HomeMy Public PortalAbout09-21-2017 Minutes PB Regular MeetingPB Minutes
9/21/2017
Page 1 of 4
Minutes
Hillsborough Planning Board
7 p.m. Sept. 21, 2017
Town Barn, 101 E. Orange St.
PRESENT: Chair Dan Barker, Toby Vandemark, James Czar, Lisa Frazier, Janie Morris, Doug
Peterson, Alyse Polly and Jennifer Sykes
STAFF: Planning Director Margaret Hauth and Town Attorney Kevin Hornik
ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum
Chair 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 added another possible text amendment. Chair Barker made it Item 7. Ms. Hauth
introduced Planning Board Member Alyse Polly, new to the board.
ITEM #3: Approval of minutes from the Aug. 17, 2017, meeting
MOTION: Ms. Morris moved approval of the minutes. Ms. Sykes seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
ITEM #4: Discussion of possible Unified Development Ordinance text amendment to
clarify parking requirement in the central commercial zone and additional guidance on
excessive parking requests.
Ms. Hauth reviewed that a few months ago this board discussed which waivers applicants most
frequently request. One identified waiver was regarding the requirement to build pervious
parking spaces if the applicant wanted to build more parking than what was required. Pervious
parking spaces do not work well with compacted local soils, so board members had asked that
the board consider removing that requirement.
Ms. Hauth suggested the board consider replacing the pervious parking spaces requirement with
language that states if the applicant wants to exceed the required number of parking spaces by
125 percent or more, then the applicant may be asked to create some innovative parking spaces
like ones that provide electric charging stations. She added she does not feel strongly that the
amount to trigger alternative parking needs to be 125 percent.
Mr. Peterson said if only an electric car can park in an electric car space, it does not give a
business the extra spaces needed. Ms. Hauth explained electric charging spaces have to be free.
No one but utilities can charge for electricity. There was further discussion about having space
for electric charging or other innovations. Ms. Hauth said another innovation could be additional
landscaping. Ms. Polly suggested bicycle racks could be listed as an innovation choice. The
board agreed 125 percent was a good threshold. Mr. Czar said by giving one or two examples,
the Planning Board is putting an applicant on notice that the board may ask the applicant to do
something special if the applicant wants additional parking. If the Planning Board lists six
examples, there is not much latitude to vary from the list.
PB Minutes
9/21/2017
Page 2 of 4
Ms. Hauth noted that in this item, she was also suggesting ways to clarify the language regarding
the parking requirement in the central commercial zone in Section 6.13.3.2 of the Unified
Development Ordinance.
Ms. Hauth explained that the ordinance says until a property owner adds another 500 square feet
to a building, the property owners does not have to add parking. Ms. Hauth wanted to make clear
and to document that there is a 2010 inventory of downtown parking. She said she further wants
to clarify that if the property owner adds 500 square feet or starts using building space which was
not in use when the 2010 inventory was taken, then the owner should provide additional parking
spaces.
The planning director further noted that the language “the parking demand of 0.7 and up shall be
rounded up” is intended to trigger the parking requirement. She said there are not many places in
the central commercial district that have land left to build and create parking. She said the
parking requirement will mainly arise when a property comes in for redevelopment, particularly
if a demolition is involved. The ordinance does allow the property owner to sign a lease for off-
site parking. Ms. Hauth pointed out that First Baptist Church and the two funeral homes located
downtown have parking lots and could choose to lease out spaces. When asked by Mr. Peterson,
Ms. Hauth explained the statement about 375 square feet in parentheses was not intended to be
written in the ordinance.
Mr. Czar advised using “not occupied” instead of “not in public use” in the highlighted draft
language in this section. When asked, Ms. Hauth said less than 20 percent of downtown
buildings have space to add on without covering a parking space. Ms. Polly suggested the board
consider bringing the number that would trigger a parking space requirement down from 0.7 to
0.6 so that 300 square feet would trigger a parking space. The Planning Board agreed to send the
amendment forward to public hearing while continuing to discuss the details.
Mr. Czar said he would like to ask a question before the vote. He wondered whether the town has
considered creating a payment in lieu option for parking so that the town could set aside money
for a parking deck. Ms. Hauth answered that accepting payment in lieu for parking would imply
that the town is committed to providing parking and the board has not discussed that.
MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to send both parts of this item to public hearing. Mr.
Peterson seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
ITEM #5: Discussion of possible Unified Development Ordinance text amendment to
better match the permitted use table and parking requirements.
The board reviewed the chart and Ms. Hauth noted suggested changes to electronic gaming
operation and healthcare facility.
MOTION: Ms.Vandemark moved to send on to public hearing with the changes discussed.
Ms. Frazier seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
PB Minutes
9/21/2017
Page 3 of 4
ITEM #6: Discussion of possible Unified Development Ordinance text amendment to
update the recreation requirements points system and add incentives for priority types of
improvements.
Ms. Hauth reviewed that the Parks and Recreation Board has asked to change the point system
for recreation elements in a development project. She explained the point system has been in
place in Hillsborough for a long time and she does not know its origins. Most neighboring local
governments and similarly sized municipalities have developers donate the land for recreation
and the governments build the facilities with payment in lieu. Right now, the Town of
Hillsborough requires new neighborhoods to put the recreation elements in at their own expense
and do not share that burden across town by using town taxes.
Ms. Hauth explained that the Parks and Recreation Board wants to add uses to the point system
table. Ms. Hauth also wants to simplify the table. She reorganized the uses by the value of the
points to make it easier to compare recreation elements.
Chair Barker suggested keeping the priority list of recreation improvements out of the ordinance
so that it does not have to go through the text amendment process every time it is updated. Town
Attorney Bob Hornik said that is legal and OK, but the town needs to be careful not to switch the
priority list and surprise a developer. Ms. Hauth said the priority list can be added to a public
hearing schedule so developers are on notice that the priority list is changing. It was suggested
that perhaps the new priority list would not go into effect right away so developers would have
time to change their plans if needed.
Mr. Peterson suggested changing the language to “must be available for public use.” Ms. Hauth
said many recreational elements of a development are usually not for public use outside of
neighborhood residents. Trails are open. Most neighborhoods are not monitoring who uses a
playground. Chair Barker suggested removing the decimals by multiplying the numbers by 100
so that the points added are whole numbers.
Ms. Hauth noted she would add “for public use” next to trails in the table. She explained that the
question marks in the table in the agenda packet are for Public Space Manager Stephanie
Trueblood to weigh in. Ms. Hauth added that she and Ms. Trueblood want to make sure that all
park facilities have benches, waste cans and bicycle racks. That information can be worked into
the requirements list or can be in a standards document that is not part of the Unified
Development Ordinance.
Ms. Polly expressed interest in adding a splash park as a priority but said she was not sure the
Parks and Recreation Board was asking the Planning Board to weigh in on preferences. Ms.
Hauth answered that splash parks give the appearance of being wasteful with water and that the
Hillsborough Board of Commissioners probably wouldn’t support one. Chair Barker suggested
setting a minimum size for a skate park.
MOTION: Ms. Sykes moved to send this item to public hearing. Ms. Vandemark seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
PB Minutes
9/21/2017
Page 4 of 4
ITEM #7: Added item — a text amendment
Ms. Hauth said when she decided to add this item to the agenda she thought it would be a small
word change, but when she reviewed it this afternoon, she decided more changes are needed. She
said the issue is with buffers. Buffers are based on zoning. In residential areas, buffers cannot be
on privately owned land but on homeowner association land because having the buffers on
individual lots is too difficult to enforce.
For non-residential properties, it is more common for the buffer to be part of the lot. She said this
amendment addresses when two adjacent lots are not developed at the same time and the buffer
provided by the first developed lot is no longer appropriate when the second lot is developed.
Ms. Hauth said these four sections advise on what to do when that happens.
Ms. Hauth explained she had crafted three reasons the buffer might change: rezoning, land use
change and a modified development plan for an adjoining parcel. The language specifies that the
parcel seeking development shall follow the current ordinance even if it is more stringent or less
stringent than what was in place before. Occasionally, this will be to a property owner’s
detriment. If there are already improvements on the land and there is now a more stringent buffer
requirement, the town will not enforce the more stringent buffer if the property owner is not
touching the current buffer. For instance, if an addition is being built on one side of a building,
the buffer would not have to increase on the other side of the building where no work is being
done. Ms. Hauth cautioned she had not yet sent this draft amendment to the town attorney’s
office. Ms. Hauth said if the changes are too much to send to public hearing now, that’s OK.
Town staff recently worked through a situation that made it obvious to Ms. Hauth that a text
amendment is needed.
Chair Barker said there are definitions to hash out. Mr. Czar said the Planning Board needs to
define “not along the property line” in Section 6.5.2.3. Also, Mr. Czar said the Planning Board
should consider that a less uniform buffer would be created where the buffer requirements have
changed for an infill piece of development. He thinks some infill development in Meadowlands
are a good example of this. Mr. Czar said if infill development is being added with developed
properties on either side, the property owner should be required to maintain the previous buffers.
Ms. Hauth said the situation that came up was residential next to non-residential. She suggested
holding off on sending this to public hearing to work on this more. Board members said they
would like to think about this one longer before sending it to public hearing.
ITEM #8: Adjourn
MOTION: Ms. Sykes moved to adjourn at 8:28 p.m.
VOTE: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Hauth
Secretary