Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-16-2019 Minutes PB Regular MeetingAssistant Town Manager/Planning Director Margaret Hauth 101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-296-9471 | margaret.hauth@hillsboroughnc.gov www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov Planning Board Minutes | 1 of 7 Minutes Planning Board 7 p.m. May 16, 2019 Town Hall Annex Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St. Present: Chair Dan Barker, Lisa Frazier, Chris Johnston, Doug Peterson, Jeff Scott, Jenn Sykes, Scott Taylor and Toby Vandemark Staff: Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik and Planning Technician Taylor Perschau Guests: Peter Bellantoni, Joelle Miller and Jim Moore 1. Call to order and confirmation of quorum Chair Dan Barker called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 2. Agenda changes and approval There were no changes to the agenda. 3. Minutes review and approval Minutes from regular meeting on March 21, 2019, and public hearing on April 18, 2019 Motion: Member Toby Vandemark moved approval of the two sets of minutes as presented. Member Lisa Frazier seconded. Vote: Unanimous 4. Continued public hearing A. Special Use Permit modification regarding Elfin's Pond ― To consider seven waivers to accommodate the development of the community building and pool Planning Director Margaret Hauth reaffirmed her oath from the April public hearing. She reminded everyone that this is a quasi-judicial public hearing and that the purpose of keeping this item open was to receive information about a survey of residents regarding the tot lot. Hauth said the additional information is that one survey was conducted just before the April public hearing and that only 25 responses were made even though the neighborhood had many more residents at that time. Peter Bellantoni reaffirmed his oath. He said that the confusion regarding the survey is clarified by what is in the agenda packet and that Jim Moore, developer of Elfin’s Pond, is present if the board has any questions for him. Barker asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak to this item. No one did. Planning Board Minutes | 2 of 7 Motion: Member Jenn Sykes moved to close the public hearing on this item. Vandemark seconded. Vote: Unanimous 5. Recommendations to Board of Commissioners for April public hearing items A. Special Use Permit modification for Elfin’s Pond Hauth reviewed that there are seven waivers and briefly explained them. Regarding Waiver 1, which would allow a narrower driveway width, Bellantoni explained that the narrower driveway width is intended to keep the character of a residential neighborhood and to preserve trees on either side of the driveway. Board members said that they would agree to recommend this waiver. Regarding Waiver 2, which is about landscaping between the parking and street, Bellantoni said there would be a clear line of sight for cars coming from the parking spaces. There was brief discussion by the board that this street gets used as a cut-through and that there may be an issue with people backing out of the parking spots. Bellantoni said this would be visitor parking; houses each have driveways. Board members wondered what the clubhouse hours would be. Moore, developer of the site, said those spots would likely be guest overflow. He said the homeowners would decide the hours of the clubhouse and pool. Joelle Miller, a resident of Elfin’s Pond, said the subdivision is small and it is unlikely that residents would drive to the pool. Board members said they would be comfortable recommending this waiver. Regarding Waiver 3, which addresses front setback encroachment, there was brief discussion that a small redesign would be needed to meet the front setback. Member Jeff Scott said there are alternatives to what the developer is presenting. Two parking spaces could be removed to meet the setback requirements. Other board members agreed with Scott. Regarding Waiver 4, which addresses changing the species of the replacement tree, board members said they would recommend approval of this request. Regarding Waiver 5, which is a request for the parking lot to be dimmer than the ordinance requires, the board was fine with this waiver. Regarding Waiver 6, which addresses removing the tot lot, the board was OK with recommending that be allowed. Regarding Waiver 7, which addresses lighting in the pool deck area, the board was OK with that waiver. The board returned to discussion of Waiver 3. Bellantoni said at least one parking space would be lost to avoid building in the setback. He asked that the subdivision be allowed to be deficient one parking space, if the parking space is needed. Hauth said she could not discern during the meeting whether the parking space is required. Motion: Sykes moved to recommend that the Board of Commissioners grant waivers 1, 2 and 4-7. Member Doug Peterson seconded. Vote: Unanimous Planning Board Minutes | 3 of 7 Motion: Sykes moved to recommend that the Board of Commissioners deny Waiver 3 but instead grant the reduction of one parking space. Vandemark seconded. Vote: 6-2 (nay, Scott and Chris Johnston) Motion: Sykes moved that the Planning Board recommend the Board of Commissioners grant the modification request for the Special Use Permit with waivers as discussed. Frazier seconded. Vote: Unanimous B. Annexation and zoning for MSAT LLC to annex 2.32 acres at 1990 N.C. 86 South and zone the property High Intensity Commercial. The site is developed with retail sales and a motor vehicle fuel station (Sheetz). Hauth reviewed the request. There was no comment. Motion: Sykes moved to recommend approval of this annexation and zoning request. Scott seconded. Vote: Unanimous C. Annexation, Zoning and Master Plan for Paliouras Enterprises LLC to annex approximately 25 acres in the southeast quadrant of the Interstate 85/N.C. 86 interchange and zone the property Entranceway Special Use. The applicant has submitted a master plan to establish general parameters for future site development Hauth reviewed that waivers cannot be granted for a master plan; waivers may be requested for individual parcels when those are ready for development. The narrative indicates that no driveways would be located on N.C. 86 and that the North Carolina Department of Transportation does not wish to see any driveways on N.C. 86. Hauth suggested attaching that as a condition of approval. Motion: Sykes moved to recommend approval with a condition that the lots not have individual driveway access to N.C. 86 or N.C. 10 and instead use an interior access. Vandemark seconded. Vote: Unanimous D. Rezoning for Abacus Partners LLC to rezone 0.77 acres at 505 Latimer St. from Mobile Home Park to Residential-10 (10,000-square-foot minimum lot size) When asked, Town Attorney Bob Hornik said the question before the Planning Board is whether the property is suitable for the uses allowed in the district. Motion: Johnston moved to recommend approval. Scott seconded. Vote: Unanimous E. Special Use Permit modification for 515 Churton condominiums, located at 515 N. Churton St. Hauth reminded the board that this is a legislative public hearing item. Randy Hall with Summit Design and Engineering addressed the board. Hall said the neighbors’ concerns expressed at the April public hearing were the bright lighting at night and the height of the building. To address those concerns, the developer is willing to install a 6-foot-tall fence along the property line. He indicated on the site plan where it would be located. It would be double-sided. The developer is also proposing to plant evergreen trees called Green Giants to further screen the building. Planning Board Minutes | 4 of 7 The trees would grow to 30 feet tall. Hauth said Green Giants trees are said to be more healthy than Leland Cypress trees and are commonly used as a screening tree. Also, the stormwater outlet has damaged the roots of the 24-inch pecan tree on the corner, so an arborist has recommended that the developer remove it. The Green Giants to be planted along the parking lot border are also proposed to replace this tree. Member Doug Peterson asked for Hall to remind the board of a conversation between homeowners and the developer before construction relating to the parking spaces, trees, and screening in the northwest corner. Hall said he did not work for Summit at the time. Peterson asked if the four spaces to the left of the trees were not part of the discussion. Hall said those were existing parking spaces and he indicated on the plan which spaces were proposed to be removed for a landscaped island. Hauth clarified that the approved plans include the removal of four specific parking spaces and indicated on the site plan which spaces were to be removed. Hall said the developer wishes to keep the four parking spaces that had been proposed for removal. Other board members appreciated the clarification as they though the request was for new parking, not to retain existing parking. Jim Parker, with Summit Design and Engineering, said that the fence is being offered in exchange for not requiring the developer to remove the four parking spaces. He said the fence would screen much better than removing the four parking spaces. He offered to have plantings on the neighbors’ side of the fence. Hauth said leaving the four parking spaces would create a non-conforming situation. She said the parking spaces are in conjunction with the waiver regarding a shade tree because a shade tree was intended to be planted in an island to be created where those four parking spaces are located. Hall said the developer would only add one tree and some shrubs if the Board of Commissioners did not grant the waiver allowing him to keep the four parking spaces. Parker reiterated that the developer proposed taking out the four parking spaces on the original plan and the town asked the developer to plant the space rather than leave it as grass. He reminded the Planning Board that the removal of the parking spaces was not needed to meet a buffer requirement. Sykes wondered if part of the solution would be to buy the neighbors a tree. Frazier said she did not recommend granting the waiver. Vandemark suggested removing one parking space to make room for plantings and keeping the other three parking spaces. Parker said parking in the town is at a premium and this is existing parking. He advocated again for keeping all four spaces. Sykes said digging up the parking spaces probably would not create a healthy planting area. She thought working with the neighbors to plant a tree in their line of sight would accomplish more. Other Planning Board members said the boards could not require the developer to plant trees on property that does not belong to the developer. Hornik said it could not be imposed as a condition but could be a suggestion. Planning Board Minutes | 5 of 7 Scott said keeping the four spaces is fine. There comes a time when the neighbors will never be happy. The other four waivers are what they are. Parking is a premium. Other board members agreed that they could recommend granting the waiver. The board then discussed the damaged tree in the southeast corner. There was consensus to accept the proposed tree replacement. Regarding utility boxes, Hall said the electrical transfer was moved because Duke Energy said it could not be installed lower than the sidewalk. Hall said there must be 10 feet in the front with no landscaping blocking it. He said the cluster of boxes are water meters and backflow preventers that are above ground in a hotbox. Because of the 6-inch fire line, the hotbox is big, Hall said. The town requires hotboxes to be within 5 feet of the meter, which is why they are located where they are. A fire hydrant was also required in front of the building. No bushes can be placed in front of that because the hydrant is located close to the sidewalk. There cannot be a planting within three feet of a fire hydrant. Scott said there should be a future conversation about using transformer vaults and placing hotboxes inside to improve the streetscape. Hauth said the Planning Board can discuss these with the town’s utilities director. It was noted that perhaps the Unified Development Ordinance should be amended to require the electrical transformer to be placed in the rear of the property. Hall said two signs were originally approved: a monument sign and a sign on the side of the building. The one on the side of the building was installed. The monument sign was not installed because of the need to keep a sight distance triangle clear to meet NCDOT standards. Hall said the developer decided instead to place decals on the door glass. He said there was an issue regarding which side the decals adhere to. Hauth said that is an issue for the Historic District Commission. Hauth explained that the ordinance says you can have two signs per lot and that the developer placed four decals, one on each double door. The Planning Board members decided it was appropriate to recommend granting this waiver. Regarding the parking lot lighting, Hall explained which bulb the developer had removed to lower the intensity of the lighting. Hauth said the board required more lighting on the site. The current lighting meets the ordinance but not the condition. Hall noted which light the developer had placed a shield on. Hall said that some additional bollards were to be installed the following week and that the bollards had received staff approval from Planner Justin Snyder, who is the staff liaison to the Historic District Commission. It was noted that if one light pole had been moved as it should have been, another would not have been needed. Barker wondered if a lower wattage bulb could have been installed in the porte cochère to prevent someone from installing another bulb. Parker said it could be capped for that purpose. Planning Board Minutes | 6 of 7 Barker asked Parker about moving the pole. Parker said it just did not get moved, but it serves to illuminate the dumpsters. Parker said the lumens are at a level that is acceptable according to the ordinance. The board did not think it made sense to require the pole to be moved because it serves a purpose by illuminating the dumpsters. Regarding the removal of the damaged pecan tree, Hauth said there is not a good place to plant another one along the front of the property. The board expressed consensus on granting all waivers except the first four related to removal of the parking spaces. Barker suggested placing a condition on the porte cochère light that it be capped or blocked so another bulb cannot be added. Motion: Vandemark moved to recommend granting all waivers except the first four and placing a condition that the light fixture for the porte cochère light have one place capped or blocked so that another bulb cannot be added. Sykes seconded. Vote: 7-1 (nay, Frazier) Motion: Sykes moved to recommend approval of keeping the four parking spaces with the conditions offered by the applicant with the fence placed on the parking lot side of the existing crepe myrtles. Vandemark seconded. Vote: Unanimous F. Text amendment to Section 3.14.12 of the Unified Development Ordinance to create standards for allowing occupancy of projects/sites when they are incomplete with financial guarantees There was no discussion. Motion: Sykes moved to recommend approval. Scott seconded. Vote: Unanimous G. Text amendment to Section 5.2.43 and Section 6.18.7 of the Unified Development Ordinance to remove mention of changeable message signs from restaurant standards and to add a general restriction on changeable message signs that applies to all uses There was no discussion. Motion: Vandemark moved to recommend approval. Sykes seconded. Vote: Unanimous H. Text amendment to Section 6.11.6 and Section 6.18.9.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance to add language allowing low intensity string lights or fixtures in certain circumstances and to update the limitation of lighting signs to allow for this lighting use Planning Board Minutes | 7 of 7 Vandemark asked if this would prohibit outlining the tops of the buildings to provide more lighting to pedestrians at night. Hauth said that proposal could be improved. Roof lining lights two stories up won’t help. Motion: Frazier moved to recommend approval. Sykes seconded. Vote: Unanimous I. Text amendment to Section 6.18.7 and Section 9.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance to establish a general restriction on off-premise signage and to change the definition of “sign, outdoor advertising” to “sign, off-premise” Sykes said the Hillsborough Arts Council wondered if this would affect advertising for arts festivals. Hauth said they need to apply for permits, but this would not prevent them from having those signs. Motion: Johnston moved to recommend approval. Sykes seconded. Vote: Unanimous J. Text amendment to Section 9.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance to add a definition for “restaurant, convenience,” delete doctor and dental offices from the definition of “personal service business,” update “sign, neon” to “sign, illuminated tubing” and remove definitions for three defined sign types that are not regulated in the ordinance Hauth said that this would not affect Matthew’s Chocolates or Whit’s Frozen Custard. Motion: Taylor moved to recommend approval. Sykes seconded. Vote: Unanimous 6. Adjournment Motion: Sykes moved to adjourn at 9:17 p.m. Vote: Unanimous Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Hauth Secretary