Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout07-16-2009 Joint Public HearingMINUTES JOINT PUBLIC HEARING HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD and PLANNING BOARD Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:00 PM, Hillsborough Town Barn Mr. Warren determined that there was no one present who wished to speak on this issue. July 16, 2009 Joint Public Hearing Approved: September 14, 2009 Pagel of 18 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mayor Tom Stevens and Commissioners Frances Dailey, Mike Gering, L. Eric Hallman, Evelyn Lloyd, and Brian Lowen. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Bryant Warren, Vice Chair Kathleen Faherty, Dan Barker, Matthew Farrelly, Neil Jones, Dave Remington, Stephen Whitlow, and Elizabeth Woodman. STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Eric Peterson, Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Homik, and Assistant Town Manager Nicole Ard. ITEM #1: Call public hearing to Order. Mayor Stevens called the public hearing to order at 7:02 p.m. Mayor Stevens said that issues to be discussed tonight had garnered a lot of interest, particularly the possible moratorium. He said that was an idea brought forth by the Planning Board and thanked them for bringing to the Board's attention. Mayor Stevens said there were many present that might want to speak about that but that no decisions would be made tonight, and the Board would only be taking public comment. He asked that speakers on all issues be brief and to the point, and asked that they not repeat statements or provide information that might have already been said or provided by a previous speaker. Mayor Stevens also asked that speakers be respectful. He then turned the gavel over to Planning Board Chair Bryant Warren. ITEM #2: Request from David and Lisa Wagner to rezone .83 acres on the west side of Nash Street at Latimer Street from R -15 and MHP to R -10, thereby changing the minimum lot size to 10,000 square feet and removing the Mobile Home Park designation (TMBL 4.28.B.9). Planning Director Margaret Hauth provided a brief overview of the request, noting the lot in question was at the corner of Latimer and Nash Streets and currently occupied by one house and two mobile homes. She said the lot currently had two zonings applied to it, Mobile Home Park and R -15, with a good portion of the property coincident with the public right -of -way that was never dedicated or secured for Latimer and Nash Streets. Ms. Hauth said the applicant was requesting that the property be rezoned to R -10 to provide only one zoning designation for the parcel and still retain two building lots when the right -of -way was dedicated. Commissioner Gering said if the rezoning was granted, what would be the status of the two mobile homes. Ms. Hauth replied they would become nonconforming, adding the Zoning Ordinance allowed a nonconforming use to be replaced as long as the conditions did not worsen. She said that would mean the current mobile homes could be replaced with mobile homes that were of like size and classification. Ms. Hauth said the applicant had indicated it was their intention to remove the mobile homes and either build on the lot or sell the lot for single family purposes. July 16, 2009 Joint Public Hearing Approved: September 14, 2009 Page 2 of 18 Ernest Wagner, representing the applicants, stated it was their intention to divide the two lots and improve the looks of the community. Mr. Whitlow asked how many single family homes could be placed on that lot if the rezoning was granted. Ms. Hauth responded two, but only if the lot was successfully divided. She said right now it was one parcel of land, so it could have only one single family home which already existed. Upon a motion by Commissioner Hallman, seconded by Commissioner Dancy, the Boards moved to close the public hearing. The vote was unanimous. ITEM #3: Request from Edmund and Anne Purcell to rezone 12.24 acres on the north side of East Corbin Street from R -20 to R -15, thereby changing the minimum lot size from 20,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet (TMBL 4.37.A.2, 3b, 9, 10). Ms. Hauth provided a brief description of the request, noting the property was located next to the cemetery and was formerly know as the Corbin Creek subdivision which had not been successful. She said the applicants were asking for a rezoning to R -15 to provide for smaller lot sizes. Chad Abbott, with Summit Consulting Engineers and speaking for the applicants, said that the property had been brought to the Town two years ago as a cluster -type subdivision with annexation, but it had not been approved. Since that time, he said, the applicants had taken the input provided by the Town and looked at the options that were available, and wanting to conform to the Town's goals for the future which was to keep the area low density residential, they had created a concept plan that would require a rezoning to R -15 to allow 3 units per acre but would still conform with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Abbott said even with the 3 units per acre, the topography and water features of the land would never allow for the maximum 36 units on the 12.25 acres. He said the rezoning would allow them to remain in compliance with the low density option but would allow them the most units possible under that low density. Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Lowen, the Boards moved to close the public hearing. The vote was unanimous. ITEM #4: Master Plan amendment from UNC Hospitals to amend the land use for pods 12, 13, and 22 of the Waterstone development from Retail and Mixed Use to Medical Campus. Ms. Hauth provided a brief overview of the amendment, noting that speakers would need to be sworn. She said the request was by UNC Hospitals to amend the land use of 3 pods in Waterstone from retail and mixed use and to create a new designation of Medical Campus. Ms. Hauth said the letter provided in the packet detailed a number of uses that would fall under that new Medical Campus designation, including diagnosis and treatment, hospital beds, surgical suite, outpatient pharmacy, laboratory services, physical and occupational therapy services, emergency services including a helicopter pad, and support services. She said there would also be a medical office building and a central utility plant. Ms. Hauth said the request was an amendment to the Master Plan, and tonight they would not be talking about the Special Use Permit that would speak to the actual building proposal, where the parking was located, and the like. She said the Master Plan amendment would set the general tone of what the maximum buildout would be over time on the parcel, the list of uses that would be acceptable July 16, 2009 Joint Public Hearing Approved: September 14, 2009 Page 3 of 18 or not acceptable, and other general items. Ms. Hauth said the Boards had been provided with a memo from Orange County with courtesy review comments, which had been restricted to the Master Plan and to the moratorium. She said also provided was a letter from Stratford Company, the property owner, noting their acceptance of the plan and their approval of the request for the change in the Master Plan. Ms. Hauth said the applicant had also spelled out what was already approved from a conceptual concept on the three pods, what they would propose to be located in Phase 1, and what a final buildout would be. She said also in the packet was a map showing the orientation of the site, a detailed memo from the Town Manager on water usage, and a memo detailing the traffic impact analysis. Ms. Hauth said the analysis did not speak a lot to the timing of the improvements envisioned on the outside of the development to New and Old 86, such as the timing of traffic signal installation. Ray Lafrenaye, after having been sworn, said he was representing UNC Hospitals and introduced Margaret DeBolt who was the architect for the project with ZGF Architects. Margaret DeBolt was sworn in. Mr. Lafrenaye stated that the project would be moving existing volume from the main campus in Chapel Hill to this site, so they had submitted a Certificate of Need request which was under review and they hoped to have response in September. He said they would be moving existing licenses from Chapel Hill to Hillsborough and it would decompress the UNCH campus by providing an alternate campus that was more accessible. Mr. Lafrenaye then provided a list of the amendments to the Master Plan that was being requested for Phase 1 and the maximum buildout: They had funding only for Phase 1 and they had no detailed plans for the maximum buildout. For the purposes of this amendment they were identifying what the maximum buildout would be, but they had no set timeframe. Maximum building height proposed for Phase 1 was not to exceed 6 stories or a total of 90 feet. Maximum building square footage on parcel 12 would be 158,000 square feet, on parcel 13 it would be 90,000 square feet, and on parcel 22 it would be 300,000 square feet. Impervious area on parcel 22 would not exceed 65 with no current plans for parcels 12 and 13. Water for Phase 1 would be 38,000 gallons per day, and sewer would be 33,000 gallons per day. Total maximum potential buildout would be 202,000 gallons per day for water usage and 175,000 gallons per day for sewer. Parking at the hospital would be 3 to 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet for Phase 1, and the end would be 1 space per 200 square feet for at total estimated parking spaces of 1,186 for Phase 1. In total buildout they were anticipating the same number of spaces per square feet, with a total estimated full buildout capacity of 3,150 spaces. On -site security and police forces would be used to secure the building and campus site. They were amenable to providing a transit stop at the medical office building, but no discussions had yet taken place. They had completed a traffic impact assessment that was provided in the packet. They would have a recycling center on site, and would request that that center be used only by the hospital and that it not be designated as a public site for use by others outside the campus. They would comply with NCDOT road requirements. They would address the details of campus road connectivity during the Special Use Permit process. July 16, 2009 Joint Public Hearing Approved: September 14, 2009 Page 4 of 18 There would be no change to the stormwater facilities. The water tower would be addressed during the Special Use Permit process. They would honor the original conditions regarding Trading Path. There would be no change in the restrictive covenants. The request was that parcels 12, 13, and 22 be designated as a Medical Campus. Mr. Lafrenaye then displayed renditions of what full buildout would potentially look like, noting that it was a schematic design that was not a finished drawing and that they were still in the process of doing preliminary programming for sizing of departments. He stated the first Phase would include one patient tower, with the middle block for diagnostic and treatment and ancillary support space, and the right -hand block was a connected medical office building. Mr. Lafrenaye said the other blocks were future patient towers, an extension of the middle campus, and possible parking garages at full buildout. Commissioner Gering asked would there be a separate presentation regarding the traffic impact analysis. He said he had been surprised at the impact on a couple of the intersections and the level of service grade going from D to F for Beckett's Ridge and NC 86. Commissioner Gering said he also did not understand how the traffic would move, and asked if the Town did not open the connection between Beckett's Ridge and Waterstone what the impact would be. Jody Lewis, the traffic consultant with Martin Alexiou Bryson, after having been sworn, said they had used the previous traffic study as the backbone of their analysis and had not done any additional detailed study. He said to place a great deal of weight on the analysis to identify improvements to roadways would be shortsighted, noting that would come later on during the SUP process. Mr. Lewis said it was their intent to try to identify if the new land use would generate more or less traffic that the previously approved development, and it appeared that it would. He said in looking at the details of why the intersection went from grade D to grade F, they would need to look at that intersection very closely and may have to go back and revisit the distribution they were using because that distribution would change as the land use changed. Commissioner Gering said what he believed he was hearing was that they would have to wait for the SUP process. Mr. Lewis said he believed that was the short answer, because they would need to wait to see what roadway improvements would be required. Ms. Faherty asked had staff had a chance to look at the comments provided in the courtesy review. Ms. Hauth responded no, that those comments had been received after 5 p.m. today. Ms. Woodman noted it had been said that no parking garages were planned for Phase 1, and asked how many parking spaces were planned for Phase 1. Ms. DeBolt replied approximately 1,200 spaces, all on grade. Commissioner Hallman asked if each of the three pods would require its own SUP application. Ms. Hauth replied yes, unless the applicant chose to combine them. Mr. Lafrenaye stated they would likely want to combine them so they would not have to process each one individually. He said they wanted to make the entire tract Medical Campus zoning. Ms. Hauth said they were requesting redesignation to Medical Campus for all three pods, but as construction came forward they could only get two years worth of approval at a time so it was likely they would have to come back before the Boards during that process. July 16, 2009 Joint Public Hearing Approved: September 14, 2009 Page 5 of 18 Mayor Stevens asked Town Manager Eric Peterson to summarize the water and sewer capacity model for this project. Mr. Peterson, after having been sworn, said the water capacity analysis had been updated since November when the Forest Ridge development had come forward. He said he believed people wanted to know what the difference was between now and November, and the answer was a reduction in available peak day capacity of about 200,000 gallons in FY 2020. Mr. Peterson said in November that figure was 423,000 gallons. He said assuming full buildout of the hospital sites before 2020, which may be early but it important to acknowledge, the remaining capacity was 260,000 gallons. Mr. Peterson said they had stripped out the retail components, added the hospital at full buildout, and updated all the assumptions made for any other developments proposed. Mr. Peterson said a couple of key points that were different in that analysis was weather predictions indicated it would become drier in the southeast United States, and the fact that the analysis was conservative especially when you considered they were using peak day capacity. He said he did think the one area where they had underestimated development usage that had been mentioned in prior years was infill development, so the next update would likely include some assumptions for infill Mr. Peterson said the short answer was that, if the Town approved the development that the capacity was there to support it. Mayor Stevens said under Major Road Networks, they had "Conditions of Approval" and "Per NCDOT," and asked for an explanation of the differences between the two. Ms. DeBolt replied that the Waterstone development column contained items approved prior to the UNC Hospital proposal. She said the "Per NCDOT" column was comparing the Waterstone traffic impact analysis and what NCDOT was requiring for that development. Mayor Stevens said it appeared that they were asking for an exception, in that they were saying they would do what NCDOT required but not the other. Mr. Lafrenaye said that was somewhat complicated, because NCDOT had an agreement with the developer as to when improvement should be made depending on the percentage of development. He said the actual development construction was not matching by size, location or intensity as the original improvement phasing plan. NCDOT is trying to be flexible in light of current circumstances and has stated that after a certain percentage of building, "X" improvements would have to be made. Mr. Lafrenaye said the development was working with NCDOT to adjust that percentage depending on the results of the traffic studies. He said with UNC Hospitals being substituted for retail, it was not what NCDOT had anticipated so they were in the process of looking at the proposal to see what adjustments might need to be made. Mayor Stevens said they would certainly honor what NCDOT required, but if there were things that were of interest to the Town they would certainly want to have that included as well. Mr. Lafrenaye said he believed that would be an issue that would be taken up with the developer during the SUP process. Mayor Stevens stated this was a major change to the Master Plan, and asked was there a mechanism by which they could revert to the original plan if the project did not get built. Bob Hornik, the Town Attorney, said they had discussed at a staff level precisely that issue, noting that if the Master Plan were approved and development did not begin by the specific date required, then they could build in a condition that said that if the date threshold was not met that the Master Plan or amendments to the July 16, 2009 Joint Public Hearing Approved: September 14, 2009 Page 6 of 18 Master Plan were rescinded and the approval reverted back to what was on paper right now. He said that was a viable potential condition that could be imposed. Commissioner Gering said that other changes might be necessary to accommodate this change, and asked where in the process they should start to consider secondary changes. He said he could imagine that there would need to be a change in the residential component which was built into the Master Plan predicated on the need for roof tops to support retail traffic and if the amendment to the Master Plan was approved would no longer exist. Mr. Hornik stated that now was the time to begin thinking about that, because they would not want the project to continue to move forward without that being considered. Commissioner Gering said then he was raising that issue now, noting he would like to have a discussion about the other parcels, especially the residential sections. Commissioner Hallman stated he believed the Continuing Care Retirement Center (CCRC) was another parcel that needed review. Commissioner Gering agreed. Mr. Farrelly said he was curious about the impervious surface requirements for parcels 12 and 13. He said previously it was 65 but they were proposing that at buildout it would be 75% percent, and asked what the rationale for that was and how that changed how they dealt with the extra water that would flow as a result of that. Ms. DeBolt said they were looking at it as an open opportunity for future development, but there was no understanding of what that might be. She said it could remain at 65 Mr. Lafrenaye said they were looking to make the building LEED certified, so part of the LEED credits they would be working towards was reducing the amount of impervious surface on the site and to try to treat stormwater runoff in different ways. Mr. Lafrenaye said once they had developed more detail of exactly what they would build they would bring forward what kind of credits they would be working towards for LEED certification and how they translated into such things as pollution reduction. Mr. Farrelly said it appeared that their argument was actually supporting less impervious surface, so why not leave it at 75 Mr. Lafrenaye said they did not yet have specific data, and once they started the SUP process they would have more information. He said Mr. Farrelly may be right and they would not have to change the 65 but they did not know that at this point. Ms. DeBolt stated they had only proposed changing the percentage on pods 12 and 13, not on 22 which would have no increase. Mr. Warren, having determined there were no more questions at the present time, called 011 those who had signed up to speak on this issue. Joe Phelps, after having been sworn, said this was an exciting thing for Hillsborough. He said the idea of new jobs for Hillsborough was good news, but if you were using that as criteria for approving the project then you needed to have data to back that up. Arthur Axelbank, after having been sworn, asked that more detail about the exact services that would be provided be shared, as well as whether there would be community input sought. Mr. Lafrenaye replied they did not know exactly, noting that the CON application covered the items in a general way, including the existing licenses for beds. He said what was not planned to go on that campus was cancer, neuroscience, women's services, or children's services, but they would likely have July 16, 2009 Joint Public Hearing Approved: September 14, 2009 Page 7 of 18 medical/surgical, ENT, and orthopedics. Mr. Lafrenaye said that programming meetings were being held now, noting that diagnostic services would support the in- patient services. He said they would have a small emergency department, but not a trauma center. Mr. Axelbank asked about outpatient support. Mr. Lafrenaye said they did not have a lot of need for outpatient support, that they were moving existing volume from UNC- Chapel Hill. He said whatever functions were added would be for the existing beds, which would be 50 acute beds and 18 ICU beds, and there would be diagnostic and treatment to serve those beds as well as the small emergency department and academic medical center. Steve Yuhasz, after having been sworn, said that the proposal, which he welcomed, eliminated retail and mixed use from the development, and he was concerned about the loss in tax base with no new location designated for retail. He said as a taxpayer he was concerned that one of the few areas designated for retail was being eliminated without some other area being designated to replace it. Mr. Yuhasz said with it being a hospital, one would expect that it would generate some retail uses adjacent to it, such as a hotel for visitors, eating establishments, and the like. He said he believed that needed to be included as a part of the project, and the current proposal was missing that critical part. Commissioner Lloyd said she had asked Mr. Lafrenaye in an earlier conversation how the hospital would help with the loss in the tax base, noting he had had suggestions. She asked had they made any progress. Mr. Lafrenaye responded yes, but adding that the hospital was a non -tax paying entity. He said they had hired a firm to do an economic impact study, with the firm looking at the impact on the community and the indirect profitability. Mr. Lafrenaye said highlights of what they had found for Phase 1 was that the employment impact from hospital operations was anticipated to generate 1,893 jobs annually in direct employment; that total staff was projected at 581, with 266 new hires; and, that the construction of the hospital would create 2,557 direct and indirect jobs with construction costs estimated at $118 million. He said hospital operations were anticipated to have an impact of $33.6 million in the local economy, and Town and County entities were expected to receive $1.1 million in annual local revenues. Mr. Farrelly said Mr. Lafrenaye's last point was that $1.1 million would be generated in annual local revenues, and asked did he have an estimate of what the Town would have received with the retail. Mr. Lafrenaye replied he did not know. Mr. Farrelly said that difference was material to the decision. Mr. Lafrenaye stated he did not have the data to arrive at an estimate. Mr. Farrelly stated the firm that prepared the economic impact study should be asked to create a comparison. Mr. Lafrenaye said he would ask that question of them. Mr. Whitlow asked what the $1.1 million represented, and was it more indirect. Mr. Lafrenaye said that formula included persons who might decide to reside in Hillsborough if working on the campus, it was salaries spent in Hillsborough at restaurants or at retail establishments, or any other kind of activity that happened as a result of the hospital being present. Commissioner Gering said he would like to have the details as well so that they could have an independent analysis and understand the breakout of what would be lost from the tax base with the removal of the retail from Waterstone as compared to the estimated $1.1 million in annual local revenues. Commissioner Lloyd asked did they expect any employees to live in Waterstone, and had they thought about providing a hotel or restaurants to provide tax dollars for the Town. Jim Ciao with the Stratford Group, after having been sworn, said that they as investor developers had gone through the same July 16, 2009 Joint Public Hearing Approved: September 14, 2009 Page 8of18 thought process that the Boards were going through. He said when the project was first proposed they had asked for additional density on the retail, and believed that would be the crown jewel of the investment and would be the real tax generator for the Town. Mr. Ciao said they encouraged the hospital to do a fiscal impact study so that they would understand how it would impact their ability to sell the rest of the tracts as they were designated, and if they agreed to allow the hospital to consume the retail were there other practical uses that could be proposed to the Town that might create higher zoning uses that could be marketed. Mr. Ciao said they had enlisted the aid of a land planner to look at several tracts, including the CCRC tract, the mixed use tract, and the small office sites, to see if they could create a larger track to possibly have a higher use and that would generate more tax. Mr. Ciao said he had had a few preliminary discussions with Town officials about that concept, and he was encouraged that the Town was willing to look at that to see if it was good for the Town. He said they had concluded that they would support the hospital proposal but wanted to be sure that it was something that the Town wanted. Mr. Ciao said the Town still had the ability to create retail elsewhere, and believed it would be wise for the Town to consider a hospital somewhere in the community if not at Waterstone, and then take the opportunities to create that retail elsewhere. He added that Scott Radway had performed a fiscal impact analysis but it was just an ad valorem tax based study. Mr. Ciao said that the hospital proposed at Waterstone was a long range plan and would be evolving, and had a good idea of what Phase 1 would look like but not in detail. He said since that hospital was announced, they had received two Letters of Intent for three tracts, one for the hotel tract and the office tract next to it, and one for a small tract across the street from the hospital, and a Letter of Intent for the multi family. Mr. Ciao said the multi family would not go in until either the retail center was built or the hospital was built. He said that developer was ready to go under contract now, but it would be tied to the progress in hospital development. Mr. Ciao said that would all come together at the same time, so it had been good for them in that they were generating other activity. He said they could actually get the townhome and single family under contract to put developed lots on the ground, but no one could get financing at the present time. Mr. Remington asked how the County's approval of the Buckhorn Road shopping center played in to their long term plan. Mr. Ciao said at first they were startled that it had received such support from the County, but they had relaxed when they found out that they were basing that development on one major tenant who happened to be the same tenant they were talking to. He said they believed there was no real support for the Buckhorn Road shopping center from the retail community, and did not believe that project would succeed. Commissioner Gering said it had been mentioned that they had intentions to repurpose some of the other pods, but nothing was mentioned about the single family. He asked what opportunities or possibilities did they see to reducing the single family home pods. Mr. Ciao said they had talked about that, but had been trying to deliver what was originally promised to the Town. But, he said, they were willing to explore that, if the Town wanted to. Mr. Ciao said their thought was were they willing to look at the plan and decide if there were higher and better uses for some of the tracks, and they were willing to explore that and put some money into land planning and marketing studies to identify what was viable. He said it may not be retail, but understood that was the big tax generator for the Town. Commissioner Gering said he wanted Mr. Ciao to clearly understand his message that he would like to find other, better purposes for the single family home portion. Mr. Ciao stated that was understood, July 16, 2009 Joint Public Hearing Approved: September 14, 2009 Page 9 of 18 noting they did not know when the single family market would experience a turnaround. He said they would be more than happy to entertain other uses if they could come up with a good, saleable higher use. Mr. Ciao stated that the neighbors would have to be considered with any use that was identified. Commissioner Gering said one of the big points of contention with approval of the Master Plan was the amount of residential, and it was sold to the Town Board that the residential had to be there to support the retail component and no one had really wanted to see that large amount of residential. He encouraged Mr. Ciao to accelerate the analysis and come back to the Town. Mr. Ciao said he would do so, noting they could rearrange the multi family pods to provide more of a buffer for the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Whitlow said regarding adjusting other pods, could be pods 18 and 17 potentially be used for the hospital thereby keeping the retail by the street. Mr. Ciao said they had tried to offer that side of the street as an alternative for the hospital, thereby preserving the retail and having the best of both worlds, but it just did not work for the hospital. He stated the hospital needed 58 acres, and that much acreage was not available across the street. Upon a motion by Mr. Barker, seconded by Ms. Faherty, the Boards moved to continue the public hearing to the August 20, 2009 regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting. The vote was unanimous. The Boards agreed by consensus to recess for a short break. ITEM #5: Ordinance establishing a development moratorium for a period of 18 months. Ms. Hauth provided an overview of the proposed moratorium, stating that the Planning Board had made a request to the Town Board that as the Town began a comprehensive rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance, that they call a development moratorium for 18 months. She provided a list of all proposed or approved developments that had various forms of vesting that would not be subject to a moratorium. Ms. Hauth said that State statutes regulated how moratoriums were imposed and also what types of development were exempted from a moratorium process, noted as: projects that had a valid building permit an application had been accepted for a Conditional Use Permit or a Special Use Permit prior to the call for the public hearing a development set forth with a site specific, which meant with a site plan, a Special Use Permit or a Conditional Use Permit, or a phased development plan which would be a Master Plan a development with substantial expenditures made in good faith in reliance of approval a preliminary or final subdivision plats accepted for review prior to the calling of the public hearing, which implied that they were complete applications. Ms. Hauth said the Town Board had further discretion to exempt more items from a moratorium process. She said in the packet she had listed others that the Board might want to consider exempting: any development requiring only administrative review, including projects requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness in the historic district. any site plan requiring approval by staff or the Technical Review Committee, excluding new buildings on undeveloped sites within the Economic Development District. Ms. Hauth displayed a table that listed projects that were already approved and already had some level of entitlement from the Town that would not be affected by a moratorium. She said there were 407 July 16, 2009 Joint Public Hearing Approved: September 14, 2009 Page 10 of 18 residential lots that could continue to move forward, 188 townhomes, 700 apartments or multi family uses, and 409 special residential lots. Ms. Hauth said that the maximum development in the last 20 years was 141 new single family dwellings per year. Ms. Hauth said further down on that same table she had listed the non residential development but she did not have good square footages of in terms of what was seen in a normal year. She said the numbers did reflect the changes in Waterstone if the UNC Hospital was approved, which was a change from 666,000 square feet to 73,000 square feet of retail remaining in Waterstone and the medical and office number jumped to almost 1.5 million square feet. Ms. Hauth said there was 163,000 square feet of retail space, 700 restaurant seats, 130 hotel rooms, and almost 1.5 million square feet of office if you included UNC Hospital under the office category. She said those figures just mentioned would give an idea of what would not be subject to the moratorium. Ms. Woodman asked why the moratorium was being proposed for 18 months rather than 12 months, noting the earliest it could be adopted would be September with implementation in October. Ms. Hauth said it could be 12 months but there were caveats. She said if you looked closely at the schedule a draft document would be ready for public hearing in October, which would not provide time for good review and the public hearing process to be carried out. Ms. Hauth said as well, projects never went according to schedule, and they would much rather advertise a moratorium and call a moratorium for a longer period and deliver it short by ending it before the expiration date than having to come back and extend it. She said she would much rather ask for a longer period for the moratorium than to have to come back and ask for an extension. Commissioner Gering said he would like to understand better what the effect would be for the Town Board to just use its discretion in accepting annexation and rezoning requests. He said the kinds of workloads they were dealing with were things that required no vote, or things such as annexations and rezonings where the Town Board had some discretion without a moratorium. Commissioner Gering said then there was the middle category that could be subject to the moratorium, but reduced further by conditions the Town Board might choose to exclude. So, he said, he wondered how much workload was really at play that would only be achieved with a moratorium. Ms. Hauth responded that it was predominately those general purpose rezonings for property already in the Town's jurisdiction and the potential for application for a Special Use Permit. She said for annexations the Town Board did have the ability to say no, but rezonings particularly to Special Use Permits or Special Use districts took time that was very comparable to an annexation request. Ms. Hauth said a general purpose rezoning did not take a lot of analysis or time, but individual site plan reviews could get cumbersome. Commissioner Gering said she was suggesting that a certain portion of those types of applications could be exempted. She said the ones for new development of new land were the most cumbersome. Mr. Warren, having determined there were no more questions at the present time, called on those who had signed up to speak on this issue and reminded speakers to be as brief as possible. Margaret Cannell, Director of the Hillsborough -Orange County Chamber of Commerce, remarked that the Chamber had met yesterday where the proposed moratorium was discussed, with Margaret Hauth and Commissioner Gering attending. She said it had not been well received, and from her viewpoint it seemed like putting a moratorium on potential development in this economy was like "piling on." Ms. Cannell said Orange County had a reputation as being anti growth, and Hillsborough was that one July 16, 2009 Joint Public Hearing Approved: September 14, 2009 Page 11 of 18 segment of Orange County where there was hope that you could get a development through. She said she would not want to see them loose that because of an 18 -month moratorium. Ms. Cannell said in this economy and in the life of someone's business, 18 months was an eternity. She said given the size of the Town and its ETJ, 18 months seemed to be too long. Ms. Cannell said for owners of land potentially affected by the moratorium, would there be any kind of tax abatement, because if you were unable to development your property for 18 months then it was not useful to you. Ms. Cannell asked was there any data on how many projects similar to those already in the pipeline that would not be available under the moratorium that had been proposed in a given number of years. She said unless the Planning Depatlment had been inundated in any given time period, taxpayers might get the impression that they were just taking a sabbatical from doing their jobs to do something else. Ms. Cannell said perception was the key. Grady Matthews with Granite Development said that they owned Oakdale Village which they had purchased in 2004. He said they had aggressively marketed the property to their normal list of tenants, and had been able to bring UNC Family Medicine into one of the suites. Mr. Matthews said even with their aggressive marketing they had been able to generate little to no interest, and his point in saying that was that it was a clear sign that things were not good and any type of moratorium would add to that stigma. He said more specifically, his concern was that in regards to the exempted projects some of those were based on regulations within State law but there was still a lot of grey area within those regulations. Mr. Matthews said for instance, if you had a Master Plan you could still submit an SUP under the exemption, but his question was could you then make modifications to that SUP which was under that approved Master Plan. He said that was a critical issue for a project such as Oakdale Village, and if they did not have the ability to come back and ask for modifications in that 18 -month period then they may loose potential tenants that were wanted and needed in the Town. Mr. Remington said in terms of the timing of the moratorium, he wondered if it was better to impose it while the economy was slow and not much was taking place, rather than in a stronger economy when there were more opportunities for development. Mr. Matthews said from a philosophical and ideological standpoint he was against moratoriums. He said with regards to the timing, he had only experienced infrastructure limiting moratoriums, not a moratorium imposed for an ordinance rewrite. Mr. Remington said they had a lot of projects already approved but nothing was moving forward because of the economy, and it seemed to him that that was the time to do a moratorium. But, he said, he was hearing Mr. Matthews and Ms. Cannell say that that made it worse. Ms. Cannell remarked that if they were not that busy, did they even need a moratorium. She asked was there a way to get the rewrite accomplished without an official moratorium, noting that in effect they had an unofficial moratorium now because people were unable to get financing. Mr. Whitlow said then Ms. Cannell was not saying she was opposed to the ordinance rewrite. Ms. Cannell responded not at all, adding that no one that she had talked with had been opposed to the rewrite. Mr. Whitlow said he could see them doing the rewrite very slowly while they were also slowly letting developments come through. Ms. Cannell agreed, noting that the moratorium was what people were concerned about because in effect they already had one due to the lack of financing. Mr. Barker commented that those with approved plans should have an easier time because there was reduced competition, noting that if a project was pre approved then there would be no impact from a Mayor Stevens welcomed Pastor Gregory to the Town. July 16, 2009 Joint Public Hearing Approved: September 14, 2009 Page 12of18 moratorium. He said because of the economy, this was an opportune time to take a time out to do the rewrite and cause the least impact. Ms. Cannell said that someone may come forward that wanted to put something in Daniel Boone Village or in Oakdale Village, and the moratorium would prevent that. Mr. Barker asked if Ms. Cannell knew of any niche needs that were not covered by their existing plans. Ms. Cannell said as an example, Vic Knight had proposed a Doc in a Box but there was no place appropriate for it. Ben Perry, Project Manager with East West Partners, said he agreed with the last two speakers so he would not repeat their thoughts. He said he had appeared in May before the Town Board to discuss plans to submit a Master Plan rezoning application for the property located at the southeast corner of I- 86 and NC 86. Mr. Perry said at that time the Board determined that an annexation petition would be considered. He said they had also discussed the transportation issues involved with that site and that they would need to get NCDOT's approval before they moved forward. Mr. Perry said they believed they were nearing an agreement with NCDOT, and wanted to ask for an exemption from the moratorium if the Town decided to go forward with it. Mr. Perry said there were several compelling reasons to consider their project for exemption. He said it was a redevelopment site as opposed to new greenfield development, it was located on two major transportation corridors, the site was close to downtown and mixed use in nature, and it would naturally combat the sprawl which they believed was one reason that a moratorium was under consideration. Mr. Perry said mixed use and urban infill projects were typically revenue positive for towns. He said his company was on the leading edge of building environmentally and economically sustainable developments, and believed with the help of the Planning Department and the Town Board that they would achieve the ideal project for that site. Rachel Hawkins asked why larger towns with much more development activity were able to rewrite their ordinances without imposing restrictions. She suggested that the Town study that before they made their decision. Steve Yuhasz, a member of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, said he wanted to take exception to what Ms. Cannell had said about the perception of Orange County being anti growth. He said he agreed in general with what other speakers had said, and he was speaking tonight on behalf of Mt. Bright Baptist Church. Mr. Yuhasz said the Church had an application in process that was not yet complete to develop a cemetery. He said it was the kind of project that an 18 -month delay could impose some significant impacts on the congregation. Mr. Yuhasz said an 18 -month delay would make a cemetery on that site impossible and they would have to find another site. He asked that a moratorium not be imposed at all, but if a moratorium was imposed that cemetery applications be exempted, in particular the Mt. Bright application. Derric Gregory, new Pastor at Mt. Bright Baptist Church, said he appreciated Mr. Yahasz's comments and added his request that their cemetery application be exempted from the moratorium. He said the cemetery was a small project but one that was much needed and wanted by the congregation. Pastor Gregory stated he would be formally installed in his new position as Pastor in August, and invited all who were interested to attend the church. July 16, 2009 Joint Public Hearing Approved: September 14, 2009 Page 13 of 18 Jim Parker, owner of Summit Consulting, stated that he was opposed to a moratorium. He asked that the Purcell subdivision and the Orange Charter School be exempted should a moratorium be established. Mr. Parker said as a Chamber Board member, he supported 75% to 90% of what Ms. Cannell had said. Mr. Parker said as a property owner, a moratorium had the potential to stop leasing or rental of properties. He said as a business owner, it would impact his ability to keep his employees working. Mr. Parker said the impact of a moratorium would in reality stretch beyond 18 months and would have indirect impacts as well. He said the idea of an 18 -month moratorium in his opinion was "ridiculous." Mr. Parker stated the economy was bad and tax revenues were down, and they needed commercial and retail development. He said they did not need anything standing in the way, either perceived or real. Mr. Parker stated that the Town thus far had had good, positive, controlled growth, and they needed to continue to do that. He asked that the Board not enact a moratorium, adding he believed the Ordinance rewrite could be accomplished while conducting normal business. Mr. Parker said he was personally willing to donate his time during the week to help with the rewrite if it was needed. Susanne Vergara, a former member of the Historic District Commission and the Alliance for Historic Hillsborough, stated she believed the moratorium was a good idea. She said that Hillsborough was very unique and it was important to take the time to plan for consistency and fluidity so that Hillsborough did not have "hodge podge" development. Michael Neal, a Consulting Engineer with Michael Neal Associates, stated he was representing three projects that he wanted to have considered for exemption from the moratorium: the Rencher Street subdivision, the Skimmer Manufacturing and Light Industrial facility, and the Head Start Daycare Center. He said all of those projects had been submitted and the applications were nearly complete, but they had been submitted after the notice of the public hearing. Mr. Neal said those projects had been moving forward in good faith and funds had been expended for various permits. He said if the moratorium was imposed upon those projects, then the permits would expire and they would have to potentially start over. Mr. Neal stated he was opposed to a moratorium, but if exacted he asked that they set a date for the future so as not to capture those projects that had already begun the process and expended funds in good faith. Mr. Neal said as a small business owner and from a personal standpoint, his business was development. He said that Town staff did a wonderful job and applauded their hard work, but did not believe that their work should stop so that the rewrite could be accomplished. Mr. Neal suggested that a moratorium not be imposed and that the rewrite take place in conjunction with staff's regular workload. He said he was hanging on by his fingernails, and so far had not been forced to lay off any staff, but if a moratorium was enacted then he did not have a real reason to maintain his Hillsborough office, and literally could not afford to for 18 months. Mr. Neal said that would affect the seven employees at his office who contributed to the economy of Hillsborough. Mr. Neal added his willingness to donate his time to work on the rewrite, noting it was long overdue and a great idea. But, he said, he did not know of any other community who took a "time out" to do such a project. Mr. Neal said as a taxpayer and voter, he believed that real leadership was not taking a time out when things got tough, but continuing on to work through the difficult times. He stated that he passionately believed that a moratorium was a bad idea. July 16, 2009 Joint Public Hearing Approved: September 14, 2009 Page 14 of 18 Celeste Gardner, Chair of the Orange Charter School Board, stated that they believed a moratorium would set them back, noting that they received their funding based on a per student basis from both the State and County. She said they did not receive any additional funding for their facilities, and that meant that they had to solicit donations and carefully budget for those facilities. Ms. Gardner said their plans included building a gym /auditorium as well as additional classrooms in order to grow the middle school and offer better programming. She said that was a significant investment for them, and would need to solicit donations from the community in order to raise the additional funding necessary for the project. Ms. Gardner stated that a moratorium would create a stigma and that donors would not be interested in contributing. She asked that a moratorium not be imposed, but if it was to please exempt the Orange Charter School. Richard Peterson, an Orange Charter School Board member, stated he supported the statements made by Jim Parker and Celeste Gardner. He stated that he supported the rewrite, but not the moratorium. Mr. Peterson said that a moratorium would hinder their efforts to attract more students to the Charter School, and asked that the School be exempted if a moratorium were imposed. Joe Phelps said that he understood the need to rewrite the ordinance but was opposed to an 18 -month moratorium, noting that a shorter term moratorium could be effective. He said he was a member of the Orange County Farm Bureau Board and they had purchased a lot last year in Old Mill. Mr. Phelps said they had begun plans late last year to build a new building, and they broke ground this week. He said his point was that it took time to get plans in place to begin a project, and that was in effect a self imposed moratorium. Mr. Phelps said if a moratorium was imposed it would take about nine months once it was lifted for any development to be ready to begin. Mr. Phelps stated that the ordinance was only 263 pages, and in his opinion that was not too much to address. He said he agreed with Mr. Parker and Mr. Neal that there were people with expertise in the community willing to help with that rewrite. Mr. Phelps said he understood that Clarion was the choice of consultants to rewrite the ordinance, but believed the Town should consider other consultants. He said he was on the Strategic Growth Plan committee and had not been impressed with Clarion, noting he believed they had "dragged their feet." Mr. Phelps stated Ms. Hauth had said previously that there would be three consultants and two attorneys as well as her working on the rewrite, and he did not understand why it would take 18 months to go through only 263 pages. He said he believed that work could be accomplished in a much shorter timeframe. Mr. Phelps said that once property was put on hold and there were no recent comps for an appraiser to use, that after a year and a half you would not be able to borrow money to develop that property because banks would not want to go back more than a year for those comps. He said that was something that needed to be seriously considered. Mr. Phelps said Ms. Hauth had also mentioned that they were planning to combine the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance, but believed they needed to be kept as separate documents. He said he was not sure there was enough vacant land in the limits of the Town that they would need an 18 -month moratorium in order to stop development on those parcels. Mr. Phelps said to stop all development would send a bad message to those who wanted to locate in Hillsborough. He said the rewrite had been estimated to cost $80,000, and believed that was much too high a cost for 263 pages. Mr. Phelps said another point was that a moratorium would not allow the tax base to grow. Mark O'Neal, with Pickett- Sprouse Real Estate, stated he was representing three different owners in the Old Mill Business Park, the Owl's Wood development on NC 86 and Business 70, and Fox Haven. July 16, 2009 Joint Public Hearing Approved: September 14, 2009 Page 15 of 18 He said during the Chamber meeting it had become obvious that they had been looking at the idea of a moratorium from the Town's perspective rather than from a property owner's perspective. Mr. O'Neal said as a real estate agent, a moratorium would definitely affect the ability to sell property, and with a project like the Old Mill Business Park the roads had been built and water and sewer had been extended and those lots were ready to build on and ready to be sold. He said from the owner's perspective, he had done everything the Town had asked him to do to prepare that land for development. Mr. O'Neal said that during slower economic times was the ideal time for people to be spending planning dollars, noting they were the least expensive of the development dollars. He said people were starting to look ahead to when the economy would improve and were getting ready to take advantage of that opportunity. Mr. O'Neal stated that if a moratorium were put in place the natural supply and demand across the entire market place could not function correctly, because potential businesses could go elsewhere. Mr. O'Neal said from a tax base perspective, a moratorium would be limiting their growth. He agreed that if an 1 8-month moratorium were imposed that it would take additional time once it was lifted for people to become familiar with the ordinance and redesign their projects, so it would be at least two years before the Town would see the first plan submitted. Mr. O'Neal said then there would be a year approval process and then the construction period, so from a tax base perspective you could be as much as five or six years out with larger projects to see the benefit of that new development. Mr. O'Neal said that the Eno Haven project was moving forward, but the remaining 16 acres would be caught up in a moratorium process. He said as had been mentioned earlier, if someone were to come in with plans for a hotel, they would be excluded from offering that acreage for consideration because of the moratorium. Mr. O'Neal said that there were many more properties being impacted than the short list being discussed, including the Daniel Boone property. He said he believed if a real analysis were done on the number of properties a moratorium would impact, the number would be much larger than anticipated. Robbin Taylor -Hall, with Taylor -Hall Real Estate, stated that when the new tax valuations were sent out her phone had rung constantly, not from people wanting to sell their homes but wanting to know how much their homes were worth because some had had their taxes rise 1 00%. She said the reason for that was the limited commercial development in Town to help support the tax base. Ms. Taylor Hall said they needed additional commercial development to support the tax base so that it did not all fall on the homeowners to carry. She said for that reason she did not believe that a moratorium should be imposed. Frank Thomas, with the Homebuilders Association of Orange, Durham and Chatham Counties, said that rather than looking at commercial development, look at it in terms of investors coming to Town and how a moratorium would affect those investors. He said if, for instance, a Harris Teeter wanted to come here, they would not come into Town but would get as close as it could, and would not necessarily wait because of a moratorium. Mr. Thomas said the moment a moratorium was put in place the value of property waiting to be developed would go to zero because of the uncertainly of how the rewrite might affect a particular piece of property as far as allowable uses. He agreed that it would take some time once the rewrite was accomplished before any development came forward. Mr. Thomas said if a moratorium was imposed and Hillsborough "closed it doors," then development would go elsewhere. He added that the Home Builders Association supported the ordinance rewrite. July 16, 2009 Joint Public Hearing Approved: September 14, 2009 Page 16of18 Mayor Stevens remarked that it was obvious that many people were concerned about their community, and thanked all those who had offered comments. Mr. Barker said he was curious if they should note the projects that were in SUP status so that people would understand what would be exempted. Ms. Hauth stated that those had been listed in the materials, although there may be one or two that were missed. Mr. Barker stated that Eno Haven was on the list as well as the Truck Stop. Ms. Hauth stated that the Truck Stop would be captured in the moratorium, but Eno Haven would move forward. Upon a motion by Commissioner Lowen, seconded by Commissioner Dancy, the Boards moved to close the public hearing. The vote was unanimous. The Boards agreed by consensus to recess for a short break. ITEM #6: Zoning Ordinance text amendments to Section 8 to clarify the ordinance applicability to off premises signs and to clarify when there is a change in message to a sign. Ms. Hauth said they were proposing changes to two subsections of the Sign Ordinance to help clarify some of the changes recently adopted. She said one was to remove a section that appeared to grant a "free pass" to existing off premises signs if erected before August 19, 1985, that they would be allowed to stand and not be subject to permanent requirements. Ms. Hauth said the second was to add a section to be clearer about what a "change in message" meant, in that it referred to the "verbal and/or pictorial image on the sign face and was triggered by a change in the name of a business rather than a reconfiguration of an existing image." She said the example they had been using was when Carl Juniors bought out Hardee's, in many parts of the country all of the Hardee's signs were changed to Carl Juniors. Ms. Hauth said had the Hillsborough Hardee's sign been changed, that would have been a change in message because the name would have changed. But, she said, every so often businesses rebranded, so if Hardee's changed to some other color combination or letter font that would not be a change in message because the business would remain a Hardee's. Ms. Hauth said they had wanted to be clear that a change in message and how it was changed had no relationship to the structural construction of the sign. She said there had been some argument made that since many signs had multiple panels on them and they were made to have one panel removed and another one mounted, that that was not really a change in message because that was the way the sign was constructed. Ms. Hauth said that was not what had been intended and they wanted to make the ordinance clear that the change in message had nothing to do with how the sign was constructed. Mr. Barker asked was "verbal" the right word to use, noting he believed it should be "textural." Ms. Hauth agreed that would be an appropriate change. Commissioner Gering said another example would be one he had recently noticed in Raleigh, where T. K. Tripp's had become Tripp's. Ms. Hauth said in a case like that they would likely have to identify whether they had been bought out or simply updated their name. She said if it was a case of updating their name then she believed there would be no issue, but if they were bought out she believed it would be considered a change in message. July 16, 2009 Joint Public Hearing Approved: September 14, 2009 Page 17 of 18 Mr. Hornik stated it was important to remember that the text amendment would be limited to nonconforming signs, so it did not mean that a business could not change their sign, it meant they would have to obtain a sign permit. Ms. Hauth added that the text amendment indicated when a sign would need to come into compliance. Eric Oliver said there had been a recent case with the Food Lion Plaza sign, and the Board of Adjustment had made a ruling that some people had not been happy with because the BOA had been more lenient because the term "change in message" was thought to be ambiguous. He said he would like it to be even more restrictive that what staff was proposing, in that the change in message was anything except price and product information. Mr. Oliver said if you were change the price of a sausage biscuit that would be allowed, or if a sofa on sale was changed to a love seat on sale, that would be allowed. But, he said, if anything else on the sign was changed then that would be a change in message. Mr. Oliver said if that was included in the text amendment it would make it much easier to interpret when such issues came before the BOA. Commissioner Gering said then the way it was written, did he see any problems with the interpretation; that is, was there any lack of clarity in the proposed text amendment that would cause a similar outcome such as in the Food Lion case. Mr. Oliver responded he did not believe it was definitive enough, in that there may be wiggle room for someone to appeal a decision. He said he believed the language should be narrowed to remove the possibility for any wiggle room. Mr. Warren stated that the Planning Board had discussed the Food Lion issue in great deal and understood what the BOA had struggled with and agreed that the ruling the BOA had made was probably the best decision to be made at that time. Mr. Oliver stated they specifically did not want to reinforce that applicant's concept of that ordinance which they interpreted to mean that since their sign had been erected prior to the 1985 date that it did not apply to them. Mr. Warren said that was why that section of the ordinance was proposed to be removed. Mr. Oliver said one thought discussed was the sign at the Hillsborough Business Center, in that there were 10 or more boards that could be removed and a new one slid into its place, and whether or not that was a real change in message for the entire sign. Mr. Warren said what the Planning Board had discussed was that if a board was changed then it did affect the whole sign and the whole sign would have to be brought into compliance with the ordinance. He said they had also discussed that if it was a multiple business sign and a name was changed, that the sign be considered as nonconforming and would need to be brought into compliance. Mr. Oliver remarked that he had not seen the wording of the proposed text amendment until tonight, because it had not been made available to anyone. Commissioner Gering said perhaps the Board of Adjustment should be reviewing text amendments as well as the Planning Board. Upon a motion by Ms Woodman, seconded by Mr. Barker, the Boards moved to close the public hearing. The vote was unanimous. ITEM #7: Zoning Ordinance text amendment to establish a 12 -month period of validity for an approved Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms. Hauth said this text amendment would correct an oversight in the ordinance, noting that the Rules of Procedure of the Historic District Commissioner had indicated for a significant amount period of July 16, 2009 Joint Public Hearing Approved: September 14, 2009 Page 18 of 18 time that a COA was good for 12 months and had a procedure for extensions. She said they had realized that that was not in the ordinance and the text amendment would correct that. Commissioner Dancy indicated a typo in the language, noting it said "approval is" on the second line and it should be "approval if." Ms. Hauth stated she would make that correction. Mr. Barker asked did the text amendment need to indicate that if there was a COA out there now, that its aging started now or when it was issued. Mr. Hornik said should the text amendment be adopted, the Board could decide whether to make it effective immediately as to all COA's issued after the effective date, which would be his recommendation. Upon a motion by Commissioner Dancy, seconded by Commissioner Lowen, the Boards moved to close the public hearing. The vote was unanimous. ITEM #8: Close public hearing and convene joint work session to discuss ordinance rewrite and potential moratorium if time permits. Ms. Hauth indicated that because of the late hour and members' body language, they would prefer to not to discuss the ordinance rewrite and the potential moratorium any further this evening. She encouraged the Planning Board to attend the Town Board's workshop on July 27 to help them talk through details of the moratorium, noting that eventually they would need some guidance in crafting that ordinance should the Board decide to enact a moratorium. Upon a motion by Commissioner Dancy, seconded by Commissioner Hallman, the Boards moved to close the public hearing. The vote was unanimous. ITEM #9: Adjourn. Upon a motion by Commissioner Dancy, seconded by Commissioner Hallman, the Board moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:01 p.m. The vote was unanimous. Respectfully submitted, gu ciex,L) Margaret A. Hauth, Secretary