Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1.26.1993 Joint Public Hearingaown of Rfllshorou#4 101 E. Orange Street P.O. Box 429 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA (919) 732-2104 27278 AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD AND PLANNING BOARD Tuesday, January 26, 199 7:00 p.m., Town Barn ITEM #1: Comments from the Chair. ITEM #2: Presentation of draft Master Parks and Recreation Plan. ITEM #3: Request of Meadowlands Associates to Rezone 4.28 acres on Meadowland Drive from OI (Office -Institutional) to GC (General Commercial)(part of Tax Map 4.40.A.11). ITEM #4: Request of Town of Hillsborough to Rezone 11.35 acres on Oakdale Drive from MF (Multi -family) to R-10(Residential with 10,000 sqft lot minimum)(Tax Map 4.44.A.9). ITEM #5: Request of William Crawley to Rezone 1.66 acres on Buttonwood Drive from R- 20 (Residential, 20,000 sqft lots) to GC (General Commercial)(Tax Map 4.1 LA. 16& 17). ITEM #6: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments: (approx. 8:00 pm) a. Add Section 5.18.2.c to require site plan review for non-residential uses in residential zoning districts. b. Add definitions of "excavation" and "grading" to Section 15 and re -word Section 10.4 to reflect these definitions. C. Add section 3.6, 3.6.1, and 3.6.3 to allow reduction of setbacks when a legally created lot does not meet minimum lot size requirements. d. Add section 3.6.4, 3.6.4.1, 3.6.4.2, 3.6.4.3.b to allow street setbacks to be reduced with a special exception permit. ITEM #7: Close Public Hearing (approx. 8:30 pm) ITEM #8: Joint discussion session concerning the invitation for Hillsborough to be included in the Durham/Chapel Hill/Carrboro Transportation Planning Area. ITEM #9: Convene Town Board special meeting (approx. 9:00 pm) a) Receive reports from citizen boards and commissions. ITEM #10: Adjournment. Substantive changes in the proposed amendments may be made by the Town Board following Public Hearing. It is essential to have a quorum present at this meeting. Please call the Clerk or Planning Department if you cannot attend. 732-2104 MINUTES JOINT PUBLIC HEARING January 26, 1993 MEMBERS Horace Johnson (Mayor), Allen Lloyd, Evelyn Lloyd, Carol Lorenz, Bob Rose, Remus PRESENT: Smith, Bill Crowther (Chair), Wayne Tilley (Vice -Chair), Leif Deetjen, Margaret Moore, Wendy Olson, Quanda Turner, Pat Shannon (Alternate). MEMBERS Kendall Abernathy, Cheshire Cole, Sam Jones, Louise Evans, Dr. Robert Murphy. ABSENT: OTHERS Myron Areford, Joseph Bach, Gene Bell, Charles Burger, Dale Carlson, Ora Chance, PRESENT: Francis & Veronica Conroy, Bobby & Lynda Crawford, Bill Crawley, John DeArmon, Melody Dees, Mike Drowns, Edna Ellis, Cathie Falconer, James & Mary Fox, George Horton, Richard Lawrence, Kenneth McLeroy, Joyce Munroe, Lawrence Noah, Evelyn Poole -Kober, Phil Ray, Ted Reynolds, Roger Smith, Tom Waldrop, Ruth Woodall, Wesley Hyatt, Ray Gronberg, Tom Hartye, Agatha Johnson, Margaret Hauth. Mayor Johnson called the public hearing to order at 7:10 pm. Mayor passed the gavel to Crowther, chairman of the Planning Board. Crowther briefly explained public hearing procedures to the audience. ITEM #2: Charles Burger, chair of the Parks and Recreation Task Force, presented the sketch Master Parks and Recreation Plan, illustrating the relationship between goal and policy recommendations and physical recommendations on a map. Key points include neighborhood parks, a riverfront park, cooperation, and the natural interconnections between parks that add to the uniqueness of the plan. He noted that the plan is do -able, even if it may seem ambitious. Smith asked if Burger knew a ball -park figure for maintenance costs for one year for one acre of park. Burger said he did not but stressed the mission of the task force was to create a vision of the future. Mayor Johnson noted the work done by NC State students, which included a riverfront park. Poole -Kober noted that this study may assist in the writing of the final document. Crowther said the full plan is expected in April. Rose said that if opportunities to create walkways were allowed to slip -away, they could not be easily regained. ITEM #3: Hauth introduced the Meadowlands rezoning request, indicating the location on the map, size, current and proposed zoning. She clarified the location by indicating surrounding projects and where the road ends. Horton said he would answer any questions and reserved the right to respond to public comments. Drowns said the neighbors were and are concerned about the broadness of the GC zone. He added that existing uses are compatible and that the revised restrictive covenants do not limit the uses of the property further than the Town's zoning. Horton noted the property had been zoned commercial when in the County's jurisdiction and briefly described the rezonings that took place with annexation. He added that the property Joint Public Hearing January 26, 1993 Page 2 in question was originally considered un -buildable, which is no longer the case, based on Callemyn study. He agreed that the broad uses are not ideal. He said he has had to turn clients away who would prefer an office park location because part of their operation is in some use not allowed in Office -Institutional. He added that the undesirable uses allowed in GC would be incongruous with the existing owners and the market he seeks. Drowns re- iterated that his concern was not with Horton but with the generality of the GC district. Ellis said that since a nursing home and hospice had been approved for this development, efforts should be made to keep the area tranquil. ITEM #3: Hauth introduced the Town's request to rezone the Woods of Oakdale property to R-10 by indicating the location on the map, parcel size, and brief history of the request. Johnson spoke on behalf of the Town and acknowledged the mistake of zoning the property multi- family. He noted the difficulties with water and traffic in the area and stated it would be in the best interest of the Town and its citizens to zone the property for single family dwellings. Reynolds, attorney for Southern National Bank, requested the Town postpone the hearing and decision on this item to allow the bank more time to gather more information. He noted the bank had foreclosed on the previous owners and the value had been based on multi -family development. He said the bank wished to be a good citizen, had no interest in a zoning battle, and wanted the opportunity to explore options and find some middle ground. He noted the bank's interest in cluster development, which he knew is not a current option under the Town's zoning. He said he had provided Hauth with example text for consideration and discussion. Rose asked if there is a way to prevent any development of the lot until the April public hearing. Hauth said the zoning permits and other agreements with the Town had all expired. She added that there is not a specific expiration date on the site plan and a zoning permit could be issued for anyone wishing to follow the existing approved plan. Lorenz said there was nothing to keep Southern National from selling the property to someone ready to develop before the April hearing. Reynolds said (and DeArmon agreed) that the Town had Southern National's word that any perspective buyer would be told that ultimate approval would rest with Town Board. DeArmon suggested an agreement be drawn up that requires any prospective sale of the property be presented to the Town. It was agreed that Southern National would send the Town a letter stating that no effort would be made by the bank or a prospective buyer to develop the property before April 27. Roger Smith spoke in favor of the rezoning and in favor of moving ahead before the April hearing. Areford asked that decisions about water and sewer for any new development be made carefully, citing the unpleasantness of holding tanks and other facilities currently in place. McLeroy spoke in favor of moving ahead with the rezoning and in favor of the rezoning itself as good public policy. Ellis asked if cluster development would allow more than 4 units per acre. Crowther said if such regulations would be allowed in R=10, the density could not exceed 4 units per acre. Falconer stressed the existing water problems in Joint Public Hearing January 26, 1993 Page 3 the neighborhood. Shannon spoke as a citizen and noted that increasing traffic and waste are major concerns. V. Conroy noted the water problems in the area, noting lack of water during 2 recent fires. Lorenz asked for a straw vote of those present. A show of hands indicated 17 in favor of the rezoning and 1 against. Webb asked for a brief history of the Town's response to water pressure problems. Crowther suggested that she contact the Town Engineer as the history is not truly relevant to the rezoning matter. He added that water pressure, traffic, or other concerns could be discussed at the April hearing, when the rezoning would be discussed again. Crowther called a brief recess to allow citizens to leave the meeting. ITEM #5: Hauth introduced the Crawley rezoning, indicating the location and size as well as current and proposed zoning. Ellis asked if a structure exists and if it crosses the property line, requiring two lots to be rezoned. Hauth confirmed that the existing building strattles the property line. M. Crawford asked if the property was truly zoned residential, despite the historic commercial use as a roller rink. Hauth confirmed this. She said the property is not in the city limits but within the Town's extraterritorial jurisdiction, which allows the Town to establish policies over people who cannot vote for the commissioners; she asked if this was true and said it did not seem right. Hauth confirmed the situation but added that 4 Planning Board and 2 Board of Adjustment members from the ETJ are appointed by the County Commissioners. Olson asked about the legality of the rezoning proposal. Hauth noted that the Town's attorney told her the Town would be in a questionable position, if it chose to approve the rezoning. Hauth clarified that the use of the building as a skating rink was a grandfathered non -conformity as the rink was in operation prior to the zoning and that it is the change of the use that is causing the rezoning application. Crawley described the history of the site and its use as well as how he came to apply for the rezoning. He noted the most recent use of the building as a skate rink and the limited range of uses for such a structure. He added the building was constructed in 1958 and has been used for many commercial uses in addition to a skate rink. He said he felt the zoning of the property as residential was an oversight at the time the area was zoned. He suggested some type of deed restriction limiting the use to a warehouse, if this is possible. Ellis questioned why Crawley did not investigate the zoning before purchasing the property. Crawley said he consulted Orange County Planning and was told the property was commercially zoned. M. Fox spoke against opening the property up to such a wide range of uses. She added that Crawley has been a good neighbor and she would be in favor of a proposal to allow the warehouse to continue. Noah said he had no problem with the skating rink or the warehouse but was concerned about what commercial zoning would allow. M. Crawford spoke as a former neighbor who is in favor of the rezoning as a warehouse is a more desirable neighbor than a skating rink. She added she is in favor of the rezoning if it can be limited to a warehouse or a skating rink with the possibility of changing the use at a future time, with further neighbor input. Joint Public Hearing January 26, 1993 Page 4 Poole -Kober said that zoning goes with the property, not with the use and that she is not in favor of the rezoning. Dees added that she is in favor of the rezoning. Turner asked Crawley about the demographics of the neighborhood and the frequency of truck traffic. He said 18 wheelers come occasionally (once a week) and that four delivery type trucks compose the majority of traffic. He added the warehouse has a circular drive which limits the possibility of small children being injured by backing trucks as well as the limited ability for any vehicle to reach any speed on Apple Lane. Dees said she is aware of only one family with children, both of elementary school age. It was noted that neighborhoods change over time. Crawley noted the intention to improve the road. Ellis noted that a new owner would have the choice of any use in the GC category. She asked if a subdivision of the property is possible. Hauth said that if the property were vacant, approximately 3 lots could be created. B. Crawford spoke in favor of Crawley, noting his service to the community and his personal history as the previous owner and operator of the skating rink. Crawley asked if the uses could legally be limited to a warehouse and/or skating rink. ITEM #6: Crowther introduced the text amendment portion of the public hearing. a) Hauth explained the first amendment closed a loophole in the ordinance; requiring site plan approval of all non-residential, whether located in residential or non-residential districts. Rose asked if a church could be built behind his house without a site plan review and Hauth said that the existing text would allow that. b) Hauth said the definitions of excavation and grading are currently non-existent and the requirement for a zoning permit is vague. These amendments clarify the sections by defining the terms and specifying the need for a permit. Smith asked why "signs" was included in the zoning permit and its relation to grading. Hauth said signs are specifically listed because they are structures, but they are not related to grading. Ellis asked if the amendment would effect the Margaret Lane property recently in the paper. Hauth said it could not retroactively affect that property, but would address similar situations. Poole -Kober asked for the excavation definition to be read, which Hauth did. She questioned the use of the word "reasonably". c) Hauth described a text amendment to allow setback reductions for lots which are smaller than the zoning district would require. She noted the recent variance requests and the numerous non -conforming lots. She added that the reductions were based on the application of standard setbacks to standard lots. Rose clarified that this proposal would affect lots created prior to the Zoning Ordinance adoption. Carlson asked what percentage of lots are non -conforming. Hauth said she did not know, but she guessed approximately one quarter. Joint Public Hearing January 26, 1993 Page 5 Carlson asked why R-20 was chosen. Hauth suggested the preservation of the Historic District and to protect against infill. A. Johnson noted that the existing lots were studied and the most common size was used. H. Johnson noted that numerous petitions were also received for R-20 zoning, even in areas with smaller lots. Poole -Kober read a statement relating her recent experience and requesting a further reduction of setbacks be considered (A copy of the statement is on file). Carlson agreed with Poole-Kober's statements and described the impact of existing setbacks on his property, should he chose to construct a garage. He asked for reduction of setbacks to allow greater use of one's property, especially in regard to side and rear setbacks. d) Hauth described a proposal to reduce street setbacks to allow additions and new houses to be built closer to the street in recognition of the Town's 60' rights-of-way that in most cases will not be used for streets. ITEM #7: Crowther closed the public hearing and returned the gavel to Mayor Johnson. Johnson. ITEM #8: Johnson opened the discussion of Hillsborough's invitation to join the Durham/Chapel Hill/Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization. Hauth briefly discussed the items she had provided in the packet. She added that Gene Bell, Orange County Planner, was present as someone who was present the TAC and TCC meetings at which the invitation was discussed. He said the pros and cons listed in the TCC memo seem to be the consensus of the TAC. He added that now is an opportune time for Hillsborough to join, as the MPO is in a re- organization period as far as boundaries are concerned. Crowther asked about the time commitment. Bell said he typically spends a half a day each month with the meetings and the commitment is the same for a commissioner to the TAC. Lorenz asked about the relationship between the two boards. Bell likened it to the advisory relationship of the Planning Board to the Town Board. She asked about the relationship between the MPO, the UAB, and the MAB. Hauth said the MPO is the organization and it has jurisdiction over the UAB and MAB, which are geographical boundaries. Smith noted that Hillsborough is trying to be part of the region, have a regional voice. He spoke in support of accepting the invitation. He noted the location of Durham's northern loop is coming closer and closer to Hillsborough and may come down St. Mary's Rd. He said Hillsborough should join, even if we are not yet ready. Crowther noted that the timing is not opportune for Hillsborough. He added that Hillsborough's would be one of about seven votes and one of 19 in a weighted vote situation. He said Hillsborough does not yet have anything to bring to the table, referring to the Thoroughfare Plan revision already in process. He added that our plan would be incorporated into the regions plan upon our acceptance. r Joint Public Hearing January 26, 1993 Page 6 Smith likened the situation to the Landfill Owners Group and Hillsborough's own decision to decline voting membership. Rose agreed and added that the planning would continue whether or not Hillsborough is present. He expressed concern about the staff time commitment. Johnson said Hillsborough needs to have a voice in the decision-making. Olson noted her concern about the unacceptability of the current Thoroughfare Plan as it is out of date. She added that the revision will be put off much longer if Hillsborough joins. Crowther explained that NCDOT presented an either/or situation regarding joining and revising the Thoroughfare Plan. If Hillsborough joins, responsibility for revising the plan shifts to another division and will not be addressed until the MPO revises its plan. If Hillsborough stays out, the revision can go ahead as scheduled. Rose asked if they would not allow Hillsborough additional time to revise the plan before submitting it for incorporation. Hauth said she would ask, she did not know. Smith noted the minimal assistance the Town is currently receiving from DOT and asked if anything would truly be lost. Hauth noted that DOT had mentioned a very small amount of additional planning funds would be available. Rose said he did not want to have to accept Durham's choice of a road. Olson asked how long the plan revision is expected to take. Hauth said 1 one as best case, 2 years would be a maximum. Hauth said the Town can request membership at anytime, this happens to be a very convenient time. She added the next convenient time will be after the 2000 census. She said the Town is currently welcomed to attend and discuss at all TCC and TAC meetings. Rose asked if the Planning Board would be making a recommendation and Crowther said they would. Rose and Lorenz asked for both a vote count and rationale for voting, if the recommendation is split. Hauth added that the current MPO regional is not yet settled. The Durham portion has been accepted by all parties, the Chapel Hill section has not. They have been trying to resolve the differences for two years to no avail. It will be six years before Hillsborough's plan could be incorporated and revised. Deetjen said it looked like Hillsborough had two years to revise the plan. Hauth said it could only be done with DOT as an expert consultant. She noted that the computer model and data discussed would not be available if Hillsborough joined the MPO. Johnson adjourned the joint meeting and convened the Town Board meeting. Respectfully submitted, • E�t�'l,icJCJ� Margaret 1k. Hauth, Secretary