HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-16-2020 PB Minutes Joint Public HearingAssistant 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 6
Minutes
Joint Public Hearing
Planning Board and Board of Commissioners
7 p.m. Jan. 16, 2020
Town Hall Annex Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St.
Present:
Board of Commissioners — Mayor Jenn Weaver and commissioners, Robb English, Kathleen Ferguson and Evelyn
Lloyd
Planning Board — Chair Dan Barker, Oliver Child-Lanning, Lisa Frazier, Chris Johnston, Alyse Polly, Jeff Scott and
Jenn Sykes
Staff — Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik and Public Information Specialist Cheryl
Sadgrove
1. Call to order and confirmation of quorum
Mayor Jenn Weaver called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
2. Agenda changes and approval
Planning Director Margaret Hauth said that business owners in Daniel Boone Square had asked that Item 7B
be continued until the April public hearing because they are unable to attend this evening. Hauth said staff
has not had much opportunity to engage with the Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber of Commerce to
invite business owners to speak about electronic message signs at this hearing.
3. Opening of the public hearing
Planning Board Chair Dan Barker opened the public hearing.
4. Annexation request:
A. A request from Dante Bowman to annex 0.23 acres at 313 Odie St. The parcel is presently zoned Residential-
10, and no zoning change is proposed.
Hauth reviewed the request. No one wished to speak about this item.
Motion: Planning Board Member Jenn Sykes moved to close the public hearing on this item. Commissioner
Kathleen Ferguson seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
5. Future Land Use Plan amendment
A. Amendment to the description of the Small Lot Residential designation to remove Residential-10 as an
expected zoning classification and amendment to the map to change the designation of the area bounded by
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 2 of 6
West King Street, West Hill Avenue South, the railroad, and the western city limits from Urban Neighborhood
to Small Lot Residential
Hauth reviewed the amendments, which were requested by residents of the affected area. She noted that the
agenda packet contained two emails expressing general support for the amendment and that two others
contained questions and all emails would be included in the next meeting packets.
Barker noted that there have been two rezoning requests in this area in the last year or so.
Sykes said she wanted someone to state for the record the sale price of the resulting subdivided smaller lots.
Sykes said one new house on a recently subdivided lot in this area is for sale for $495,000. She provided the
listing to staff to share with all members.
Upon Weaver’s request, Hauth quickly reviewed that if a lot is zoned Residential-15 and is at least 30,000
square feet, a duplex can be built on it. If a lot is at least 40,000 square feet, four attached houses can be built
on it. She said the amendments would have no impact on accessory dwelling units.
Hauth reviewed that the applicants for these amendments are residents Arlo Brown and Chris Richmond.
Arlo Brown, who lives on Murray Street in the impacted area, addressed the board. He said he has spoken
against subdividing lots by rezoning from Residential-15 to Residential-10 in this area. He said the first
recently subdivided smaller lot with a new house was listed for $415,000 and sold for $410,000. The next new
house on a smaller parcel is listed for sale at $495,000. He said that such subdivision of lots does not lead to
more affordable housing and that increasing a developer’s profit is not a good reason to allow rezoning to
Residential-10. He pointed out that the amendments would put this land in line with a neighboring area that
includes Rex Drive. Brown has spoken with a lot of people in his neighborhood and believes there is fairly
broad support for the amendments. He pointed out that the amendments do not prohibit a change in zoning
to increase density later.
Planning Board Member Chris Johnston asked Brown what he thought would be a good reason for allowing a
lot to be subdivided into 10,000-square-foot lots.
Brown answered that good reasons would include: affordable housing, green building, and making room for a
family member to have an adjacent home. He said increasing a developer’s profits is not a good reason.
Chris Richmond addressed the board. He canvassed the neighborhood three afternoons the previous week.
He believes he knocked on all 88 doors in the neighborhood. He likes the neighborhood the way it is. He does
not want Residential-10 to be an expected density. He said that 58 people signed the petition he created in
support of the amendments and that not everyone was home when he knocked on doors to ask for
signatures. He believes even more residents are in support. For instance, Brown had not signed his petition.
He said seven people declined to sign the petition. Two were hard no’s. The other five either said they did not
like signing petitions or wanted to come to the meeting first. Richmond said the frequent rezoning from
Residential-15 to Residential-10 was only creating more density and higher home prices. He left a copy of the
petition for the record. Barker asked for the map as well.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 3 of 6
Lloyd commended Richmond for putting a lot of time into talking with his neighbors and getting the petition
signed.
Rick Leone addressed the board. He lives to the east of the impacted area. He said Residential-10 zoning is
more common where he lives. Over the last two years, he has attended neighborhood meetings and his
impression is that his neighbors do not mind having Residential-10 zoning and respect the wishes of this
impacted area to maintain Residential-15 zoning. He believes changing the amendments would help drive
more development and density in his neighborhood. Leone said at a previous meeting he heard the question:
“Is it appropriate to make a density change because the neighborhood requests it, knowing other
neighborhoods may want it as well?” Leone believes this processing of receiving an application from a
neighborhood and hearing from the neighborhood is appropriate. If another neighborhood has the same issue
and meets and comes to consensus, then those neighbors can come to the board. Leone does not think this
area can truly sustain Residential-10 development. He added that the Future Land Use Plan can always change
in 10 or 20 years.
Barker asked for only those with a new opinion or new information to speak.
Lucy Wilson said she thought it mattered that each resident express an opinion at the hearing.
Weaver suggested that residents in agreement with Brown and Richmond say that they are in agreement.
Wilson said she agrees with Brown and Richmond.
Zach McKinley on Riley Street said he does not have a strong opinion. He is a homebuilder. He asked some
questions about the implications of the amendments.
Hauth answered that if the amendments are approved and someone wanted to file a request for Residential-
10 zoning, then the applicant would have to bring a more robust application before this board. If neighbors
came out to say they were against the rezoning, then it would be easier than it is now for the board to say no.
There were two applications last year about which the neighbors were concerned, but the board members did
not feel they had enough information to deny the rezoning requests because the Future Land Use Plan
designates this area as Residential-10. The amendments would strengthen the board’s ability to say no. Hauth
added that although other neighborhoods could request a similar zoning change, it is generally difficult to get
most neighbors in agreement as the applicants have done in this neighborhood.
Weaver said part of good government is to help the people know what to expect in different parts of town. In
theory, the board should not just willy-nilly go for or against anything. The Future Land Use Plan is not a hard
commitment but a philosophical commitment.
Dara Lane, of 122 Murray St., addressed the board. She said she has rented a house in Hillsborough for three
years and is concerned that the recent subdivision of lots is increasing home prices so much that she will
never be able to afford to buy a house here.
Barker asked for a show of hands of those in support of the amendments. He counted 30-40 hands.
Barker asked for a show of hands of those against the amendments. There was none.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 4 of 6
Motion: Sykes moved to close the public hearing for this item. Ferguson seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
6. Special Use Permit request
A. Request from Mavis Tire to modify the original shopping center Special Use Permit to develop an outparcel at
623 Hampton Pointe Blvd.
Hauth reviewed that this outparcel is located in front of The Home Depot. She noted that the site plan was
reversed in the packet and that those who wished to speak on this item needed to be sworn in.
Hauth was sworn in.
Will Swearingen and Wyatt Bone were sworn in.
Swearingen, with Bohler Engineering, addressed the board. He reviewed that the request is for a modification
to the Special Use Permit and for three waivers. He also reviewed the project narrative.
Waiver 1
Waiver 1 is regarding Subsection 6.10.3.7, which states that a 5-foot landscaped area be installed between
the building and the parking lot.
Swearingen said the applicant is requesting the waiver because there are site constraints prohibiting the
parking lot from being pushed far enough away from the building to create the 5-foot landscaped area and
build a sidewalk. Also, adding this landscaping strip would shift the proposed drive aisle so that it would not
line up with the existing drive aisle for The Home Depot.
Waiver 2
Waiver 2 is regarding Subsection 6.10.3.8, which states that the parking lot should have a minimum 10-foot
setback area.
Swearingen said the applicant needs the waiver because there is an existing parking aisle along the southern
property line.
Hauth added that the applicant would have to change the drive aisle on someone else’s property to meet the
requirement.
Waiver 3
Waiver 3 is regarding Subsection 6.13.9.10, which states that a waiver is required if the applicant wishes to
have more spaces than allowed under the minimum parking standards.
Swearingen said the site already has 38 spaces and the plan is to reduce that number to 28.
Barker asked if the spaces are only proposed to be reduced to 28 because that is the cheapest option.
Swearingen said no, 28 spaces are proposed because that is what Mavis Tire needs.
Barker asked what the applicant would do if this waiver was not granted. Swearingen answered that the
applicant would further reduce the number of parking spaces to comply.
Barker and Planning Board Member Alyse Polly expressed an interest in reducing the number of parking
spaces and increasing the amount of grass or landscaping.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 5 of 6
Swearingen said reducing the spaces to 28 makes the outparcel better than its current condition. Bone said
the bushes and trees that will be planted by the applicant once the building is built will further improve the lot
from its existing condition.
Planning Board Member Jeff Scott asked whether there is an agreement to build a concrete pad for the
dumpster across the property line. Bone said the agreement is in process and will be in place soon.
No one in the audience wished to speak about this item.
Motion: Ferguson moved to close the public hearing for this item. Sykes seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
7. Text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance
A. Section 5 and Section 6 — Establish standards and requirements for attached dwellings in the Central
Commercial district
Hauth reviewed that the town had received an application from local property owners interested in building
attached housing in the Central Commercial zone. She said the problem is that although Subsection 5.2.10.5 is
in the ordinance, the permitted use table does not indicate that attached dwellings are permittable in the
Central Commercial district. A single residential unit above commercial is allowed.
The request is to allow up to 19 dwelling units by right. The development of 20 or more units would require a
Special Use Permit.
Lloyd said she would like more details of what the property owners are planning. Hauth said these
amendments would apply everywhere so the discussion would stay at the conceptual level.
Sykes asked if someone with questions could email those questions to Hauth after this public hearing. The
town attorney answered yes.
Hauth reviewed that the Central Commercial district includes downtown Hillsborough, the West End and
town buildings but not the Orange County Detention Center and Orange County Justice Facility.
Jenn Truman with Matthew Konar Architect addressed the board. She said she and the architectural firm she
works for has been working with the property owners. There are similar projects in Sanford, Smithfield,
Raleigh and Durham. She summarized that the applicant was asking for the draft text amendments to enable
a project to move forward in Hillsborough. She said that everyone realizes there are significant differences
between converting an old building and building a new one. She said that typically when housing prices rise,
towns see the return of the historic typology of people living above commercial spaces. Allowing more than
one residential unit above commercial space should create less expensive residential units than only allowing
one.
Ferguson thinks the residential units above commercial would impact the types of commercial that would
occupy the first floor.
Truman said Hillsborough has a fairly vibrant retail, coffee shop and restaurant environment now. She thinks
adding residential to the mix supports what the town has. She said allowing residences above commercial
would enable a return to the historic character of people living and having eyes on the street in town. The
alternative use of the space upstairs is offices.
Joint Public Hearing Minutes | 6 of 6
Ferguson said she wants to know what Hillsborough wants to be as a town 50 to 60 years from now.
Johnston asked what is currently above the shops downtown. Hauth answered offices and artist galleries.
There are no elevators in the buildings, so the upstairs uses tend to be those with low foot traffic. She added
that about 20 of the 71 lots in the Central Commercial district have second stories. Johnston asked if allowing
attached residential units upstairs would decrease the overall amount of available commercial space. Hauth
said it could. It’s the tradeoff of residential instead of an artist gallery or radio station. Truman said the
applicant is in full support of having nonresidential use on the ground floor, even if the building is new. Barker
summarized that if the police station was redeveloped, it could have 16 apartments above some commercial.
When asked, Hauth said developers of such apartments would be required to provide 1.2 parking spaces per
unit. It would be difficult to fit in around 20 parking spaces. Truman added that there are also height
limitations.
Motion: Sykes moved to close the public hearing for this item. Ferguson seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
B. Section 6.18 — Allow electronic message signs in multi-tenant developments with 10 or more tenants
Motion: Johnston moved to continue the public hearing for this item to April 16. Sykes seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
C. Section 6.5 — Modify and clarify land use buffer requirements
Hauth said land use buffer requirements are often the subject of waiver requests. The modification and
clarification would enable a developer to choose to put more land in a buffer or to plant to a denser standard
in a narrower buffer. The drawings in the packet reflect different ways to meet the standard.
Barker wondered if there are cost differences between the options. Hauth answered that she had not priced
out the options.
Motion: Sykes moved to close the public hearing for this item. Ferguson seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
7. Close public hearing
Motion: Johnston moved to close the public hearing overall. Ferguson seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
8. Adjournment
Motion: Ferguson moved to adjourn at 8:35 p.m.
Vote: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Hauth
Secretary