Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-20-2016 Minutes BOC PB JPHPlanning Board Minutes October 20, 2016 Page 1 of 5 MINUTES JOINT PUBLIC HEARING HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD and PLANNING BOARD Thursday, October 20, 2016 7:00 PM, Town Barn PRESENT: Mayor Tom Stevens, and Commissioners Jenn Weaver, Brian Lowen, Kathleen Ferguson, and Mark Bell, Planning Board Chair Dan Barker, Rick Brewer, James Czar, Lisa Frazier, Carolyn Helfrich, Janie Morris, Doug Peterson, Toby Vandemark, Jenn Sykes, Chris Wehrman STAFF: Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum Mayor Stevens called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and welcomed new planning board member Carolyn Helfrich. ITEM #2: Consideration of additions or changes to the agenda There were none. Mayor Stevens passed the gavel to Planning Board Chair Dan Barker. ITEM #3: Open Joint Public Hearing Chair Barker opened the public hearing. ITEM #4: Request from Vouthaus, LLC to Rezone 9.75 acres at 505 Eno Street from General Industrial to Adaptive Re-Use so the building can house a wider variety of uses that are not industrial (OC PIN 9864-65-3492) Ms. Hauth reviewed this is the former Southern Season Warehouse, formerly on Flint Fabrics property and now on its own separate parcel. The Adaptive Re-Use zoning was created a few years ago to assist owners of buildings built for one purpose who now would like to house businesses of different purposes. The criteria for this zoning includes that the parcel has to be at least three acres, the building must be at least 10,000 SF, and the owner must desire at least three different uses in the building. This application meets the criteria. If the Town Board approves this rezoning, it permits everything on the list. Scott Jennings, who owns a home at Knight and Holt Streets, said he came to hear more about the plans. He expressed concern about drawing more people to an area that has some pedestrian-traffic concerns. He cited problems with pedestrians crossing Nash Street near Hillsborough BBQ but not at the crosswalk and concern about a new wooded trail that would could cause additional pedestrian-car conflict. Ms. Hauth explained that the town has plans to address the pedestrian traffic on Nash Street through a state project called the Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) sidewalks project. That project should go out to bid soon and entails widening the sidewalks on the Hillsborough BBQ side of Nash Street, removing on-street parking, and creating a three-way stop at Nash and Eno Streets. There will be control on the parking lot side (either fence or landscaping) to encourage pedestrians to cross Nash Street at the crosswalks. As for parking in the mill village neighborhood, she said that if those three streets not already designed for no on-street parking, residents can request that. She added that the path is being constructed by the developers of the Bellevue Mill. Ms. Hauth summarized the process regarding this application. The boards can vote to close the public hearing this night. Then the Planning Board reviews the application in November and makes a recommendation. The Town Board considers approval at its December meeting. Planning Board Minutes October 20, 2016 Page 2 of 5 Ms. Hauth briefly reviewed the differences between the current list of permitted uses under current zoning and this new zoning; the General Industrial list allows industrial uses and specialty schools that need big buildings. It allows manufacturing and processing operations that might have an air quality or water quality impact. A concrete plant and a distribution warehouse are both permitted. The Adaptive Re-Use zoning allows some light industrial uses but it’s also a very broad district. MOTION: Mr. Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ferguson seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #5: Request from The Little School Development LLC to modify their approved Special Use Permit to create additional on-site parking and remove the enrollment limitation (OC PIN 9873-25-6187) Ms. Hauth reminded everyone that for this item, speakers need to be sworn in before they speak. Ms. Hauth was sworn in. She reviewed that The Little School had an enrollment cap established at 196 students. The school has exceeded the cap and Ms. Hauth noted that some of the management has changed at the school so the situation is more likely an inadvertent violation than a blatant one. Part of this application is to alleviate the nonconformity and bring the school back into compliance regarding the enrollment cap. The proposal to expand the parking isn’t so much to address a nonconformity as it is to address operations. The site is highly constrained in a very narrow part of the Waterstone Development. Adjoining properties are not in the city limits. The school is requesting to reduce the buffer to accommodate additional parking. The master plan required 100 feet. They are proposing having 75 feet. The fire marshal didn’t have concerns with the parking proposal. Tony Whitaker, a civil engineer with Civil Consultants representing The Little School, was sworn in. He introduced Jennifer Dock from The Little School. Mr. Whitaker acknowledged that on a daily basis, The Little School (TLS) experiences traffic congestion at morning drop off and afternoon pick up. That is normal for this type of facility. This property has an insufficient number of parking spaces. Cars stack up onto College Park Drive. It’s not particularly unsafe but it’s potentially unsafe. The school proposes to go from 62 to 92 parking spaces, but some people are parking in non-designated spaces now. Probably 20 of the 30 are new spaces. The school has already taken several measures to alleviate parking congestion, Mr. Whitaker said. It has incentivized teachers and staff to carpool and park at the nearby Durham Tech park and ride lot. It happens to some degree but not a great degree. Teachers arrive and depart in shifts. They’ve asked parents to pick up and drop off quickly. A staff person is designated in the afternoons to help communicate to those trying to park. Mr. Whitaker reviewed that the school is requesting several waivers but the one regarding excess parking is no longer needed. Ms. Hauth explained that at the last quarterly hearing, child care centers parking standard was changed and the application reflects that change. The other things are modifications to the Special Use Permit. One is to add more parking, to modify a buffer on eastern edge from 100 feet to 74 feet. This impacts neighboring property owner Albert Kittrel. They’ve met several times, Mr. Whitaker said. He was a great advocate after we suggested removing trees and then planting a double row of evergreens. His house is far from the property line and he has good screening. Mr. Whitaker said the school is also asking to remove the cap of 196 students because this facility is licensed by the state. The school is already maximized as far as building floor area and playground. To maintain a 5 star program, TLS will not be able to exceed the cap they currently have by the state and will always be regulated by the state. Mr. Whitaker said the capacity was reached about a year after opening. The current enrollment is 239. Mr. Peterson asked if it went from a 5-star to a 4-star facility, would it changed the number of students? Mr. Whitaker said not immediately but a higher number of students could be permitted under the 4-star Planning Board Minutes October 20, 2016 Page 3 of 5 rating. The licensing limit right now is around 296. Mr. Peterson said so if we lift the cap, it could go to 296. Mr. Peterson wondered why the school doesn’t create a drive through drop-off/pick-up. Wendy Vavrousek, one of the school owners, was sworn in. She said the school has contemplated that and the difficulty is staffing. Also, last year they tried having parents pick up older children at the Durham Tech campus on early dismissal days, but that was inconvenient for parents who also needed to pick up a younger child. Mr. Peterson suggested identifying the peak hour of drop-off and only staffing a drive through drop-off then. Right now you’re having trouble at 239. What happens when its 250 and 260 and 290, he asked? Ms. Vavrousek said based on our square footage we could have 294. But based on our model of 9 infants, 12 1-year-olds, 15 two-year-olds, we couldn’t have that many. Mr. Peterson asked what’s the maximum for this model. The answer was the school is full. There is a waiting list. Chair Barker asked what is the process to change that model. Chair Barker asked could you change tomorrow to allow one more child per classroom. Ms. Vavrousek said we haven’t done it in 10 years. That isn’t something to be expected from us at all. Commissioner Weaver said her two kids went to TLS and it’s hard to imagine dropping off tiny kids without parents walking them in. She asked Ms. Hauth if they one day decided to close and a new school opened up with a different standard that wanted to go to the 290, what could be done. Ms. Hauth said we apply our ordinance, 1 parking spot per employee and 1 spot for 8 students. Ms. Vandemark asked if they could make the new cap the current enrollment and Ms. Hauth confirmed. Ms. Sykes asked how the number of infants per classroom changed during the school year. Ms. Vavrousek answered the only fluctuation is they start out younger. Jessica Larsin, school director, was sworn in. Ms. Larsin said she has done enrollment for many years. We cannot put another child in another space. We have maximized the potential. There are sixteen classrooms, three infants, three one-year olds, three two-year old. She compared math with Ms. Sykes who had figured their cap under this model was 252. Ms. Larsin said there’s a classroom that can only have 6. The size of the classrooms contributes to the caps. Chair Barker asked about Wayne Pollard, another close neighbor. Ms. Hauth indicated she had discussed the plans with Mr. Pollard, but he had not come by the office to review them in detail and did not express concern. Jennifer Adams was sworn in. Ms. Adams said this parking is not expanding toward him. We stay away from his deer blind. Chair Barker said there are piles of toys marked TLS on different areas including at the traffic circle, a tent down at the creek bed. Mr. Brewer said does this have anything to do with the application. Chair Barker said it does if it’s indicative of how they conduct business. Chair Barker said there’s a pile of toys with your school name now down by the hospital. Ms. Adams said they were bringing chalk to the new Cates Creek Park and as soon as Ms. Hauth asked them to stop, they did. Ms. Adams said they value the transfer of children from parent to teacher. It’s a valuable few moments. We need parents to come in and be with us. MOTION: Commissioner Ferguson moved to close the public hearing on this item. Commissioner Weaver seconded. Chair Barker asked whether the public hearing needed to stay open for additional information regarding enrollment. Ms. Sykes said she’d concluded it was 243 under the current model and was satisfied. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #6: Text Amendments to Unified Development Ordinance a. Amend Section 6.20, Stormwater, to match state minimum requirements and meet the mandate for local regulations to not be more stringent than the state. Ms. Hauth said the long and short of it is that these are state mandated. No option. Commissioner Ferguson asked can we say something like if the state removes those restrictions, we can revert back. Ms. Hauth answered we can go back through the process again. Planning Board Minutes October 20, 2016 Page 4 of 5 b. Amend Section 7.3, Nonconforming Characteristics of Use, to provide guidance on when a site is required to correct existing non-conforming characteristics. In answering a question, Ms. Hauth explained nonconforming characteristics are not usually based on use. We end up with tension between wanting development to conform to the ordinance and wanting existing buildings occupied and productive. A new business owner can potentially live with the existing conditions (maybe it doesn’t look the way we want it to). The question is, can we really issue that permit when it has these nonconforming characteristics. We’re trying to make it easier for staff to determine. The language we’re proposing here sets a higher threshold that the applicant must want to do something to the property of a certain size or value in order to be required to fix the other nonconformities. The Planning Board hasn’t had a lot of time to talk about it. She encouraged the Planning Board and Town Board to take this opportunity to talk about scenarios. Commissioner Ferguson suggested a 25 percent value threshold. Ms. Hauth said it could be one-quarter. She thinks someone on the board had suggested 10 percent. Mr. Czar said the wrinkle is that it’s of assessed tax value. Commissioner Ferguson said she’s ok with that and that’s why she was thinking one-quarter and not 10 percent. Mr. Hornik said we’re lowering the threshold if we go from one-third to one-quarter….just making sure people understand that. Ms. Hauth reiterated the example of the barber shop on 70. Two loads of gravel for the parking and the new owner was ready to open. Commissioner Weaver said I’d like for things to look nice but I like for people to start small businesses and therefore likes the one-third threshold. Or one-quarter. Commissioner Ferguson said I agree I want people to do stuff. It’s always easier to be more strict at first. We want to see what’s coming forth. It would be easier to loosen up. There is that line of what’s character versus what’s desirable. Mr. Peterson said we went to tax value which is a tangible number to get. And the Planning Board went with one-third. Commissioner Bell said there are hidden costs to opening a business that you would never see. Mr. Czar said that just speaks to the arbitrary nature of any certain number. Ms. Vandemark asked why it includes interior. Ms. Hauth said some businesses do a lot more interior. Dental practices have a high cost of internal upfit. Probably restaurants and doctor’s offices have similar interior costs. Ms. Vandemark said but nonconforming characteristics pertains to the outside. If they are fixing up the inside, why would that affect the calculation for changing the outside? Ms. Hauth answered we’ve adopted an ordinance that says this is how we want it. Chair Barker said the connection is the interior is tied to what their total budget is. Mr. Brewer asked if bringing into compliance is cost prohibitive for a new business owner, what’s their recourse. Ms. Hauth said an appeal to the Board of Adjustment, but generally they just go find another site. c. Amend Section 7.5.2.1 to clarify that non-conforming residential lots are buildable. Ms. Hauth explained if you own two properties side by side and are nonconforming for size, we order you to combine to get a conforming lot. But the ordinance has never said if you have two lots, put them together and still have a nonconforming lot, you can build anyway. This usually applies to residential. The division has to comply with the ordinance. d. Amend Section 3.8.5.1.a to modify cultural resource documentation requirement for special use permit applicants. Ms. Hauth explained when someone submits a SUP, they have to talk about cultural resources. We have learned from the state office that if it’s on the list, phase 1 has already been done so there is no need to require that. The amendment is to change the text to say if phase 1 has been done, you have to document how to protect the resource. e. Amend Section 3.13.3.d to make reference to the traffic impact study requirements in the street standards document. Planning Board Minutes October 20, 2016 Page 5 of 5 Commissioner Ferguson asked to eliminate acronyms from the town’s written documents. She thinks that would help citizens digest the information and it’s important for transparency. Commissioner Bell said he understands but thinks it would need to be organization wide and pertain to the Website, too. Ms. Sykes suggested repeating the spelled out form at the start of each new section. Ms. Hauth asked Mr. Hornik if an amendment to remove all acronyms form the ordinance would count as scrivener’s error. Mr. Hornik indicated it would, since it wouldn’t be changing the meaning. He added that at this level of detail, it’s a professional looking at document. It’s the lingo. A traffic engineer knows what TIA is. Commissioner Ferguson said let’s keep it in mind and be watchful. Members suggested just fixing as we go along. f. Delete reference to the Design Standards manual in Section 6.2 and list this section as “reserved for future codification” There was no discussion. g. Amend Section 6.11.7.3 to remove the sentence requiring site lighting to be extinguished when a business is closed. Ms. Hauth explained Duke Power only issues contracts for site lighting that is on all night. There are no timers. The ordinance sets a standard that is impossible to meet. We would have fewer waiver requests until such time as Duke changes their processes. Chair Barker said it’s a shame but reality. MOTION: Commissioner Lowen moved to close the public hearing on the text amendments. Commissioner Ferguson seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #7: Adjourn MOTION: Commissioner Lowen moved to adjourn at 8:35 p.m. Mr. Brewer seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Hauth Secretary