HomeMy Public PortalAbout11-19-2015 Minutes PB Joint Public HearingPlanning Board Minutes
November 19, 2015
Page 1 of 6
MINUTES
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD and
PLANNING BOARD
Thursday, November 19, 2015
7:00 PM, Whitted Meeting Room
PRESENT: Janie Morris, Toby Vandemark, Doug Peterson, James Czar, Chris Wehrman, Erin Eckert, Rick
Brewer, Mayor Tom Stevens, and Commissioners Jenn Weaver, Brian Lowen, Kathleen Ferguson
and Evelyn Lloyd
STAFF: Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Bob Hornik
ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum
Mayor Stevens called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and passed the gavel to Planning
Board Chair Erin Eckert.
ITEM #2: Consideration of additions or changes to the agenda
There were none.
ITEM #3: Annexation, Rezoning and Master Plan application from Caruso Homes for
approximately 125 acres at the eastern end of Orange Grove Street. The request
would annex the parcel into the city limits and rezone the property from Agricultural
Residential to Residential Special Use. The master plan shows a mixture of single
family, townhome and apartment development totaling 1,150 dwellings. (portion of
OC PIN 9874-10-9993 north of Interstate 85).
Ms. Hauth was sworn and reviewed the application. She reminded speakers to either reaffirm their oath or complete
the oath written at the podium before speaking. She noted that all of the questions she had received by board
members after the last meeting had been provided to the applicant and they may be addressed tonight.
Ms. Hauth noted that staff identified three connectivity concerns with this project. At the hearing, the applicant had
committed to fund engineering studies to address these concerns. She noted that after the hearing staff wondered if
those studies should be conducted now so the members would have more information to base their decision on.
The first connection of concern is the Orange Grove Road Extension. The second concern is how people in this
neighborhood could walk/bike downtown. Third is how to connect with neighborhoods south of I-85. If it was
possible to have some of this research complete by January, the board may want to ask the applicant to fund a
portion of the improvements, rather than just the studies. She asked if there was interest in getting the studies
completed by January. She has a caveat and concerns: we’re already in mid-November and there are traditional
holidays. They may be preliminary and not quite the results/detail you were hoping for. She noted the work would
be with three different consultants. Mayor Stevens said he’s interested in that conversation, probably later in the
meeting.
Will Letchworth, with Volkert, reaffirmed his oath. He noted there is new information from DOT which also
requires a right turn lane on Churton Street at I-85 northbound ramps. While the development doesn’t specifically
impact that movement, it does impact that intersection to a degree that warrants that suggestion. Other than that,
DOT is in agreement with the recommendations in the TIA.
Jennifer Della Valle reaffirmed her oath. She has no additional data on the fiscal or water capacity studies but
wanted to be available for questions. There had previously been a question of whether a sensitivity analysis could
be done in addition to financial analysis asked for. She is reporting that the town manager decided it’s not needed
because if the development didn’t happen on pace, the expenses could be delayed (for instance personnel and
Planning Board Minutes
November 19, 2015
Page 2 of 6
operational costs, purchase of fire truck). The asterisk is the connectivity improvement projects would be affected
by a different buildout schedule. A sensitivity analysis at this point would be premature.
Beth Trahos reaffirmed her oath and said she was speaking on behalf of the applicant. She reported her team has
met with CASA and spoken with Community Home Trust regarding affordable housing. She thanked the board for
their questions. Ms. Trahos reviewed the current zoning and the Future Land Use Plan. She reminded the board that
Caruso Homes at first was interested in 400 senior homes but that wasn’t what the town envisioned for the site in
the Future Land Use Plan. The developer took away from this board: housing to support commuter rail, site design
that interacts well within property and adjacent, and affordable housing component. The developer heard it was
important to hear from the public and the board tonight, so her group is thinking it will be a listening meeting
tonight. They will put together a revised plan for December. Caruso Homes is committed to making changes going
forward. Caruso, Randy Saxton, the engineers on the property, all can be called on. Ms. Trahos said there will be no
negative impact of traffic. Chairman Eckert said for the record that’s not quite the case. Ms. Trahos deferred to Will
Letchworth’s language.
Mayor Stevens invited the Caruso Homes team to talk about what Ms. Hauth brought up – timelines and continuing
beyond January. Ms. Trahos said time is a concern. Her clients don’t own this property, it’s under contract. The
issues relative to a bridge over I-85 and plan to providing eventual access into downtown are both likely to be a
lengthy process and likely part of the SUP. The staff will provide more and more information as the process moves
forward. The applicant’s thought is that these issues are best dealt with during the SUP review process.
Mr. Brewer asked Ms. Hauth regarding the other two studies, for which the town would hire consultants, how we
get pedestrian connection to downtown and connecting to the south, is it possible to move ahead with engaging
consultants, but have a preliminary readout in January, not a report. Ms. Hauth said yes, she would just need
direction on an acceptable fee. Mr. Brewer said refer scope to Ms. Hauth. He noted a preference to know more in
January, even if the information wasn’t complete.
All are in favor by straw poll. Chairman Eckert asked can we capture all our questions/comments to the developer
so they can present a revised masterplan for the January meeting.
Ms. Trahos said they plan to submit to Ms. Hauth in mid to late December for her to distribute for the January
hearing. The applicant is planning to provide written responses and the revised Master Plan. Chairman Eckert
thanked the Caruso team for that work. Ms. Hauth asked that any further questions be provided to staff by the end
of this month. Chairman Eckert encouraged any topics that haven’t come up, to come up now (board and public).
Cindy Talisman was sworn in. Ms. Talisman raised concern that since the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension was
voted down years ago, this development would add more congestion in and out of Hillsborough. Ms. Talisman
argued that grocery stores are willing to build before the rooftops come. She cautioned this could be a bedroom
community for Chapel Hill and encouraged the town to seek more non-residential development.
Scott LaNier was sworn in. Mr. LaNier said he wanted to talk about how communities affect businesses. As a
business owner in town, it’s very important to have other businesses with which to work. The community relies on
small business. He is asked weekly to contribute to the schools. It’s very important to have other local businesses to
support our kids and our schools. Think about having 20 or 40 Wesley Woodses around. Thinking about his
children’s futures, he wants to have them here. He doesn’t know the Collins family, but he recognizes what they’ve
done for our community. If you don’t have the numbers, the businesses won’t come.
John Tatreau was sworn in. He has lived in Hillsborough 17 years, has been a licensed realtor for 10 years and
works through Keller Williams on Millstone Drive. He said there isn’t enough residential inventory to meet demand
so he expands to Mebane. He’s excited about Collins Ridge. Apartments are needed. He’s glad there will be
affordable housing. He has heartburn about the traffic issue. I don’t like to line up for a mile to go downtown to eat.
Perhaps with more rooftops and manageable growth, more businesses will move to Hillsborough and provide some
tax relief.
Planning Board Minutes
November 19, 2015
Page 3 of 6
Jeff Caruso reaffirmed his oath. Mr. Caruso said the Collins Ridge property is a big undertaking. He said he
believes the board will like the redesign. He praised Mr. Letchworth for the traffic study and for understanding that
developments don’t necessarily have the traffic impact people think they will have. Caruso Homes will spend over
$1 million on traffic issues. When we bring more houses to a community, we always see that the retail does follow.
Mr. Caruso offered to start answering questions tonight or could do it all in January. Board members chose January.
Chairman Eckert asked Mr. Caruso whether he needed any more from this board. Mr. Caruso answered that the
board has been candid and clear. He said a pedestrian bridge is $5-6 million, but his company is trying to
build middle range housing, and doubts it can afford much participation in that effort. He said they are
working on other connectivity issues.
Mr. Caruso said he is working with the Daniel Boone property owners to connect sidewalks. That agreement is
progressing.
MOTION: James Czar moved to continue the public hearing to January 21. Commissioner Lowen
seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
ITEM #4: Conclude public hearing, adjourn joint session and excuse Town Board
The Town Board was adjourned.
ITEM #5: Convene Planning Board meeting
The Planning Board convened a Planning Board meeting.
ITEM #6: Approval of minutes from September meeting and October public hearing
Chairman Eckert asked for a clarifying edit in the September minutes on p. 2 – doesn’t have a definitive
knowledge of whether the elevation change achieves buffering.
MOTION: Ms. Morris made a motion to approve the minutes with the correction. Mr. Czar seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
ITEM #7: Adoption of 2016 meeting calendar
MOTION: Mr. Czar made a motion to adopt the 2016 meeting calendar. Mr. Peterson seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
ITEM #8: Recommendations to Town Board on October public hearing items:
A) Request from Patrick Horton to Rezone 1.353 acres at 1801 NC 86 S from Limited Office to High
Intensity Commercial (OC PIN 9874-40-8928)
Ms. Hauth noted this would return the property to a conforming state and that no one spoke at public
hearing.
MOTION: Mr. Peterson made a motion to recommend approval of the request. Ms. Morris seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
B) Special Use Permit application for Primax Properties to develop 610 Hampton Pointe Blvd as an
Advance Auto Parts store with parking (OC PIN 9873-59-7650)
Ms. Hauth reviewed that the applicant spoke at the public hearing. The board quickly reviewed the waiver
requests. Mr. Czar said he is comfortable with the waivers except for signage. There’s been such angst
about square footage of signs that he thinks it’s not fair to let this be twice as big.
Mr. Wehrman asked about others in Hampton Pointe. Ms. Hauth said Dollar Tree requested a waiver,
which was granted. Home Depot and Walmart are larger but were approved as part of the SUP. Dollar Tree
Planning Board Minutes
November 19, 2015
Page 4 of 6
is the only one that’s come back and asked. Mr. Peterson asked if the waiver would make their sign typical
for the shopping center or larger. Ms. Hauth said it’s hard to say because half probably comply and half
don’t, if she had to guess.
Chairman Eckert said almost anyone who drives into the development will drive right next to it, so she is
having a hard time justifying a waiver for something that is easy to see and it’s supposed to be a slow
entrance from the roundabout. If it were farther away or the line of sight was obstructed in some way, she
could be more amenable.
Adam Selmer introduced himself. A typical Advance Auto Parts sign is bigger than this, we’ve already
reduced it. Also, typically, there are red panels behind it with yellow words. They’ve taken the panels
away. The requested size is proportional to the parapet. We’re at 72 SF and we could get a max of 48 SF. It
would shrink that considerably to that parapet. The way our building is situated, it could be a corner
building and could have a sign on the side. If you added that square footage, we could have 75 SF of
signage. It’s an internally lit sign.
Mr. Brewer appreciated the attempt to modify the corporate brand standard. He appreciates where the
applicant came from on this. Mr. Brewer appreciates Mr. Czar bringing up signage. Mr. Czar said he can be
persuaded.
MOTION: Mr. Brewer moved to recommend approval with all waivers. Ms. Morris seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
C) Master Plan amendment request from Stratford Development to introduce residential uses in
remaining development pods in the Waterstone Master Plan and update condition language for the
civic and park pods
Ms. Hauth reviewed the request. Chairman Eckert asked whether the rearrangement of civic parcels meets
the applicant’s needs. She doesn’t want it to just be an offer to the town that doesn’t benefit the applicant.
Ocie Vest addressed the board. Chairman Eckert restated her question. She said it’s been presented that the
rearrangement of parcels is highly desirable to the town and she is just checking that it is to the developer
as well. Mr. Vest said it is.
Mr. Vest said two businessmen spoke tonight saying that we need more rooftops. He’s heard we need more
business. He thinks both perspectives are right. Mr. Vest said you have to grow to grow. Sometimes you
have to get a little bit out of balance in order to support the additional retail development. (A councilman
told him that a long time ago.)
Mr. Vest continued, saying a lot of the Waterstone Masterplan amendments are housekeeping clean-up of
the Master Plan. The changes of significance really boil down to track 17 where we’re trying to increase
residential development in that area and track 9 where we’re trying to introduce a product more desirable
today. Starting with parcel 9, residential over nonresidential is what’s specified and it’s not desirable now.
They’d like to change that to multifamily but he’s hearing that there’s concern of losing commercial. So,
tonight he has a slight change in the proposal: parcel 9 could be a mixed use parcel but could be
horizontally mixed instead of vertical. What’s the right mix? Today the town’s mix is 60 percent
residential, 40 percent commercial. So, that’s what he is proposing tonight.
Parcel 17 is where they’d like to include single family, Mr. Vest explained. They are eliminating 347
multifamily units. We don’t think it’s the best use, he said. We already have a big multifamily project in the
development. Instead, we’d like to build it single family, up to 12 units to the acre. Now he is proposing to
limit to 200 for-sale units maximum. They could be single family attached or detached. Mr. Vest wants to
round out the residential offerings. Also, with Parcel 17, we would like to propose the land just to the east
Planning Board Minutes
November 19, 2015
Page 5 of 6
is already mixed use, retail/office and we would continue that same depth off Waterstone Drive all the way
over to the edge of single family (across orange triangle on map). It would reduce the amount of residential
land. We believe that type of commercial user is viable. Other than that, it’s not suitable to commercial
development (deeper than that).We would hope that you would see it as a compromise. Waterstone is 43
percent residential, 57 nonresidential. If the Master Plan Amendment gets approved, it will be right at 50-
50. You are about 40 percent commercial, 60 percent residential today, so in his mind, Waterstone is doing
its part. Finally, the original conditions of approval for Waterstone, we’ve satisfied 16 out of 18 (water
feature and dedication of fire/police parcel). We’re proud of the Waterstone project.
He gave numbers on infrastructure contributions that have been accomplished. We need a little help to keep
the momentum going, Mr. Vest said.
Mr. Brewer asked for clarification on the dark orange triangle of commercial – will commercial break up
the townhouses? Mr. Vest answered all commercial all the way across. The townhomes go away and
become commercial.
Mr. Hornik asked if you’ve done enough engineering to know that this layout is about right. Mr. Vest said
yes, it’s a plan from the group that would like to develop and build this. Ms. Hauth said that’s not enough
information for a SUP. Mr. Hornik said it’s no guarantee that it will be the site plan. But Mr. Vest said it
would be.
Ms. Vandemark asked how horizontal commercial with housing would work. Mr. Vest said lending
specifies how it’s done. Sixty percent of parcel would be residential and 40 percent would be commercial.
Architecture is the same. You can tell commercial because it has an “open” sign. You have to look closely
to see that. The building massing is the same. Commercial tends to be single story. Residential tends to be
two or three. Mr. Czar asked for a local example. Mr. Vest said he has a project in Raleigh and in San
Antonio. It encourages student housing because of proximity to Durham Tech. Then sandwich shops, dry
cleaners and similar convenience uses follow. Mr. Peterson asked if the southern portion will be
nonresidential. Mr. Vest said he guesses the hard corner is where most of commercial will be. But Mr.
Peterson is right, probably residential to the north.
Chairman Eckert said when she looks at this it looks great, but there is a registered memorandum that the
developer will avoid dense development to the east, so she is having a hard time reconciling that agreement
with what she’s seeing here. This 200 home neighborhood is exactly what the neighbors didn’t want.
Mr. Vest said he talked with the family outside the last public hearing. Family said please remember our
buffers and our agreement. Mr. Vest said they are deed restricted on that property. The family asked him
the same thing. He answered single-family homes would be desirable to them rather than 347 multifamily
units. I’m not sure they understood multifamily units were allowed. We talked about office buildings. The
family member’s comment was she’d rather have nothing. He thinks single-family homes are most
compatible. There was brief discussion that there wasn’t a written agreement with the family to the east.
Ms. Hauth said there’s an elaborate agreement with Stage Coach Run. Mr. Vest said he gave the family his
card and he hasn’t been contacted.
Chair Eckert asked whether this change can be considered after the public hearing was closed. Ms. Hauth
said she has consulted with Mr. Hornik and its legislative decision which allows flexibility and because the
proposed change is less intensive and less nonresidential development is being taken away. So, on two
fronts she thinks it’s acceptable for the board to accept these proposals if they choose to do so.
Mr. Brewer asked if it’s building codes, lending, or demand that makes vertical commercial/residential not
viable at this time. Mr. Vest answered it works downtown. Building codes are more relaxed for remodeling.
Planning Board Minutes
November 19, 2015
Page 6 of 6
For new, if the ground floor has anything to do with food or beverage, putting a residential over it is almost
impossible. Fire codes and ventilation requirements are such that it would be almost impossible.
MOTION: Mr. Peterson moved to recommend approval the master plan amendment as modified to
the Town Board. Mr. Brewer seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
D) Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments to:
1) to amend Section 6.11.5 to amend light trespass language
2) to amend Section 6.18 to amend signage requirements for non-residential uses in residential districts
3) to amend table 5.1.6 add to church and fitness center as permitted uses in the Adaptive Re-use district
Ms. Hauth reviewed that people spoke about the church use for Eno Cotton Mill. She also noted that board
members had expressed concern about the potential impact a church locating near a business serving alcohol
could have under the ABC permitting. She noted the best she could offer is that staff and property owners
will have to be mindful about the spacing requirements. Ms. Hauth said for signage amendments, she hoped
the member understood the changes since the software was not properly highlighting the new language in
the agenda packets
MOTION: Mr. Brewer moved to approve all three text amendments as written. Ms. Vandemark
seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
ITEM #9: Adjourn
MOTION: Mr. Peterson moved to adjourn. Ms. Vandemark seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Hauth
Secretary