HomeMy Public PortalAbout07-19-2007 Joint Public Hearing
July 19, 2007 Joint Public Hearing
Approved: September 10, 2007
Page 1 of 7
MINUTES
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD and PLANNING BOARD
Thursday, July 19, 2007
7:00 PM, Gordon Battle Courtroom, New Orange County Courthouse
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
: Commissioners Evelyn Lloyd, Mike Gering, Eric
Hallman, and Brian Lowen.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
: Chair Matthew Farrelly, Edna Ellis, Kathleen Faherty,
Neil Jones, Eric Oliver, Dave Remington, and Barrie Wallace.
STAFF PRESENT
: Planning Director Margaret Hauth, and Town Attorney Bob Hornik.
ITEM #1: Call public hearing to order
.
Commissioner Lloyd called the Joint Public Hearing to order at 7:04 p.m., and then turned the gavel over
to Planning Board Chair Matthew Farrelly to conduct the meeting.
ITEM #2: Annexation and Zoning Request from the State Employees Credit Union to annex
3.26 acres at 2313 Old NC 86 and have it zoned Economic Development District
(TMBL 4.44.B.22 and 24)
Ms. Hauth stated this was the Credit Union’s current site and the site immediately south. She said the
request was to have that zoned Economic Development District, the most comparable zoning to what it
was now. Ms. Hauth noted a conceptual site plan had been submitted.
Jonathan Parsons, representing the State Employees Credit Union, noted they wanted to request that the
Town annex this site into the Town, and then continue with the rezoning. He said the conceptual plan
was to add a small addition, and long range to add some parking. Mr. Parsons said the facility would
continue to operate as is, with no immediate changes.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Lowen, the Boards moved to close
the public hearing on theAnnexation and Zoning Request from the State Employees Credit Union to
annex 3.26 acres at 2313 Old NC 86 and have it zoned Economic Development District by a vote of 11-0.
The motion was declared passed.
ITEM #3: Rezoning Request from the Town of Hillsborough to zone the 24 acres known as Gold
Park from Agricultural Residential to Office Institutional (TMBL 4.38.B.34)
Ms. Hauth said the 24 acres known as Gold Park was initially zoned Industrial when given to the Town,
and had subsequently been down-zoned to Agricultural Residential when the Industrial rewrite was done.
She said now that they had conceptual plans the Town would like to rezone the property to Office
Institutional, the same zoning classification used for Fairview Park. Ms. Hauth said that classification
would reduce some of the setbacks and allow them to move the restroom facility further out of the
floodplain.
Mr. Oliver asked about the property transfer document, and asked when the Town actually took
ownership of the acreage. Ms. Hauth replied that document was the deed to the Town from Alex Gold
with Eno River Development Company. She said that deed was from 1995.
Joint Public Hearing July 19, 2007 page 1 of 7
Mr. Remington asked if there were any buffer or setback requirements to the adjacent zoning. Ms. Hauth
said there were 30-foot setbacks or 20-foot setbacks, rather than the 50-foot setbacks in the Agricultural
Residential zoning. She said that 20-foot difference allowed them to pull the restroom building further up
the hill. Ms. Hauth added the buffers sit within the setback area, and the building would be closest to the
railroad right-of-way and not the two houses currently existing there. Bryant Warren, Chairman of the
Parks and Recreation Board, encouraged approval of the request, adding it was a good idea.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Lowen, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd, the Boards moved to close
the public hearing on the rezoning request from the Town of Hillsborough to zone the 24 acres known as
Gold Park from Agricultural Residential to Office Institutionalby a vote of 11-0. The motion was
declared passed.
ITEM #4: Special Use Permit modification for Eagle Enterprises to replace the approved
Huddle House Restaurant with a Burger King with a drive-through, reduce the
carwash to one bay, and reduce the hours of operation at 620 Hampton Pointe
Boulevard (TMBL 4.45..4c)
Mr. Farrelly noted that speakers to the item would need to be sworn in, and swore in Planning Director
Margaret Hauth. Ms. Hauth stated that this SUP modification was to replace the approved Huddle House
Restaurant with a Burger King with a drive-thru, reduce the two-bay carwash to one bay, and reduce the
hours of operation. She said there was minimal impact to the site to be developed, with the primary
change being the removal of the driveway connection to the adjacent out parcel. Ms. Hauth reminded the
Boards that the driveway was limited so that outbound traffic was forced to turn right onto Hampton
Pointe Boulevard. Commissioner Gering asked if the reduced hours of operation could be incorporated as
a condition of approval for the SUP. Ms. Hauth responded yes.
Ray Watson, the Civil Engineer for this project, was sworn in. Mr. Watson provided a brief overview of
what had previously been approved for the site, and then detailed the changes planned. He said they
would like the hours of operation for all uses to be the same, which was 5 a.m. to midnight.
Dilip Gandhi, operator of the convenience store and carwash, was sworn in. Mr. Gandhi stated that he
had opened another operation on Glenwood Avenue in Raleigh with Huddle House, and had learned he
was not a restaurant operator and had begun looking for a franchisee. He said he had heard about Jackie
and Calvin Ford, who owned six Burger King restaurants in the Charlotte area, and had approached them
about this franchise. Mr. Gandhi noted that the Fords were professionals and very successful.
Jackie Ford and Calvin Ford were sworn in. Ms. Ford stated that they had been Burger King operators for
almost 15 years, and had one other joint food store operation that had been quite successful. She said this
joint food store operation would be operated in the same way. Mr. Oliver asked if they expected
customers to pass through from one store to the other. Ms. Ford replied no, adding there would be two
different entryways provided with no pass through.
Ms. Ellis asked if they would be responsible for the Burger King as well as the convenience store. Mr.
Ford replied yes. Ms. Ellis asked how many customers could be seated in the Burger King. Mr. Ford
responded 40. Ms. Ellis asked how many parking spaces would be provided, noting the plans called for
only two additional spaces. Mr. Watson responded that approximately 70% of their business would be
drive-thru, and called attention to the seating detail in the packet.
Joint Public Hearing July 19, 2007 page 2 of 7
Ms. Ford stated that they did anticipate about 70% or higher for drive-thru, as opposed to those dining in.
She said the Burger King standard for drive-thru service was 2 minutes, 15 seconds, and thus far they had
been able to meet that standard for service.
Commissioner Hallman asked would there be any changes to the signage. Mr. Watson noted that the
elevation plans showed the signage for the Burger King.
Commissioner Gering asked for a description from a design point of view how the exterior of the building
would be compatible with the overall design of the rest of the site, noting that when the original Master
Plan for Hampton Pointe had been approved the Town Board and Planning Board had made a lot of effort
to make sure that the building designs would be compatible. Mr. Watson called attention to the exterior
elevations provided in the packet. He said they would take that information to make sure the designs
were compatible, although he did not yet know the specific elements so he could not address those.
Commissioner Gering asked had the exterior been reviewed for its overall design, from the property
owner’s standpoint. He said they wanted to achieve overall consistency through the development. Ms.
Hauth replied she was not aware if they had been reviewed.
Ms. Ellis asked if traffic had been addressed that would come out from the drive-thru, noting that a lot of
traffic would be coming out around the gas pumps and out into the intersection. She said the entranceway
would be opposite the Home Depot entranceway. Mr. Watson stated that the drive-thru traffic was
aligned with the exit, noting that the alignment with the exterior drive was a Master Plan requirement.
Mr. Oliver stated that the road markings were unclear and confusing. He said the site plan showed right
in/right out, but the site plan showed a left turn in from the eastbound lane. Mr. Watson responded that it
was a right in/right out only, and stated the left turn was an error on the site plan. Mr. Oliver stated there
was only one lane showing there now. Mr. Watson said he would have to address that with the developer.
Mr. Oliver said the applicant was inheriting a problem that they would have to resolve. Mr. Watson said
he understood it would have to be resolved.
Ms. Ellis said the applicant wanted to reduce setbacks when they were approved for 50’. She asked how
many gas pumps were planned. Mr. Watson said 4 gas pumps, double sided, which was the same as the
original site plan. He added that no changes to the setback and buffer were being requested from
approved plan. Ms. Ellis stated that the setbacks appeared to be encroaching into the setbacks where you
came in from Highway 86. Commissioner Hallman said that the setbacks had not been changed from the
original site plan. Mr. Watson stated that was correct, noting they had purposely kept the drive-thru out
of those areas. Ms. Ellis said she did not believe the setback on the plans were at 50 feet. Mr. Watson
noted the 50-foot setback was for the building, with a 30-foot pedestrian easement. He said the building
remained outside the 50-foot setback. Ms. Ellis said her main concern remained the traffic issues.
Ms. Faherty said it appeared that the problem was that the vehicles leaving Wal-Mart could not turn left
into this site. She stated it was the applicant’s responsibility to fix that problem to improve the flow of
traffic. Mr. Watson said that was why the right in/right out was a requirement, and why they had the
raised island in the driveway to enforce that.
Ms. Hauth noted that the area had now been taken over by the Town, and part of the traffic confusion was
due to the striping being so worn. She said she would contact Public Works about restriping the area and
about using brighter reflective paint. Commissioner Hallman agreed that it was the Town’s problem,
since they had taken over Hampton Ponte Boulevard as a Town-maintained street. He agreed with Ms.
Joint Public Hearing July 19, 2007 page 3 of 7
Ellis that it was a problem that needed to be addressed and encouraged Ms. Hauth to move forward with
that. Mr. Oliver said he understood Commissioner Hallman’s point, but they consistently asked
developers to make improvements on Town streets so it was not necessarily the Town’s responsibility to
do the improvements. Commissioner Hallman said the problem existed now and should be addressed as
soon as possible.
Mr. Farrelly said there was a potential problem with a left turn if traffic was heavy. He said it could cause
a back-up. Commissioner Hallman agreed.
Ms. Ellis said she had thought that the approved plan for Home Depot called for a right in/right out at the
traffic island. She said then later, a left turn was added after the approval.
Ms. Wallace observed that with this plan they would lose the driveway connection to the next out parcel,
and wondered if they wanted that connectivity to remain. Mr. Watson said that driveway was planned to
be removed because they did not know what might be developed on the site next of them, and did not
know if they would want that connection in the future and the possibility that visitors to that site might
attempt to share the parking spaces on their site. He added that connection could be accommodated in the
future if it proved beneficial.
Commissioner Gering asked if that was another issue that could be handled as a condition of approval,
that is that some potential for future connection be retained. Ms. Hauth responded yes.
Town Attorney Bob Hornik stated that a provision for some sort of reciprocal easement that would allow
vehicular and pedestrian access to both sites could be included. Commissioner Lowen asked how many
parking spaces would be removed if the driveway was reinserted. Mr. Watson said 2, and perhaps 3. Ms.
Ellis again asked about the number of gas pumps. Mr. Watson reiterated that 4 double sided pumps was
the maximum allowed.
Ms. Wallace asked why Mr. Oliver was concerned about the pass-thru connection between the store and
the restaurant. Mr. Oliver said that some convenience store/restaurants that he had visited had that ability
if they were operated jointly. But, he said, he would like to distinguish between the restaurant and the
convenience store.
Mr. Farrelly stated they needed to address the request to change all hours to be consistent. He said the
applicant wanted the carwash hours to be 5 a.m. to midnight like all other uses.
Commissioner Gering said the neighbors had previously expressed concern about the hours of operation,
particularly for a restaurant-type business at that location. He said he would be inclined to favor a 10 p.m.
closing for the restaurant. Commissioner Gering said he did not have an opinion at this time regarding the
opening time.
Ms. Ellis asked if the gas pumps would be cut off at midnight. Mr. Gandhi noted that when the store
closed at midnight, a stop button would be activated that would not allow anyone to pump gas until the
store reopened at 5 a.m.
Mr. Farrelly asked if the previous times for the carwash were 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Mr. Gandhi responded
yes. Mr. Farrelly said there must have been a reason for that. Ms. Hauth stated that the carwash was the
one part of the operation that had flexibility, because it was independent from the restaurant and the
convenience store.
Joint Public Hearing July 19, 2007 page 4 of 7
Upon a motion by Mr. Oliver, seconded by Commissioner Gering, the Board moved to close the public
hearing on a Special Use Permit modification for Eagle Enterprises to replace the approved Huddle House
Restaurant with a Burger King with a drive-through, reduce the carwash to one bay, and reduce the hours
of operationby a vote of 11-0. The motion was declared passed.
ITEM #5: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to remove the provision for a density increase
with a Conditional Use Permit from Section 5.4.d.
Ms. Hauth stated the proposed change to the existing language was provided in the packet. She said
language in Section 5.4.d of the Zoning Ordinance contained a density bonus that allowed by right in any
residential zoning district the construction of attached dwelling units that could be a duplex, a quad or a
triplex, if the lot was large enough so that the density was not changed. Ms. Hauth said an applicant could
also come before the Board of Adjustment to request an additional two units per acre. She said only the
provision for a density bonus to be granted by the Board of Adjustment was proposed to be removed from
the ordinance. Ms. Hauth said this request was prompted by recent Town Board and public discussion
about projects that had been submitted over the last year seeking more dense development within the
historic district.
Mr. Oliver asked Ms. Hauth to describe how this might affect development along the Cornelius Street
corridor, and how it meshed with the Town’s strategic planning. Ms. Hauth said the Cornelius Street
Corridor Plan actually called for the creation of a small scale, mixed use zoning district that did not
currently exist. She said it also called for increased intensity in that corridor, so a property owner could
use the provision they were considering removing to increase the density on their property. Ms. Hauth
said in the course of developing that new zoning, they would encourage more mixed use rather than single
use on that corridor. Mr. Oliver asked rather than removing the provision, could language be inserted that
made it applicable only outside of the historic district. Ms. Hauth said the historic district was an overlay,
so that distinction could be made because it was an overlay district. Mr. Hornik said it could also be done
by striking the language currently in the ordinance, and then create overlay districts where the density
bonus could be reintroduced.
Ms. Ellis asked what exactly would be taken out. Ms. Hauth said they were proposing to remove the
language that had been struck through in paragraph d.
Commissioner Gering moved, seconded by Ms. Ellis, to close the public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance
Text Amendment to remove the provision for a density increase with a Conditional Use Permit from
Section 5.4.d. by a vote of 11-0. The motion was declared passed.
ITEM #6: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to establish stormwater control regulations to
comply with the Town’s NPDES Phase II stormwater permit.
Ms. Hauth stated that language regarding the first ½ inch of rainfall and the accommodation for a 10-year
storm was proposed to be revised. She said they were proposing to use language that was used by Orange
County, and that Orange County staff had agreed to assist with enforcement of that provision. Ms. Hauth
said essentially what they were requesting with this text amendment was to adopt by reference Sections 5
through 22 of the County’s Stormwater Control Ordinance.
Ms. Hauth said there were also some typographical changes in Section 5.20.2. She said that section
would need to be rewritten to make it clearer that Sections 5 through 22 were being referred to. Ms.
Hauth said they also needed to add definitions of a low-density project and a high-density project to
Joint Public Hearing July 19, 2007 page 5 of 7
Section 25. She stated that Terry Hackett from Orange County was present to answer any more detailed
questions.
Commissioner Gering asked about how this would work administratively. He said as Orange County
made revisions to Sections 5 through 22, would those then become enforceable by reference. Mr. Hornik
responded that whatever Sections 5 through 22 stated would be enforceable in Hillsborough, including
any revisions. Ms. Hauth said they may need to add the phrase “as amended” to the language. Mr.
Hornik agreed.
Terry Hackett noted that the Orange County ordinance was a State-modeled ordinance, so any changes to
the State ordinance may be reflected in the County’s ordinance. He said the State had recently made
changes to the in-lieu provision, so Orange County had made a slight change to its language to make the
ordinance more transparent. Mr. Hackett said generally they would make revisions to the County
ordinance only if the State made changes to its ordinance.
Commissioner Gering asked about the payment-in-lieu option in the County’s ordinance. Mr. Hackett
said in a nutrient-sensitive body of water you were required to reduce nitrogen, so there were calculations
that projected what the expected nitrogen load would be. He said there were provisions that, rather than
simply building stormwater components to reduce that nitrogen load rate, they could mitigate by paying a
fee to the State’s Ecosystem Enhancement Program who would use the funds towards steam restoration in
the same watershed from which the fee had been obtained. Mr. Hackett said that was an option at the
State level.
Mr. Hornik said the payment-in-lieu was structured somewhat like a park or sidewalk payment-in-lieu,
where those funds paid in lieu of providing improvements would be used in the geographic area from
which the payment had been made. He said that would mean the funds would be used somewhere in
Hillsborough for some kind of enhancement project. Mr. Hackett said that was correct.
Commissioner Gering said this may have to be discussed again when the staff figured out how to pay for
the required enhancements for wastewater treatment, which was a $40 million project. He said future
development may help recover some of that cost, in addition to these kinds of payments.
Mr. Hackett said the County was required to file an annual report that identified potential retrofits, that is
some place where stream restoration or putting in a stormwater DMP would improve water quality. He
said with Hillsborough coming on board, it was his hope that they could identify more areas where more
projects such as Stillhouse Creek so that water quality could be improved.
Ms. Hauth asked the Board to keep in mind when considering this that these requirements applied to sites
that were one acre and larger, and that many of the sites they had seen were smaller than one acre or may
not disturb a full acre. She said they may want to consider keeping the current Section 20 of the Town’s
ordinance and have it apply to those smaller sites, or whether it was better to deal only with the larger
sites. Ms. Hauth said right now they did not have a minimum site size in the Town’s ordinance, and they
saw a lot of retrofits. She said she did not have a staff recommendation now, but would have one when
this item came back for consideration.
Commissioner Lowen moved, seconded by Commissioner Hallman, to close the public hearing on the
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to establish stormwater control regulations to comply with the
Town’s NPDES Phase II stormwater permit by a vote of 11-0. The motion was declared passed.
Joint Public Hearing July 19, 2007 page 6 of 7
Commissioner Hallman moved, seconded by Commissioner Gering, to adjourn the meeting by a vote of
11-0. The motion was declared passed.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Hauth, Secretary
Joint Public Hearing July 19, 2007 page 7 of 7