Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-10-2017 Minutes BOA Regular MeetingSOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH Minutes Board of Adjustment 7 p.m. Wednesday, May 10, 2017 Town Barn, 101 E. Orange St. Present: Chairman David Remington, Rob Bray, James Czar, Rod Jones and Brian Perkins (alternate) Staff: Senior Planner Tom King Guests: Phil Koch, Shawn Sidener and Dr. David Durack Item 1: Call the meeting to order; confirm presence of a quorum. Chairman Remington called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Mr. King confirmed a quorum was present. Item 2: Consideration of changes and addition to the agenda. There were no changes. Item 3: Approval of April 12, 2017, meeting minutes. Motion: Mr. Czar moved approval of the minutes as submitted. Second: Mr. Jones seconded. Vote: Unanimous Item 4: Case #BA -02-2017 (Appeal — Leah Drive Flex Space Project) Phil Koch and Tom King were sworn in. Mr. King entered into the record the staff report. He added that one additional waiver was identified after the agenda packet was generated. Mr. King stated that the appellant's updated waiver request, received on May 5, 2017, was at each members' seat. Mr. King reviewed the appellant's information, the property location, and requested action. The appellant is David Durack for Durack Investments LLC. The location is 2210 and 2220 Leah Drive (Orange County PINS 9873-18-3666 and 9873-18-5484). The requested action is an appeal from the Technical Review Committee's April 4, 2017 denial of site plan approval for the Leah Drive Flex Space project. The project consists of the construction of two, one-story flex space buildings of 10,200 square feet and 12,000 square feet in area (a total of 22,200 square feet) and includes 74 off-street parking spaces. Mr. King stated that the committee reviewed the plan on April 4, 2017. Thirteen aspects of the project did not comply with Section 6 (Development Standards) of the Unified Development Ordinance. The Technical Review Committee had no choice but to deny the plan. Mr. King said he met with the appellant's engineer on April 7, 2017 to discuss where things stood. At the meeting, it was determined that the plans could be adjusted so that several of the identified waivers would no longer be required. After discussion, it was determined that only nine waivers were needed. The appellant filed the appeal on April 13, 2017. On May 5, 2017, Mr. King was informed by the Page 1 of 6 appellant's engineer that an additional waiver would be required. Mr. King advised that the board would need to review the 10 waivers at tonight's meeting. Chairman Remington said he would like more information about the comments both from Orange County and Hillsborough Stormwater and Environmental Services Manager Terry Hackett. Mr. King said the stormwater management technique proposed is relatively new. Mr. Koch said he and Mr. Hackett determined the current off-site basins near the site that were designed for the Old Mill development are not functional and would have to be replaced. Both men agree it is better to handle the stormwater on site as shown, Mr. Koch said. The proposed device is accepted by the State, Mr. Koch said. Mr. Hackett is not very familiar with it, Mr. Koch said. Mr. Koch believes it provides better treatment than most of the other devices in the stormwater system. Mr. King said Mr. Hackett just had questions about how it functioned. Mr. Koch said there will be greater detail when erosion control plans are submitted to Orange County. The board reviewed the waivers (found on pages 5 and 6 of the agenda packet and the updated list at their seats). The first regarded Subsection 6.10 (Landscaping [Parking Lot]), Paragraph 6.10.3 (Landscaping Requirements), Subparagraph 6.10.3.7: "Parking facilities, unless located on or within a structure, shall be separated from the exterior wall of a structure by a landscaped area at least 5 feet in width." Mr. Koch said the justification for the waiver is that the rear parking lot would need to accommodate vehicles backing up to roll -up doors. He said if they tried to create landscaping, the landscaping would be limited to an 8 -foot -by -5 -foot space because of the required stoop for the pedestrian doors and the driving pad for the roll -up doors. Chairman Remington said the most someone could do is build landscaped peninsulas. Mr. King said other business owners have done that but not on this scale with this design. Mr. Bray checked there would be five of these 8 -foot -by -5 -foot landscaped areas. Mr. Koch said it would look busy. Mr. Koch said the spacing would not be perfectly even. In some spots, it might be a 5 -foot -by -5 -foot strip. Mr. Czar said he does not have a strong feeling on this waiver. The appellant could build 5 -foot islands, but significant vegetation would not be able to be placed there. Because the area is on the back side of the building and not facing Leah Drive, Mr. Czar thinks the waiver is OK. Mr. Jones asked what the purpose of the 5 -foot strip is. Mr. King said he imagines it's for aesthetics and to keep parking spaces from being placed right up to the building foundation Upon final review at the end of the discussion, the board decided to grant this waiver The second waiver regarded Subsection 6.11 (Lighting), Paragraph 6.11.4 (Minimum Light Levels), Subparagraph 6.11.4.2: "Interior sidewalks, those sidewalks that connect buildings to parking areas, common areas, of facilities within a development that are likely to be used at night, shall have a minimum light intensity of 0.5 footcandles." Mr. King said the appellant could not provide information verifying that the standard could be met. Mr. Koch said they want the front to have lighting on the sidewalk. They would add lighting mounted on the exterior walls. Mr. Koch said the appellant's intent is to light the sidewalk. It is easier to rent out a Page 2 of 6 building that has proper lighting and visibility. From an engineering standpoint, there is no reason not to provide the lighting. Mr. Bray asked Mr. Koch to comment on what sorts of businesses would likely rent this space. Would they be open after dark? Mr. Koch said some typical businesses that rent flex spaces are open late. There was discussion of stipulating that the standard of minimal lighting be met. Mr. Koch suggested the appellant could create a lighting plan to be submitted with building plans that shows the lighting. By then, the appellant would know exactly where the wall lights would be mounted. Mr. King said a partial waiver could be granted relative to this standard. Shawn Sidener, of Mr. Koch's office, was sworn in. He said he had placed a note on the plans stating that the minimum lighting standard of 0.5 is required to be met. Mr. Koch said he cannot get a Certificate of Occupancy in Durham until the light is measured. Mr. King explained building inspections and planning are separate in Hillsborough. Orange County Inspections performs the building code enforcement in Hillsborough. Planning currently does not have a good way in which to place a note for building inspections to hold a Certificate of Occupancy until the light is measured. Chairman Remington said it should be noted that this is early in the process to have a lighting plan and to expect the plan not to change. Mr. Czar pointed out that an applicant could have a perfect lighting plan at this point that does not turn out exactly as planned because it is so early in the process. The board agreed there would be a partial waiver granted on the lighting waiver so the town can follow up and document that the lighting requirement has been met. The plan was approved with the sidewalk around the buildings not having a footcandle reading of 0.5 or greater, with the understanding that this requirement would be met in the future with the addition of wall -mounted building lighting. As part of the granting of this waiver, the appellant will provide a revised lighting plan showing the provision will be met to the Hillsborough Planning Department for review at the time building permits are submitted. Waiver 3 involved Subsection 6.11 (Lighting), Paragraph 6.11.6 (installation), Subparagraph 6.11.6.1: "Lighting fixtures height shall not exceed the lesser of the maximum permitted building height for the district, or the maximum height of the main portion of the primary building on the site (excluding spires, towers, parapet walls and the like) on the site. For sites where no building is proposed, mounting height for fixtures shall not exceed 15 feet for non -cutoff -type fixtures or 25 feet for cut -off -type fixtures. This provision shall not apply to outdoor athletic field and outdoor performance area lighting provided the other applicable requirements of this section are met." Mr. Czar acknowledged this is a common waiver because Duke Energy only buys 25 -foot tall poles. Upon final review at the end of the discussion, the board agreed to grant this waiver. Waiver 4 involved Subsection 6.13 (Parking, Loading, and Circulation), Paragraph 6.13.9 (Off-street Parking Design Requirements), Subparagraph 6.13.9.1: "Except as permitted consistent with Section 6.5.10, South Churton non-residential buffer, parking shall be placed at the side or rear of the lot and screened from view consistent with landscaping requirements and screening requirements in this section." Page 3 of 6 Mr. King said this parking lot would be more in front of the Phase 2 building. The property is pie -shaped, so parking would be visible from some angles. During Phase 1, all parking would be located to the side or rear of the building. Mr. King read the appellant's justification for the waiver, included in the agenda packet. The justification explained that it was necessary to place Building 2 in the center of the site to have adequate turn radii for fire trucks and dumpster trucks and to screen the loading area from view. Upon final review at the end of the discussion, the board agreed to grant this waiver, acknowledging that some portions of the front parking area will be located at the front of the lot and in front of the Phase 2 building. Waiver 5 involved Subsection 6.13 (Parking, Loading, and Circulation), Paragraph 6.13.12 (Off-street Loading Requirements), Subparagraph 6.13.12.1: "Delivery areas, loading docks, and service areas shall be located behind the primary building." The justification is the Phase 1 building would be the primary building and would face the roadway. The roll -up doors from Phase 2 would not be seen on Leah Drive because there would be a retaining wall. Mr. Koch said behind the retaining wall there would be a 10 -foot concrete area to move products through doors from the loading area. That wall would be 8 to 10 feet tall, so the ability to see the building dock and roll -up doors would be extremely difficult. Above the wall would be landscaping. Upon final review at the end of the discussion, the board agreed to grant this waiver, acknowledging several of the roll -up loading area doors of the Phase 2 building will be located on the front, street side of the building. Waiver 6, which was identified after the agenda packet was assembled, involved Subsection 6.17 (Sidewalks and Walkways), Paragraph 6.17.3 (General Provisions), Subparagraph 6.17.3.3 (Design Requirements), Item (d): "For non-residential lots with existing sidewalks or for sidewalks constructed as part of a new development, shade trees shall be located in the parcel front yard so as to shade the walkway without damaging it. The shade trees shall be installed 10 feet behind the sidewalk and be spaced no greater than 40 feet on center. This requirement shall not be applied to non-residential buildings built within 10 feet of the right-of-way or with a front courtyard or other site features that provide similar shading." Mr. King said the appellant is required to plant shade trees along the sidewalk. This was not identified until the previous week when Mr. King was discussing the waivers with the appellant over the phone. Because of a utility easement running along the edge of the street right-of-way, the street trees cannot be planted exactly 10 feet from the back of the existing sidewalk. Upon final review at the end of the discussion, the board agreed to grant this waiver, stipulating that the required street trees may be located 15 feet or closer to the existing sidewalk along Leah Drive. Waivers 7, 8, and 9 — labeled 6, 7, and 8 in the agenda packet — all involve steep slopes. The appellant proposed to disturb more than 25 percent of the steep slopes on the site. Page 4 of 6 Mr. Koch explained there is no way other than to disturb the area to create an area where fire trucks can turn around. There is a stormwater easement that further restricts where buildings and parking can be placed on the site. Waiver 7 involved Subsection 6.19 (Steep Slopes), Paragraph 6.19.3 (Development Standards), Subparagraph 6.19.3.2: "No area containing 400 square feet or more may have a grade change of 10 feet or more from predevelopment to post -development elevations." Upon final review at the end of the discussion, the board agreed to grant this waiver, stipulating that the plans are approved with areas greater than 400 square feet in area containing grade changes of 10 feet or more between the pre- and post -development condition. Waiver 8 involved Subsection 6.19 (Steep Slopes), Paragraph 6.19.3 (Development Standards), Subparagraph 6.19.3.3: "No more than 25 percent of any indicated area with a slope between 15 and 25 percent may be disturbed." Upon final review at the end of the discussion, the board agreed to grant this waiver, acknowledging the plans are approved with 52.7 percent of slopes between 15 and 25 percent being disturbed by the proposed development. Waiver 9 involved Subsection 6.19 (Steep Slopes), Paragraph 6.19.3 (Development Standards), Subparagraph 6.19.3.4: "No more than 25 percent of any indicated area with a slope greater than 25 percent may be disturbed." Upon final review at the end of the discussion, the board agreed to grant this waiver, acknowledging the plans are approved with 49.2 percent of slopes greater than 25 percent being disturbed by the proposed development. Waiver 10 involved Subsection 6.22 (Tree Protection Standards), Paragraph 6.22.4 (Standards), Subparagraph 6.22.4.2, Item (c): "For sites with existing predevelopment tree coverage area that covers more than 50 percent of the site, some reduction of that percentage may be approved by the permit - issuing authority." Mr. King said he was not certain this waiver request is needed because the Unified Development Ordinance states some reduction in percentage may be approved by the permit -issuing authority. He read the appellant's written justification for the waiver, which stated that it was not possible to save more trees because of the significant grading and retaining walls needed to build on the site. The board then further discussed Waiver 2, as captured in the minutes above. Motion: Mr. Czar moved to close the public hearing on this item. Second: Mr. Jones seconded. Vote: Unanimous There was further discussion about approving this appeal. Mr. Jones said he wonders whether two buildings proposed on an odd -shaped, steep -sloped lot is too much. Page 5 of 6 Mr. Czar said these are not unusual waivers forth is board. The square footage density that the appellant proposes on the lot is consistent with other lots nearby with flex space. To make something economically viable, the appellant has to be able to build a certain amount of square footage. Mr. Jones asked if the Board of Adjustment is supposed to be considering that. Mr. Czar said that is a good question. If flex space is one of the approved uses in the zoning district, then the board should expect to see a request for several waivers on a site like this, Mr. Czar said. Deciding that the appellant can only build the first building to eliminate some of the waiver requests is not a realistic usage of the property, he said. It is just not viable. If a different type of business could develop that site, then it probably would have been done. It is not an easily developable site. It is not attractive for a lot of other uses. Flex space as it is proposed for this site is something the owner thinks will be useful for the site, Mr. Czar said. Mr. King said people are looking for flex space right now and are not able to find good spots. Generally, this proposal would use existing resources in town where the Board of Commissioners wants development to occur. Motion: Mr. Czar moved to reverse the ruling of the Technical Review Committee, to grant Waiver 1 and waivers 3 through 10, and to grant a partial waiver for Waiver 2 with the provision that a revised lighting plan meeting ordinance requirements be submitted to the town for review at the building permit stage. The Board of Adjustment refers the application back to the Technical Review Committee for review of drawings consistent with comments this evening. Second: Mr. Bray seconded Vote: Unanimous Item 5: Committee and staff report • Mr. King reported that two nights earlier the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners had recommended that the Orange County Board of Commissioners reappoint Rob Bray to a full term ending June 30, 2020. There was discussion at this Board of Adjustment meeting as to whether Mr. Bray is an alternate or holds a regular seat. • Mr. King reviewed Hillsborough's new policy on appointing volunteers to advisory boards. • Mr. King reported on the news release information about the former Colonial Inn and an agreement between the town and the property's owners to settle an eminent domain action filed in 2016 by the town. • Mr. Czar reported the Planning Board had recently discussed an expansion of the possibilities for homeowners to build accessory dwelling units and amendment language that would control by -the - road sales. Item 6: Adjourn Motion: Mr. Czar moved to adjourn at 9:23 p.m. Second: Mr. Jones seconded. Vote: Unanimous Approved: Tom King, AICP, CZO Senior Planner Secretary to the Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 6