, and potential visual obstruction of getting onto Carolina Beach Road from Condo Club Drive. There were additional speakers in opposition, but the 15-minute time limit was reached so their comments would have to be held till after the rebuttal period, Chair Petroff recognized the applicant for rebuttal. Ms. Wolf explained that vehicle rentals were allowed in B-2 districts. She also stated that storage pod rentals were an accessory use that many self-storage businesses offer, and that the containers are nowhere near the size of an industrial shipping container. She reiterated her earlier point that there were businesses in similar positions up and down Carolina Beach Road. With no further rebuttal, Chair Petroff reopened the floor to opposition. Martha Afetse, 645 Condo Club Drive, expressed her concerns about environmental impacts and noise pollution. Planning & Land Use Director Rebekah Roth reminded the Board of Mr. Hipp’s requested condition of having any trash pickup be located at the front of the property and suggested including Moving Truck and Equipment Rental in the condition limiting the uses on the property. 5 | P a g e Chair Petroff closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to board discussion. In response to questions from the Board regarding the definition of cargo and freight, Ms. Roth replied that the UDO did not specifically define them and only referred to the dictionary definition. Board Member Clark Hipp stated that cargo facilities are typically much larger than the proposed size of the lot and that he appreciated the opposition group’s passion and concern. Board Member Pete Avery stated that the building permit process for the warehouse should address concerns about what would be stored there. In response to questions from the Board regarding if U-Haul would be located on site, Ms. Wolf replied that the U-Haul brand would not be available. In response to questions from the Board regarding what type of uses were permitted in B-2 districts, Mr. Biddle replied that it could range from big box stores like Home Depot down to small uses like a pizza parlor, and that it was typically located along the highway. He stated that it was one of the most robust land use classifications. Board Member Hansen Matthews stated that the already zoned B-2 parcels to the east have been under contract multiple times in the past 24 months and that by right a business can be built there. He also stated that the proposed buffer appeared to be an honest attempt to appease the residents of Sellars Cove. In response to questions from the Board regarding the visibility of the security fence, Ms. Wolf replied that if would be built so as not to be noticeable to the residents and was open to a condition to have the fence be built in inside the vegetative buffer to obscure it from view. Board Member Clark Hipp stated that this was one of the least impactful rezoning applications he had seen during his year on the Planning Board. Deputy County Attorney Karen Richards explained that vehicle rental could be added as an ancillary use to the primary use of warehousing. Chair Petroff asked the applicant if they would like to proceed with a vote, Ms. Wolf affirmed her intention to proceed with a vote and that she agreed with the proposed conditions. Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of rezoning request Z23-18 as it was consistent with the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the proposed used are generally encouraged in the Community Mixed Use place type and approval was reasonable and in the public interest as it was estimated to reduce the traffic impacts to the adjacent roadway and would act as an appropriate transition between the highway and neighboring high density residential development, with the following conditions: 1. The uses shall be limited to Offices for Private Business and Professional Activities & Warehousing with Vehicle Rental as an ancillary use. 2. A minimum 20-foot-wide dedicated public access easement shall be required, extending from the northern property line to the southern property line parallel to Carolina Beach Road. Adjustments to the location of the easement along Carolina 6 | P a g e Beach Road may be approved administratively by Planning staff due to landscaping, tree preservation, driveway access, or utility requirements. 3. No commercial RV or Boat storage shall be permitted on site. 4. No outdoor storage of temporary U-Box storage containers shall be permitted on site. 5. The warehouse structure’s maximum allowed building height shall be 25 feet. 6. 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 be maintained, but that light spillage and glare are not directed to adjacent properties, neighboring areas, or motorists. Light posts shall be no taller than twelve (12) feet. 7. The entire 35-foot-wide setback behind the building shall be reserved as a buffer yard. No activities shall occur in that area. Two (2) staggered rows of Leyland Cypress or some other evergreen shrub that grows a minimum of 15 to 20 feet in height will be planted along the rear boundary in addition to the prescribed Type A Opaque Buffer, Option 1 requiring a minimum of three (3) rows of evergreen shrubs that shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height and provide full visual opacity within one (1) year of planting. 8. Any security fencing will be placed on the property owners’ side of buffer yards. 9. Any dumpster or trash collection shall be located centrally near the administrative offices. SECONDED by Board Member Pete Avery The motion to approve rezoning request Z23-18 passed 7-0. Text Amendment Request (TA23-03) – Request by the New Hanover County Planning & Land Use to amend Articles 2 and 5 of the Unified Development Ordinance to incorporate standards for electric vehicle charging stations. Senior Planner Zach Dickerson gave a brief overview of the text amendment request. He reminded the Board that this had been an item that staff had been working on for several months. Staff had initially brought up the concept last fall, brought it back in the spring, and then spent the summer collecting input. He stated that his revised draft was the result of public comments and was an effort to proactively address future needs for electric vehicle chargers. He then displayed a map depicting the locations of Level 2 charging stations in the area. He explained that the intent of the amendment was to: 7 | P a g e 1. Create clear standards that everyone understands. 2. Allow for easier and less expensive modifications to install future charging stations. 3. Avoid burdens on developers and excessive costs for future owners to install charging stations. 4. Consider the needs of citizens that might not be met by the current market. Mr. Dickerson explained that the definition of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations would be expanded to include what a Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 Charging Station would be. He added that the amendment included the requirement that when 25 or more parking spaces were required for a use, 20% of those spaces must be EV-ready, which meant that electric conduit and capacity must me in place for future charging stations. He explained that while there were enough charging stations to meet current demand, they were only available in certain parts of town or located in gated communities. He outlined the proposed provisions to delineate a normal parking space from an electric vehicle parking space. He explained that the final section of the amendment would outline minimum requirements for ADA compliant parking spaces for electric vehicle charging stations. He explained that staff had received two public comments on the proposed amendment, one in opposition stating that the market needs were met so the amendment was not necessary, and one neutral comment suggesting edits to the proposed language and asking for a cap on the number of electric vehicle charging stations for large projects. He stated that staff did not find other municipalities that had a cap but had followed best practice guidelines when drafting the amendment. Mr. Dickerson concluded his presentation and stated that if approved by the Planning Board the amendment would need final approval from the Board of Commissioners, and that he was available for any questions. In response to questions from the Board regarding what was needed to make a parking spot EV- ready, Mr. Dickerson replied that staff had originally recommended for conduit and wires be installed but had received public comment about the possibility of the wires deteriorating before the charger was installed so the requirement for wire was removed. Chair Petroff opened the meeting for Board discussion. In response to questions from the Board regarding a cap for the EV parking requirement for large projects, Mr. Dickerson replied that there was not a precedent for a cap, but staff was open further researching the issue if the Board thought it was necessary. In response to questions from the Board regarding the difference between residential and commercial requirements for EV charging, Mr. Dickerson replied that it was typically a flat-rate system but that the city of Apex had different percentage requirements for several uses. 8 | P a g e In response to questions from the Board regarding if a certain amount of EV parking spaces would need to have their own transformer, Mr. Dickerson replied that the intent of the language was to make future retrofitting of EV spots easier but some companies like Tesla install their own transformer to support their proprietary technology. Board Member Cameron Moore thanked staff for their work but stated that he was concerned about installing circuit breakers when the electrical use was not known and that he was also concerned about requiring a certain amount of EV chargers in areas where the existing chargers are rarely used. He stated that he envisioned gas stations installing charging stations in the future and meeting market demand. Chair Petroff stated that just because the charging stations were empty at the moment does not mean that they are not being used and he hoped the market would eventually meet the demand for charging stations eventually and the requirement would not be needed in the future. Board Member Clark Hipp echoed Chair Petroff’s points and added that he supported a cap similar to the number of handicap parking spots in a typical parking lot. He also applauded staff for taking a proactive approach to the problem instead of being reactive. Mr. Moore stated that he believed that there should be different requirements for different uses and that he believed the amendment could be improved. Board Member Kevin Hine applauded staff for being forward looking on the issue and that he supported the idea of the amendment, but he thinks that not every business needed an electric charging station. He added that he supported a cap for large projects, but he did not support the amendment as written. Chair Petroff stated that he would like to see a little more work on the amendment before he approved of the amendment. Mr. Moore added that affordable housing should be considered as the cost of building charging stations would be placed on the consumers who did not drive electric vehicles. In response to questions from the Board regarding incentives for installing charging stations, Mr. Dickerson replied that staff had not considered that yet and wanted to get basic requirements in place first. Vice Chair Tarrant stated that it was important to not go too far too fast when the technology was still developing and that he supported different percentage requirements for different uses. Board Member Hansen Matthews stated that he supported the idea of different requirements for different uses and that as technology evolves the need for more charging stations would decrease. Board Member Pete Avery stated that he believed that the market should be the driving force for determining the number of charging stations and that they should be treated as a utility. In response to questions from the Board regarding what would be the proper motion, Planning and Land Use Director Rebekah Roth replied that a continuance would be appropriate. 9 | P a g e In response to questions from the Board regarding when it would be appropriate to bring back the amendment, Ms. Roth replied that case planner workload varied month to month and that would affect how much work would be able to be done on the text amendment. Board Member Pete Avery stated that if a board member would not be able to attend a meeting, they could submit comments prior to the meeting. In response to questions from the Board regarding if ample feedback had been provided by the Board, Mr. Dickerson replied that he also wanted to clarify what issues the Board wanted to focus on and listed that so far he had the idea to create different requirements for different uses like the City of Apex, try to find if a similar sized city had caps on EV charging space requirements, and what cap would be appropriate. Mr. Matthews added that he would like to see staff investigate the possibility of having a higher requirement for multi-family residential and less of a requirement for commercial uses. Ms. Roth added that it should be clarified that this is not a requirement in addition to other parking and how it related to amenity areas and other expansions. Chair Petroff added that he would like to see an incentivization program if possible. Mr. Moore added that the incentivization program should add administrative flexibility to staff. Ms. Roth added that it was important to not privilege this public policy desire over others. She stated that staff would investigate what incentives could be offered, if any. Board Member Clark Hipp MOTIONED for a CONTINUANCE, SECONDED by Board Member Kevin Hine. The motion for the continuance of text amendment TA23-03 passed 6-1, with Board Member Pete Avery dissenting. Board Member Pete Avery dissented because he believed that the market would address future EV charging needs without county requirements for electric vehicle infrastructure. Other Items UDO Maintenance Text Amendment-Subdivision Plat Certificates Update Planning Review Supervisor Robert Farrell gave a brief presentation to outline draft amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance. He stated that there were two potential technical amendments that staff had identified. The first would be an amendment to revise certificates required for final subdivision plat approval to make it clearer for developers, the Department of Transportation, and the public. The second amendment would clarify the landscape bond approval process and better reflect staff’s role in that process. He explained that a two-week public comment period would run till October 20th at 5 PM before a public hearing that would be held at the Planning Board Meeting on November 2, 2023. Ms. Roth updated the Board that staff was anticipating on presenting the Board of Commissioners an update on the Western Bank study at their October 16th meeting and that Rachel Lacoe had 10 | P a g e been hired as the Director of Housing and Neighborhood Services for the City of Wilmington and that could affect Planning staff timelines. Board Member Clark Hipp made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting, SECONDED by Chair Petroff. The motion to adjourn the meeting passed 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:02 PM.