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