Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-20-2019 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 4 Minutes Planning Board 7 p.m. June 20, 2019 Town Hall Annex Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St. Present: Chair Dan Barker, Lisa Frazier, Chris Johnston, Doug Peterson, Jenn Sykes, Scott Taylor, Toby Vandemark and Chris Wehrman Staff: Planning Director Margaret Hauth and Public Information Specialist Cheryl Sadgrove 1. Call to order and confirmation of quorum Chair Dan Barker called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Planning Director Margaret Hauth confirmed the quorum. 2. Agenda changes and approval Hauth added an item regarding noise and outdoor performances. Member Toby Vandemark added an item regarding downtown “Edison” lights as Item 6C. 3. Minutes review and approval Minutes from regular meeting on May 16, 2019. Member Doug Peterson requested that the minutes reflect that he asked the applicant for the 515 North Churton discussion whether Summit Design and Engineering had previously met with the adjacent property owners regarding the lighting and the fence and that the representative from Summit had said Summit had met with adjacent property owners before construction. Motion: Vandemark moved approval of the minutes as amended. Member Lisa Frazier seconded. Vote: Unanimous 4. Discussion and direction to staff regarding waivers in the Special Use Permit process Hauth said staff has observed an increase in waivers requested after projects are built. The Planning Board is being asked to discuss whether after-the-fact waivers should be allowed. The Planning Board discussed that in the recent examples of this practice there have been different reasons for the after-the-fact requests. For instance, a retaining wall in the Elfin’s Pond development was inadvertently built 1.5 feet into the buffer. That was a survey error the developer brought to town staff. A different example briefly acknowledged was a light pole that was not moved at the 515 North Churton condominium project. The light was simply not moved and the developer chose to ask for a waiver rather than pay money to have it moved. It was also discussed that the location of the Duke Energy utility box was changed without the developer first seeking a waiver because it was an on-the-spot decision when a Duke Energy employee was on site to install the box. Planning Board Minutes | 2 of 4 Barker said the Planning Board should require developers to testify that the after-the-fact waiver is an equal or superior change. He noted the quote provided from the Unified Development Ordinance required this finding, but it has rarely been reviewed in that manner. He added that Planning Board and Town Board should determine whether a waiver would make a project better. Hauth said options include limiting from which sections a waiver could be requested. She added that what is happening is once a developer identifies one waiver needed, the tendency is to then pile up many waiver requests. Member Doug Peterson asked Hauth whether she sees long-term negative consequences of granting a waiver. Hauth said granting waivers degrades the integrity of the ordinance. If a developer can get whatever the developer wants, why have the ordinance? Hauth added that most of the time developers could have built the project without the waivers, it’s just cheaper or more expedient to request waivers when they are easily granted. Also, the waivers are not being used to generate creativity, which is one of the qualifications for waivers in the ordinance. Member Chris Wehrman asked if the town has special requirements that make developers more likely to request waivers in this jurisdiction. Hauth answered no, but some of the requirements go against what retailers want. For instance, retailers want parking right outside the door; the ordinance requires a landscaped strip between the building and the parking. Wehrman said the town either needs to relax the standards or hold developers to the standards. Barker said the reason for the waivers is typically to make things easier, faster or cheaper for a developer. Hauth said staff can inform developers to prepare in-depth, good arguments for waivers. She added that staff can keep track of requested waivers and note where situations would arise if no waivers were allowed and report back to the Planning Board. Barker said the veterinarian office at Hampton Pointe made an excellent presentation for waivers with expert testimony and a one-page explanation for each waiver. Those waiver requests could be a helpful example for staff to share with other developers who need to prepare waiver justifications. Barker asked if the town could charge per waiver. Hauth said yes, but the Fiscal Year 2020 budget has already been approved. There was brief acknowledgement that the current climate is such in which developers are not hesitant to request waivers after a project is already built. 5. Discussion of possible amendments for the July public hearing A. Lighting Hauth said lighting complaints and issues are generally from neighbors who experience light trespass through the trees rather than from neighbors wanting darker skies. Hauth added that building code insists on some aspects of lighting, such as having to install a light next to each outside door. She does not want to specify a type of light fixture at single family residential doors because it is unenforceable. Planning Board Minutes | 3 of 4 Hauth reviewed possible amendments to the maximum light levels allowed in Section 6.11.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance. She told the board that she had sent the language to Duke Energy for comment but had not received comment yet. Hauth reviewed lighting plans of several establishments to show the board the differences and similarities and overall effect. The board looked at the lighting plans for The House at Gatewood Restaurant, Leland Little Auctions and Advance Auto Parts and noted there are no extreme ranges in the foot-candle measurements on these plans. The board then looked at the lighting plan for the 515 North Churton condominium project and noted there are many more light fixtures on this plan. The light fixtures are spaced close together, making some parking spaces brighter than they need to be so that other spaces meet the minimum light requirements. It was noted that there are places at this project which have light measurements of 14 foot-candles, whereas the other projects did not have any measurements over 4 foot-candles. Hauth reviewed amendment language that would specify backlight, uplight and glare ratings, also called BUG ratings. She noted that she would be seeking comment from Duke Energy on this area as well. Barked noted that the University of North Carolina uses this rating system. Hauth said that “full cut-off” is an outdated term now and BUG ratings are used instead. The board then discussed Item 5C before 5B. B. Buffers Hauth reviewed proposed amended language to Section 6.5.2 regarding buffers. Peterson wondered whether small trees could grow well under a large shade tree. Hauth said that it would be good to ask an arborist to review the proposed language to inform staff and the board whether it was possible to plant large trees and understory trees at the same time. Hauth said the proposed Table 6.1.1 regarding buffer type requires buffer width, minimum number of plantings, structure type and height requirements. This would increase specificity for staff, which would help staff ensure compliance with the ordinance. Barker said his first thought is that more shrubs should be required. Hauth said she has in mind to ask a retired urban forester to review the buffer text amendments to be certain the town is asking for the right amount of plant material in a buffer. It was noted that there is a standard landscaping book architects typically use as a reference. Hauth said these text amendments regarding buffer are not ready to be sent to public hearing. The board would like plan drawing of buffers and even a side view. Hauth said she is not sure she can draw a side view. The board also would like an expert to determine whether plants can survive at the density proposed in the amendments. C. Downtown lighting Vandemark said the Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber of Commerce has been working with businesses on creating a solution that would increase light on the sidewalks and make it more obvious that restaurants and shops are open in the evening. She said one idea is to string Edison lights along the tops of the buildings. Another idea is to install decorative streetlamps. She asked the board for general feedback. Planning Board Minutes | 4 of 4 The board said that Edison lights along the tops of buildings is not likely to cast much light on the sidewalk. The board suggested that lighting the tops of the outdoor dining barriers and the windows of shops and restaurants would better accomplish the goal. Hauth pointed out that if the chamber bought all the lights, then each establishment would have the same intensity of light and the same color. Vandemark asked if color is in the ordinance. Hauth answered that color is not specified. 6. Housekeeping text amendments for July public hearing A. Rewrite of Section 5.2.25.2 — requiring existing mobile home parks to get new conditional use permits. Mobile home parks have been made by-right uses. Hauth said this is to clean up some language that was overlooked. Creating a mobile home park no longer requires a Conditional Use Permit in a mobile home park district, so a Conditional Use Permit is no longer required when a mobile home park owner wishes to expand. Motion: Sykes moved to send this amendment to the July 18 joint public hearing. Vandemark seconded. Vote: Unanimous B. Outdoor performances and noise associated with bars and restaurants Hauth said Section 5.2.2.1, which lists standards of evaluation for restaurants, was written before the town addressed noise at restaurant establishments. The current language makes reference to a Special Event Permit and a noise permit, but there is not a noise permit. Hauth explained that if there is a complaint about noise, the Hillsborough Police Department measures the decibels of noise on the property line and advises the establishment’s owner or manager if the reading is too high. Hauth reviewed the proposed amended language with the board. Motion: Johnston moved to send the amendment to the July 18 joint public hearing. Sykes seconded. Vote: Unanimous Hauth said that the joint public hearing was likely to be short and she would like for the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners to plan to stay after the public hearing to talk about the process for amending the Vision 2030 Plan. 7. Adjournment Motion: Sykes moved to adjourn at 8:44 p.m. Vote: Unanimous Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Hauth Secretary