HomeMy Public PortalAbout4.7.1998 Planning Board Minutes and AgendaTown
AGENDA
PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, April 7, 1998
6:30 p.m. Town Barn
ITEM #1: Consideration of additions to the agenda.
ITEM #2: Comments from the Chair.
• Committee Reports
ITEM #3: Approval of March 3 minutes.
ITEM #4: Continued discussion of off -premises signs.
ITEM #5: Continued discussion of requiring sidewalks and minimum right of way widths_
ITEM #6: Adjourn.
Please call the Planning Department if you cannot attend.
732-2104 extension 228 (this line is connected to voice mail)
101 East Orange Street • P.O. Pox 429 • HiRsborozwh. -Vor-1 Carolina 277273
919-732-2104 0 Max. 919-344-2390
MINUTES
PLANNING BOARD
April 7, 1998
PRESENT: Richard Bradford, Joel Brinkley, David Daniel, Jack Hughes, Louise Long, Pip Merrick, George
Sagar
PUBLIC: Malina King, Margaret Hauth
In the absence of the chair and vice -chair, the members agreed Bradford should conduct the
meeting. Bradford called the meeting to order at 6:35 PM.
ITEM #2: Sagar said the BOA approved the site plan for the construction of a flex space building behind
the CCB and the expansion of a previously approved building behind McDonalds. Hauth
reported that the Parks and Rec Board submitted a budget request to the Town Board to fund
the construction of Murray Street park and sidewalks.
ITEM #3: Merrick moved to approve the March minutes. Long seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous.
ITEM #4: Hauth introduced the continued discussion of an off -premises sign text amendment. She noted
the only change is the addition of "e" which specifies a height limit. She added the request from
Mt. Bright Baptist for a different type of off -premises sign and noted that other jurisdictions allow
the signs and they are sometimes exempt. Merrick asked why the exemption applies only to non-
profit organizations. Brinkley suggested it was for their community service function. Hughes
noted that the signs he has seen other places are not aesthetically impressive and that he was not
sympathetic to the concept for that reason and because many of the churches are located in the
historic district. Merrick passed around photos of signs from Hilton Head. Hughes noted the
first hurdle is to decide whether or not to open the door for this type of sign. He noted that once
allowed, the ordinance could be amended again to remove the provision if it proved detrimental.
Sagar questioned whether the businesses and properties that would be allowed to make use of
this provision were narrowly enough defined. Sagar suggested adding the word "only" to the
beginning of "e" to clarify that other businesses and developments would not qualify. He also
asked if design criteria regulating what the sign would look like would be established. Hauth
noted anything beyond size, height, location, and limited message had not been discussed.
Brinkley and Sagar both noted their support of trying to limit the provision to hotels and other
travel related businesses. Bradford said that while this provision "opens the door" for off
premises signs, it is written so narrowly that is does not encourage other to apply for further
modifications.
Merrick asked King whether Holiday Inn Express was aware of the sign limit when they decided
to locate in Hillsborough. King said she understands that they did, although she was not with the
company at that time. She added that the owners probably did not realize the impact of the limit
and has she been involved in choosing the site, she would not have picked the one they are on.
King noted that the hotels are individually owned and managed. She said they pay the
corporation for the right to use the Holiday Inn Express name and logo and in return use
standardized signs, color combinations, and logos.
Daniel asked if a smaller size would still be feasible. He suggested 12 square feet as the
maximum, regardless of whether one or multiple uses were advertised. King said that Holiday
PB
4/7/98, page 2
Inn Express could work with that limit. Daniel asked whether the height of the sign should be
relative to Churton Street rather than the surrounding ground level. The members discussed this
and agreed that, given that the properties which can use this provision are significantly uphill from
Churton Street, such a reference would be counter-productive. Daniel suggested a lower height
of 3 feet.
MOTION: Sagar made a motion to send the revised amendment to public hearing with the addition of "only"
to item "e". Hughes seconded. Daniel offered a friendly amendment to limit the sign size to 12
square feet regardless of whether one or multiple businesses are advertized and a height of 3 feet.
Brinkley questioned whether neon needs to be specifically prohibited. The members agreed that
"internally illuminated" does not allow neon. Sagar and Hughes accepted the amendment.
VOTE: Unanimous.
ITEM #5: Bradford introduced the continued discussion of requiring sidewalks in all new subdivisions.
Hughes noted his support for a minimum of requiring walkways on one side of all future streets
Bradford noted that the economic arguments presented are not persuasive. Sagar suggested
making the requirement strict and see what the response from the development community is.
The members agreed they need to look carefully at what type of improvements should be required
and where they will be required. After extended discussion, they agreed that having walkways
is desirable, an alternative to curb & gutter sidewalks will be allowed, walkways should be
required in developments where the lots are 1/z acre and smaller, and walkways should be required
on all types of streets.
Bradford adjourned the meeting at 8:05 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
L� AAA C-,.gA � i L-�
Margare A. Hauth, Secretary