HomeMy Public PortalAbout5.7.2002 Agenda & Minutesk�
Town
of
HiSilrnwclel 7
AGENDA
PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, May 7, 2002
6:30 PM, Town Barn
ITEM # 1: Consideration of additions to the agenda.
ITEM #2: Committee Reports & updates
ITEM #3: Recommendation to Town Board regarding Rezoning request from D.M.
Brown to rezone 1.2 acres at the northeast corner of West King St. and West
Hill Ave. from R-15 to R-10.
ITEM #4: Recommendation to Town Board regarding Zoning Ordinance text
amendment to add a Demolition by Neglect provision to Section 21
ITEM #5: Recommendation to Town Board regarding Subdivision Regulation text
amendment to require sidewalks on both sides of all new streets and on streets
adjacent to new development
ITEM #6: Continued discussion of residential special use district
ITEM #7: Discussion of cul-de-sacs
ITEM #8: Approval of previous meeting minutes.
ITEM #9: 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
.919-732-1270 • Fax .919-644-23.90
MINUTES
PLANNING BOARD
May 7, 2002
PRESENT: David Daniel (Chair), Jim Boericke, Joel Brinkley, Cathy Carroll, Matthew Farrelly, Kelly
Hopper, Paul Newton, Chris Quinn, Bryant Warren
PUBLIC: Del Brown, Delmar Brown, Edmund Purcell, Ron Dorrestien, Kevin Hamak, and Margaret
Hauth
Daniel called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
ITEM #2: Hauth provided reports from the BOA and P&R. Newton asked for a brief discussion about
the Strategic Growth Plan the Town Board is planning to draft. He noted that he was
interested in participating and imagined other Planning Board members would be as well.
Hauth said the Board was meeting in the Manager's Office later tonight to begin discussions.
She said she was not aware of what process the members plan to employ and added the
meeting would be the first devoted to the topic. Daniel said he had had some email
conversations with both Commissioner Gering and Manager Peterson with some suggestions
he had to make use of a consultant or team of university students to evaluate and draft new
ordinances -to match the plan. The members agreed they had a strong interest in the process
and asked Hauth the relay they willingness to help to the Town Board.
ITEM #3: Hauth introduced the Brown rezoning request to rezone from R-15 to R-10. She said she had
no additional information since the public hearing. Quinn asked how many lots Brown
intended to create. Purcell said they were planning on 4 lots.
MOTION: Newton moved to recommend approval of the rezoning. Warren seconded.
VOTE: 8-1 (Brinkley opposed)
ITEM #4: Hauth introduced the text amendment adding a prevention of demolition by neglect provision.
Hopper passed around copies of the memo shared earlier with members via email. Newton
said that the process has moved too quickly for such a substantial change in the ordinance. He
suggested that additional meetings with district residents would be in order as well as another
public hearing. The members discussed their concerns with the economic hardship provisions.
The proceedings are in public, which subjects the owner to embarrassment of proving
financial hardship. They asked Hauth to investigate whether the hearing could be closed to the
general public or whether the information could be reviewed by staff rather than in a public
forum. Hopper asked whether the Board of Adjustment could hear new information during
any appeal. Hauth said she would check with the attorney, but it is her understanding that
appeals to the Board of Adjustment are to review the record. If an applicant had new
information, the Board would likely send the whole issue back to the Historic District
Commission to re -hear with the new information. Newton said this ordinance would benefit
from additional input from the public. Farrelly suggested that until the ordinance is in place,
the exact impact won't be known. He suggested that adopting the ordinance would be a useful
way to test it for failures and make correcting amendments, as the Planning Board often does.
The members decided to continue review of the ordinance after hearing comments from the
attorney on the proposed revisions.
PB
5/7/2002, page 2
ITEM #5: Hauth introduced the text amendment requiring sidewalks on both sides of subdivision streets
and on adjacent roads. Brinkely asked whether the section allowing alternatives to concrete
was intended to include equal durability. Hauth said she did not remember that being a
specific point of conversation. She added that since that section was not being amended, she
would check with the attorney as to whether the change could be made without a hearing.
MOTION: Warren moved to recommend approval of the text amendments including the clarification on
durability. Newton seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous.
ITEM #6: Hauth introduced the continuing discussion of the special residential districts. She noted that
both Dorrestein and Hamak were present, representing two properties interested in the
amendment. Daniel suggested moving through the questions Hauth had posed in the agenda
packet before hearing from the representatives. The members discussed the two intents of the
district (assisted living arrangements & differing housing types). They agreed that the two
topics were two diverse to be covered with one ordinance. They further agreed to focus on the
assisted living type of arrangement, since that has an active rezoning request attached to it.
Hauth asked about on-site amenities. The members agreed that interior and perimeter
sidewalks should be required, open space and recreation facilities appropriate to the residents
should be required. They discussed buffers at length. They agreed that some flexibility on
buffers could be allowed and asked Hauth to look at language requiring an average buffer
width, with a minimum. The members did not add to the list of external impacts to consider,
but agreed that schools would not be an issue with assisted living. The members discussed
density, minimum lot sizes, and adjacent uses. They agreed that the density standard of 9 units
per acre should only apply to the independent portion of a development built as townhouses,
condominiums, or apartments. The assisted living or more institutional portions would not
have a density limit. Dorrestein said the industry standards are in the range of 14-16 units per
acre for assisted, but independent units, and 20 beds per acre for the institutional portions. The
members discussed minimum lot size. They agreed that a smaller site could be feasible and
agreed to change the standard to 10 acres. They also agreed that this type of development need
not be surrounded by residential property and could possibly be better suited to a commercial
or mixed-use type setting. That standard was also deleted.
ITEM 47: Warren moved to approve the minutes as written. Boericke seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Daniel adjourned the meeting at 8:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
M aret A. Hauth, Secretary