HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-17-19 Minutes PB JPHAssistant 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
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 1 of 7
Minutes
Joint Public Hearing
Planning Board and Board of Commissioners
7 p.m. Oct. 17, 2019
Town Hall Annex Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St.
Present:
Board of Commissioners — Mayor Tom Stevens and commissioners Mark Bell, Kathleen Ferguson, Matt Hughes,
Evelyn Lloyd and Jenn Weaver
Planning Board — Chair Dan Barker, Lisa Frazier, Chris Johnston, Alyse Polly, Jeff Scott, Jenn Sykes, Scott Taylor
and Toby Vandemark
Staff — Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik and Public Information Specialist Cheryl
Sadgrove
Guests — Jeremy Anderson, Thorn Baccich, Kevin Dean, Simon George, Dan Jewell, Heather Morefield, Deanna
Overman, David Parker, Ron Smith, Mike Tarrant, Jeff Strickler and Tim Summerville
1. Call to order and confirmation of quorum
Mayor Tom Stevens called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
2. Agenda changes and approval
There were no additions or changes. The agenda stood as presented.
3. Opening of the public hearing
Stevens opened the public hearing and explained some differences between legislative and quasi-judicial
public hearings. He then turned the gavel over to Planning Board Chair Dan Barker.
4. Rezoning requests
A. Rezoning Request from Taylor and Horner families to rezone three lots totaling 2.41 acres on the north side of
Cornelius Street from Residential-10 to General Commercial (511-527 Cornelius St.)
Planning Director Margaret Hauth noted that these residential lots are included in the U.S. 70/Cornelius Street
Corridor Strategic Plan, which was written in 2007. It was acknowledged in the plan that these lots could
remain residential for as long as property owners wanted and that the town would support consistent and
reasonable rezoning requests as the area becomes more commercialized.
Hauth said the boards need to consider whether all the uses allowed by right in a General Commercial District
would be appropriate for this street.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 2 of 7
No one had signed up to speak on this item. Family members who own the property were invited to speak.
Scott Horner said the families want to make the property more marketable to sell it.
Planning Board Member Jeff Scott asked if the families plan to recombine the lots. Horner answered that the
lots could be combined. Barker said it could be left up to the buyers.
Planning Board Member Chris Johnston asked what is located near this property. Horner said a small
convenience store is across the street and a laundromat is two blocks away.
Planning Board Member Jenn Sykes said the adjacent small, nonconforming residential lots could be impacted
by the redevelopment.
Motion: Sykes moved to close the public hearing on this item. Commissioner Matt Hughes seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
5. Special Use Permit request
A. Modification to UNC Health Care campus to add a four-story wing with beds, utility plant expansion, and 163
additional parking spaces at 430 Waterstone Drive
Those who wished to speak were sworn in.
Jeff Strickler, the head administrator of UNC Health Care’s Hillsborough campus, who was sworn in, addressed
the boards. He noted that the Hillsborough campus is treating 25,000 patients a year. He said that more than
400 employees consider the Hillsborough hospital to be their primary site and that more than 100 physicians
primarily practice at this location. He reviewed the plans to build a second tower that will add 100 more jobs,
30 beds for rehabilitation and 50 acute care beds.
Commissioner Kathleen Ferguson arrived at 7:36 p.m.
Simon George, vice-president of real estate & development with UNC Health Care, who was sworn in, briefly
reviewed the project.
Mike Tarrant, who was sworn in and landscape architect on the project, reviewed the waiver requests.
Waiver 1
Waiver 1 is regarding lighting levels. Tarrant said this is somewhat of a technicality. When Duke Energy
created the lighting plan, the utility accounted for all existing fixtures. Tarrant said that this led to ambiguity
and that the Planning Department asked the developer to show what new fixtures are proposed or would be
relocated. Because the plans have been submitted showing a noncompliance to a Unified Development
Ordinance requirement, the plan is not reality, so the waiver request is needed.
Waiver 2
Waiver 2 is regarding fewer parking spaces. The Unified Development Ordinance requires 251 spaces. With
stormwater features and other site challenges, the developer proposes 157 parking spaces. Tarrant said some
of the site challenges include topography, tree canopy that UNC wishes to keep, and preservation of the
historic trading path. Also, creating a longer parking lot would place several spaces beyond industry standards
for proximity to a building.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 3 of 7
Waiver 3
Waiver 3 is regarding reducing the drive aisle width from 25 to 23 feet in one location in the front parking
field where accessible parking is being added. Tarrant explained that the proposal is to retrofit existing
parking spaces and that the developers did not want to demolish existing walkways because it would be too
disruptive to those who need to access the hospital.
Waiver 4
Waiver 4 is regarding a perimeter buffer requirement to accommodate a new stormwater control device.
Tarrant said a reduced buffer would accommodate a future parking structure. To help mitigate a reduced
buffer, the developers are proposing a 60-foot-wide Type C buffer.
Barker asked about light trespass. George answered that full cut-off light fixtures would be installed. With a
Type C buffer, there should be minimal spillover, if any, he added.
Commissioner Mark Bell said he had read in the packet that a helicopter pad would be built. George and
Hauth explained that has already been approved and is not part of this application.
Johnston noted that the developers are asking for 100 fewer parking spaces than what is required.
Deanna Overman of 1600 Worth St., who was sworn in, addressed the boards. She said the UNC Hospitals
parking lot is adjacent to her property. She said the original construction caused headaches for her and her
husband. She said that children walk along the sewer easement on her property and that the Orange County
Sheriff’s Office has told her not much can be done about the trespassing. Overman said she wants a buffer
from the trailer park to this land. Overman said people who work for the hospital walk onto her property. She
said she is fine with the hospital’s lights as they are now.
Overman said that her house and well water were affected by blasting done for the original construction.
Overman said she had cracks in her double-wide mobile home’s 50-pound blocks due to the original blasting
and she is concerned about blasting for the expansion. She is against any expansion of the hospital. She
requested that equipment which measures the effect from blasts be placed at her house before any blasting.
When asked whether employees walked on her property only during construction, Overman answered they
were mostly surveyors. When asked what the ongoing concern is, Overman said teenagers from the trailer
park walk along the sewer easement that is on her property to reach the Durham Tech Community College
campus.
Hughes asked for clarification that Overman is complaining about her neighbors who live on Alice Loop.
Overman confirmed.
Hauth said the town has had some staff changes so maybe staff could revisit the buffer.
Simon George, who was sworn in, thanked Overman for speaking. He said there would be blasting and noise
pollution for the expansion and the developers would want to make sure they are not damaging property. He
asked if other neighbors have had problems. Overman said she does not talk to her neighbors.
The boards looked at the properties on Google Maps. Sykes noted that the new parking lot will be closer to
the residents on Alice Loop than to Overman’s property.
David Parker, who was sworn in, addressed the board. Parker, a project manager, said seismic readers would
be placed before blasting. He said most of the blasting happened for the first phase. There will be blasting for
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 4 of 7
the new tower, but it will have to be minimal to not disrupt the hospital. Parker explained that a lot of the
grading for the second phase was done along with the first phase.
Motion: Sykes moved to close the public hearing for this item. Planning Board Member Toby Vandemark
seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
B. Request to construct a 15,000-square-foot medical office building and 74 parking spaces on Parcel 11
Hauth noted that Parcel 11 in Waterstone fronts South Churton Street. The plan addresses the town’s
requirements to have pedestrian-oriented buildings on South Churton Street.
Those who wished to speak on this item were sworn in.
Thorn Baccich, who was sworn in, addressed the board. Baccich said his company, Flagship Healthcare
Properties, would own the building and UNC would lease it.
Jeremy Anderson, who was sworn in, addressed the board. Anderson, part of the project team, gave an
overview of the site and project.
Ron Smith, who was sworn in, then addressed the board. Smith, a healthcare architect for LS3P, shared that
the building would be one story with an exterior of brick and polished masonry. Horizontal brick and vertical
pilasters are proposed. Urgent care would be located at one end and family medicine at the other. The two
sides would share an entrance, which would have vertical screening elements to emphasize the entry points
and to bring a human scale to the building.
It was explained that UNC Family Medicine was expected to be the tenant in this building.
Anderson reviewed the five waiver requests.
Waiver 1
Waiver 1 is regarding a conflict in the ordinance between requiring a 30-foot buffer for South Churton Street
and a 50-foot setback for Entranceway Special Use. The developers decided to propose observing the 30-foot
buffer. Existing vegetation would remain. The proposed building would have to meet the 50-foot setback, but
a row of parking and landscaping would be placed within that 50 feet. Anderson said they worked to create
front presence on South Churton Street by locating a corner entry visible from the street. The developers are
asking that the 30-foot buffer be the guidance for this project.
Waiver 2
Waiver 2 is regarding a requirement for sidewalk along the frontage. Anderson said the developers are
proposing making a payment in lieu of building the sidewalk because South Churton Street is scheduled to be
widened and the sidewalk would not connect to anything.
Waiver 3
Waiver 3 is regarding grading in the buffer. Anderson said there are topography challenges. He said the
developers would need to grade in the rear (eastern) side in lieu of grading in the non-residential buffer along
South Churton Street if a 50-foot buffer along the front was enforced.
Waiver 4
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 5 of 7
Waiver 4 is regarding placing a stormwater pond in the buffer. Anderson said this is not needed if only the 30-
foot buffer is enforced. All pond grading was removed from the 30-foot buffer along South Churton Street and
the 25-foot northern landscape buffer.
Waiver 5
Waiver 5 is regarding placing as much of the building width as possible along the lot’s front. Anderson said a
medical office building would require that patients have convenient and accessible entrance to the main
entry. Rotating the building would require having parking either along the front by South Churton Street or
not convenient to the front entry.
Commissioner Evelyn Lloyd asked if Anderson had said there was an existing pond. Anderson answered a
pond exists but has been dry for years.
Commissioner Jenn Weaver asked what happens to the buffer if South Churton Street is widened. Anderson
said there is a 10- foot right of way, so the buffer should not be affected. Hauth said after the widening, the
town will pay for sidewalks to be installed that are consistent with the widening. There could be a need to
acquire some property here for sidewalks after the widening, but she expects the widening would be tapering
in front of this building. Barker said if the developers build the sidewalk, then the state would pay to reinstall
sidewalks here as part of the widening project. Hauth said staff did not think it was worth installing the
sidewalk only to have it destroyed for the road widening.
Sykes wondered if the drive proposed to be shared with Parcel 10 would become a public road. Anderson did
not expect it to become public. Hauth said now it is only considered a shared drive between these two
parcels.
Sykes said Anderson had mentioned a potential future building and she wondered how that would fit on the
site. Anderson said it would have to be smaller than originally planned because the stormwater pond has to
be bigger than originally calculated. The plan is to leave a building pad for future building.
Motion: Sykes moved to close the public hearing for this item. Vandemark seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
6. Text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance
A. Section 5.2.9.1.d to allow lots with a non-conforming primary dwelling to have a conforming accessory
dwelling unit
Hauth explained the ordinance states that the existing house and proposed separate unit need to meet
applicable setbacks. However, a remarkable number of dwellings are nonconforming for setbacks. Hauth said
within the previous two or three months, she has had discussions with roughly five homeowners who have
nonconforming houses and wish to build a detached accessory dwelling unit.
Hauth reviewed two options included in the packet. One option is an amendment stating that an existing
dwelling may be nonconforming. Another option is an amendment stating that any proposed building has to
meet applicable building requirements but that the existing structure does not have to meet setbacks. This
would allow the existing building to become the accessory dwelling unit and for a larger freestanding home
that meets the setback requirements to be built on the site. As an example, Hauth said a property owner
could have an acre and an existing 800-square-foot house that is nonconforming. The property owner could
then build a conforming 2,000-square-foot house that would become the primary structure.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 6 of 7
Barker asked whether the town specified the distance between the structures. Hauth said no, the town has
followed the building code, which is something like 10 feet.
Bell said something like this was happening at 221 Margaret Lane. Hauth said if construction is already
underway, then the buildings must comply with setbacks.
Hauth introduced Nancy Rosebaugh and Nancy Baker, who were both interested in a text amendment on this
subject.
Nancy Rosebaugh addressed the board. Rosebaugh said she has lived on Thomas Ruffin Street since 1986 and
would like the board to approve the first option. She said she did not yet feel familiar enough with the second
option. She explained that her house was not built parallel to property lines. She is concerned about the size
of houses being built in the Hillsborough Historic District. Her neighborhood is experiencing the building of
large homes. She explained that her existing dwelling was built on the northeast corner of the lot, not
meeting setback requirements.
Nancy Baker addressed the board. Baker lives at 123 W. Union St. The lot is long and narrow. Her driveway is
shared between her and a neighbor. She would like to remove a shed and build a detached accessory dwelling
unit for her mother. She could build this unit in the middle of her back yard, but a 20-foot side setback is
difficult to meet on her narrow lot. Hauth said the second option may not go far enough to assist Baker. Hauth
said if Baker demolishes the shed, then a building usually would not be allowed in the shed’s footprint
because it would be in the setback. Hauth said what would work for Baker is for an accessory dwelling unit’s
setback to be as little as 5 feet.
Barker said it would be harder to enforce screening requirements with such a small setback. Hauth said she’s
more concerned about problems of noise and the loss of privacy for neighbors.
Sykes asked whether building an accessory dwelling unit that is attached to the house would be a solution.
Hauth said if it would be an alternative for Baker. A homeowner can continue to build additions on a
noncomforming house as long as the addition does not encroach farther into the setback than the house.
Hauth said more homeowners prefer a detached accessory dwelling unit on their property.
B. Table 6.3.2 to remove the impervious surface requirement from Business Park, Limited Office, and
Entranceway Special Use zoning districts.
Hauth said there have been many waiver requests regarding the impervious surface requirement. She added
that it has struck her as odd to impose a 50% limit on impervious surface for these zoning districts. She
explained that the limits were imposed before the town had stormwater infrastructure requirements.
C. Section 9.1.5 and 9.2 to add clarifying language and replace graphic relating to setbacks
Hauth said this amendment is intended to put into words what staff has been doing for years when
determining front orientation for oddly shaped lots.
Barker asked why the rear setback is greater than side setbacks instead of the same. Hauth explained it has
been that way and she thinks it is worth discussing the merits of having the same setback for the side and rear
yards. She noted that requiring a deeper setback for the front of a house is at odds with building community
by placing front porches closer to the street.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 7 of 7
7. Close public hearing
Motion: Sykes moved to close the public hearing items 6A, B and C. Planning Board Member Lisa Frazier
seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
8. Adjournment
Motion: Sykes moved to adjourn at 9:08 p.m.
Vote: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Hauth
Secretary