HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-18-2017 Minutes PB Regular MeetingPB minutes
5/18/17 meeting
Page 1 of 5
Minutes
Hillsborough Planning Board
7 p.m. May 18, 2017
Town Barn, 101 E. Orange St.
Present: Chairman Dan Barker, Toby Vandemark, James Czar, Lisa Frazier, Carolyn Helfrich,
Janie Morris, Doug Peterson, and Jennifer Sykes
Staff: Planning Director Margaret Hauth and Town Attorney Bob Hornik
ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum
Mr. Barker called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Ms. Hauth confirmed the presence of
a quorum.
ITEM #2: Consideration of additions or changes to the agenda
Ms. Hauth added an update on the new town policy regarding how volunteers are chosen
to serve on advisory boards.
ITEM #3: Approval of minutes from March meeting and April public hearing
Mr. Czar proposed a clarifying correction to the April minutes on Page 5, adding that the
change in the height of the parapet on the 515 North Churton condominium project was
for mechanical reasons and that the change in the shed roof height was to accommodate
an elevator.
MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved approval of the minutes with one correction to the April minutes
detailed above. Ms. Morris seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
ITEM #4: Special use permit modification 515 North Churton condominium project to request
changes to the roof height (Orange County PIN 9874-08-2893, 9874-08-3907, 9874-
08-2790 and 9874-08-2790.001 through .008).
MOTION: Mr. Czar moved that the Planning Board recommend approval of the modification as
requested. Ms. Vandemark seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
ITEM #5: Special use permit modification to update the approved special use permit for
Habitat for Humanity to construct 24 townhomes on College Park Road (Orange
County PIN 9873-25-7526).
Ms. Hauth reviewed there is no different information since the public hearing. At the
public hearing, some neighbors raised concerns that they had not known what was
planned for the property and raised concerns about tree preservation, traffic, and how the
facility would be operated. The applicant asked for waivers regarding parking, lighting,
and grading.
Mr. Barker asked whether trash collection falls within the purview of this board. Ms.
Hauth answered that the proposal meets the town code and will need to be signed off by
PB minutes
5/18/17 meeting
Page 2 of 5
the town public works director and Orange County Solid Waste Management
Department, but the focus of the town and county departments will be on the size of the
receptacles. How trash pickup functions is a management issue of the development. It
would be a code compliance issue if the trash is not disposed of properly. Mr. Hornik said
the town looks at where the trash receptacles are located and whether they are properly
screened.
Ms. Morris expressed concern that without curbs between the parking lot and the
sidewalk outside the residences, drivers may not stop their cars at the appropriate point.
Ms. Hauth said maybe there would be wheel stops in the parking lot. Tony Whitaker,
engineer for the project, said the proposal did not include wheel stops because they are a
tripping hazard, are unsightly, and break. They are generally not spaced to easily get a
wheelchair or walker between them. Mr. Whitaker said he and decision makers with
Orange County Habitat for Humanity had decided that it would work to have an asphalt
parking lot and concrete sidewalk and that residents will understand to keep the front of
the cars off the sidewalk. The design team is considering a sidewalk flush with the
asphalt or a 3-inch rolled curb.
Ms. Hauth reviewed that Waiver 1 is a proposal for slightly less parking than required.
The units are small. Mr. Czar said it is unrealistic to think there will not be two cars for
each unit and caregivers. He added that the request is based on the applicant’s belief they
will need fewer spaces, not experience. Ms. Sykes said she was thinking the residents
would be retired, would have downsized and would only have one car. Mr. Czar said
residents would need to drive to get anywhere. Ms. Frazier added there needs to be
parking for deliveries. Mr. Whitaker said there is another space designated as a loading
space for oxygen delivery that could be recategorized as a parking space. To get the three
more required parking spaces, a 24-inch oak tree would need to be removed and the
landscaped parking lot island would need to be reduced, he said. Alternatively, Mr.
Whitaker said he could narrow the parking spaces to the town’s required width. Ms.
Helfrich recommended keeping the parking spaces 10 feet wide because it is difficult for
older people with any type of walking aid to squeeze between cars to get in and out of a
vehicle. Mr. Hornik said that Mr. Whitaker could design some wider parking spaces and
some narrower. Mr. Whitaker said he was thinking that and it would make sense to have
some wider spaces closer to the residences. He added that it was his preference to leave it
up to him to present a solution for the parking spaces to the Hillsborough Board of
Commissioners if this board decided not to recommend approval of Waiver 1.
Ms. Hauth said Waiver 2 is to not submit a lighting plan at this point. Duke Energy has
not yet drawn a lighting plan for the project. She added that Waiver 3’s purpose is to
excuse small areas that may be more or less bright than the ordinance requires once the
lighting plan is created. Waiver 4 is requested because Duke Energy’s standard is a 25-
foot pole and these buildings will not be 25 feet tall. Habitat for Humanity is asking for a
waiver rather than paying for a specialty pole. Waiver 5 is regarding the requirements to
limit grading. Some steep slopes were created on this site when nearby sites were graded.
Chairman Barker asked for a showing of hands regarding Waiver 1. Two members voted
for granting the waiver (Ms. Sykes and Ms. Vandemark) and six voted against it.
PB minutes
5/18/17 meeting
Page 3 of 5
There was unanimous support for the other four waivers.
MOTION: Mr. Czar moved that the Planning Board recommend approval of the special use permit
modification including waivers 2 through 5 and not grant waiver 1. Ms. Morris
seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
ITEM #6: Unified Development Ordinance text amendments to:
1. Amend Section 5.2.9 to change some requirements for accessory dwelling units and
allow them in more locations
Ms. Hauth reviewed that people spoke at the public hearing about the amendment and
100 people responded to an online non-scientific poll.
Ms. Hauth clarified a comment she made at the public hearing. The draft ordinance
still contains a requirement for the internal accessory units be prevented from having
an internal connection between the units. She noted that someone at the public
hearing spoke in favor of allowing an internal door between the main dwelling and
the accessory dwelling unit for situations where a caregiver lives in one unit and the
individuals receiving care live in the other. Mr. Barker said to keep personal
possessions safe, the interior door has to lock. There was consensus to modify this
language.
Mr. Barker asked Ms. Hauth to review the top five concerns raised at the public
hearing regarding this proposed amendment. Ms. Hauth answered one concern is in
regard to a size limit for the exterior accessory dwelling units. The Planning Board
discussed this. Ms. Hauth said an 800-square foot limit would align with Orange
County’s limit on accessory dwelling units and its new impact fee category, which
stipulates a lower impact fee for residences that are 800 square feet or less. The board
discussed whether 800 square feet allowed for accessibility for someone in a
wheelchair and several board members said it did. The board decided to recommend
the same language for the size of external accessory dwelling units as is used for
internal accessory dwelling units.
Ms. Hauth said there was concern about water capacity. She does not share that
concern. Chapel Hill made it much easier to build accessory dwelling units 18 months
ago and has not seen a rush to build such units. Mr. Barker said he serves on the
Water and Sewer Advisory Committee and he agrees that water capacity is not a
concern with these units.
Ms. Hauth said she was surprised there was not more discussion about parking. The
proposal is to require two parking spaces for the main dwelling and one for the
accessory dwelling. Some board members advocated for a higher parking requirement
because on-street parking is difficult on narrow streets. There was a suggestion of
requiring at least two parking spaces for the main dwelling and one parking space for
every bedroom in the accessory dwelling unit.
Mr. Peterson suggested a requirement that the main building be owner-occupied. Ms.
Hauth said enforcing that requirement is difficult. There was lengthy discussion about
the difficulty of enforcing the requirement and the idea that including the requirement
PB minutes
5/18/17 meeting
Page 4 of 5
in the ordinance amendment might at least get a project started in the right spirit —
with the expectation that one of the units would be occupied by the owner. Several
board members said that allowing accessory dwelling units supports family members
taking care of family members. The board members spent significant time discussing
the positive and negatives of requiring an owner occupant. Mr. Barker said he did not
believe the Planning Board would come to a consensus on this point. Mr. Hornik
indicated he would investigate the legality of this type of regulation.
Several board members expressed the opinion that making it easier for homeowners
to build accessory dwelling units would not increase the affordable housing stock.
It was acknowledged by the board that, outside the Historic District, there is no
stipulation for the accessory dwelling unit to be built in the character of the main
house or the neighborhood.
MOTION: Ms. Sykes moved that the Planning Board recommend the approval this amendment with
conditions, including that one of the dwelling units be occupied by the owner, the
accessory dwelling unit cannot exceed 800 square feet, to allow an internal connection if
the door between the units locks from each side, and there must be a minimum of two
parking spaces for the main unit and one per bedroom in the accessory dwelling unit. Mr.
Peterson seconded.
VOTE: 6-2 (nayes: Mr. Barker and Ms. Morris)
2. Add Section 5.1.5 to describe seasonal uses and to establish permitting requirements
Ms. Hauth reviewed this stipulates that a single sale event cannot last more than 60
days, no parcel may receive more than three permits in the same calendar year, and
there must be 14 calendar days between the permits.
3. Amend Section 6.17.2 to clarify when sidewalk construction is required
Ms. Hauth reviewed this is changing a list into numbered or lettered sections. She
took out references to subdivisions because it implied that sidewalks had to be built if
someone was only creating lots. She said that after the public hearing, she crafted
additional language to stipulate if the property owner is disturbing 50 percent or more
of the land, then the sidewalk requirement would be triggered. She meant the
sidewalk requirement to be triggered when a new principal building is built or the
principal building is being torn down and rebuilt but not when someone needs to
change something very minor on the property. Mr. Czar asked why 50 percent of the
land area instead of 30 percent of replacement value which was used for non-
conforming characteristics provisions a few meetings ago. Ms. Hauth said 30 percent
in other language was referring to the cost of the building project, not the area of the
land. Mr. Hornik suggested the language could refer to both the land area disturbed
and the building value and the members agreed.
4. Amend Section 6.7.2 to clarify when design standards for new non-residential
construction apply
The board suggested changing “pedestrian-oriented” to “proposed for businesses with
significant onsite customer/client foot traffic.”
PB minutes
5/18/17 meeting
Page 5 of 5
5. Amend sections 6.18.12 and 14 to increase the square footage of wall-mounted signs
allowed in the Central Commercial Zoning District and to clarify references in the
section about the location of freestanding signs
MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved that the Planning Board recommend approval these amendments
as discussed. Ms. Helfrich seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
ITEM #6: Added item — new town policy for appointing volunteers to advisory boards
Ms. Hauth reviewed the new policy which explains a process that replaces advisory
boards interviewing candidates with an interview with the staff person to the advisory
board and one member of the advisory board, preferably the chair, if available.
ITEM #7: Adjourn
MOTION: Mr. Peterson moved to adjourn at 8:49 p.m. Ms. Sykes seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Hauth
Secretary