Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout11-21-2019 Minutes Planning Board Assistant 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 8 Minutes Planning Board 7 p.m. Nov. 21, 2019 Town Hall Annex Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St. Present Board: Chair Dan Barker, Chris Johnston, Lisa Frazier, Doug Peterson, Alyse Polly, Jeff Scott, Jenn Sykes and Scott Taylor Staff: Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik 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 presence of a quorum. 2. Agenda changes and approval Hauth said businesses in Boone Square have requested a text amendment to the signage ordinance to allow an electronic sign instead of a changeable message sign. The board decided to add the text amendment to the agenda as Item 5A. 3. Minutes review and approval Minutes from regular meeting on Sept. 19 and public hearing on Oct. 17, 2019 Motion: Member Jeff Scott moved approval of both sets of minutes. Member Lisa Frazier seconded. Vote: Unanimous 4. Recommendations to Board of Commissioners for October public hearing items A. 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.) Hauth reviewed the purpose of this rezoning request is to increase the resale value of the property. The families do not have plans to develop the properties. Hauth reviewed that notices were mailed to neighbors and that a sign was posted on the properties. Motion: Member Doug Peterson moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request. Member Scott Taylor seconded. Vote: Unanimous B. Modification to UNC Health Care campus to add a four-story bed-wing, utility plant expansion, and 163 additional parking spaces at 430 Waterstone Drive Planning Board Minutes | 2 of 8 Hauth said waivers were presented in detail at the public hearing. A neighbor spoke at the public hearing about her concerns that some people were trespassing on the sewer easement on her property. There have been no changes to the development plans since the public hearing. Master Plan modification The board first discussed the modification to reduce the buffer. Hauth said this buffer is a little unique. . Hauth said 100 feet is the maximum buffer required. The proposal is to plant the buffer to the densest requirement. The current landscaping is not that dense. Member Chris Johnston asked what denying this modification request would mean to the project. Hauth answered it would force a redesign. Johnston said he is surprised there is not a parking deck. Hauth said the far east parking lot may become a parking deck at buildout. The parking deck in that location is on the master plan but not on the special use permit. Waiver 1 Waiver 1 is regarding lighting levels. The board was OK with that. Hauth reminded the board that it is a waiver on paper only and that the actual lighting will be compliant. 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. Barker said the business will determine whether more parking is needed. The board expressed comfort with recommending approval. Waiver 3 Hauth said creating additional handicap parking as close to the building as possible makes the drive aisle narrower than the ordinance requires. The board was OK with this. Waiver 4 The waiver is regarding a narrower perimeter buffer due to the stormwater feature. The board was OK with that. It was clarified that this waiver is addressing the same area as the modification to the master plan. Johnston asked Hauth if she is concerned about the smaller drive aisle. Hauth said it is made smaller by paint but not by the parked car. It will be smaller when someone is walking in the marked or painted area. The actual area for driving is effectively the same. Motion: Peterson moved to recommend that the Board of Commissioners approve the waivers as requested. Scott seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Member Alyse Polly moved to recommend the approval of the modification as written. Frazier seconded. Vote: Unanimous Planning Board Minutes | 3 of 8 C. Request to construct a 15,000-square-foot medical office building and 74 parking spaces on Parcel 11 in the Waterstone development Hauth said the applicant requested five waivers. There are no changes to the plan. No public comment was given at the hearing. 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. Hauth noted the plans state the preference is a 30-foot setback for the landscaping and a 50-foot setback for the building. Johnston said the applicant’s proposal is a fair compromise. The board agreed. Johnston asked how many other lots fall in both the South Churton Street corridor and the Entrance Special Use zoning district. Hauth answered the adjacent parcel and one owned by the hospital on the other side of Waterstone Drive. Barker noted the board had consensus on recommending that the Board of Commissioners grant this waiver. Waiver 2 Waiver 2 is regarding a requirement for sidewalk along the frontage. Hauth said the developers are proposing to make 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. Scott said if the sidewalk was built now, it would get demolished with the widening. Hauth said the Board of Commissioners has encouraged payment in lieu during this time before the widening project takes place. The board can use the funds to pay for sections of sidewalk after the widening. The chair noted there was consensus to recommend granting this waiver. Member Jenn Sykes said there has been interest in increasing the amount of money that is paid for payment in lieu of building sidewalks. Hauth said the percentage of an estimate that is required for a sidewalk payment in lieu can be changed during the budget process because it is part of the fee schedule. Waiver 3 Waiver 3 is regarding grading in the buffer on the back side of the property. Hauth confirmed it is reasonable to expect the future adjacent neighbor to be commercial and not residential. The town is hoping for significant commercial development in this area. The chair noted the board had consensus to recommend granting this waiver. Waiver 4 Waiver 4 is regarding placing a stormwater pond in the buffer. Hauth said staff is working on changes to the buffer requirements to make it clear that a waiver is not required for this anymore. There was consensus to recommend granting this waiver. Planning Board Minutes | 4 of 8 Waiver 5 Waiver 5 is regarding placing as much of the building width as possible along the front of the lot. Hauth said the developers have made efforts to meet the design standards and meet the customer’s needs. She added a good argument could be made that the front is on the driveway instead of on Churton Street. There was consensus among Planning Board members to recommend granting this waiver. Motion: Johnston moved to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit with all five waivers. Scott seconded. Vote: Unanimous D. Text amendment to Section 5.2.9.1.d so that lots with a nonconforming primary dwelling can have a conforming accessory dwelling unit Hauth said the board packet includes two options. One option is to rewrite this section of the ordinance to allow a preexisting primary dwelling to be nonconforming as long as the accessory dwelling is conforming. The second option would allow an existing accessory building built before Sept. 1, 1994 — which was when a 5- foot minimum setback was established — to be converted to a dwelling without having to meet the setback requirements for dwellings. Hauth said the board would need to specify whether any changes to the accessory building’s footprint would be allowed. Hauth added that she included the second option to encourage board discussion to discern what the Planning Board thinks is appropriate in terms of accessory dwelling units not meeting the same setback requirements as the primary structure. Peterson expressed concern that the second option does not address the typical requirement to move the accessory dwelling unit farther from the property line for every foot over 12 feet tall. He pointed out that taller buildings should be farther from the property line. Shorter sheds have been permitted just 5 feet from property lines because they are sheds. Hauth said it could be specified that an accessory building converted to a dwelling would have to maintain its current roof height or not exceed a certain roof height. Barker said one option would be to say the perimeter of the accessory building could not be changed, which would severely limit which structures could be converted. Hauth said the rewrite could say that. Hauth said it would be difficult to convert a shed into a building because of building code. If the ordinance were to say that the exterior structure cannot be changed, it will be hard to convert 90% of the town’s accessory buildings into dwellings. Peterson said if the shed is that small, let the property owner tear the shed down and put the accessory dwelling unit in the proper space on the lot. He expressed support for the first option Hauth proposed but not the second. Scott asked if buildings are measured height to peak. Hauth said sometimes, but adjoining topography is sometimes taken into consideration. Peterson said the measurement is usually height to peak. Scott wondered if there’s a loophole. Planning Board Minutes | 5 of 8 Sykes asked if there is a restriction on height in the Historic District. Hauth said all zoning districts have a height limit, but the height limit is about 35 feet. Hauth said there is language in the 1994 ordinance that established the 5-foot setbacks for accessory dwellings and states that for every additional foot of height, 2 feet of additional setback is required. Polly said she could support Option 2 with specifications on not making the building any larger than it is. If there is already a building, she thinks it is fine to make it livable with heat and air conditioning; but making it taller or larger doesn’t feel right. Peterson said the shed may be conforming, but altering the shed might make it nonconforming. Hauth said it may meet requirements as a shed, 5 feet from property line. Other places in this ordinance require accessory dwellings to meet the same setback as primary buildings, so allowing the shed to be converted to a dwelling would create a nonconforming dwelling. Polly said she is OK with an accessory dwelling unit being that close to a property line as long as it doesn’t get taller or wider. When asked, Hauth explained that the definition of a dwelling is that the structure has a kitchen, living space and a bathroom with a shower or tub. Hauth said the town has a fair number of guest cottages, which are structures that are missing one of those elements. Hauth suggested allowing a 10% increase in volume of the converted shed to give the property owner some flexibility to meet building code. The town attorney suggested the board could permit a 10% increase in volume but no increase in height. Sykes said two properties on the west side of town that have substantial sheds on the property line come to mind. If those were converted into dwellings, the property owners would likely want to add. Hauth confirmed that adding windows would be acceptable. Sykes was thinking that window placement is something the town does not regulate and that it could result in the loss of privacy to the neighbors of these large sheds. Hauth said if the neighbor also had a structure very close to the property line, then that would limit installation of windows under building code. Scott asked if Option 2 has been vetted by anyone with deep knowledge of building code. Hauth answered no. Johnston asked Hauth to remind the board who had spoken on this issue at the public hearing. Hauth reviewed that Nancy Rosebaugh needs Option 1 because she would like to build an accessory dwelling unit and her primary structure is noncompliant. The accessory dwelling unit would meet the required setbacks. Hauth reviewed that Nancy Baker either wants to convert a shed to an accessory dwelling unit or build an accessory dwelling unit closer to the lot line so she still has a garden. Hauth said people are more interested in building freestanding accessory dwelling units than attached ones. Hauth said a third person did not attend the public hearing but wishes to convert an outbuilding to an accessory dwelling; the outbuilding does not meet the setback requirements of a primary dwelling. Frazier said she could support allowing the conversion of sheds with a 10 or 15% increase in the footprint but with a restriction on the height. She added that building on the property line infringes upon the neighbor. Planning Board Minutes | 6 of 8 Taylor said he thinks he should excuse himself from this discussion because he is working on a building that may benefit from a decision on this matter. Town Attorney Bob Hornik advised the board to excuse Taylor. Motion: Johnston moved to excuse Taylor from this discussion. Peterson seconded. Vote: Unanimous Peterson said he thinks Option 1 is acceptable. He said a new building has to meet the building code. He added that if a shed is 5 feet from a property line, then allowing a second story could impact a neighbor. If a shed is 5 feet from a neighbor and if the owner wishes to expand away from the neighbor but not increase the height, then it probably wouldn’t impact the neighbor. He suggested setting a limit to the increase in the converted shed’s volume at 25%. Hauth added that many outbuildings would not be able to meet building code requirements to be converted into dwellings. She added that a building permit is needed for a shed that is 12 feet by 12 feet or larger. A shed smaller than that is probably too small to convert to an accessory dwelling unit. Johnston suggested recommending approval of Option 1 and continuing to consider Option 2. When further research was suggested, Hauth cautioned that the Planning Department does not have a database of accessory buildings and their sizes. Sykes said West Hillsborough residential properties have many workshops that are about 70 years old. The board expressed a desire to have more time to think through Option 2. Barker recognized consensus on Option 1. Sykes said she could support Option 2 with some refinements to Peterson’s suggestions on a height limit and restricting the volume increase to 25%. Motion: Sykes moved to recommend approval of Option 1 and to ask staff to refine language for an additional amendment about Option 2. Polly seconded. Vote: Unanimous E. Amendment to Table 6.3.2 to remove the impervious surface requirement from Business Park, Limited Office, and Entranceway Special Use zoning districts. Hauth said this amendment would allow more dense development in the most intensive zoning districts. Motion: Sykes moved to recommend approval. Taylor seconded. Vote: Unanimous F. Amendment to sections 9.1.5 and 9.2 to add clarifying language and replace graphic relating to setbacks Hauth reviewed an alternative to her drawing. The board preferred her drawing. Hauth said she would revise it slightly to make it look more professional. Planning Board Minutes | 7 of 8 Motion: Polly moved to recommend approval of Hauth’s illustration and the proposed language as heard at the public hearing. Scott seconded. Vote: Unanimous 5. Continued discussion of text amendment projects 5A. Electronic sign for Daniel Boone Square Tiffany Graham Barber, the owner of Hillsborough Pharmacy, said the Boone Square business owners wished to replace its changeable letters sign with an electronic sign. The chair asked Barber why the ordinance should be changed to allow this sign. Barber said some businesses in Hillsborough already have digital signs. Every gas station has one. The Boone Square businesses want to be able to change their message sign more easily. For the old sign they have now, a tractor is needed to change the letters. The letters fall off. It is not a safe job for the person high in the air changing the letters. The sign is an eyesore, she said. When asked, Hauth said the existing sign is grandfathered. Hauth said the message can change frequently with electronic signs. She asked Barber what the shortest timeframe would be that businesses would want to change the message. The frequency of the message changing is what would be regulated, she added. Barber said she understood the problem with a rolling electronic banner being unsafe because drivers are trying to read it. She does not see a problem with a sign that occasionally changes. Barker said right now the ordinance says no changeable signs except for gas stations. Hauth said scrolling and nonscrolling signs all fall under the category of changeable message signs. The board would need to know how often the business owners want to change the sign. Peterson asked what would be on the sign. Barber answered it would change depending on which business was using it. Johnston asked for an example. Barber said she did not have an example, but business owners currently rent the sign for two weeks. Sykes suggested some restraint on color. Scott said the board would want to be be conscious not to create a Vegas strip of lighting. Johnston said there is already a sign that the business owners change regularly. The sign is dated. Hauth said board cannot vote to approve this but rather needs to work on an amendment to send to a public hearing. Hauth asked if the board wants staff to work on language for the board’s review at its December meeting. Hauth said an amendment would be opening the door for changeable message signs at any location. She will review how many businesses currently have changeable message signs and make some proposals. She will also ask for comment from the Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber of Commerce. Planning Board Minutes | 8 of 8 It was noted that a new sign could not be as tall as the existing sign. There is a 7-foot regulation that did not exist when the first sign was installed. Polly agreed with Sykes that neon green would not be an appropriate color choice on the electronic messaging. Barker said light intensity is important. Hauth said she will research how other municipalities regulate the color of the sign. Hauth then introduced Oliver Child-Lanning, who has recently been appointed to serve on the Planning Board and will start serving at the December meeting. Hauth then asked others in the audience whether they wished to speak. The three gentlemen in the audience said they were there to listen because they would likely need to speak to the board about future projects. 5B. Other amendments Hauth reviewed her status on Duke lighting, landscape buffer language, and attached residential units in the Central Commercial District. She shared a handout with the board about the residential units. She asked if the board wished to give specific direction or wait for proposals. Barker said adding mixed-use apartments downtown attracts the under-30 crowd and makes downtown more vibrant. He wondered if it is possible to state that such residential units are allowed but highly reviewable. Hauth said the state has rewritten enabling legislation for Special Use Permits, so she would not set up any new Special Use Permit processes. She explained no waivers would be allowed, the language could be that residential units are not permitted unless the lot is at least 10,000 square feet, and no density limit could be set. 6. Adjournment Motion: Peterson moved to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. Vote: Unanimous Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Hauth Secretary