Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-15-2019 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 9 Minutes Planning Board 7 p.m. Aug. 15, 2019 Town Hall Annex Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St. Present Board: Chair Dan Barker, Lisa Frazier, Chris Johnston, Doug Peterson, Alyse Polly, Jeff Scott, Jenn Sykes, Scott Taylor, Toby Vandemark and Chris Wehrman Staff: Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik and Public Information Specialist Cheryl Sadgrove Guests: Sport Durst and Tim Smith 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 There were no changes. 3. Minutes review and approval Minutes from regular meeting on July 18, 2019. A typo was noted in the sixth paragraph of Item 5, and Hauth marked it for correction. Motion: Member Jenn Sykes moved approval of the minutes as amended. Member Toby Vandemark seconded. Vote: Unanimous 4. Continued public hearing: A. Special Use Permit for Hillsborough Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram to develop 5.39 acres at 1902 N.C. 86 S. as a motor vehicle sales and service location. The public hearing was closed Aug. 12. 5. Recommendations to Board of Commissioners A. Rezoning request from MacKenan Property Group to rezone 2.221 acres at 2300 Old N.C. 86 from Economic Development District to High Intensity Commercial Hauth summarized the request. The motor vehicle fuel station use on the property would be allowed to continue because it already exists and would be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the High Intensity Commercial Zone. Planning Board Minutes | 2 of 9 Motion: Sykes moved to recommend that the Board of Commissioners approve this rezoning request. Member Lisa Frazier seconded. Vote: Unanimous B. Special Use Permit request from Hillsborough Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram to develop 5.39 acres at 1902 N.C. 86 S. as a motor vehicle sales and service location Hauth briefly reviewed the changes in the proposal that were made based on feedback from the July 18 public hearing. She also shared the more detailed lighting plans. The board then reviewed the requests for modifications and waivers and decided on recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. First modification request The first request for a modification from Section 5 is regarding the standard that not more than 5% of the gross floor area of the building or 20 vehicles can be displayed between the front façade of the building and the street. Member Jeff Scott asked how 5% was established as a limit. Hauth said it was established at that maximum amount for no particular reason. Scott said it feels like the wrong number. Barker said this is the first time that maximum has been tested, and it may need to be corrected. Barker said the intention was to prevent someone from having a large car lot with no structure on it. Hauth added that this language in Section 5 was also intended to prevent cars from being parked at the edge of the right of way. Sykes said the Planning Board should consider changing the language and should grant the modification. Barker noted there was consensus among Planning Board members for recommending that this modification request be granted. Second modification request The second modification request is regarding the standard in Section 5 that service bay doors should not face the public right of way. The Planning Board recommended approving the request. Waiver 1 Waiver 1 is to allow 62% impervious surface rather than the maximum limitation of 50% for commercial development. Sykes said this language should be reviewed by the Planning Board because no commercial developer builds under the maximum. Hauth agreed and added this is the district where the town wants intense development. Hauth explained that this limitation was established to align with Orange County; however, Hillsborough does not have to follow the stricter impervious surface guidelines that other areas in Orange County are required to follow because Hillsborough stormwater drains into a different watershed. There was brief discussion that the soil in Hillsborough does not enable pervious pavers to work well. The Planning Board decided to recommend approving this waiver. Waiver 2 Planning Board Minutes | 3 of 9 Waiver 2 is to recognize that the 100-foot buffer from the interstate is almost entirely encumbered by a Duke Energy easement and transmission lines. Hauth said the easement is an incredible incumbrance on the property. Parking is one of the few uses allowed. The easement impacts where light fixtures can be placed in the parking lot and requires the light fixtures to be shorter than what may be typical. Hauth noted there is a commitment from the applicant to plant additional plantings along the edge of the buffer. Member Scott Taylor said he would recommend approval of this waiver and note that the applicant promises to achieve or nearly achieve planting a Type C buffer. The Planning Board recommended approval of this waiver. Waiver 3 Waiver 3 is to allow more than eight sides to the parcel’s shape. Tim Smith, who represents the applicant, said the general shape is roughly six sides, but there are technically more sides for the following reasons: to make alignments for future drives, to navigate around the pump station (creates three sides), and to accommodate the curve adjacent to the Sheetz property. Sykes noted there is a transformer and a stormwater pond affecting the parcel’s shape. Scott asked where the limitation of eight sides came from because he is accustomed to multi-sided lots. Hauth said that the standard was meant to apply to residential lots more so than to commercial lots and that the Planning Board may want to consider a text amendment to clarify this. The Planning Board decided to recommend approval of this waiver. Waiver 4 Waiver 4 is to allow the lot’s shape despite it not fitting with Paragraph 6.6.4.2 in the Unified Development Ordinance, which states, “No new lot shall be created for building purposes that contains an area wholly within the required setbacks of opposing lot sides.” The Planning Board decided to recommend approval of this waiver. Waiver 5 Waiver 5 is regarding Sub-paragraph 6.7.3.4 in the Unified Development Ordinance, which requires architectural features to divide and create vertical orientation. Sykes asked whether the gray panels proposed for the back could be painted. An owner of the dealership confirmed that the panels needed to be gray. Scott said the board needs to be careful not to get into designing the project. The Planning Board said the changes meet the intention of this section and decided to recommend approval of this waiver. Waiver 6 Planning Board Minutes | 4 of 9 Waiver 6 is regarding Sub-paragraph 6.7.3.5, which states, “Horizontal design elements such as large fascias or banding designs are discouraged and shall be balanced with vertical elements.” The Planning Board said the changes meet the intent of this section and a waiver is no longer needed. Waiver 7 Waiver 7 is a request to be excused from the requirement in Sub-paragraph 6.7.5.1, which states that building mass should be placed close to the front setback line. Scott asked whether the Planning Board has previously considered that this requirement was not intended to apply to this type of use. Hauth answered that the Planning Board could determine that. Scott said ideally everything would be pedestrian oriented or oriented to the street, but not every business can be. There was discussion about the intent of this ordinance, which was to avoid having a large parking lot of cars in front of a building. There was concern about setting precedent, but some felt that determining this ordinance did not need to be met would only affect another application for a car dealership and not a different type of business. It was acknowledged that it would not be practical to require the car dealership to place display cars behind the building. Hauth said in granting the waiver, the board can say it did not intend this car dealership use to apply to this waiver to be clear that the granted waiver is not setting a precedent. The Planning Board decided to recommend that the ordinance was not intended to apply to this use. Waiver 8 Waiver 8 is a request to be excused from the requirement in Sub-paragraph 6.7.5.2, which states that building mass on corner lots should be placed as near to the street intersection as possible to anchor the lot. The Planning Board had consensus to recommend approval. Waiver 9 Waiver 9 is a request to be excused from Sub-paragraph 6.7.7, which states that as much of the width of a building as possible should be placed along the front of a lot. The Planning Board had consensus to recommend approval. Waiver 10 Waiver 10 is a request to be excused from Sub-paragraph 6.7.8.2, which states that openings such as windows and doors should account for a minimum of 50% on the pedestrian side of the ground floor and 30% of the pedestrian side on the upper floors. The Planning Board decided the plans meet the spirit of the ordinance and a waiver is not necessary. Waiver 11 Planning Board Minutes | 5 of 9 Waiver 11 is a request to be excused from Sub-paragraph 6.7.9.3, which states that primary building materials should be wood, masonry concrete, glass or stone. Scott said the ordinance excludes metal but materials like zinc, copper, and bronze coating can be really nice. Hauth said the omittance of metal is to avoid prefabricated metal buildings.Scott said he understands that, but he can think of scenarios where metal could be allowed. The Planning Board discussed that the corporate office requires these composite metal panels. The Planning Board determined there was consensus to recommend granting this waiver with the understanding that the corporate office requires this material and that the proposed materials and colors are appropriate. Waiver 12 Waiver 12 is a request to be excused from Sub-paragraph 6.7.9.5, which states there should only be one dominant material on a façade if there are multiple materials on the same façade. Hauth said the proposal meets the requirement and the waiver is not necessary. Waiver 13 Waiver 13 is a request to be excused from Sub-paragraph 6.10.3.8, which states there should be a 10-foot- minimum planted setback around the parking perimeter. Hauth said the proposal meets this except along the interstate and requires a waiver because of the impact to the buffer. The Planning Board had agreement to recommend approval. Waiver 14 Waiver 14 is a request to be excused from Sub-paragraph 6.10.3.7, which states there should be a 5-foot landscaped strip between the exterior wall and the parking. Hauth said applicants were meeting this requirement when it was a 3-foot buffer; but now that it is 5 feet, most are asking for waivers. The Planning Board noted noted the Hampton Pointe shopping center does not have 5-foot landscaped strips. Smith affirmed the proposal is 5 feet of landscaped area in the front. The Planning Board had consensus to recommend approval of this waiver. Waiver 15 Waiver 15 is a request to be excused from Sub-paragraph 6.11.5.2, which stipulates the foot-candle limits. Member Doug Peterson said he hopes the light doesn’t trespass off site, but it is a car dealership and not a residential area. There was discussion about whether 50 foot-candles were too bright to allow. When asked for comparable lighting in town, Hauth said she would expect the lighting under any gas station canopy to measure at least 30 foot-candles and maybe more. It was noted that at 10 p.m., the lights would be dimmed to 30% of their brightness. Planning Board Minutes | 6 of 9 There was discussion about requiring the lights to be dimmed at 8 p.m. and feedback from the dealership that 8 p.m. would be too early. Hauth approximated that the light measurements in the Home Depot parking lot were likely 5 or 6 foot- candles and that the Walmart parking lot is close to 1 foot-candle. The applicant was asked whether the corporate office for the car dealership mandates the brightness. Smith explained that there are industry lighting standards for car dealerships and that a car dealership is not obligated to meet those standards. It was acknowledged that car dealerships tend to be bright to discourage car thefts. Smith shared a rendering that showed the view of Sheetz and the future car dealership, which would be seen when exiting the Hampton Pointe shopping center. It was noted that the car dealership would not have great visibility from N.C. 86 once the surrounding parcels are built out. There was brief discussion that future nearby property owners may complain about the brightness. It was pointed out that anyone building near the car dealership would know that they are building next to a dealership. Member Alyse Polly said she is concerned that drivers will look at the bright lights and then not be able to see as they drive past the dealership on the interior road. She expressed concern for future neighbors. She thinks light will bounce off the cars and possibly reflect onto the future hotel. She wondered whether the car dealership owners would be willing to compromise on the brightness. Polly wondered if the Kia dealership in Durham would have comparable light levels. Sport Durst, one of the dealership owners, said the lighting would be exactly the same. Barker said the fixtures chosen for this plan may not be the right fixtures for an even coverage. Barker thinks the board should set a performance standard rather than a straight grant of the waiver. When asked about the standard lighting level for a car dealership, Smith said 40 to 50 foot-candles for the display area. He said the secondary row lighting levels can drop to half or more. The car inventory areas are lit to 5 or 6 foot-candles, which is what is proposed. It was reiterated that car dealerships are not exactly held to the light standard. Some Planning Board members asked the applicant to reduce the lighting on the front row of display cars. There was more discussion about following the industry standards and also about reducing the lighting. Hauth explained that on the front line, the lighting plan shows a 52 foot-candle maximum, 37 foot-candle average and 8 foot-candle minimum. The board discussed how to reduce the brightness. Members noted that next time they should get clarification about any national standards for lighting parking lots before closing a public hearing. The board discussed the brightness under gas station canopies and started concluding that 30 to 35 foot- candles may be an appropriate maximum level of light. Planning Board Minutes | 7 of 9 Smith asked permission for rebuttal. Smith said he would like to work with the board to lower light levels. For the front line, 40 foot-candles would be reasonable. Durst agreed. Barker suggested that the rest of the display area be held to 30 foot-candles and that the back line cannot exceed what is proposed in the lighting plan. Scott asked why the ordinance specifies that lighting levels cannot surpass 15 foot-candles. Hauth said she had read that having more than a 10 foot-candle difference in lighting is a problem because it takes eyes time to adjust. She had figured that the road is not more than 5 foot-candles, so 15 foot-candles seem to be a reasonable maximum. There was more discussion that generally people can easily read under a gas station light canopy. Smith said a colleague had just measured light at another Sheetz gas station canopy, and it was 46 foot-candles. The Planning Board decided to recommend setting the maximum light measurement at 40 foot-candles with the other light measurements as set in the lighting plan and dropping to 30% of those measurement values at night. Waiver 16 Waiver 16 is a request to be excused from Paragraph 6.12.2, which requires a portion of the parcel to be dedicated for the purpose of preserving open space. Hauth said the applicant is creating one lot out of a larger track. The open space on the larger track can be determined later. She did not think a waiver is required for this application. Waiver 17 Waiver 17 is a request to be excused from Sub-paragraph 6.13.7.1, which requires that parking spaces not be built in the setback. Hauth said the application now meets the ordinance and a waiver is no longer needed. Waiver 18 Waiver 18 is a request to be excused from Sub-paragraph 6.13.9.1, which stipulates that parking should be placed at the side or rear of the building and screened from view. The Planning Board had consensus to recommend approving this waiver. Waiver 19 Waiver 19 is a request to be excused from Sub-paragraph 6.13.9.2, which states that parking areas should be located away from rights of way. The Planning Board had consensus to recommend approving this waiver. Waiver 20 Waiver 20 is a request to be excused from Sub-paragraph 6.13.9.3, which states that surface parking shall not be located at street corners. The Planning Board had consensus to recommend approving this waiver. Waiver 21 Planning Board Minutes | 8 of 9 Waiver 21 is a request to be excused from the Unified Development Ordinance stipulation in Sub-paragraph 6.18.12.3, which states how the wall sign surface area shall be determined. Barker said there had been testimony about brand standards. The Planning Board had consensus to recommend approving this waiver. Staff and the board reviewed the specifics of the motion that would be made. Motion: Member Chris Johnston moved that the board recommend approval of the Special Use Permit with:  A statement that waivers 5, 6, 12, 16 and 17 are no longer needed because revised plans meet the ordinance.  A recommendation to grant modifications 1 and 2 as well as waivers 1-4, 11, 13, 14, 18-21.  A statement that waivers 7-9 were not intended to apply to a use such as a car dealership.  A statement that Waiver 10 is no longer needed because the plans meet the spirit of the ordinance.  A condition that the lighting be set at a 40 foot-candle maximum for the front line, 35 foot- candle maximum for other display areas and at the lighting levels shown in the lighting plan for the rest of the area with an overall nighttime reduction in light levels to 30%. Second: Vandemark seconded. Vote: Unanimous C. Text amendments to Section 5.2.25.23 — remove Conditional Use Permit requirement for modification of existing mobile home parks Hauth reviewed the text amendment and noted there was no commentary at the public hearing. Peterson asked if age or type of mobile home can be restricted. Hauth said restrictions can be made on the length, width and roof but not age. Peterson expressed concern that energy efficiency and housing standards are not enforced. Hauth said those are not requirements in the ordinance. Peterson expressed frustration that it is OK for someone to bring in a dilapidated mobile home. Hauth said the process is that a tenant can file a complaint if the tenant feelsthe mobile home does not meet minimum housing code. Peterson said he would like some way to stop dilapidated structures from being added to mobile home parks. Town Attorney Bob Hornik said it could be done but in a different way. This text amendment is addressing mobile home parks and not units. Motion: Taylor moved to recommend approval of the text amendment. Johnston seconded. Vote: Unanimous Planning Board Minutes | 9 of 9 D. Text amendments to Section 5.2.3 and 5.2.43 — remove reference to noise permit for outdoor performances and add reference for compliance with standards for amplified sound Hauth reviewed that this amendment is to remove a reference to a noise permit that does not exist. Peterson pointed out a word is missing — “every” before “10 seconds.” Hauth made a note for the town clerk. Motion: Frazier moved to recommend approval of the text amendment. Scott seconded. Vote: Unanimous 6. Staff updates A. Staff has contacted a landscape architect to review the proposed buffer text amendments. B. Duke Energy has provided a technical resource and preliminary comments on the draft lighting plan and has also sent Hauth a catalogue of exterior lighting with BUG (backlight, uplight and glare) ratings so she can see how the town’s ordinance comports. C. At the Aug. 26 Board of Commissioners work session, planning staff will present visual depictions of what the South Churton Street widening project could look like from U.S. 70A to Interstate 40. 7. Adjournment Motion: Johnston moved to adjourn at 9:08 p.m. Vote: Unanimous Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Hauth Secretary