Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-15-2017 Minutes PB Regular MeetingPB Minutes 6/15/2017 Page 1 of 4 Minutes Hillsborough Planning Board 7 p.m. June 15, 2017 Town Barn, 101 E. Orange St. Present: Dan Barker, Toby Vandemark, Rick Brewer, Janie Morris, Doug Peterson, Jennifer Sykes, and Chris Wehrman Staff: Planning Director Margaret Hauth and Town Attorney Kevin Hornik ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum Mr. Barker called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Ms. Hauth confirmed the presence of a quorum. ITEM #2: Consideration of additions or changes to the agenda Ms. Hauth informed the board that the Board of Commissioners had approved everything the Planning Board had recommended and had granted the parking waiver for Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, which the Planning Board had not recommended. She reported the Board of Commissioners had engaged in lengthy discussion about the parking requirements for accessory dwelling units and that the board was disappointed to hear it is not legal for the town to require that the primary or accessory dwelling unit be occupied by the owner of the property. ITEM #3: Approval of minutes from the May 18, 2017, meeting MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved approval of the May minutes. Ms. Morris seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #4: Amendments to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Ms. Hauth said the flood maps have been updated and the Town of Hillsborough has until November to refer to the new information to remain in the flood insurance program. Ms. Hauth added that she does not think there are significant changes. She said she is planning to directly mail notice to property owners in the flood plain and place an advertisement in the newspaper. MOTION: Mr. Peterson moved to send the amendments to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance to public hearing in July. Ms. Vandemark seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #5: Discussion of possible text amendments for July public hearing Residential density yield Ms. Hauth informed the board that it came to her attention that the language regarding this topic in the Unified Development Ordinance needed to be amended when another jurisdiction called to ask about the interpretation of this ordinance. Ms. Hauth suggested changing the title of Section 9.1.4 to read “Dwelling unit yield” rather than “Gross residential density measurement.” She explained the intention was to provide the calculation for the yield of lots and not the density. MOTION: Mr. Brewer moved to recommend that the Board of Commissioners send this amendment to the July public hearing. Ms. Vandemark seconded. VOTE: Unanimous PB Minutes 6/15/2017 Page 2 of 4 Minor changes and modifications Ms. Hauth said she would like better language to make it clearer when modifications to special use permits or conditional use permits need review from the board that approved the permit. Also, the current language does not make it clear when another public hearing should be called due to a modification. Ms. Hauth referred to a chart she created for reference and included in the agenda packet. The chart indicates modifications to special use and conditional use permits and whether a public hearing was held due to the modification. She suggested the proposed text amendment on pages 7 and 8 of the agenda packet that states changes consistent with the original approval would constitute a minor change. The amendment also states that a modification would be constituted by a change to a specific condition imposed during the approval of the special use permit or by a change that expands upon an approved waiver or requests a new waiver. The proposed language also explains what constitutes a substantial change of use or rearrangement of uses. It also allows for the planning director to recommend a public hearing for any reason due to minor changes. Ms. Hauth gave examples of what might constitute a substantial change and what might not. For instance, modifying the area of a large warehouse on a large piece of land by 20 percent may not be significant, but enlarging an office building by 20 percent may be significant because of the increase in employees and parking needs. She answered a board member’s question affirmatively that the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners can decide to send anything to public hearing. Ms. Sykes said that is important. Mr. Hornik suggested adding definitions for “significant” and “substantial.” Ms. Hauth asked the board to talk about whether to use both words. When asked, Ms. Hauth affirmed that conditional use permit modifications go before the Board of Adjustment and that special use permit modifications go before the Board of Commissioners because those boards would have approved the original permits. MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to send the amendment to public hearing. Ms. Morris seconded. Discussion: Ms. Hauth asked for discussion on whether to use both “significant” and “substantial” in the amendment language. Mr. Brewer said “substantial” is addressed in the third bulleted point of the amended language and “significant” in the first two bulleted points. Mr. Barker added that “significant” is poorly defined and poorly quantified. Ms. Hauth asked the board whether she should replace “significant” with “substantial” in the first bulleted point. Ms. Vandemark said “significant” indicates it is important and “substantial” refers to the size. Ms. Sykes gave an example of a change to a building not being substantial in terms of size but yet significant in terms of orientation and feel from the street. Ms. Hauth summarized that significant changes have more to do with the character and less to do with the numbers. Ms. Hauth said she can craft language that defines significant changes as those affecting the character. VOTE: Unanimous PB Minutes 6/15/2017 Page 3 of 4 ITEM #6: Discussion of other text amendment possibilities for prioritization Ms. Hauth referred to a list on Page 12 of the agenda packet. Ms. Hauth explained that the Parks and Recreation Board would like the Planning Board to work on modifying the recreation points to incentivize some recreational opportunities. For instance, the town does not have enough basketball courts so those facilities could be worth more points. Ms. Hauth said some neighboring jurisdictions no longer use the point system but instead collect money from developers and then build parks. She does not think Hillsborough is in a position to do that for every development. Regarding lighting, Ms. Hauth informed the board that Duke Energy has offered to provide town staff with technical guidance. She will report to the Planning Board when she knows more. Ms. Hauth mentioned that some buffer items are on the list, generated from recent buffer waiver requests. Regarding tree protection and retention, planning staff is asking the Planning Board to create an alternative to percentages. Ms. Hauth added that the topic steep slopes is on the list because waivers on the topic have been requested frequently. Perhaps the Unified Development Ordinance language should specify natural steep slopes rather than those made by man, she said. Ms. Hauth noted the agenda packet includes a list of waiver requests on four commercial sites. Also on the list is fixture height. Commercial developers ask for a waiver from the requirement to have a lower light fixture because the standard Duke Energy light poles are 25 feet tall. Ms. Hauth said the Parks and Recreation Board would like the revised recreation points to be on the agenda for the October public hearing. Mr. Barker asked the Planning Board to prioritize the list. Ms. Vandemark suggested starting with the recreation points. Mr. Barker said steep slope waivers and excessive parking waivers frequently come before the Board of Adjustment. He said he thinks designers make extra waiver requests when they know they have to go before the Board of Adjustment for at least one waiver. Ms. Hauth said if the board was ready to strike the language about pervious parking spaces, the board could vote this evening to send that change to the July public hearing. The Planning Board could require more data before granting any waivers for extra parking spaces and remove the provision for pervious parking spaces. Mr. Barker said he would like staff to be able to approve extra parking spaces when needed. Ms. Hauth said staff is not allowed to have discretion. Mr. Barker suggested putting language in the amendment to discourage extra parking, like requiring the parking to be an electric charging station. Ms. Sykes agreed with wanting to make it difficult to add parking spaces above what is allowed. Ms. Hauth suggested the board could remove the language about pervious parking PB Minutes 6/15/2017 Page 4 of 4 spaces and add language to say modified parking standards shall be accompanied with clear justification. Ms. Hauth pointed out that the board has been uncomfortable when an applicant has requested less parking than what is required as well. If they want reduced parking, the board also wants to see data to be sure that an applicant truly does not need the parking. Ms. Hauth suggested the parking space language and the lighting fixture height amendment could be sent to the July public hearing. Mr. Barker said the height of the light should be easy to get by simply phrasing that the Duke standard for lights is allowed. He said he has concerns about striking the pervious parking language absolutely. He asked if the board should make obtaining extra parking a pain or a pain only if the applicant wants to add 20 percent more parking or 10 more spaces. Ms. Hauth said the board could discuss parking further and send an amendment to the October public hearing. MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to send the lighting standard amendment allowing 25-foot poles to public hearing in July. Ms. Morris seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Mr. Barker asked if there is anything else to send to public hearing in July. Ms. Hauth asked if the board is ready to let go of any of the steep slope requirements. She is not necessarily recommending that. Ms. Hauth and Mr. Brewer agreed the Planning Board should spend more time on the proposal before sending it to public hearing. Ms. Hauth informed the board that there are two development proposals for the July public hearing. One is the first phase for the Gatewood property next to Walgreens, which will include 2 restaurants. The second development is on Brownville Street in what has been a laundromat and a church behind The Village Diner. The applicant is submitting a neighborhood special use rezoning and permit application for an artist studio and apartment to rent out. ITEM #7: Adjourn MOTION: Mr. Brewer moved to adjourn at 7:49 p.m. Ms. Sykes seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Hauth Secretary