Loading...
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