The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About1.6.2004 Planning Baord Agenda and MinutesTown ITEM #t AGENDA PLANNING BOARD Tuesday, January 6, 2004 7:00 PM, Town Barn Consideration of additions to agenda and comments from the Chair. ITEM #2: Committee reports and updates 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 919-644-2390 • Board of Adjustment • Parks & Recreation Board • Attendance policy ITEM #3: Approval of meeting minutes from September, October 28, October 7, and December 2. ITEM 44: Work Session with Town Board members to discuss issues for 2004 (7:30 — 8:00) ITEM #5: Discussion of Annexation/Zoning/Master Plan for Waterstone ITEM #6: Review of proposed text amendments creating new industrial district, amending uses in General Industrial district, and establishing new performance standards. ITEM #7: 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 919-644-2390 MINUTES PLANNING BOARD January 6, 2004 PRESENT: David Daniel (Chair), Jim Boericke, Cathy Carroll, Matthew Farrelly, Paul Newton, Barrie Wallace, Bryant Warren Town Board: Mayor Joe Phelps, Frances Dancy, Brian Lowen, and Michael Gering PUBLIC: Rob Wilson, Jack Smyre, and Scott Radway STAFF: Eric Peterson, Demetric Potts, and Margaret Hauth Daniel called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM. ITEM #2: Hauth said the Board of Adjustment continued its review of the proposed alternative school at the Town Board's request and should consider it next week. She said they also approved two special exception permits that allow additions to houses already built in the setback. Warren said he missed the last Parks and Recreation Board meeting. Hauth highlighted the attendance policy adopted by the Town Board. She said it has existed for sometime, but the Town Board is using it in considering re -appointments. She asked the members to let her know when they could not attend meetings. ITEM #3: Boericke moved to approve the minutes as written. Warren seconded. VOTE: Unanimous. ITEM #6: The members agreed to review item 6 until the 7:30 start time established for their work session with the Town Board. Hauth described the package of text amendments and rezonings ready for public hearing to complete in the industrial update. She said she made some further additions to the lists of uses in both the new Light Industrial and revised General Industrial districts to reflect current business enterprises. The members discussed the proposed revisions and suggested some further changes to the permitted uses. MOTION: Warren moved to send the amended text and rezonings to public hearing in January. Boericke seconded. ITEM #4: Daniel thanked the Town Board members for attending the meeting. He said his interest is in seeing the development ordinances overhauled. He said the town has become very reactive to requests from developers rather than pro -actively indicating what might be desirable. Daniel added that he was not assigning blame for the current situation. Warren said he agreed with Daniel and suggested that a consultant be retained to prepare new ordinances. Farrelly added his support. He expressed concern about the town's exposure to lawsuits due to the current ordinance and the town's reactive stance. Daniel noted that a variety of firm exist who could help. Lowen asked about the cost differences between hiring staff or a consultant. He also asked about the length of time for the rewrite. Commissioner Lowen suggested that the town might be better served with additional staff that is then charged with carrying out or using the new ordinance. Hauth said she had some research on time and expense for different options that she could share. She noted her interest to combine a strategic plan with an ordinance rewrite to make the process more useful. Peterson said that if the town is looking for professional services, they are not bound by the same strict bidding procedures. He added a request for proposals or qualifications could be issued to find interested firms. Commissioner Dancy noted Planning Board 1/6/2004, page 2 her support for a strategic plan and new ordinances. She noted that it is a costly proposal. She suggested the two boards work together to see what time and cost saving measures can be secured through local work. Farrelly suggested that the town also has to be mindful of what surrounding jurisdictions are considering. Mayor Phelps suggested keeping the project local with the work of the boards and citizens. He said the ordinance cannot cover everything and will always be subject to changes. He added that there is little undeveloped land in Hillsborough's jurisdiction; so many proposals will be for annexation. He suggested the members focus on problem areas and address those first. Boericke noted his belief that the ordinance no longer reflects the current desires of the town. He added that everyone is investing a lot of time reviewing proposals and responding to developer requests, which could be saved if the plan and ordinances were more in -tune with what was desired. Newton added that the subdivision regulations are in need of updating. He said he would look for wider street paving requirements and other changes to address the issues raised with Kenion Grove. He suggested hiring additional staff that could work on the project, but then remain and use the plan and ordinances. Commissioner Lowen said he recognized the need for a change. He suggested taking an in-depth look at the ordinance and discussing the topic further. Carroll said she agreed with the local, hands-on approach to up -dating the ordinance. She noted that the Planning Board doesn't hesitate to debate topics and commit the necessary time to reviewing a project. Farrelly agreed that an in-house review could begin now. He added that there are constraints on staff time and volunteer expertise. Commissioner Gering noted that the ordinance does not represent modern thought or changing planning ideals. He suggested that more experienced help was needed. He suggested a review fee increase might help the town have the more in- depth analysis it needs. He expressed concern over what might happen during an interim period while the ordinance is updated. Peterson suggested that the boards work on identifying exactly what next steps are needed. He suggested that Hauth create a survey for everyone to list specific problems or issues they think exist with the ordinance. Daniel thanked the Town Board members for attending the meeting. ITEM #5: Daniel introduced the discussion with Waterstone representatives. He noted that Smyre is looking for concerns, issues, and details they still need to address in moving toward a March 8 decision. Daniel opened the floor for discussion. Newton suggested that all of the residential pods be required to have curb and gutter streets with sidewalks on both sides. He suggested that wider pavement is needed to accommodate on street parking. He asked about the residential area challenge and whether the new plan meets it. Smyre said the suggested figure was 25% of the land area and no; they did not meet it, but came close. Newton asked about the intangible and policy decisions. He asked if the Planning Board is to assume that the Town Board is generally in favor of the project. Hauth noted that there have been different points in the process for the Town Board to stop and staff has not been given direction to stop reviewing the project. Peterson noted that the Board recently adopted a decision timeline also. Warren asked about the deficits shown in the middle years. Peterson noted that it depends on the scenario reviewed and whether/what contributions the applicant makes. He added that if the development were approved, the staff would immediately be looking for options to provide services more efficiently and at a lower cost. He said he felt comfortable stating that the project Planning Board 1/6/2004, page 3 was not financially viable for Hillsborough without a contribution from the applicant. Warren asked about changing the review fees. Peterson said that shifting to a more Carrboro -like fees schedule could yield $80,000 over the life of the project. Farrelly asked what other sensitive items affect the viability of the project. Peterson said he looked at two options: identifying the capital costs associated with the project and how to pass a "fair share" onto the developers. He said he also looked at the timing of service provision, which will be addressed in the annual budget, which will provide a reality check for the projections. He said he expects unforeseen positive and negative financial impacts if the proj ect is approved. Daniel asked about potential risk if the residential area is built, but not the businesses. Smyre noted that the profit for the developer of this site is in the non-residential. Daniel asked for an update on Durham Tech. Smyre said they have the impression they are waiting to see if this site is viable. He added that the timeframe adopted by the town appears to be acceptable to the selection committee. Daniel said his concerns are: water planning, a back-up use for the Durham Tech site, pedestrian access, and comments from the county and school system as to impact. Radway said they would provide revised school impact numbers. Hauth suggested she could email the proposed conditions to each member for revisions and additions by January 20. Daniel adjourned the meeting at 9:27 PM. Respectfully submitted, argaret A. aut , ecretary wovcA. yi(o/QL(