Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-17-2018 Minutes PB Regular MeetingPB minutes 5/17/18 Page 1 of 5 Minutes Hillsborough Planning Board 7 p.m. May 17, 2018 Town Barn, 101 E. Orange St. Present: Chair Dan Barker, James Czar, Lisa Frazier, Chris Johnston, Jenn Sykes and Chris Wehrman Staff: Planning Director Margaret Hauth and Town Attorney Bob Hornik Item 1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum. Chair Dan Barker called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Planning Director Margaret Hauth confirmed the presence of a quorum. Item 2: Consideration of additions or changes to the agenda Hauth added Item 8a regarding defining density for attached units in the neighborhood business special use district. She noted this was just for discussion. Item 3: Approval of minutes from March 2018 regular meeting and April 2018 joint public hearing Motion: Sykes moved to approve both sets of minutes as submitted. Czar seconded. Vote: Unanimous Item 4: Recommendation to Board of Commissioners regarding a rezoning request from Douglas Peterson to rezone 1.33 acres at 1215 Eno St. from residential -20 to residential-10. OC PIN 9864-34- 7300 Hauth noted Rob Frescoln was present this evening. Hauth reviewed that the lot fronts on Eno Street. It is adjacent to residential-10 zoning on the east side. Lots to the west and north are zoned residential-20. Residential-10 is expected in an urban neighborhood designation. She reviewed that people spoke on this item at the public hearing, raising different issues. Hauth said the town had paid for traffic counts on Eno Street in 2015 and the 1,000 trips a day was well below the capacity of the street. While those who live on the street may notice 10 additional trips generated by these houses, adding 10 trips does not add a meaningful mathematical difference. Also, she has asked stormwater management to look at Eno Street. Frescoln said he is here to answer questions. The trailer has been removed. The weeds and grass have been cut. The evergreen cedar is entwined with another tree, and he and Peterson are attempting to save both trees. A central drive does not make sense to them and would have to be a nonpermeable surface. Czar said he does not have a problem with the proposed plan. The parcels nearly meet the residential- 20 size requirements, except for the width of road frontage. PB minutes 5/17/18 Page 2 of 5 Sykes said the neighborhood is going through transition and change and is worried about it. She lives in the neighborhood and thinks the proposal is consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Eno Street is not really a thoroughfare at that end. Frazier said she did not see the proposal having a negative impact. Johnston said he thinks all the concerns have been addressed and there have not been many concerns. Motion: Czar moved to recommend to the Board of Commissioners that the rezoning request be approved. Sykes seconded. Vote: Unanimous Item 5: Recommendation to the Board of Commissioners regarding a rezoning request and special use permit request from Landmark Management Partners LLC to rezone .26 acres at 401 N. Churton St. from residential-20 to neighborhood business special use. This includes a special use permit application to convert the existing structure to four attached dwelling units. OC PIN 9874 -08-3136 Hauth noted that the agenda packet included comments from the Historic District Comm ission. She would characterize the commission’s comments or concerns as benign, noting that the commission may prefer asphalt instead of gravel for the parking spaces and will review the changes to the façade. Hauth noted that the applicant, Nathan Robinson, was present this evening and could answer questions of clarity but no new information. She also noted that the third waiver request, regarding density, references language in the Unified Development Ordinance that was probably not intended. Johnston asked if Robinson had spoken after the public hearing with the folks at the Burwell School Historic Site who were concerned about being able to see the trash and recycling recep tacles belonging to the condos. Robinson said that he had and that the Burwell School representatives had asked to continue using his parking lot. He said he would do his best to hide the receptacle lids, but the completed project would be better than what visitors at the Burwell School look at now when they view this property. Johnston asked what does it mean that the Burwell School will continue to use his parking area. Robinson said visitors to the Burwell School could use unassigned parking spaces at the condos. Sykes asked why the Historic District Commission prefers asphalt for the parking area. Hauth answered the preference is because gravel washes into the street. Robinson said that Environmental Services and Stormwater Manager Terry Hackett had indicated that gravel was not preferred for stormwater control. Robinson said he was willing to use asphalt. Wehrman said he would like to reduce some of the parking. Robinson said he prefers to hold on to 10 spaces because the town had already previously approved the 10 spaces and the Burwell School is interested in the overflow parking. Wehrman said he would like the parking reduced if there are three condos instead of four and asked Robinson if he would be willing to agree to six parking spaces if there are only three condos. Czar noted the parking gets close to North Churton Street on the site plan. Robinson said the reason the parking is pushed so close to North Churton Street is that he was required to reserve space at the west end for a line of containers as if garbage and recycling are collected on the same day. PB minutes 5/17/18 Page 3 of 5 Hauth suggested the Planning Board could leave it flexible, scaled to the number of dwelling units, two per unit and allowing for visitors spaces. Johnston said it sounds like the applicant would scale it anyway. Czar said he couldn’t see taking spaces away when the property already has permission to have 10 spaces. Wehrman said the use has changed. Town Attorney Bob Hornik clarified that the property has an encroachment agreement with the town to have the spaces in the right of way. He added that the Planning Board and the Board of Commissioners have the authority to specify two spaces per unit or whatever they wish and if the property owner does not meet the wishes of those boards, then the boards can deny the rezoning request. Regarding the waiver regarding 10,000-square-foot minimum area, Hauth said she strongly believes the language is an error in the Unified Development Ordinance and that there is not a designation on minimum lot size in the neighborhood special use permit. The writers of that section did not take the extra step of stating how many attached units one can have on a lot that is zoned neighborhood special use. The 10,000 square feet was the minimum lot size and did not mean the minimum area for the dwelling unit. Regarding the second waiver, which was about Type A buffering, Hauth said the property owner cannot comply along West Union Street because the parking is located there. No one argued against granting it. Regarding the third waiver on sidewalks, walkways and street trees, Hauth said there is not enough room and there are overhead lines. Board members expressed no concerns with granting this waiver. It was noted that a tree could not be planted between the receptacles and the Burwell School because there is an overhead powerline. The landscaping plan on second page adds a tree. Robinson said he plans to add another tree on the west side of Union Street. Wehrman said he would like the parking spaces capped at two per unit. Czar said two per unit plus an accessible spot. Robinson said he would like to slide the parking to the west. Johnston said he did not want to constrain the parking in writing. The applicant saves money by reducing the parking. Hauth said staff can approve a 10-percent change in parking, so that is probably one space. Sykes said requiring two parking spaces per unit follows what the town has required for apartment complexes and encourages less paving. Robinson expressed concern that limiting the parking may make the condos harder for him to sell. There was discussion of whether the property owner would be required to build a handicap -accessible parking space because the condos would be privately owned. When asked, Hauth said the town requires two parking spaces per unit for smaller apartment complexes and fewer spaces for large apartment complexes. Czar said if there was a disabled potential purchaser of a condo, then one parking space could be turned into a handicap accessible space. Frazier said she thinks there should be more spaces than two per unit to accommodate someone coming to provide services to an older person in a home. Sykes reiterated she would like to see two spaces per condo to minimize impervious surface. Johnston said it sounds like the applicant had enough spots and he is struggling to PB minutes 5/17/18 Page 4 of 5 see how this applies to precedent. Hornik and Sykes said it is not precedent setting. There was brief discussion that gravel is not impervious. Motion: Johnston moved to recommend granting the waivers as discussed and approving the rezoning and special use permit as requested. Frazier seconded. Vote: 4-2 (Sykes and Wehrman due to the parking) Item 6: Discussion requested by a Planning Board member regarding a potential amendment to the permitted use table to remove detention facility as a permitted use in the economic development district. Hauth said shortly after the public hearing, Czar talked with her about this request and she did not have anything to add to her written staff report on the matter. Czar said economic development districts should promote economic growth. UNC Healthcare had to abandon a building and move away from a detention facility in town. He thinks there are very tangible, easily observable examples inside the town of detention facilities negatively impacting economic development. Barker asked Czar whether he is proposing to remove the uses or require a special use permit for them. Czar said there are certain uses that are entirely inappropriate in the economic development district. Barker said a detention facility is going to get a visitor per two or three inmates every month. Sometimes every week. Czar the detention facility is a detriment to the town and it is time to make the town’s entranceways nicer. He noted that studies showing positive development in areas with detention centers is for rural, undeveloped areas. Sykes agreed with Czar, adding that Lorton, Virginia, is an example of that. Czar added that Loretto, Pennsylvania, is another example of a depressed economic area with a detention facility. Sykes said there are better things the town can do to promote economic development than to have a detention facility. Barker asked whether this concern is about the detention facility alone or about county yards. Czar answered it is about county yards, too. They are a detriment to economic development. We have tangible examples in town, he said. Johnston asked what would be the outcome if the detention center becomes nonconforming. Czar said eventually the county would want to make improvements. Others said the facility would be grandfathered and it wouldn’t change what has been approved. Hauth said the county would file before the board moves through with a text amendment. Hauth said the county had a need. The economic development district gave the county the uses permitted by right. She does not think the county representatives actively testified that the detention facility and public works yard would be great for U.S. 70. That was not the driving use behind the request. The county needed affordable water and sewer. Czar said the error in the Unified Development Ordinance is allowing a detention facility by right. Hauth said “maintenance yard” was added to the permitted use table to address the county yard. Barker said economic development district is the name of the district and it does not mean that it generates economic development. Hauth suggested merging that zoning with business park district. PB minutes 5/17/18 Page 5 of 5 The board agreed to look next month at consolidating nonresidential districts and determining which uses should be allowed by right. Item 7: Potential text amendment to provide guidance on granting waivers. Hauth said this text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance affects the Board of Adjustment more than the Planning Board. With recent changes in state law, there was a desire to provide guidance to the Board of Adjustment as it is considering waivers, which may help the town if a Board of Adjustment decision is appealed. Hornik noted most of the language is lifted from the statute. Barker said the amendment could refer to the statute. Hornik agreed, so that the Unified Development Ordinance would not have to be amended every time the statute language changed. Motion: Czar moved to send it to public hearing in July. Wehrman seconded. Vote: Unanimous Item 8: Potential text amendment to update requirements for electronic gaming. Barker and Sykes suggested covering all legal games of chance in the proposed amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance. Hauth said she would bring it before the board next month with revisions to include a broader scope. Item 8a: Hauth said neighborhood business special use district does not have density defined for attached units. The ordinance does not allow attached units in the condensed central commercial d istrict. She would like to bring the Planning Board draft language next month that addresses that mistake , and she proposes a density limit for neighborhood special use and central commercial zone. Regarding the possibility of having two nights of joint public hearings in July, Hauth said it looked like only one night would be needed. The Planning Board decided to meet July 18 to work on text amendments but decided to wait until the June meeting to vote on that extra meeting. Barker noted that a discussion item was needed on future agendas to allow for updates. Item 9: Adjourn Motion: Frazier moved to adjourn at 8:28 p.m. Vote: Unanimous Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Hauth Secretary