Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-18-2016 Minutes PB Regular MeetingPlanning Board Minutes February 18, 2016 Page 1 of 5 MINUTES PLANNING BOARD Thursday, February 18, 2016 7:00 PM, Town Barn PRESENT: Chair Erin Eckert, Lisa Frazier, James Czar, Rick Brewer, Toby Vandemark, Jane Morris, Dan Barker, Jenn Sykes STAFF: Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum Chair Eckert called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Ms. Hauth confirmed the presence of a quorum and welcomed new members Lisa Frazier and Dan Barker. ITEM #2: Consideration of additions or changes to the agenda - none ITEM #3: Approval of minutes from December meeting and January public hearing. MOTION: Mr. Brewer made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Ms. Sykes seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #4: Recommendations to Town Board for items discussed at the January public hearing: A) Master Plan for King Highway Park MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to approve the plan and recommend it for adoption by the Town Board. Mr. Brewer seconded. VOTE: Unanimous B) Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments to amend table 5.1.6 to allow storage in the General Commercial district and Section 9.2 to amend the definitions of storage and self-storage Mr. Czar raised concerns about permitting storage everywhere. Ms. Hauth suggested restricting it from the properties subject to the South Churton Street non-residential buffer. She also suggested prohibiting it from property with road frontage on an arterial street. Mr. Hornik advised that such restrictions wouldn’t need to go back to public hearing because it would be scaling back what was proposed and sent to public hearing. Mr. Hornik suggested the Planning Board can approve this tonight as written then tweak language and send new language to public hearing. His reasoning was that there aren’t many people interested in implementing this storage allowance right now, but there is one property owner waiting for the board to approve this amendment. MOTION: Mr. Brewer moved to approve as written. Ms. Vandemark seconded. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION: Mr. Barker moved to bring this back to public hearing with the language options discussed this evening. Ms. Morris seconded. VOTE: Unanimous C) Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments to amend table 5.1.6 and Section 9.2 to define the use “government maintenance yard” and permit the use in the Office-Institutional and Light Industrial districts and Table 6.3.3 to allow the Light Industrial district to observe a 20’ side and rear setback when adjacent to the Economic Development District. Ms. Hauth reviewed that there are four government maintenance yards. It makes sense to call them what they are. MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to approve. Ms. Morris seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Planning Board Minutes February 18, 2016 Page 2 of 5 ITEM #5: Recommendation to Town Board regarding Annexation, Rezoning and Master Plan application for the project known as Collins Ridge (portion of OC PIN 9874-10-9993 north of Interstate 85). Ms. Hauth reviewed a few minor changes. Mr. Hornik reminded the board that the conditions of approval of the master plan is a package. Look at the whole picture before you deliberate on any piece of the picture (for instance, do you want to rezone the property in the first place?). Mr. Hornik pointed out some changes: in paragraph 6D, back and forth about community center having to be completed prior to Certificate of Occupancy of the 300th dwelling unit (apartments) or 300th townhome/single family home. The attorneys found common ground on single family/townhome because apartment complex will have some if its own recreational amenities. Mr. Hornik pointed out in 6C, they changed 100th dwelling unit to 50th and allowed this site to be set during Special Use Permit process. Mr. Hornik explained regarding paragraph 8H, talked about timing of completion of the spine road, dividing east and west. Have proposed condition that before the first Certificate of Occupancy is issued, the spine street has to be completed up to the point of the secondary temporary access easement. Ms. Hauth explained we took out the requirement for Special Use Permit for the roads because there’s no PIN to tie that SUP. As long as they underwent a construction drawing review process, that’s sufficient. Ms. Morris prepared a few remarks and read them. She believes Collins Ridge brings too many dwellings to Hillsborough. She listed other developments under construction. How many new dwellings is enough? She also expressed concern about traffic. Not until the 451st dwelling is built in Collins Ridge is there going to be more than one way for residents to get in and out. There’s a lot of congestion on South Churton Street. DOT’s plans to enlarge South Churton Street are several years down the road. Ms. Morris said she does support annexation and rezoning. Mr. Barker said he’s trying to figure out what mechanism could get the bridge across I-85 built. How is it to be funded, built, paid for by this proposal? Ms. Hauth answered it is not. The town will have to fund it through a competitive process through the DOT. The town did the studies first and jumped ahead of the offers from Caruso Homes to fund the studies. Mr. Barker said part of the Collins property is south of I-85. Will it be rezoned? Ms. Hauth answered that it is not in this proposal. Mr. Barker said that seems like a problem to me. Chair Eckert requested that the developers make certain that Parcel B is fully accessible. The recreational amenities need to be accessible. She also asked that the developers consider landscaping Parcel B to lower CASA’s costs. She would also like to see parcel F be built more densely because of the proximity to transit. Mr. Barker said I think that’s very important. With the train station coming, we want transit development and it’s not here. Chair Eckert reminded him that the town has acres for designing the transit development. Randy Sexton, representing Caruso Homes, addressed Mr. Barker. He said the 12-acre parcel south of the Interstate is designated as industrial. To include it in the mixed use residential is not allowed. Planning Board Minutes February 18, 2016 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Barker asked when should we expect that proposal. We don’t plan to do anything with it, Mr. Sexton said. Mr. Barker asked whether they’ve put it on the market. Mr. Sexton answered no. Mr. Sexton added, addressing Ms. Morris’s concerns, that the town did a traffic study and a traffic engineer from Volkert is present tonight. They recommended 850 units without adding the second access. Their traffic study was forwarded to DOT and DOT concurred with their findings. Mr. Barker asked do you expect a second access through Daniel Boone to be done in a way to be a town street. Mr. Sexton answered it will be a public right of way. It will line up with Mayo Street. Road and will be built prior to the 451st dwelling. Mr. Sexton added there will be a second access adjacent to the Duke Medical Center property, 20 foot wide, emergency use only. Ms. Vandemark asked if there’s any thought of Parcel F becoming townhomes instead of single family. Mr. Sexton answered there is a possibility of both. They are talking with a senior housing project developer and it might spill over. This would be age targeted, 55 and older. Chair Eckert asked about her request for CASA integration. Mr. Sexton said that was always the intention. Inhabitants of Parcel B are included. Mr. Sexton said the development will have a master HOA. Ms. Frazier said she understands Ms. Morris’s traffic concern and she shares that opinion. Ms. Sykes thinks there’s market demand for the density. There isn’t as much demand for single family homes there, in her opinion. Chair Eckert said we recognize our traffic situation is difficult. Will Letchworth with Volkert addressed the board. As these pods come up with a Special Use Permit application, they’ll be accompanied by a traffic study as well, he reminded them. You will continuously monitor this traffic. The improvements required may change. That might give you more comfort that we’re going to keep a handle on this. Chair Eckert said it’s important to keep in mind there will be another way to for people to get out eventually. Mr. Sexton added there will be three transit stops in our design. We want our community to use that. Mr. Barker asked whether there was a way to attach a right of way to reach I-85 to the plan. Mr. Sexton said it’s behind other parcels. There are three or four other lots in front of us. He doesn’t mind providing a right of way. Ms. Hauth said in a location with one of the two recommendations for the bridge in the study would be beneficial. Beth Trahos, representing Caruso Homes, reminded the Planning Board that this is not a part of the application. A crossing is going to be extremely expensive and will provide minimal benefit from a traffic perspective. Ms. Hauth added that the true benefit is for bikes and pedestrians. Jeff Caruso said we would have no problem providing that. We are happy to give a right of way through here. If 10 years from now you decide you are not doing that, we’d like the right of way returned to us. Mr. Hornik and Ms. Trahos agreed they’d write something up. Mr. Barker said people on the south side of Hillsborough are asking how do we walk downtown. I don’t want to lose the opportunity. The bridge would be really nice for cyclists and pedestrians. Mr. Caruso said he’s on board with it. Mr. Hornik said what I’m hearing is a willingness on the part of the applicant. We can put together a condition for the Town Board where the developer is agreeing to reserve an area for a bike/ped right of way landing area on the parcel on the south side of I-85, Planning Board Minutes February 18, 2016 Page 4 of 5 for up to 10 years. Mr. Barker asked for 20 years because DOT moves slowly. Ms. Trahos said she’ll wordsmith with Mr. Hornik and it’s not a part of this application. Mr. Barker asked about the alignment of the extension of Orange Grove Road. At what point will the name of the road break? Ms. Hauth answered we don’t know if it will be a curve or T intersection. Mr. Barker would like to see phrasing updated. He would like assurance that parcel F is a transit oriented plan rather than how it’s phrased right now. Mr. Sexton said we will push the density there. Mr. Barker said on that northern end, density would be good. On the southern end, not so much. Mr. Sexton said the south end has high visibility and proximity to the interstate which lends itself to higher density. There was brief discussion about the location of apartments by highways and while that sometimes leads to cheap apartments, sometimes those apartments are quite expensive. Mr. Brewer said given the willingness of both parties to craft language, are you willing to move forward tonight? Mr. Barker said he wasn’t certain. Mr. Brewer said he doesn’t think it’s fair for the southern parcel to hold this up. Ms. Trahos thanked the board and requested that the project move forward. Chair Eckert said if you think about this in reverse, she believes this is good for Hillsborough. There will be growing pains. The alternative is nothing and that isn’t beneficial. It’s not worthwhile to turn down a good development for what should be short term growing pains. The master plan aligns with what the town laid out in the Future Land Use Plan. She credited the developers for listening and being partners in the process. She believes if the development were turned down, it would be really disappointing for Hillsborough. It’s hard to imagine what 1,100 homes will look like. Hopefully we’ll take it in bits and chunks. They’ve been receptive and polite. I have no further concerns. She asked for other comments or questions. Ms. Morris reiterated that in her opinion it’s just too many dwellings. I appreciate Caruso Homes but I cannot in good conscious go forward with this plan. I wish I could be positive about this. I grew up in Hillsborough. I’ve seen a lot of changes. Every change I really like. This is a lot for me to take in. I can’t see it. Mr. Brewer said I appreciate where Ms. Morris is coming from. It’s hard to conceptualize. He likes that Mr. Letchworth mentioned that as it rolls out, we’ll be smarter in the future about what DOT is planning, the developer will be smarter about the market for each parcel. And each parcel will come before us again. Being able to address a portion at a time makes it digestible. Ms. Sykes reminded the board that it could theoretically have as few as 700 dwelling units. Ms. Hauth said we have the water capacity. We can accommodate the density. Ms. Vandemark said from a retail perspective, downtown is dead after 5 p.m. on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The town is pretty quiet and that hurts retail establishments. The downtown needs the greater number of people this project will bring. Ms. Sykes asked about the town’s 20 acres for the train station. Ms. Hauth said at this point we don’t know whether it will be all commercial or have a residential component. The Town Board understands commercial near the train station is good. Planning Board Minutes February 18, 2016 Page 5 of 5 Mr. Barker asked about 4B, the added words “or equivalent”, who determines? Mr. Hornik said he put it to cover if the toilet doesn’t have that wording exactly. Ms. Hauth said it’s a commitment they’re making that there’s no way to enforce. There was discussion of crafting language to be sure that CASA is fully integrated into Parcel B and that the recreational amenities are open and accessible to these residents. Ms. Hauth said what needs to be said is the portion of parcel B that goes to CASA is fully integrated in the HOA. Chair Eckert added that they make sure that recreational amenities ensure accessibility. Mr. Sexton and Mr. Caruso affirmed that both would be done. Mr. Hornik said the other item is making sure there is a right of way for a landing area available on the south side for a bike/ped bridge. MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to recommend to the Town Board annexation, rezoning, and master plan approval including the items discussed this evening. Mr. Brewer seconded. VOTE: Passed, 7-1 (nay: Ms. Morris) ITEM #6: Introduction of text amendments for discussion at the March meeting A) Definition of office & recreation facilities B) Deleting the watershed protection zoning districts because these areas were removed from town jurisdiction with the ETJ adjustment. C) Merging Economic Development District uses into the UDO to eliminate the EDD design manual Ms. Hauth reviewed the proposed changes. She suggested board members drive on Millstone Drive and Leah Drive and see what’s there and what might be missing and compare with the table. Ms. Hauth explained the prohibition on standalone retail was to prevent a shopping center at a particular point in Hillsborough’s history. The board is OK with retail and restaurant. Mr. Barker pointed out church is not on the table but at least one exists. There was discussion of what an office that is not a headquarters means and that it makes a difference whether training takes place on site and whether clients come to the office. Ms. Hauth appreciated the feedback she received from the board this evening. ITEM #7: Adjourn MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to adjourn. Ms. Morris seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Hauth Secretary