HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-23-2007 Joint Public Hearing
January 23, 2007 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 12, 2007
Page 1 of 13
MINUTES
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD and PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, January 23,2007
7:00 PM, Mural Courtroom, New Orange County Courthouse
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mayor Tom Stevens, Commissioners Frances
Dancy, Evelyn Lloyd, Mike Gering, L. Eric Hallman, and Brian Lowen.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Campanella, Edna Ellis, Kathleen
Faherty, Neil Jones, Eric Oliver, Dave Remington, Toby Vandemark, and Barrie Wallace.
STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Eric Peterson, Assistant Town Manager/Public Works
Director Demetric Potts, Planning Director Margaret Hauth, and Town Attorney Bob Hornik.
ITEM #1: Call public hearing to order. Mayor Stevens called the meeting to order and
passed the gavel to Planning Board vice-chair Toby Vandemark who opened the Joint Public
Hearing.
ITEM #2: Annexation and Zoning Request from CCD Corporation to annex 3.48 acres
on NC 57 and have it zoned Light Industrial to match the 38.58 acres to the
North (Part of 4.4.1)
Ms. Hauth noted the request is to annex a parcel adjacent to the 38 acres recently annexed and
zone the parcel Light Industrial as well. Louie Callemyn, speaking for CCDC, noted that much
information had been submitted in the packet. He stated this was a family-owned property, and
was available to answer questions.
Ms. Ellis commented that she did not find that CCDC was the owner of record in the County's
land records. Mr. Callemyn replied that the property was owned by his son. Ms. Hauth
commented that the petition had been signed by CCDC. Mr. Callemyn stated that it was now
CCDC. Mr. Hornik again asked if CCDC owned the parcel in question. Mr. Callemyn
responded yes.
ITEM #3: Master Plan Modifications for Waterstone to increase the allowable retail
square footage in Parcel 13 to 90,000, and increase the allowable retail
square footage in Parcel 22 to 450,000.
Ms. Hauth was sworn in. She called attention to letters contained in the packet, and addressed
Orange County comments. Ms. Hauth stated that a new TIA had been submitted, although it was
not contained in the packet. She said copies were available if needed.
Dave Denison from Stratford Development was sworn in. He said the agenda packet includes
responses from Tim Michael regarding environmental constraints, Barbara Todd regarding
design and impervious surfaces, and Earl Llewellyn regarding transportation impacts. He said he
was available to answer questions. In talking with potential partners, he said, they have asked
about the "underutilization" of the tract. He said the tract was large enough to handle the
requested square footage.
1
January 23, 2007 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 12, 2007
Page 2 of 13
Upon a motion by Commissioner Dancy, seconded by Commissioner Hallman, the Board moved
to close the public hearing on Item #2 by a vote of 13-0. The motion was declared passed.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Hallman, seconded by Commissioner Lowen, the Board moved
to close the public hearing on Item #3 by a vote of 13-0. The motion was declared passed.
ITEM #4: Rezoning and Special Use Permit Request from Coucoulas/Knight Properties
to rezone 2.16 acres on the west side of the 500 block of North Churton Street
from Residential-20 and Neighborhood Business to Entranceway Special Use
with a Special Use Permit to build 20 residential condominium units beside
the Sinclair Station building (TMBL 4.19.A.ll,12,13)
Ms. Hauth provided a brief overview of the property, and highlighted a few changes that had
been made to the application.
Allen Knight was sworn in. He stated he had heard at the last hearing about size, intensity and
design of the proposal. Mr. Knight stated he respected the process, and had personally
redesigned the project, noting that the revision was his response to the last hearing. He said the
project had benefited from the process.
Mr. Knight said he had walked the district and gained a new appreciation of it. He explained that
the project consisted of 20 units in 2 structures, it was 2 1Iz stories above grade; it included
below-grade parking, and was more residentially scaled. Mr. Knight said he had moved the
buildings away from the south and west property line. In comparison, he stated that Burwell
School, Midlawn, and Inn at Teardrops were of a similar scale. Mr. Knight said his plans used
front porches and was harmonious and in scale with adjacent residential structures.
Mr. Knight said he believed the issues raised had now been addressed. He said there had been a
dozen site tours as well as a second formal neighborhood meeting, and he had shared the vision
for the site with adjacent and surrounding properties. Mr. Knight said he was entering a petition
in support of the project, which included signatures of downtown business owners.
Mr. Knight said submittal of this proj ect was inspired by the Churton Street Plan and consistent
with that Plan. He noted it was also consistent with the Vision 2010 Plan. Mr. Knight said it
provided a walkable housing plan not currently available. He read a statement by Richard
Silverman, which said the project supported the economic vitality of the downtown by placing
owner/occupants in the area. He also read a statement from the Churton Street Plan and 20
specific items in the Churton Plan that were consistent with this project.
Mr. Knight said the Entranceway Special Use district was the tool that allowed the
implementation of the visions stated in the adopted plans since it required the submittal of a
specific proposal. He said the request was specific and ran for 24 months. Mr. Knight added
that special use was the trend of municipalities. As adopted the Entranceway Special Use, he
said, the Board was able to review a specific plan. He quoted the ordinance, noting that this plan
referred to either an SUP or a master plan with 20 acres. He said that this district gave the
flexibility needed. Mr. Knight quoted another section, noting that this district was not precedent
setting. He said that the only precedent was to encourage other property owners to redevelop
2
January 23, 2007 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 12, 2007
Page 3 of 13
their property. Mr. Knight said the Board's approval would show that the Town was serious
about sustainable development. He submitted into the record a letter form an appraiser and notes
from a neighborhood meeting and its attendees.
Commissioner Gering said he appreciated Mr. Knight's interpretation. He asked what he
believed the word "entranceway" meant. Mr. Knight responded that this was the gateway to the
historic district, noting that entranceways led into the Town. Commissioner Gering asked where
would not be an entranceway. Mr. Knight responded that in the Churton Street Plan, a gateway
was an entranceway
Ms. Ellis said she was concerned about the single driveway, especially since it was on US 70
Business.
Jim Parker noted he had been working with Chuck Edwards to solicit comments. He said a
phone comment asked not to require a turn lane on Corbin Street, but that comment was not
available in writing. He said at a previous meeting, concern was noted about the driveway on
Churton Street. Mr. Parker said with the reduced size, additional access was not needed.
Ms. Ellis said she lived near the site, and traffic had noticeably increased. She suggested using
parking for Sinclair Station. Mr. Knight said they wanted to combine this into one single
property, with one master association to own all parking and all common areas. He said that
would provide continuity of ownership as well as maintenance.
Ms. Ellis asked if it were combined, would he sell it as one tract. Mr. Knight responded that it
could not be sold separately, because the condominium agreement would govern that. Ms. Ellis
asked about the dumpster location, noting it looked too close to the adjoining neighbor. Mr.
Knight said the location was flexible, noting they were trying to keep it centrally located. He
said there would be a buffer between this property and the neighbor's property.
Ms. Ellis asked about the landscaping and types of trees that were planned to be used. Mr.
Knight said that all that was shown on the plan was what currently existed, noting they primarily
were nut trees. He said the new plantings would be evergreen. Ms. Ellis stated that the plans
were not showing any new plantings. Mr. Parker stated that the plans showed showing existing
and specimen trees, noting that the undergrowth would remain. He said he had not shown the
required additional landscaping, stating that he was trying to highlight preservation of existing
trees rather than new trees.
Ms. Ellis asked had the Police been consulted for comments. Mr. Knight replied that commented
from the Police had not been requested.
Commissioner Hallman asked about the third-party letters that had been submitted. Mr. Hornik
said they could be accepted, but they should been given the appropriate weight.
Commissioner Gering asked for an explanation of the staff perspective of the intent of the
Entranceway Special Use district, and advice to give to Mr. Knight. Ms Hauth reminded the
members that when the ESU district was created in 2000, the board was considering Hampton
3
January 23, 2007 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 12, 2007
Page 4 of 13
Pointe and Waterstone, two large scale developments on the edge of town. It was these larger
projects with a mixture of uses that were intended to be encouraged with the district. She noted
the district was created because the existing options both in terms of processes and requirements
were not sufficient to handle large scale sites. Ms. Hauth responded that she often discusses
projects with applicants before they apply to match their request to available options. She noted
that Mr. Knight's desire the share parking and introduce attached residential to the existing
Sinclair project was only possible under the Entranceway Special Use district as it is the only
mixed use district in the ordinance. She noted that she advised Mr. Knight that the district would
be a stretch of the intent of the district, but within the interpretation range for the boards to
consider. She added that the ESU district was established to allow flexibility and the board had
the ability to consider the project and the intent of the district and determine on a case by case
basis whether the rezoning request was appropriate.
Vickie Wilson was sworn in. She said she represented a group of neighbors and property
owners. She said these concerns had been clearly stated previously, adding she had not come to
talk about density, parking or site planning. Ms. Wilson said she wanted to talk about setting the
stage for future growth in the community. She said the concern had not been the project, but the
district. Ms. Wilson said such a district was meant for the edge of Town, for multi-use projects
in more remote areas. She said this project was piggybacking on the previously approved site
and not on an entranceway, adding it was in Town and not on 20 acres. Ms. Wilson stated that
such projects could spread throughout the Town and the historic district. She noted that the
property owner was aware of the current zoning when he acquired the property.
Ms. Wilson said it was necessary to change the ordinance now so that future neighbors did not
have to spend significant time fighting. She asked that the Board deny the application, and to
clarify the conditions under which the Entranceway Special Use district could be applied.
Holly Snyder was sworn in. She stated she was a licensed contractor specializing in
preservation, and commented on the petition. She said she had been shown renderings and was
told the dwellings would replace dilapidated housing. Ms. Snyder said she had not been
informed of the lasting effects of the Entranceway Special Use, she had not been informed of the
precedent, and had not been informed that developers were lining up. She quoted supporters that
they did not understand the Entranceway Special Use district. Ms. Snyder said speakers tonight
should be asked if they understood the Entranceway Special Use and whether they understood
the impact.
Ms. Snyder said the existing site had been characterized as having non-contributing structures.
She noted that the house at 509 N Churton was contributing, noting it appeared on the 1924
Sanborn map and then read the description from the Town's inventory. Ms. Snyder said the
Historic District guidelines stated that the demolition of a contributing building was an
irrevocable act that was strongly discouraged. She said it was an ideal candidate for restoration,
adding she believed the applicant was overzealous.
Ms. Snyder said if approved, this would be a welcome sign to developers to diversify the historic
district. She said in her opinion, it could change the character of the entire town. Ms. Snyder
4
January 23, 2007 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 12, 2007
Page 5 of 13
asked that the application be denied, that the house be saved, and that the Board pledge to attach
guidelines to appropriately stop applications in the Planning Office.
Joe Rees was sworn in. He said he was very excited by this prospective project, and he was
speaking to reinforce support for the application. He said the buildings fit well overall and
improved the appearance of the area. Mr. Rees said the driveway removal would simplify
Churton Street. He said he believed the tree preservation was well thought out and a significant
addition. He urged the Board to give the project serious consideration and approval. Mr. Rees
added that he was informed of the implications of the rezoning.
Ed Slanker was sworn in. He said he had moved here 6 years ago and loved the small town feel
and beauty of the architecture. He noted that housing options were in short supply in the
downtown, and the area was in need of revitalization. He said such housing would appeal to
both the older and younger generations, noting that downtown residents would tend to eat out
and foot traffic would improve. He said he supported the application as a positive addition to the
community.
Craig Perrin was sworn in. He said he is a resident of 114 West Orange Street and said he took
exception to a previous speaker, noting the block was in good shape. He said he was an expert
witness regarding surveying and opinion polling and was petitioning the Town for redress. Mr.
Perrin said he understood that expert witnesses helped protect the Town's decision.
Mr. Perrin said he had another petition with 134 signatures. He referred to political
organizations in the 1980s and Jesse Jackson's campaign. Mr. Perrin recounted discussing
signatures with residents, noting there was a business owner who regretted signing the petition,
as well as a couple who had regrets. He said that the submitted petition be carefully checked.
He asked if it stated that it is a rezoning, and if it specified that a Special Use permit was
involved. Mr. Perrin read the header on the petition he was submitting. He said the applicant
wanted it both ways, noting this was not a precedent and the key to redeveloping Churton Street
Suzanne Roy was sworn in. She said she had purchased her home on West Orange Street 3 years
ago, and one factor in that purchase was the surrounding residential zoning. She said she had not
anticipated this type of project, noting it was too much density on too small a property. Ms. Roy
said she did not understand the connection of the two properties. She added she was
disappointed that Mr. Knight went all over Town before showing the plans to the neighbors. Ms.
Roy said the neighbors were unified in their opposition, and asked the Board to reject the plan.
Sally Fierro was sworn in. She said she was not an expert, but had read about the project in the
newspaper. She said she did not live in the downtown, but did enjoy visiting the downtown. Ms.
Fierro said she was in favor of project, noting she had been told about the Entranceway Special
Use zoning when she was approached about the project. She said when she came into Town
from the north; the Sinclair Station was the entranceway as was the bridge on the south. Ms.
Fierro said she sympathized with the neighbors, but the positive outweighed any concerns. As
an example, she noted that the condominiums on Franklin Street in Chapel Hill were a positive
for that town. Ms. Fierro said the inclusion of an elevator was positive, noting she had a
5
January 23, 2007 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 12, 2007
Page 6 of 13
disability. She said this project would add to a growing market and would improve the tax base.
Ms. Fierro said this project was minor in comparison to other improvements approved.
Linda Nettles was sworn in. She said she had moved here 30 years ago, and had come for
graduate school and never left. She said Hillsborough was a very different environment from the
way she had grown up. Ms. Nettles said the changes were exciting and noted there were limited
resources for elderly housing. She said this project was exciting to her personally. Ms. Nettles
said she could not speak as a neighbor or as a native, but for her personally, she looked forward
to be able to spend lots of years here. She said the Town needed housing options. She said she
could not speak regarding zoning law, but had wanted to share her personal thoughts.
Chris Wachholz was worn in. He echoed Ms. Nettles comments regarding housing options. He
said he was a contractor and worked in architectural salvage. He said he could not help everyone
who approached him because there wasn't enough land in Hillsborough. Mr. Wachholz said the
proposed condominiums provided an option, noting the plans contributed to the fabric of the
community. Mr. Wachholz indicated that Entranceway Special Use zoning had been discussed,
and Town officials should not be afraid to set precedents or make exceptions when it was in the
best interest of the Town. He said he had inspected the existing buildings closely, adding that
the smaller house could be moved and the others could be deconstructed and relocated. Mr.
Wachholz said only the small house contributed to the Town.
Sam Griffith was sworn in. He said he lived about 100 yards from the project. He said he loved
the small scale of that area. He said he would admit that the existing structures weren't glorious,
but they did fit in. Mr. Griffith said the current proposal was inappropriate, noting that Churton
Street had micro-climates in that each block was what it was. He said that diversity was the
character of the district and condominiums would disrupt that. Mr. Griffith said he preferred
multi-family as an option, adding that the next item on the agenda was a better option.
Holly Reid was sworn in. She said she was supportive of walk able communities, and considered
density to increase walkable. She stated that density was not the enemy, and density was needed
to support the downtown, improve air and water quality, and many other positive aspects. Ms.
Reid said we needed to require applicants to think about connectivity and relationships to
adjacent properties. She said that was not a requirement for this applicant, but it should have
been.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Hallman, the Board voted
to close the public hearing by a vote of 13-0. The motion was declared passed.
ITEM #5: Special Use Permit for Bellevue Development, LLC to convert the existing
industrial buildings at 202 South Nash Street to 85 apartment units and 200
parking spaces with driveway access from South Bellevue Avenue and
parking on the east side of South Nash Street (TMBL 4.34.E.21, 4.34.E.21c,
and 4.34.H.I0)
Ms. Hauth provided a brief overview of the application, providing the pertinent details of the
proposed proj ect.
6
January 23, 2007 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 12, 2007
Page 7 of 13
Henry Campen was sworn in. He said he is the owner's representative. He introduced the
family: Michael Falk, Harry Falk, and Susan Green. He provided a brief family and company
history. Mr. Campen described the project, noting it was just less than 20 acres, zoned General
Industrial, and a Special Use Permit allowed this process. Mr. Campen said the property carried
a National Register listing.
Mr. Campen referred to the Brownfields agreement with DENR, and referred to land use
restrictions in return for no further action request. He said they had received no notification that
the application was incomplete. He noted that a neighborhood meeting had been held in late
November. In response to a neighborhood request to extend a walkway from South Bellevue to
Knight Street, Mr. Campen said that access would be guaranteed as public right-of-way.
Regarding exceptions, Mr. Campen said they were willing to provide a buffer to the existing
residents in return for a parking setback. He said that Bellevue was the preferred connection. He
noted that the tenant profile would not include small children. To support the burden of proof,
Mr. Campen said he had 4 witnesses: Eddie Belk, Terry Snow, Glen White, and Susanne
Schneider.
Eddie Belk was sworn in. He said he had experience with renovating and adaptive reuse. He
provided a brief history of the textile industry, and exhibited aerial photos showing the existing
property and the proposed project. Mr. Belk said that was a full mill village developed around
the mill, and related his personal family history working in textile mills. He added he had
prepared the National Register nomination. Mr. Belk stated he had prepared the first 2 parts of
the State and federal credit projects, adding that the only remaining part was to complete the
project. He said his firm had not ever had a project fail to qualify upon completion. He noted
they were removing the shutters and internal connector to reopen the courtyard.
Mr. Belk said his experience with other projects included Pilot Mill & Erwin Mill. He noted that
the parking was divided in a number of areas, adding that there was a lap pool, fitness center and
recreation center. Mr. Belk said there would remain 3 % acres of undisturbed woodlands, and
they would be adding pedestrian access through the site.
Terry Snow was sworn in. He said he was a traffic engineer, and the traffic impact analysis was
in conformance with national standards. He noted that any project would add traffic to the
adjacent streets, and this project was a light or low generator of traffic. Mr. Snow highlighted
the access on Nash and Bellevue, and talked about the planned disbursal and directing of traffic
to the south. He said traffic counts had been conducted in September and October, and that all
streets and roads would function at Level of Service B or better.
Mr. Snow said recommendations were for 2 points of access and connectivity for bike and
pedestrian access. He said the findings indicated no material negative impact to the study area,
noting that all intersections and streets would function at acceptable levels of service with or
without the project. Mr. Snow said the traffic impacting with the proposal was less than that
allowed by the zoning as Industrial. He said the project would not materially endanger public
health or safety.
7
January 23, 2007 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 12, 2007
Page 8 of 13
Eric Oliver asked had he taken into consideration the Gateway project and the proposed
development along Margaret Lane. Mr. Snow responded that he had discussed that with Ms.
Hauth and had included growth projections, but did not include the numbers specifically.
Ms. Ellis asked had he conducted an actual count on Bellevue. Mr. Snow responded he had.
Ms. Ellis said she was concerned about increased traffic from the Mountain Road, and asked was
the existing pavement correctly listed at 18'. Mr. Snow replied that many streets were 18'. Ms.
Ellis asked about a connection at Benton. Mr. Snow replied there would be a connection. Ms.
Ellis asked if that was the largest parking lot, noting more attention should be paid to Bellevue
Avenue.
Commissioner Gering said if the width was a problem, would that be a factor in Mr. Snow's
analysis? Mr. Snow responded yes, noting that width as well as horizontal and vertical
alignment were all factors to the level of service. He stated that narrowing the pavement was a
method to slow traffic.
Commissioner Gering asked about the parameters for a Level of Service B designation. Mr.
Snow replied that it was not free-flowing, but was relatively easy maneuvering with a wait of 5
seconds or less on average at intersections. Commissioner Gering asked if that was a Level of
Service B at peak hours. Mr. Snow replied yes.
Glen White was sworn in. He said he is a civil engineer and that the project would comply with
Sections 4.48, 4.47, and section 5 of the ordinance. Regarding the environment, he said there
would be only 0.75 acre of forest disturbance, and 0.64 acre disturbed on Nash Street. He said
the facilities proposed would prevent control stormwater and prevent erosion. He said the
project complied with the flood ordinance and stormwater discharge was away from the
floodway. Mr. White said the creek would be spanned with minimal disturbance to the
streambed, adding that would require DENR and Corps. of Engineer approval.
Mr. Oliver asked about underground utilities. He said the photos provided showed removal of
overhead lines on both sides of Nash Street. Mr. White said in many areas they would be placed
underground
Eddie Belk explained that the photos were artist renderings. He said that all utilities on the street
front would not be put underground, but the new services on site would be.
Susanne Schneider was sworn in. She stated she was an appraiser and presented her credentials.
She then summarized the report, noting existing conditions. She said the structures were vacant
and derelict, and presented the potential for increased liability or exposure for crime or fire. Ms.
Schneider said permitted industrial uses could allow traffic and uses inconsistent with the
neighborhood, and that the estimated renovation costs are $8 million with rents from $800 to
$1200. Ms. Schneider said the renovated mill as proposed would be an enhancement to the
neighborhood. She used examples from similar impacts of similar projects in other towns, and
stated that the proposal was in harmony with the area and would not injure values.
8
January 23, 2007 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 12, 2007
Page 9 of 13
Stephen Whitlow and Jennifer Williams were both worn in as representatives of the West
Hillsborough Community Watch area that was immediately to the west of this project. Mr.
Whitlow said the area was bounded by King, Barracks, Bellevue, and Eno Streets, with 200
houses and 30-40 active members. He said they had held 3 meetings to discuss this project
specifically, and thanked the applicant for staying in contact with them.
Mr. Whitlow said he was a graduate student in planning. He said he believed the positives of the
project were the recycling of environmental resources already committed to the buildings and the
site. He said the project would likely increase pedestrian traffic, help downtown and the
commercial development on Nash Street. If the project was not approved, Mr. Whitlow said,
other uses included undesirable development or the potential demolition. He said this was a
good deal for the Town with no additional investment needed. Mr. Whitlow said the density was
relatively in keeping with the surrounding neighboring, adding it honored the working class.
Mr. Whitlow said the negative aspects were the impacts on Bellevue, noting it would endanger
the public safety and it was not in harmony. He said the Town could impose reasonable
conditions, and provided handouts of priorities and maps.
Regarding traffic, Mr. Whitlow noted the additional trips and related safety. He stated that
Bellevue would receive 60% of the new traffic with 430 trips per weekday, with Bellevue
experiencing an 84% growth in traffic. Mr. Whitlow said Bellevue would likely be the
construction entrance when the street did not currently allow through truck traffic. He provided
photos of the limitations, noting that the width varied from 16 1Iz' to 18'. Mr. Whitlow said that
blind spots were created by hills.
Mr. Whitlow said there should be improvements on the south side of the property since
approximately 70% of the trips headed south. He said the non-negative impact was vehicular,
not pedestrian, noting there were no sidewalks existing in the neighborhood. Mr. Whitlow said
that new trips would increase the discomfort of neighbors walking on the street. He said the mill
had served as a barrier to the downtown, noting that pedestrians had 3 options: to walk on King
Street, walk on Eno with tractor trailers, or trespass on property and cross the creek. He
indicated that this cross traffic was very important for pedestrian connections.
Mr. Whitlow asked the Board to require the following:
1. Require the developer to improve Bellevue from Benton to Eno and get consistent
widening to 18', but no wider.
2. Require a sidewalk along Bellevue on the east side in the public right-of-way from
Benton to Eno, based on information that 36' of right-of-way existed.
3. Require 2 speed tables halfway on both sides of Benton.
4. Require a public walkway easement along proposed pedestrian path through the site.
5. Request a painted center line on Bellevue for its entire whole length.
6. Requests crosswalks at Benton and Bellevue, and Bellevue and Eno.
7. Landscaping along western perimeter of parking to block the view from Bellevue lots.
Mr. Whitlow said these requests were reasonable and fair given the impacts to Bellevue and the
fact that Bellevue was not built to the required standards and for the 7 additional reasons noted.
9
January 23, 2007 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 12, 2007
Page 10 of 13
He noted that the comments included with the presented materials were from the neighborhood,
not individuals.
Joe Rees said he was the adjoining property owner to the parking lot. He said he had been
waiting 6 years to see something happen to the mill building, and applauded the plan in general.
Mr. Rees said he was concerned about the traffic and the number of the units. Regarding
comments tonight related to the elm tree existing in the parking lot, he wanted to preserve the
tree to improve the look of the parking lot. Mr. Rees said the landscape architect indicated it
might be possible to save the tree. He said he wound not threaten to chain himself to the tree, but
hoped the Board would find a way to preserve the tree.
Vickie Wilson said she was glad for a proposal that was appropriate. She said if the traffic and
pedestrian issues could be solved and the tree saved, she would wholeheartedly support the
proj ect.
Lauren McGlynn was sworn in. She said she is a retired attorney, said she was concerned about
the safety issue. She asked why was the access not on Eno Street. She said the study does not
address pedestrian safety. Ms. McGlynn said the existing road was substandard, and that
NCDOT recommended widening of the street. She asked what the Town intended to do to solve
the safety issues.
Jeffrey Pellicani was sworn in. He said he was a Mill Village resident in support of the project,
noting it made sense from an infill perspective. He said that the preservation was the right thing
to do, and this was a great opportunity to pay tribute to those who labored there. Mr. Pelocani
said we needed a remedy for the concerns noted on Bellevue.
Gerald McElreath was sworn in. He said he was also a Mill Village resident in support of the
project. He said he had moved into his home when the mill was still in operation. Mr.
McElreath said the constant hum of the machinery was gone, but the non-use of the building was
not desirable. He said he agreed with the concerns already expressed regarding Bellevue
Avenue. Mr. McElreath asked the Town to work with the developers to put a sidewalk where
one was needed. He stated his support of saving the Elm tree.
Emily McNally was sworn in. She said she believed this was a wonderful project, but had
serious safety concerns regarding Bellevue.
Henry Campen thanked the neighborhood watch for the productive dialog. He said he was
willing to consider all the priorities. He said he was favorably disposed in general.
Terry Snow stated that all modes of travel were included in the TIA. He said their right-of-way
data showed it was restricted, but was in favor of review of additional information. Mr. Snow
said adding traffic to a very low traffic street made the impact appear to be significant per the
percentages. He said the NCDOT letter concurred with the TIA, indicating no improvements to
State-maintained roads were necessary.
10
January 23, 2007 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 12, 2007
Page 11 of 13
Mr. Campen called attention to page 13 of report and the annual average daily traffic. He said
the percentage of capacity of Bellevue with the project in place was 39%.
Randal Romie was sworn in. He is a landscape architect on the project. He talked about tree
preservation, specifically the 24" Elm. He said enough of the root zone should be preserved to
allow the tree to survive, noting that would require saving at least 60% of the root zone. You can
remove up to 40% of the existing roots and still have a good chance of saving the tree He said it
would also require the relocation of the southern portion of the parking lot.
Mr. Campen suggested the buffer could be reduced from 14' to 7' with the same number of
plants, although the variety would change.
Mr. Oliver asked how close the existing gravel was to the property line. Mr. White said he could
only guess, but noted it was proposed to move closer to the street. Mr. Oliver asked that he
provide the exact figure to the staff. Mr. White agreed to do so.
Mr. Romie said that the parking on Bellevue would be screened, adding that the existing trees
would be saved, and that planting would continue.
Regarding access from Eno Street, Mr. Belk said they had looked at the possibility of that. He
said a road would be required parallel with the creek and in the valley, and that a drive
connection to Eno Street was too steep to make the connection. Additionally, he said, it was
very close to the access for truck traffic for A Southern Season and the train trestle.
Ms. Ellis asked about the possibility of parking between the buildings. Mr. Belk said they had
considered that, but that likely would not have been favorably received by NPS. He said it was
not physically wide enough for 90 degree parking, and there was no through possibility for angle
parking. Ms. Ellis asked about Margaret Avenue. Mr. Belk said he did not know about that.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Lowen, seconded by Commissioner Dancy, the Board moved
to close the public hearing by a vote of 13-0. The motion was declared passed.
ITEM #6: Amend Section 3.4.1 and 4 of the Zoning Ordinance to create "cemetery,
non-profit" as a conditional use and establish permit requirements.
Ms. Hauth provided a brief overview of the application and provided some detail. Richard
Simpson indicated he was available for questions. Commissioner Lowen asked that the staff
investigate allowing multiple burials. Ms. Hauth agreed to do so.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Lowen, seconded by Commissioner Dancy, the Board moved
to close the public hearing by a vote of 13-0. The motion was declared passed.
ITEM #7: Amend Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance to reflect updated floodplain
maps and prohibit new development in the floodplain with exceptions for
streets, utilities, and recreation facilities.
Ms. Hauth provided a brief overview of the amendments noting the item had two parts. She
noted that new flood maps based on better scientific data. These maps need to be adopted and
11
January 23, 2007 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 12, 2007
Page 12 of 13
referenced in the flood damage prevention ordinance. The second part is the consideration of
further amendments to the ordinance to prohibit additional development within the 100 year
flood plain. She stressed that the ordinance change would impact the portion of a property that is
within the floodplain, not the entire property. Ms Hauth noted that the maps need to be adopted
by February 2 to remain in compliance with the state. She noted the boards could proceed with
the other ordinance amendments at their schedule.
Charlene Campbell said she was directly impacted by the proposed ordinance, and there was not
enough information provided to make a decision. She said they had not had a flood in 40 years
along the Exchange Park Lane properties. Ms. Campbell said drastic measure of prohibiting
development was not warranted. She same more time was needed, and asked that another
meeting be held and more time be provided for consideration.
Cyrus Hogue stated there were many types of floods. He said he had been severely impacted,
with l' of water in his house during Fran, although the house was spared. Mr. Hogue asked that
the Town look at how much property damage had been done, and to look hard at totally
restricting the development. He said if he had it to do over, he would build higher or on pilings.
Mr. Hogue said this proposal had been brought forward very quickly, adding that there was a
middle ground that should be considered.
Mayor Stevens asked if the Board could adopt the less restrictive ordinance and then amend it if
necessary. Mr. Hornik responded yes.
Jo Soulier said this reminded her of another hearing. She noted that the recommendation from
the TJCOG was to not allow development in the floodplain. She asked what stronger
recommendation did you need?
Gayanne Chambliss stated that new development should not be allowed; however, impacts to
existing buildings needed to be considered. She said they have not had the time to review and
respond to these changes, noting there were more options to consider.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Hallman, seconded by Commissioner Lowen, the Board moved
to hold the hearing open on no build option ordinance to the next regular hearing by a vote of 13-
O. The motion was declared passed.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Lowen, seconded by Commissioner Gering, the Board moved
to close the hearing on the minimum ordinance by a vote of 13-0. The motion was declared
passed.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Hallman, the board moved
to close the public hearing by a vote of 13-0. The motion was declared passed.
ITEM #8: Close public hearing and convene special Planning Board meeting to offer a
recommendation regarding the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
amendments.
Ms. Vandemark opened the special Planning Board meeting.
12
January 23, 2007 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: March 12, 2007
Page 13 of 13
Upon a motion by Ms. Wallace, seconded by Mr. Jones, the Board moved to recommend to the
Town Board adoption of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance amendments by a vote of 8-0.
The motion was declared passed.
Upon a motion by Mr. Oliver, seconded by Mr. Jones, the Board moved to close the special
Planning Board meeting by a vote of 8-0. The motion was declared passed.
ITEM #9: Convene special Town Board meeting to consider action on the Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance amendments.
Mayor Stevens convened the special Town Board meeting.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Dancy, the Board moved
to adopt the non-coastal regular phase flood damage prevention ordinance by a vote of 5-0. The
motion was declared passed.
ADJOURN:
Upon a motion by Commissioner Lowen, seconded by Commissioner Dancy, the board moved
to adjourn the meeting by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Hauth, Secretary
13