Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout4.23.2002 Agenda & Minutes`s Town of AGENDA PLANNING BOARD Tuesday, April 2, 2002 6:30 PM, Town Barn ITEM #1: Consideration of additions to the agenda and welcome new members. ITEM #2: Election of officers. ITEM #3: Committee Reports & updates ITEM #4: Recommendation to Town Board regarding zoning of Old Mill Ridge ITEM 95: Review of proposed Demolition by Neglect Ordinance for use within the Historic Overlay District to provide a remedy when properties are not maintained. ITEM #6: Review of Residential Special Use district language. ITEM #7: Discussion of Subdivision Regulation text amendments to address sidewalk requirements on existing, adjacent streets. ITEM #8: Discussion of Zoning Ordinance text amendment to specially allow residential uses as part of a mixed use development in the Entranceway Special Use district. ITEM #9: Approval of previous meeting minutes (9 sets). ITEM #10: Adjourn Please call the Planning Department if you cannot attend. 732-1270 extension 73 (this line is connected to voice mail) 101 East Orange Street • P.O. Box 429 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 .919- 732- 7 270 • Fax .91.9-644-23.90 MINUTES PLANNING BOARD April 2, 2002 PRESENT: Jim Boericke, Joel Brinkley, David Daniel, Matthew Farrelly, Kelly Hopper, Paul Newton, Chris Quinn, Bryant Warren PUBLIC: Mike Gering, Joe Phelps, Amy Newton, Ron Dorrestein, about 6 Beckett's Ridge residents, Margaret Hauth Daniel called the meeting to order at 6:33 PM. ITEM #2: Hauth asked the members how they would like to elect new officers. She said ballots, open nominations, and other methods have been used. Warren nominated Daniel as chair and Brinkley as vice -chair. Both nominees said they were willing to serve. Quinn seconded the nominations. Daniel asked for a vote, which was unanimous. ITEM #3: Hauth reported on the Board of Adjustment and Parks and Recreation Board. She said she would check on whether the Park Board had a seat reserved for a Planning Board member. ITEM #4: Hauth introduced the recommendation to the Town Board regarding the Old Mill Ridge rezoning. Warren expressed his concern about the rezoning. He said residential development could put a strain on the road network, some of the houses would be very near Cates Creek, and the Town Board has routinely favored non-residential development. Hopper asked whether road improvements in Old Mill would be required. Hauth said likely not because Millstone Drive was built to NCDOT standards for the type of road it is and the increased traffic would probably not push the street to a higher classification. Newton said the property is currently zoned EDD and the owner had not presented any evidence that the currently zoning is unworkable, or that R-10 is beneficial to the Town. Brinkley said that the business park seems to be quite successful and a good location for small businesses. Quinn agreed with the members. Daniel expressed concern about the traffic engineer's assumption that Beckett's Ridge Drive extension would provide a new connection since it already exists. Daniel noted that residents from Beckett's Ridge were present and agreed to allow they to speak. Sergio Rabinowitz spoke on behalf of the neighbors. He said he agreed with much of what the Planning Board members were saying. MOTION: Warren moved to recommend that the rezoning be denied because of the loss of commercially zoned property, lack of clear benefit of the development, and neighbors' concerns. Newton seconded. MOTE: Unanimous ITEM #5: Hauth introduced the proposed Demolition by Neglect ordinance for use in the historic district. She said the HDC is requesting this ordinance to address complaints they are receiving about buildings going unmaintained. She said that the members would have to vote to send this to public hearing since the HDC cannot do so. Boericke said he was concerned about the tenn "significant" and how it would be defined. He also said he doubted there were historic fences or gates in town. Newton suggested that by eliminating fences, some fencing could be encouraged to be removed. Brinkley expressed concern about overzealous enforcement in the future. Hopper agreed and noted her concern about the vague language. Hauth said that the architectural inventory would likely be used to determine "significance." This means only architecturally significant buildings would be impacted. She added that staff time will also limit overzealous enforcement and it will limit neighborhood squabbles from leading to PB 4/2/02, page 2 enforcement actions. She said the advice from staff in other cities who use this ordinance advise to only fight the big battles and only take on one a year. The members continued discussing their concerns and asking clarity questions. The members agreed that while they had questions and concerns about the ordinance, they would like to hear public comment on the issue. MOTION: Warren moved to send the draft ordinance to public hearing. Boericke seconded. VOTE: Unanimous. ITEM #6: Hauth introduced the proposed text amendment for a residential special use district. She said Attorney Hornik, Dorrestein, and she prepared the draft in the packet. She said that after the January public hearing she was contacted by another potential applicant who wanted to mix attached and detached housing on the same site. She said the provision for mixed housing types was proposed to address their interests as well. Dorrestein spoke on behalf of Tri-Star development. He noted his two concerns with the draft are that the board should be able to allow buffer deviations and not require that all surrounding property be residential. He said this would provide some additional flexibility and address a more common siting situation (in an area of mixed uses) for his client's type of development. Brinkley asked that a requirement be added to ensure all the existing standards have to be met, otherwise applicants will come in without meeting all the criteria that have been established. Daniel said specific standards were needed. Newton echoed Daniel, saying that even Hornik recognized the ordinance as unfinished because it lacked standards of evaluation. Brinkley asked about open space standards. Hauth said those apply to single-family detached development, not most of what would apply for this classification. She added that recreation space would be required. The members agreed that the proposal required more work before sending it to public hearing. Daniel asked members to get ideas of requirements or standards to Hauth before the next meeting. ITEM #7: Hauth introduced the text amendment to require sidewalks on adjacent streets, as well as interior streets of new subdivisions. Newton asked why sidewalks weren't required on both sides and the members provided some history about the difficulty of getting the requirement adopted at all. The members agreed to include sidewalks on both sides as part of this amendment. Daniel asked Hauth to add cul-de-sacs on the next agenda to see what further steps can be taken to limit their construction. MOTION: Newton moved to send the proposed language, plus a provision to require sidewalks on both sides of all new streets to public hearing. Warren seconded. VOTE: Unanimous. ITEM #8: Hauth introduced a text amendment to specifically allow residential uses as part of mixed-use developments in the Entranceway district. She noted that it was likely an oversight during the original drafting and is implied as permitted, though not specifically stated. The members discussed the issue at some length and decided further work was needed before sending the item to public hearing. Daniel and Brinkley noted that some maximum percentage might want to be considered to ensure that people don't use mixed-use as a backdoor for residential developments. Newton expressed concern that any percentage chosen would be arbitrary and not taken into account the special nature of each development. The members agreed to consider this issue further. Daniel asked members to get comments or suggestions to Hauth for discussion at the next meeting. PB 4/2/02, page 3 ITEM #9: Warren moved to approve the minutes of March 11 as written. Daniel seconded. VOTE: Unanimous (Brinkley abstained, not present at the meeting). MOTION: Warren moved to approve the minutes of March 5 as amended. Boericke seconded. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Warren moved to approve the minutes of February 5 as written. Brinkley seconded. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Warren moved to approve the minutes of January 8 as written. Boericke seconded. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Warren moved to approve the minutes of September 4 as amended. Boericke seconded. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Warren moved to approve the minutes of October 2 as written. Boericke seconded. VOTE: Unanimous (Brinkley abstained, not present at the meeting). MOTION: Warren moved to approve the minutes of June 26 as written. Boericke seconded. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Warren moved to approve the minutes of June 5 as written. Boericke seconded. VOTE: Unanimous. MOTION: Warren moved to approve the minutes of April 3 as written. Daniel seconded. VOTE: Unanimous. Daniel adjourned the meeting at 8:24 PM. Respectfully submitted, tAo— rgaret A. 2uth, Secretary