HomeMy Public PortalAbout10.3.2000 Agenda & MinutesTown
of
ill
spm x�
AGENDA
PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, October 3, 2000
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 minutes from September 26 public hearing.
ITEM #4: Recommendation to Town Board regarding items heard at public hearing:
A. Text amendments to create a new zoning district called Limited Office and
amendments to establish permitted and special uses within the district, permit
processes, and development standards.
B. Text amendments to create a new zoning district called Entranceway Special Use and
amendments to establish special uses within the district, permit processes, and
development standards.
C. Rezone seven properties affected by the development stay to Limited Office. The
affected properties are known as Tax Map 4.40.A.8, 8R, 8V, 9D, 19, 21; 4.45..4C
ITEM #5: Discussion of proposed text amendment to Section 5.2 to clarify the circumstances under
which multiple buildings are permitted on a single site (vote required to send this item to
public hearing).
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. Box 429 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
010_7.g9_9in.4 . i?nv. 4i4_R4Q_9.gon
MINUTES
PLANNING BOARD
October 3, 2000
PRESENT: Pam Blue -Thompson, Joel Brinkley, David Daniel, Chris Quinn, Bryant Warren
PUBLIC: Bill Anderson, Margaret Hauth
Daniel called the meeting to order at 6:40 PM. Hauth asked the members to add item 5a, a
potential text amendment to the subdivision regulations.
ITEM #2: There were no reports.
ITEM #3: Warren moved to approve the minutes as written. Blue -Thompson seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous.
ITEM #4a, b: Hauth introduced the text amendments creating the Limited Office and Entranceway Special
Use districts. Brinkley expressed concern about the impact to the businesses made non-
conforming by the rezoning to Limited Office. He asked the members to consider language
that would allow additions of a small size over time and not require the rezoning and SUP
process. The members discussed this in detail. They talked about a 25% increase or 2,500
square feet in a two-year period. The members were concerned that if there wasn't a time limit,
a significant change could take place in small pieces. Hauth expressed concern that this
suggestion would specifically allow the expansion of a non -conforming use, which the
ordinance does not allow for generally. The members continued to have concern about the
impact, but did not suggest an alternative. Hauth asked the members to consider adding a
sentence to clarify that staff can determine whether an application requirement is really needed,
given the particular circumstances of the property. The members agreed. Hauth asked the
members to discuss the two limitations (bank drive-thrus and retail square footage). The
members noted that most banks in town do have three alleys. They discussed whether to limit
some alleys to ATMs, but decided against that. They agreed that 3 drives is more reasonable
than the 2 proposed at hearing. The members discussed the proposed square footage limit for
retail. The members agreed that any building that is determined to be too large could be denied
through the permit process, so a limit might not be needed. They agreed that a limit could also
be waived for desirable developments.
MOTION: Quinn moved to recommend approval of the text amendments creating Limited Office and
Entranceway Special Use with the addition of a sentence to allow staff to determine which
application items are required, recommend 3 alleys be allowed at drive-thru banks, and to not
offer a recommendation on the square footage limit for retail. Warren seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous.
ITEM #4c: Hauth introduced the rezoning application to rezone the entranceway properties to Limited
Office. Quinn expressed concern about the moral fairness of changing the permitted uses on
the properties. Hauth noted that there are many non -conforming uses throughout town that
continue to operate without any apparent detriment. She gave the example of the Colonial Inn,
which is zoned residential. Anderson noted that there could be significant financial
consequences of being non -conforming in terms of refinancing property and needing special
liability insurance. The members were uncomfortable using financial difficulties as a
determining factor, especially when the person impacted is not part of the discussion. Blue-
10/3/2000, page 2
Thompson noted that non -conforming situations would be handled individually with a rezoning
request. She noted that the potential reuse of the property would likely be factored in to the
discussions. The members expressed concern about the cost of design for the rezoning, based
on what was heard at the public hearing. Daniel and Quinn both suggested the need for some
incentive or compensation for the down zoned properties. Hauth said that when High Intensity
Commercial was added to the ordinance, the board allowed impacted owners to apply for a
rezoning at no cost for one year. She added that it did not guarantee approval of the request,
but owners didn't have to pay the $200 application fee to seek the new district. The members
agreed that a similar provision was desirable this time.
MOTION: Brinkley moved to recommend approval of the rezoning, with the addition of allowing one
"free" application per property for one year. Daniel seconded.
VOTE: 3-2 (Quinn and Warren opposed)
ITEM #5: Hauth introduced the text amendment to clarify the allowance of multiple buildings on non-
residential sites. She noted this was a topic of concern for the Board of Adjustment.
MOTION: Quinn moved to send the proposed language (second option) to public hearing. Warren
seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous.
ITEM #5a: Hauth introduced the text amendment to the Subdivision Regulations removing the option for
non-residential properties to seek minor subdivisions which are staff approved. She said this
was a recommendation from the EDD workgroup to close a loophole that would allow sites to
not pursue master planning. She noted that a lot with lots of frontage could divide off four
parcels without being reviewed by the boards. She added that provision would encourage
development similar to the current situation on South Churton Street.
MOTION: Brinkley moved to send the proposed language to public hearing. Warren seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Daniel adjourned the meeting at 8:50 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Marga t A. Hauth, Secretary