The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About11.5.2002 Agenda & MinutesAGENDA PLANNING BOARD Tuesday, November 5, 2002 6:30 PM, Town Barn ITEM #1: Consideration of additions to the agenda. ITEM #2: Committee Reports. ITEM #3: Approval of minutes meeting. ITEM #4: Recommendation to Town Board regarding items at the October public hearing • Crown Embroidery Rezoning • Subdivision Text amendment ITEM #5: Discussion/update on Corbinton Commons rezoning/SUP ITEM #6: Report to Town Board on prevention of demolition by neglect ITEM #7: Discussion of Waterstone development ITEM #8: Discussion of potential UNC study of Hillsborough Water Supply ITEM #9: Scheduling topics for future meetings. ITEM # 10: Adjourn Please call the Planning Department if you cannot attend. 732-1270 extension 73 (this line is connected to voice mail) A e ?414 no Cal, q 101 East Orange Street • P.O. Box 429 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 .91.9-7.72-7270 • Fax 91.9-644-2.4.90 MINUTES PLANNING BOARD November 5, 2002 PRESENT: David Daniel (Chair), Jim Boericke, Joel Brinkley, Kelly Hopper, Cannie Lloyd, Chris Quinn, Bryant Warren PUBLIC: Ellis Coleman, Natalie Coleman, and Margaret Hauth Daniel called the meeting to order at 6:35 PM. ITEM #2: Lloyd reported the Board of Adjustment approved site plans for Orange County to locate a new modular office at Public Works and a Special Exception Permit for one non -conforming use to convert to another. ITEM #3: Warren moved to approve the minutes as written. Lloyd seconded. VOTE: Unanimous. ITEM #4a: Hauth introduced the Crown rezoning request. Members expressed concern that the neighborhood is still very residential and the next use of the house may be unsatisfactory. They asked Hauth what alternatives they could look at. Hauth said that it is possible, with some minor amendments to the ordinance about home occupations; the business could operate that way rather than rezone. The members discussed their options and how to proceed at length. MOTION: Brinkley moved to recommend denial of the request and asked the Town Board for time to work on an alternative to meet the owner's needs. VOTE: Unanimous. ITEM #4b: Hauth introduced the text amendment to create a new exempt subdivision type for parks. MOTION: Warren moved to recommend adoption of the ordinance. Brinkley seconded. VOTE: Unanimous. ITEM #5: Hauth introduced the applicants for Corbinton Commons. Daniel asked the members to indicate questions or concerns or comments they have on the project in hope of providing direction to the applicant. Brinkley said he thought the intent of the new ordinance was to provide an age in place, which this development does not. Daniel said he would be interested to learn more about the HUD standards, how they work and are enforced. Boericke said he thought the development idea was desirable; he likes the independent nature of the housing and thinks this is a method to keep the services affordable. Ellis Coleman explained that he is not proposing a CCRC because they costs for residents are skyrocketing along with health care costs and for that reason, developments of that type generally don't locate in small towns. He is proposing a different model that is becoming more common because it provides options and choices. Warren asked about the connection to Corbin Street. Coleman said that was removed since there is no longer clear title to the right of way and was PB 11/5/02, page 2 never proposed to Caine because the right of way is offset from the property line too much. Lloyd asked how many residents he expects on site. He said it would average less than 2 people per unit with a total of about 447, including the beds in the assisted living center. He said the homeowner's fees would be about $300 per month. Quinn asked how many bedrooms the houses would have. Coleman said a combination of 2 and 3 bedrooms, since not all of the lots could accept a 3 -bedroom house. Lloyd asked about restrictions on selling, would a resident be able to select their own agent (yes) and who operates the apartments (privately owned by a specialty rental operator). Daniel asked if some of the lots would have alley only access. Coleman said that the Y is has two-way traffic on only one leg, so some house will have limited access. He added that this was important to the design of the development to not have the garages front on the streets. The members asked about the traffic study. The ITRE definition used for the site was "retirement community," and by using that, no signal was warranted on US 70. Brinkley suggested that the project needed to take steps to address the concerns of neighbors. Coleman said they are considering different designs that reduce the building height and number of apartment units. Coleman added that a letter submitted at the hearing addressed the impact of property values. Members suggested mixing the lot size more so that the perimeter lots might more closely match the existing houses. Lloyd asked about the walkway connection to Caine. Hauth said the public right of way ends at the property line, so the connection is complete. Daniel asked about the detention pond and its elevation difference from the road. Coleman said there is a height difference, but it is not a high wall. Quinn asked if an apartment building could be converted to skilled nursing. Coleman said there are beds currently available in Orange County for that level of service. Lloyd asked for a list of facilities with beds available within 10 miles of Hillsborough. The members and applicant agreed to discuss the project further on January 7. ITEM #6: The members discussed the revised ordinance based on the October 30 work session. Boericke suggested that the notice to the Alliance should be delayed until the item is brought to the HDC, to further protect the owner's privacy. Brinkley expressed concern that the new language may weaken the ordinance by not allowing the town to step in early enough. The members discussed this issue and agreed that the proposed language should stay. Brinkley asked about the exception for approved COAs; he suggested that the work should be required to have begun within 6 months of receiving the certificate so someone could not avoid the ordinance by having approved COAs where the work is never done. MOTION: Boericke moved to recommend adoption of the revised ordinance to the Town Board. Lloyd seconded. VOTE: 5-2 with Quinn and Hopper opposed. Quinn explained that this ordinance unnecessarily allows the government to interfere in private rights and the process is such as it would alienate property owners rather than build community spirit. PB 11/5/02, page 3 ITEM #7: The members agreed no further discussion was necessary at this time. ITEM #8: Boericke described the discussion he had with the Town Engineer and two UNC -CH professors in the Operations Research Department regarding a study of our water supply. Boericke said that all parties are interested in developing a model to predict the water reasonable to expect to flow into the new reservoir based on a wide variety of factors. He said that students would work on the project at no cost to the town, other than staff time to provide information. Quinn asked that the student team visit the Planning Board when they start and complete the project. MOTION: Bocricke moved for the board to endorse having the UNC -CH Operations Research Department prepare the no -cost study described. Brinkley seconded. VOTE: Unanimous. ITEM #9: Hauth said she would email the list ofprojects to members for their individual rating and for discussion at the next meeting. Daniel adjourned the meeting at 8:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, Marg A. Hauth, Secretary