Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-16-2016 Minutes PB Regular MeetingPlanning Board Minutes June 16, 2016 Page 1 of 4 MINUTES PLANNING BOARD Thursday, June 16, 2016 7:00 PM, Town Barn PRESENT: Chair Dan Barker, James Czar, Erin Eckert, Lisa Frazier, Janie Morris, Doug Peterson, Jenn Sykes, Vice Chair Toby Vandemark, Chris Wehrman STAFF: Planning Director Margaret Hauth ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum Chair Barker called the meeting to order and Ms. Hauth confirmed the presence of a quorum. ITEM #2: Consideration of additions or changes to the agenda Additions – Ms. Hauth asked to add an item to provide guidance regarding the receipt of three applications from county residents for the Planning Board’s ETJ vacancy after Item 6. Chair Barker asked to add discussion of a possible amendment to the UDO regarding access easements and measuring setbacks (added after item 5). ITEM #3: Approval of minutes from May regular meeting MOTION: Ms. Vandemark made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Ms. Morris seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #4: Discussion of possible text amendments to address residential HVAC units on non - conforming lots Ms. Hauth explained there is provision in the ordinance to accommodate HVAC units on nonconforming lots as well as language that HVAC units shall meet the setback, primarily due to trying to limit noise for neighbors. Thirty percent of lots in town are nonconforming. Some of the smallest lots are in the 4,000/5,000 SF range. Some of these smaller houses don’t yet have an outside HVAC unit, and an owner of one of these lots has come forward asking what to do – there’s 8 feet on one side of the house and 11 feet on the other (before the unit). Variances are not generally used for this. This particular owner may find another solution, but Ms. Hauth wanted to bring the concept forward to see what the board thought about a text amendment. Mr. Peterson said an HVAC unit will be just as loud at 8 feet as it would be at 18 feet. It doesn’t get dramatically louder the closer you get to it. Perhaps you can say that it can’t exceed a particular noise level. Chair Barker said they get louder as they get older. Ms. Hauth cautioned the town can’t enforce the noise of everyone’s units. Ms. Eckert pointed out the homes that don’t yet have central air likely have several window units running and generating noise. There was acknowledgement that you can put an HVAC unit in the attic but it would not be practical for most homes. Ms. Hauth said in the case that prompted this discussion, there was the option of placing the unit in the back (which requires more digging because the back of the house sits lower). Ms. Hauth pointed out developers are having to put units in the back of some of the new homes in Waterstone because of the size of the homes and lots the developers created. She Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2016 Page 2 of 4 would want a text amendment to only apply to the older nonconforming homes built before a newer ordinance was created in 1986. There was discussion of mitigating an HVAC that isn’t 10 feet back with a solid opaque screen. There was discussion that this wouldn’t really be a solution. There was further discussion and ultimately a decision to not take action. ITEM #5: Discussion of possible text amendments to modify parking requirements for apartment, day care centers, and warehouse operations Apartment parking requirement is 2 spaces per unit plus 1 visitor parking for every 5 units. Ms. Hauth said we’re seeing a slight shift in the market with more 1 and 2 bedroom apartments. Now, 1 and 2 bedroom apartments are more likely to have just one person living in them. Times have changed. Should we talk about some sort of modification for the apartment standard? Townhomes often come with driveways and garages and are therefore meeting the parking spaces. Two applicants of large apartment buildings suggested using the same parking standard: 1 space per bedroom and 4 visitor spaces per 100 units. She suggests changing to that for the larger apartment complexes (100 units or more) and keep the current standard for small projects. Regarding day care centers, the standard of 1 space per 300 SF of a day care center area doesn’t take the playground space into consideration. This standard would reduce the requirement for the Little School down to 8. They have 60 right now and it’s not enough. That isn’t a standard to which we want to see a new day care center constructed. In the old ordinance, day care centers had a standard of 1 per staff person and 1 per 8 students. The Little School has parking issues now because they’ve expanded the number of students without expanding the number of parking spaces. With warehouse operations, the standard used to say 1 per employee and 3 or 2 visitor spaces. If there’s a significant office component in the use, then the parking spaces for that are calculated to an office standard. It is also calculated differently if there’s a retail operation as well. We just had a request for a 22,000 SF addition to a traditional warehouse that would require 85 additional parking spaces even though they are adding 0 staff. Staff had to turn it down. The Board of Adjustment was able to grant them relief. Ms. Hauth is recommending sending these amendments to the public hearing in July. There was discussion of basing the requirement on fire code for occupancy and agreement that wouldn’t work. Ms. Hauth can bring a broader range of standards for day care to the public hearing. MOTION: Mr. Czar moved to send these text amendments to the July public hearing. Ms. Vandemark seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #5a: Discussion of measuring a setback from a property line or from an easement/private road There was discussion that the UDO plain text says measure from the property line instead of measure from the edge of the access easement. Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2016 Page 3 of 4 There are private roads that provide access easements. In the old days, they were 50 feet wide. There are handful around town. Now they can be as narrow as 18 feet if there’s no chance that it will ever be turned into a public road. There can’t be more than four houses on a private road. Ms. Hauth explained the recent Board of Adjustment (BOA) item regarding a property owner on East Queen Street who wished to build a home with the setback measured from the property line and not the easement. The BOA decided to agree with the property owner because of the current language in the UDO. Mr. Czar thinks the language in the UDO is correct. It should be measured from the property line. It is very appropriate that the easements should be deducted/excluded from the lot area. Our BOA discussion was assuming an easement is parallel to a property line but it doesn’t necessarily have to follow the property line. You could have an access easement that is not parallel to a property line that would make it difficult to situate a house. Also, utility easements and access easements shouldn’t be treated the same. Ms. Vandemark said if you measure from the easement, you decrease the value of the lot. Chair Barker said historically that’s what has been done. Mr. Czar added that this is the first appeal since the UDO. Ms. Eckert said she can see where it would be unfair to the new owner to say you can’t build from the property line but the owner can’t build on the easement. There was acknowledgement that it was not a surprise for this new owner. Ms. Hauth asked for the board to consider approving clarifying language for the ordinance. MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to send clarifying language to the July public hearing. Ms. Frazier seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #6: Direction to staff on next priority text amendment areas Ms. Hauth asked the board to prioritize and/or add to this list: 1) Buffers (not enforcing newer landscaping requirements for renovations on existing business buildings) 2) Lighting (Duke Power doesn’t turn off the pole lights for businesses at night so it can’t be enforced. If they try to conform, then businesses get poles not lined up with the parking spaces correctly.) 3) Handling non‐conforming sites and when do we want to require full compliance? 4) Singlewide mobile homes (to not allow the replacement of and to not allow the use of singlewides for things other than active dwellings) 5) Ordinance changes that would allow more density in existing neighborhoods (not those with HOAs) Chair Barker said 1 is part of number 3. What is most important of 2, 3, 4, 5? Ms. Sykes said the 1/3 combo is most important. Mr. Peterson said it may not be most important but we need to address number 4. Ms. Eckert prioritized number 5 so that we don’t price people out of Hillsborough. Planning Board Minutes June 16, 2016 Page 4 of 4 Chair Barker prioritized 2, 3, 4 and 5. Chair Barker said 3 in 3 months, 4 in 6 months and 5 in 9 months. Ms. Morris suggested the board address 2 in 3 months, too. Ms. Sykes said 4 and 5 are related. Ms. Hauth said she has formed in her head how to address 3. She is beginning to formulate number 5. She doesn’t have a great plan for number 4 unless the board says just stop allowing the replacement of singlewides, but that doesn’t address removing the ones that aren’t being used as dwellings. This board could just simply ask the Town Board for direction to staff to enforce only using singlewides as a dwelling unit and making sure those that aren’t used for that purpose go away. The board was interested in asking the Town Board to consider asking staff to approach property owners who have such singlewides that are not dwellings. Ms. Eckert added it’s fine to replace a mobile home in kind if it’s being used, but could a mobile home that sits vacant for two years, could the right to replace in kind be revoked? Ms. Hauth said she can work on 1 and 2 in the next 3 months. Ms. Eckert said she’d like to include a discussion on creative solutions to parking and improving density. ITEM #6a: Discussion about allowing people who live in the county but not the ETJ to serve on the board when no one from the ETJ applies Ms. Hauth said two applicants have popped out of nowhere and live far out of town. One other has served on boards for several years. Mr. Peterson asked whether the town has done what it can to recruit. Ms. Hauth answered that the town has heavily tapped the established neighborhoods that are in the ETJ (Tuscarora Drive, Orange High School Road, Cameron Estates). Live, work, own in town has higher priority, board members suggested. There was interest in a subcommittee of three. There was a suggestion to use the Nextdoor app to reach neighborhoods in the ETJ. Ms. Eckert was thinking of asking what connections do you have to the town? Do you spend your money here? Do your kids go to school here? The board agreed to ask Ms. Hauth send the board three questions. ITEM #7: Adjourn MOTION: Ms. Vandemark made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Ms. Sykes seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Hauth Secretary