Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-16-2018 Minutes PB Regular MeetingPage 1 of 8 Minutes Hillsborough Planning Board 7 p.m. Aug. 16, 2018 Whitted Human Services Center, 300 W. Tryon St. Present: Chair Dan Barker, James Czar, Lisa Frazier, Chris Johnston, Doug Peterson, Alyse Polly, Jeff Scott, Jenn Sykes and Chris Wehrman Staff: Planning Director Margaret Hauth and Town Attorney Bob Hornik Guests: Justin Fejfar Item 1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum Chair Dan Barker called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Planning Director Margaret Hauth confirmed the presence of a quorum. Item 2: Agenda changes and approval The agenda stood as presented. Item 3: Minutes review and approval Minutes from the regular meeting on June 21, work session on July 18, and public hearing on July 19, 2018, were considered for approval. Motion: Member Jenn Sykes moved to approve all three sets of minutes as presented. Member James Czar seconded. Vote: Unanimous Item 4: Prepare recommendations to town board regarding public hearing items A. Special Use Permit modification request for Elfin Pond — To allow the installation of retaining walls in required buffers along the west property line. Hauth reviewed the board heard during the joint public hearing that the developer has requested a waiver to allow for two places where the retaining wall is partially in the buffer by about 2.5 feet. She noted that only one neighbor spoke regarding this item and that the neighbor had attended the meeting to speak with the developer privately about another issue. Planning Board members noted that the placement in the buffer seemed to be an honest mistake and that a neighbor said at the public hearing she was not bothered by it. Motion: Czar moved that the Planning Board recommend to the Board of Commissioners that this waiver be granted. Member Lisa Frazier seconded. Vote: Unanimous Page 2 of 8 B. Special Use Permit modification request for Orange County ABC — For a retail operation at 109 Oakdale Drive, including the addition of five waivers. Hauth noted there were no speakers other than the applicant at the public hearing for this item. There was consensus from the Planning Board to recommend granting the first waiver, which was regarding grading within the South Churton Street nonresidential buffer. Regarding the second waiver, which is to have a blank wall facing the street, Czar said you can see the aesthetic that the architect is trying to achieve and he thinks the design is well thought through. Others said that Tractor Supply Co. was required to install faux shutters and that this business should have to do something on the blank side. Sykes thought the plain façade might deter break-ins. Another member noted that one façade is almost all glass. Member Alyse Polly said the combination of having a blank wall and not having 5 feet of landscaping makes this side of the building less pleasant for those who drive along Oakdale Drive. Member Chris Johnston expressed concern about allowing one business to do something and not allowing another to do the same. Polly said she would like to see two extra trees planted along Oakdale Drive. Hauth said she is not sure there is room to plant two more trees. The board then began to discuss the second waiver along with the third, which is to have openings like windows and doors cover at least 50 percent of the pedestrian side of the ground floor. Sykes said because of the nature of the business, she would rather have solid walls. Others noted there is glass on the other elevations. Regarding the fourth waiver, which is to have a longer overhang than the ordinance allows, the board expressed consensus in granting it. Regarding the fifth waiver to not have landscaping betwe en the building and the parking, some board members wondered why the building couldn’t be a little less wide to accommodate the landscaping. A board member said if the applicant had given a justification , such as explaining the storage and sales rack requirements for the ABC store, then he would better understand why the waiver is justified. A board member wondered why the landscaping couldn’t be placed on the parking side, which is more visible from a street, instead of the opposite side of the building because this side is more visible from a street. Planning Board members expressed interest in requiring a trellis on the wall but concern that a trellis would require maintenance and would not look good if it is not properly maintained. Barker asked a show of hands for each waiver:  Waiver 1 — consensus  Waiver 2 — 3 in favor, 5 opposed  Waiver 3 — 6 in favor, 2 opposed  Waiver 4 — consensus  Waiver 5 — 1 in favor, 7 opposed Page 3 of 8 Czar suggested waiving the landscaping on the north side to get it on the south side. Barker checked with Town Attorney Bob Hornik that the board could grant a waiver not requested by the developer. Hornik confirmed that. Czar said, upon further thinking, the applicant’s proposal may be better. He said the board should probably work on the assumption that the building size is the size it needs to be. Motion: Johnston moved that the Planning Board recommends the approval of waivers 1, 3 and 4. Sykes seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Czar moved that the Planning Board recommends the approval of Waiver 2. Johnston seconded. Vote: 3-5 Motion: Czar moved that the Planning Board recommends approval of Waiver 5. Member Jeff Scott seconded. Vote: 4-4 Motion: Czar moved that the Planning Board recommends approval of the modification of the Special Use Permit, granting waivers 1, 3 and 4 with no recommendation to grant Waiver 2 and with Waiver 5 having a split vote. Johnston seconded. Vote: Unanimous Member Doug Peterson arrived at 8:02 p.m. C. Rezoning and Special Use Permit request from Allied DevCorp LLC to rezone the structure at 153 W. King St. from Residential-20 to Central Commercial Special Use. The application includes a Special Use Permit request to operate restaurant, bar, event, meeting, and hotel services at the site. Hauth noted that the agenda packet includes a two-page written response from the applicant identifying 12 points of conversation the applicant had noted from the public hearing. Hauth said the manhole between this property and Mr . Cash’s adjacent property is the beginning of the sewer line. There is not a sewer line continuing under the building or through the back yard, and staff is confident the sewer line suffices. Hauth said water comes to the building at that same front corner. A water line does not run continuous along the front of the inn. Because the existing fire hydrant in front of the Masonic Lodge is more than 100 feet from the building, the applicant is proposing extending the nearest 6 -inch water line, which is on West Margaret Lane, through the property as a private line and would install a private fire hydrant on the corner of the property. While town utilities staff would not accept ownership of that line, staff doesn’t mind the applicant adding the fire hydrant as long as it is painted a different color. When asked if there are other private hydrants in town, Hauth answered there are some in the Waterstone development and they are painted yellow. Page 4 of 8 Barker asked if anyone had received any information outside the public hearing. No one had. Sykes asked if additional restrooms would reduce the number of guest rooms. Justin Fejfar, one of the applicants, answered that the number of guest rooms would not be reduced. The restrooms would be accessible from the outside. Regarding lighting, Fejfar said the applicants are investigating sharp cutoff fixtures. Hauth suggested the Planning Board make a recommendation for a condition for a compliant lighting plan. Regarding trash and recycling, Fejfar does not have an estimate for the number of rollout carts but confirmed the carts are the same size as residential rollout carts. He knows there is room for 16 or 18 of them; he doesn’t know if he needs that many. Service will be via the easement. Johnston asked if each cart would be rolled to West Margaret Lane. Fejfar said the service provider expects to be able to drive a truck with an arm to the receptacle area and then back out. Member Lisa Frazier asked how many times a week. Fejfar answered at least a couple of times a week. Peterson checked that the food waste would go into these containers and raised concern that it would smell bad in the middle of summer. Fejfar said the applicants would want to have the trash picked up more frequently if it was smelly and would likely schedule a trash pickup right after an event. Frazier asked how close the rollout carts are to the guest wing. Fejfar answered right next to it. Czar asked what the distance is between the property line and the back wall of the guest wi ng. Fejfar answered 3 feet and said there would be enough room to maintain the siding. Regarding parking, Fejfar said the parking deck is the most logical place to direct people to park. Regarding the loading zone, Czar said the sense he got from the public hearing is that Fejfar does not feel the loading zone is necessary for the business but that the town has a need for more loading zones. Hauth acknowledged that nearby residents have do ne research on how busy the loading zones are. Barker said not having a loading zone close to this business would be a safety issue. Hauth said the ordinance states that loading areas are required for commercial uses. Hauth said it is a debatable point whether the ordinance requires a loading zone for this business, but common sense says it is needed. Czar said he thinks where the loading zone is proposed is the most logical place for it and he does not want the extended sidewalk in front of the building to be removed from the plan. Sykes thinks it is neither safe nor convenient to have passengers dropped off on the opposite side of the street. Hornik agreed that the lack of a loading zone could be a health and safety concern. There was some general board discussion about what the loading zone implications are if the Planning Board decides this is or is not commercial property. Importance was placed on the loading zone being a benefit to the applicant and the town. Hauth suggested that the Planning Board set a time limit for Page 5 of 8 the loading zone conundrum to be resolved, such as before permits are issued for the project or before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Planning Board members said before permits are issued. Regarding accessibility, Fejfar said there would be a handicap accessible way to the services. When asked, Hauth said it is possible the applicant could receive building permits without building a handicap accessible parking space. She noted that most handicap accessible on-street parking is not compliant. Hauth said the applicant cannot provide on-street handicap parking because it is not his property. Barker noted the valet plan is to use two parking spaces on a state road. He asked where those cars would be parked. Fejfar answered in public parking spaces. Hauth said the ordinance specifies how close remote parking needs to be and the proposed remote parking is a bit farther than that, thus the valet service. When asked, Fejfar said he was not ready to commit to times and volumes for the valet parking. Hauth said upon rereading the ordinance, there is no specification on how close that off -site parking has to be, but there is specification that at least 50 percent of parking should be on site. Hauth said the Coleman law firm parking spaces are private and First Baptist Church parking is private. The county’s parking lot on South Cameron Street count toward the county’s allotted spaces of the public parking spaces. She would be hesitant to have the board accept truly public parking spaces as the destination for the cars parked by valets. Sykes checked that the public spaces in the parking deck would be on the top deck that is reserved for county vehicles. This was not answered by the applicant. Hauth said it is not clear that enough spaces are there. Planning Board members expressed concern that they were expected to make a recommendation this evening based on the information they have. When asked, Hauth said that for a shopping center, parking spaces cannot be more than 1,320 feet from the building. Hornik said it is typical for the parking requirement to be within 400 feet of the building. There was agreement that the condition would be parking spaces must be within 400 feet or a service must be provided (not limited to valet parking). Czar asked if it was possible to stripe a handicap parking space near the trash receptacles. Fejfar answered that was looked at earlier by the applicant.It was determined to be difficult to turn a car around. When asked, Fejfar said he could not secure 35 parking spaces within a quarter mile of the business. The ordinance tends to refer to distance as the crow flies. Hornik suggested requiring the secured parking spaces be within 1,320 feet from the building. A Planning Board member advocated for requiring two parking spaces within 200 feet of the accessible entrance and making the spaces handicap accessible. Another member said that those spaces could not be within the loading zone. It was noted that the applicant does not have control Page 6 of 8 over the on-street parking spaces. The board spent several minutes discussing how this could be accomplished and did not come up with a solution. Planning Board members agreed that it was reasonable to require the applicant to contract 35 parking spaces within 1,800 feet as the crow flies from the site. The applicant is to provide a written agreement for availability of parking before zoning permits are issued. The Planning Board did not recommend requiring valet parking, understanding that the applicant may choose to provide th e services. The board decided that two parking spaces should be designated for drop-off within 200 feet of the front door. Regarding noise, Hauth said the applicant agreed to comply with the town code as it relates to this. Regarding fenestration on the back of the guest wing, Fejfar said there are a couple of jogs and gables on the back side now. The board recommends no vision glass on the back of the guest wing for privacy and safety of the neighbors. Board members felt the neighbors have a right to privacy. It was acknowledged that this is a decision of the Historic District Commission. Hauth was cautious that this board not make the “no windows” suggestion a condition of approval because the commission has the final say-so. The board members made it clear that they are conveying their thoughts on this subject but not making it a condition of approval. There was interest in encouraging the applicant to work out an easement agreement with the neighbor, but it was not made a condition of approval. The board decided not to place a condition on how many people can attend an event at this location and not to try to stipulate how event parking would work. The board returned to discussing the distances to the proposed parking spaces and to considering possible maximum distances. Hauth reviewed the language for the list of conditions that the board would recommend. The board then reviewed the waivers. It was noted that a couple of waivers had been withdrawn. The board agreed to recommend granting the remaining waivers. Motion: Peterson moved that the Planning Board recommends that the Board of Commissioners approve the Rezoning and Special Use Permit request from Allied DevCorp LLC with the requested waiver and with the conditions that the applicant will:  Secure 35 parking spaces within 1,800 feet as the crow flies from the site.  Provide written agreement for availability of parking before zoning permits are issued.  Add permanent restrooms within the building footprint and commit to not use temporary toilets for events.  Submit a compliant lighting plan in the construction drawing review. Page 7 of 8  Arrange for trash pickup to be at least twice a week and agree to increase the frequency of pickup upon receiving a complaint from the town.  Work on a loading zone solution to be resolved before issuance of a zoning compliance permit.  Provide two parking spaces for drop-off within 200 feet of the front door.  Support privacy for neighbors. The Planning Board recommends that the south façade of the guest wing should not have vision glass or operable windows and that the area of glass should be limited on this façade. This bullet point is not a condition but a suggestion for the Board of Commissioners and Historic District Commission. Sykes seconded. Vote: Unanimous Hauth asked the board not to vote on Item 4F because additional changes may be made to sidewalk seating. D. Unified Development Ordinance text amendment to add detailed guidance for the Board of Adjustment to use in granting waivers in the case of an appeal. E. Unified Development Ordinance text amendment to update language related to regulating legal electronic gaming operations. F. Unified Development Ordinance text amendment to add provisions for alternate signage for businesses with permitted sidewalk seating. G. Unified Development Ordinance text amendment to remove reference to "neon sign," replace with a reference to illuminated tube lighting, and restrict illuminate tube lighting on signs within the historic overlay district only. Motion: Sykes moved that the Planning Board recommends the Board of Commissioners approve items 4D, 4E and 4G. Frazier seconded. Vote: Unanimous H. Unified Development Ordinance text amendment to establish a residential density of between 10 and 16 units per acre in the adaptive reuse zoning district and indicate districts in which the applicant may request a specific density upon filing a special use permit application. Motion: Sykes moved that the Planning Board recommends approval of Item H with the density of 12 units. Scott seconded. Vote: Unanimous Item 5: Discussion of potential Unified Development Ordi nance text amendments A. Clarify the treatment of uses impacted by amendments to the development ordinance B. Amend residential project review steps to remove Parks and Recreation Board recommendation on proposed recreation unless the facilities are to be public C. Modify or remove steep slope provisions D. Modify the tree preservation/tree retention standards Page 8 of 8 The board agreed to continue Item 5 to the next meeting. Item 6: Updates There was none. Item 7: Adjournment Motion: Johnston moved to adjourn at 10:55 p.m. There was no second. Vote: Unanimous Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Hauth Secretary