HomeMy Public PortalAbout1.5.1999 Planning Board Agenda & MinutesTown
AGENDA
PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, January 5, 1999
6:30 p.m. Town Barn
ITEM #1: Consideration of additions to the agenda.
ITEM #2: Comments from the Chair.
• Committee Reports
• Welcome new member
ITEM #3: Approval of October 6 and December 1 minutes.
ITEM #4: Consideration of text amendments to create Planned Unit Development process.
ITEM #5: 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. Box 429 9 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
919-732-2104 * Fax: 919-644-2390
Town
of
HIS[InM11
7
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Board members
From: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director
Date: December 16, 1998
RE: PUD ordinance
Enclosed in your packets are example ordinances from Raleigh and Durham (thanks to Richard
Bradford). In previous packets you received the Cary and Orange County examples. Section 2.14
of your zoning ordinance is what is currently in place.
The following text draws heavily from the Durham example. I have sent this draft to the potential
developer I told you about at the last meeting, for his comments.
I also propose cross-reference text amendments in the subdivision regulations and multi -family section
of the Zoning Ordinance to note that proposals that are part of a PUD must also meet specific PUD
requirements in addition to those fore standard subdivisions and multi -family developments.
One important point of decision is whether non-residential site plans can continue to br reviewed by
staff in accordance with the EDD manual, or whether Board of Adjustment review with an additional
public hearing should be instituted. The development and phasing plans will be subject to public
hearing when the zoning is approved.
101 East Orange Street a P.O. Box 429 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
919-732-2104 0 Fax: 919-644-2390
MINUTES
PLANNING BOARD
January 5, 1999
PRESENT: John Taylor (chair), Richard Bradford, Joel Brinkley, Cathy Carroll, David Daniel, Ed Gill, Jack
Hughes, Chris Quinn, George Sagar
PUBLIC: Juanita Diggs, Margaret Hauth
Taylor called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
ITEM #2: Sagar reported that the BOA approved a modification for the Tire Store proposed in Granville
Center and a site plan for an office building on NC 57, subject to conditions. They also approved
a change from one non -conforming use to another to allow a wrestling supply house to occupy
the former McThrift warehouse on Buttonwood Drive. Hauth reported that the Vision 2010
committee would be reviewing draft goals and objectives at their next meeting.
Taylor welcomed new member Carroll. Hauth noted that Diggs would join as a official member
once the County had an opportunity to take action on her appointment.
ITEM #3: Hughes moved to approve the minutes and Gill seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous.
ITEM #4: Hauth introduced the proposed text amendment to modify the requirements for and approval
process of Planned Unit Developments. Taylor suggested that the members set aside a night for
a special meeting to discuss any issues that can't be agreed upon at this meeting. The members
agreed to hold a special meeting at 6:30 PM on Tuesday, January 19. The following questions
were raised about the draft text: does the term "amenities" need to be defined in the first
paragraph (no); should "manufacturing" be changed to "industrial" in Section 2.14.b.2 (no);
should single family residential be a required component (yes); should "50 acres" be adjusted
either larger or smaller or speak to shape (more discussion); what does section 2.14.10.s mean
(unsure, let's delete it); and should "may" be added to the second sentence of 2.14.17 (yes).
Merrick asked for further explanation about how and why buffers could be waived. Hauth noted
that in some cases it might enhance the integration of a site to not require the standard
landscaping buffers between uses that don't negatively impact each other. Hughes noted that the
text could use some additional wording to encourage design that relates to Hillsborough's
character. Daniel asked that the text reflect stronger requirements for transit & pedestrian
connections.
Hughes expressed concern that the process and enforcement don't seem binding. Hauth noted
that this district is greatly different from all the others in that the developer will have to indicate
what he intends to do and that will be binding on him until the Town Board releases him from any
condition. Carroll asked about the minimum lot size and why 50 was chosen, since the Durham
example has 4 acres. Hauth noted that Durham has many more properties available for re-
development than Hillsborough and the smaller lot size may be more appropriate there. She
noted that 50 was a number she choose randomly. The members discussed whether and in what
direction to change the minimum lot size, with everyone agreeing that some change was needed.
Since no consensus appeared forthcoming, Carroll suggested voting on the matter. The members
evenly split over whether 50 acres was too large or too small.
Planning Board
1/5/99, page 2
Hughes, Merrick and Daniel agreed to meet as a subcommittee to propose additional landscaping,
design, aesthetic, and transit requirements. Taylor asked the members to seriously consider what
an acceptable minimum lot size is for decision at the special meeting on January 19.
MOTION: Sagar moved to send the draft PUD text to public hearing on January 26 with the understanding
that additional changes will be made at a special meeting on January 19 and possibly after the
hearing. Gill seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Taylor adjourned the meeting at 8:35 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Hauth, Secretary