Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-17-2017 Minutes PB Regular MeetingPB Minutes 8/17/2017 Page 1 of 6 Minutes Hillsborough Planning Board 7 p.m. August 17, 2017 Town Barn, 101 E. Orange St. Present: Dan Barker, Toby Vandemark, Rick Brewer, James Czar, Lisa Frazier, Janie Morris, Doug Peterson, Jennifer Sykes and Chris Wehrman Staff: Economic Development Planner Shannan Campbell, 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 There were no changes. ITEM #3: Approval of minutes from the June 15, 2017, meeting and the July 20, 2017, joint public hearing. Ms. Sykes said for the July minutes discussion about the art studio on Brownville Avenue, she was not only concerned about noise but also about smoke. She said she may not have said “smoke” aloud but was thinking smoke could be a problem, depending on the type of art made at the studio. Ms. Hauth said she would note that. MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved approval of both sets of minutes with the additional comment noted. Mr. Brewer seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #4: Citizen request to address the board about the “missing middle” in the housing market. Ms. Hauth introduced Bruce Alexander, who is interested in building multiple freestanding homes on one parcel. Mr. Alexander said he has a small firm called Pocket Properties. He said the missing middle is any housing type that falls between detached single-family homes and mid- rise apartments. He is interested in building bungalow courts in Hillsborough and has had discussions with Ms. Hauth, who has explained bungalow courts are not allowed. Mr. Alexander would like the Planning Board to consider an amendment to the ordinance to allow 8 to 10 dwellings on a parcel from a half acre to 2 acres. The design would be whatever would meet the requirements. Mr. Alexander said he is interested in retaining ownership of the homes and making them available for rent. Mr. Barker asked Ms. Hauth how this idea or proposal does not fit with the ordinance. Ms. Hauth answered that in the Residential 10 District, a duplex, triplex or even quadplex could be built on a 40,000-square-foot parcel. But, she said, the ordinance does not clearly state that four unattached units can be placed on that lot and it is not clear that there can be multiple primary dwellings on a lot. Ms. Hauth said if Mr. Alexander decided to sell such dwellings, it would be difficult to figure out how to subdivide the homes. PB Minutes 8/17/2017 Page 2 of 6 When asked, Ms. Hauth clarified that the neighborhood Fiori Hill has single houses on single lots. What Mr. Alexander is suggesting would look similar and be a similar size. Mr. Czar said he likes the pocket neighborhood idea and thinks it is reminiscent of mill villages and how some parts of town were built. But, he said, it is a problem to figure out what would happen when needing to sell in the future if the homes were initially built on one parcel without subdivision. He suggested Mr. Alexander talk to Ms. Hauth regarding how to dissolve the single parcel in the future. Mr. Barker asked Mr. Alexander why he would not create separate parcels from the start. Mr. Alexander said it could be done that way. Mr. Czar said you probably wouldn’t want them as large as our smallest lots at 10,000 sf. Mr. Brewer said it would be good to be more knowledgeable regarding what other communities have done with this type of housing. He asked Mr. Alexander to bring back information about other communities who have done this. Mr. Alexander said he will continue to work with Ms. Hauth and give her information about other communities with bungalow courts on one parcel. ITEM #5: Rezoning and special use permit to rezone the parcel at 128 Brownville Ave. from Residential 15 to neighborhood business special use. The application includes a special use permit to convert the existing structure to artist studio space for the owner and one apartment. Ms. Hauth reviewed that the public hearing on this item was held July 20. If conditions were necessary, the board would discuss them with the applicant for agreement. MOTION: Ms. Sykes moved to recommend that the Board of Commissioners approve this rezoning and special use permit, as submitted. Ms. Morris seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #6: Special use permit to (1) convert an existing house into a restaurant and add a 2,000-square-foot, one-story addition to it; (2) construct a 6,000-square- foot, two-story building for use as a restaurant; and (3) create off-street parking spaces. Ms. Hauth clarified that the master plan was approved two years ago, although speakers at the public hearing mistakenly referred to approval being a year ago. She reviewed that there were concerns about the sidewalk at the public hearing. Ms. Hauth said until the public hearing, she was not aware that the Walgreens sidewalk did not extend to the property line. The town needs to solve that problem. The applicant has three proposals in the packet for bringing the restaurant sidewalk to its property line. Connecting with Walgreens is not the applicant’s responsibility, she said. The town would have to pay for the connection. The town would have to get agreement from Walgreens to allow the town to connect the sidewalk. There was brief discussion that Scenario 2 is odd-looking with ramps and railings. There is no difference between scenarios 1 and 3 for the applicant. Mr. Czar asked if Walgreens would need a retaining wall for Scenario 3. Jamie Loyack, a licensed landscape architect with HagerSmith Design, answered positively. Ms. Hauth reviewed that waiver requests 1 and 2 regard the buffer encroachment at the driveway and a reduction of the buffer requirement on the Walgreens side from 40 feet to 20 feet. Ms. Hauth reviewed PB Minutes 8/17/2017 Page 3 of 6 that waivers 3 through 9 address the design standards intended to establish an urban edge, bringing buildings close to the street and establishing roof pitch requirements. She said this is a campus with a rural setting, so the design is counter to urban development. Ms. Hauth said that was known when the master plan was approved but waivers cannot be granted at the master plan stage. Ms. Vandemark said driving along U.S. 70 now, one cannot see what is on the property. She is wondering whether the applicant plans to remove some shrubs or trees to make the restaurant more visible. The applicant answered removal would be only to build the sidewalk. The applicant said the grade would prevent one from seeing the house even if the trees and shrubs were cut. The new building will probably be visible from the highway. Ms. Hauth reviewed that waivers 10 and 11 refer to driveways. There are existing driveways on site that the applicant wishes to use rather than cutting down trees to build driveways that meet the town’s specifications. The applicant will have to meet the N.C. Department of Transportation specifications for driveways. Ms. Hauth reviewed that Waiver 12 regards lighting. Rather than using the standard cut-off light fixtures, the applicant would prefer to use decorative lighting, including strings of lighting with tiny exposed bulbs. Ms. Hauth said she does not think this waiver request is a problem for this site, which is surrounded by trees. Ms. Sykes said she is OK with the waiver. But if there are nature trails, she thinks there should be some lighting for those. Mr. Barker said light getting to where neighbors can see it is a concern. Ms. Hauth said they have an open line of communication with the closest residential neighbors. Ron Spada, who owns the Gatewood property, said that neighbor is concerned with headlights and the applicant is making private arrangements to keep the headlights from shining along a 100-foot section of the property line shared with that residential neighbor. Mr. Barker asked whether a condition needed to be written into the approval. Ms. Hauth said she prefers for the neighbors to make a private agreement. Ms. Hauth noted that the town attorney was nodding in agreement. The board then discussed the sidewalk scenarios. Mr. Brewer said as long as the applicant agrees to take the sidewalk to the edge of the property, then this discussion does not need to involve how to connect to Walgreens. Mr. Czar said he agreed but thought this board should give guidance to the Board of Commissioners regarding the preferred scenario. Mr. Brewer said he agreed but it should be separate discussions. Ms. Hauth suggested this board could say that it strongly encourages the Board of Commissioners to find a solution to make the sidewalks connect because actually the design solution is probably not subject to a public hearing. Ms. Hauth noted there is a sidewalk from Corbin Creek Woods that ends at U.S. 70 in line with Orange High School Road. She has received an email from a citizen requesting a crosswalk at U.S. 70 there and she is certain NCDOT will not approve that. MOTION: Mr. Peterson moved to recommend that the Board of Commissioners approve the special use permit with the waivers granted and the provision of a sidewalk as shown in option 3. Ms. Sykes seconded. VOTE: Unanimous PB Minutes 8/17/2017 Page 4 of 6 ITEM #7: Ordinance text amendments to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance to reflect updated flood boundaries developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency Ms. Hauth reviewed that the maps and language were provided by the state and FEMA. The only question at the public hearing was one about the permissibility of using fill dirt in the flood plain because roads and utilities were allowed. Ms. Hauth said it is a valid question but it will not be a problem. If NCDOT wants to build a new road in the flood plain, the ordinance will be amended to make that happen, she said. She is not worried about taking care of it now. Mr. Czar said by stating “no fill,” there is no development. He recommends adhering to building code requirements for fill to be stable, found in the American Society of Civil Engineers 24: Flood Resistant Design and Construction. When asked, Ms. Hauth said the fill prohibition would affect properties in the flood plain of Cates Creek or Stroud’s Creek. She added that the fill prohibition language is shaded green and is optional in the draft text. Mr. Czar said he would recommend scratching that. Any fill would be subject to the building code, which is ASCE 24. Mr. Czar said he had additional comments to share for consideration. He said the town has a definition for “digital flood insurance rate map,” which is outdated terminology. Everyone calls them FIRMs and doesn’t use the word “digital.” Mr. Czar said that this proposed text amendment uses the words “Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation” but the town code uses the language “base flood elevation” and “design flood elevation,” so he suggests using that language. Ms. Hauth said it may be a state/federal requirement to use that language, so she is hesitant to change it. Mr. Czar said there is also a definition for “reference level.” Building code just calls these “lowest floor” because “reference level” usually refers to something else, so he recommends using the language “lowest floor.” Mr. Czar added that on Page 7 under the discussion under “technical bulletins,” he thinks that is information for the flood manager which does not belong in the regulations. That suggestion was agreed upon by the board and Ms. Hauth. Mr. Czar said on Page 15, the variances have to be scrutinized because variances cannot be granted for a lot of reasons. Ms. Hauth agreed and said she is not sure the town has ever granted a variance. Mr. Czar and Ms. Hauth agreed to take out the fill prohibition on Page 18 under Number 16 and on Page 19 under Letter F. Mr. Czar asked the board to look at Page 19 under “Elevated buildings, Subsection 8” which states that buildings for habitation are not allowed. He questioned how that applies to the restrooms in Gold Park. Ms. Hauth said the town does not allow any development in the flood plain. She clarified that the structures at Gold Park are not in the flood plain. On Page 21, an exception is offered for an accessory structure with a footprint of less than 150 square feet that costs less than $3,000. Mr. Czar urged that exception be struck. Ms. Hauth said the Ordinance prohibits any type of structure in the flood plain in another section anyway and she leaves the language in this document so that the state can easily see Hillsborough is in compliance. He also pointed out a clerical error to Ms. Hauth, which she noted. MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to recommend the Board of Commissioners approve the changes Mr. Czar recommended that Ms. Hauth agreed upon. Mr. Peterson seconded. VOTE: Unanimous PB Minutes 8/17/2017 Page 5 of 6 ITEM #8: Unified Development Ordinance text amendments to amend the criteria for determining modifications to conditional use and special use permits in sections 3.8.21 and 3.9.13. Ms. Hauth reviewed that at the public hearing, the board discussed the language for modifications versus minor changes for both special use and conditional use permits. At the June Planning Board meeting, there was discussion about “significant” meaning a change that is important to the character or the appearance of the project and “substantial change” meaning something that is quantifiable about the size or impact. Ms. Hauth said she had not prepared language reflecting that for the public hearing. For the agenda packet for this meeting, she highlighted in blue under this item her draft language to clarify that distinction. Ms. Hauth said she included language that staff would review the minutes of previous public hearings held on a project to review what people cared about when the project was initially approved to help staff determine whether another public hearing would need to be scheduled due to the proposed changes. Also, there was discussion in June of whether the list of criteria should be followed by the words “may” or “shall set a public hearing.” Ms. Hauth believes “shall” is appropriate; if any of those criteria are met, the board shall call a public hearing. Mr. Hornik said the definitions for “significant” and “substantial” are good but his intention at the June meeting was for the board to make clear at what point a change becomes significant or substantial. For other towns, his firm has recommended eliminating one term or the other and then setting a threshold of something like a 10 percent change in the size of a building requiring a different procedure. He suggests this because in the fall his firm finished representing a town in litigation related to not defining when a change triggers a public hearing. Enough confusion was created for an applicant that a lawsuit resulted. The definitions of substantial versus significant are fine, but Mr. Hornik advises putting a tipping point within each definition. Ms. Hauth said in third criteria, tipping points have been added but only for building area with a change of 20 percent or greater, an increase of intensity including the number of dwelling units by 10 percent or greater, and/or a change in parking (either more or less) by more than 10 percent. Ms. Hauth said the board has not thought of every other possibility that may create a significant change. Ms. Sykes pointed out that Section E then gives staff discretion. Ms. Hauth said those three scenarios that she just mentioned come up most often. Otherwise, the applicant is asking for a new waiver, which puts the applicant in another public hearing anyway. When asked for other quantifiable changes, Ms. Hauth said the number of trees removed or planted would also be quantifiable. Mr. Czar said the amount of area being cleared. Ms. Hauth said if there was a change in the amount of area being cleared, most likely something else would be changing, too, like the size of the building or the amount of parking. Mr. Hornik said something like tree canopy coverage could change significantly. But, he added, as long as Ms. Hauth is aware that the town’s definition complies with a general dictionary definition, the town should be OK. Ms. Hauth said she was aware of that. When asked by Mr. Brewer, Ms. Hauth said the three things quantified, with the addition of Section E, is pretty solid. She would not mind also including a 10 percent change in building height. A board member suggested stating if any statistic changed b y more than 10 percent. Ms. Hauth suggested the board specify a change in square footage rather than in building footprint. PB Minutes 8/17/2017 Page 6 of 6 Mr. Hornik said he realizes it may not be practical to write into the ordinance all possible changes. Ms. Hauth suggested stating a building square footage change of 20 percent or less and a building height not to exceed the district limit. Mr. Barker suggested writing in a 10 percent change in square footage. The board talked about how a building could look very different if it were made wider, changing the footprint but not necessarily the square footage. Ms. Hauth said that would be a change in form and, thus, would still trigger a public hearing. Ms. Hauth said a change in building square footage needs a bigger threshold because some buildings are small and 10 percent is not enough leeway. The board was comfortable with stipulating a change in building square footage of 20 percent and a 10 percent change in any other quantifiable standard. Mr. Hornik said a blanket percentage of change provides the most clarity. Ms. Hauth said this isn’t really so much to allow a property owner to make an approved building bigger at initial build but to accommodate an addition on an existing building. The board wanted to keep criteria A as a catchall. MOTION: Ms. Sykes moved to recommend that the Board of Commissioners approve the amendment as discussed. Ms. Vandemark seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #9: Unified Development Ordinance text amendments to amend Section 9.1.4, gross residential density measurement. Ms. Hauth reviewed these amendments are to rename the calculation and to include an example. MOTION: Ms. Sykes moved to recommend that the Board of Commissioners approve the amendments. Ms. Morris seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #10: Unified Development Ordinance text amendments to amend Section 6.11.6.1 to reference the maximum light pole height of 25 feet. MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to recommend that the Board of Commissioners approve the amendments. Ms. Frazier seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Ms. Hauth introduced Chris Tauer, who had attended the meeting with interest in serving on the Planning Board or Board of Adjustment. The members engaged Mr. Tauer in brief discussion of his interest in serving on the board. The members further discussed the new appointment process which no longer involved an interview with the advisory board. ITEM #11: Adjourn MOTION: Mr. Brewer moved to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Czar seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Hauth Secretary