Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout12.6.2005 Planning Board Agenda & MinutesAGENDA PLANNING BOARD Tuesday, December 6, 2005 7:00 PM, Town Barn ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum. ITEM #2: Adoption of minutes ITEM #3: Additions to the agenda & agenda adjustment. ITEM #4: Committee reports and updates a Board of Adjustment a Parks and Recreation Board a Churton Street Corridor a Strategic Growth Plan ITEM #5: Discussion of updated water capacity analysis with Town Manager and Town Engineer. ITEM #6: Annexation/Rezoning/Special Use Permit to authorize Ashton Hall, a 118 acre development on the north side of US 70 A across from the Sportsplex to contain 272 dwellings with a recreation center and 20,000 sf of office and retail uses at the western entrance (TMBL 4.37.C.21 & 4.40.B.1). Action requested: Discussion, recommendation to Town Board ITEM #7: Adjourn Please call the Planning Department if you cannot attend. 732-1270 extension 73 (this line is connected to voice mail) MINUTES PLANNING BOARD December 6, 2005 MEMBERS: PRESENT: Jim Boericke, Tom Campanella, Edna Ellis, Neil Jones, Paul Newton, Eric Oliver, Dave Remington, Toby Vandemark, Barrie Wallace. ABSENT: Mattew Farrelly STAFF: Margaret Hauth, Eric Peterson, Kenny Keel PUBLIC: Robert G. Wilson, Jr., Jack L. Smyre. ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of quorum. Mr. Boericke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and confirmed the quorum. ITEM #2: Adoption of the minutes: Mr. Oliver noted an error in Item #4 of the November minutes.. MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to approve minutes with the correction of the noted error. SECOND: Mr. Oliver seconded. VOTE: Unanimously approved. ITEM #3: Additions to the agenda: Ms. Hauth introduced Lynn Bodenheimer, court reporter, who will be taking the minutes at least on an interim basis. ITEM #4: Committee reports and updates: Board of Adjustment: Mr. Newton reported the Board of Adjustment did not meet in November but will meet in December. Parks and Recreation Board: Mr. Oliver reported that the Parks and Recreation Board had a public hearing on the Riverwalk/Gold Park. Site Solutions had presented two options, and Mr. Oliver distributed copies of that to the Board members. Site Solutions is to rework the proposed options and return at the December 13th meeting with a single proposed site plan. At the Town Board Workshop, November 28, P&RB presented three items: 1) Hillsborough Heights Park; 2) Town Board was asked to communicate with the Mountains to the Sea project regarding the possible routes from Durham to Greensboro; 3) Town Board also was asked to communicate to the NCDOT the desire of the town to have the Hillsborough Greenway (Cates Creek) when the I-85 widening project happens.. Items 2 and 3 will require work to prepare the actual language for presentation to NCDOT. Churton Street Corridor Committee: Mr. Remington reported that the Committee met in November to review the Strategic Plan for Churton Street. The committee worked through the overall vision and historic information as well as the corridor assessment portions of the Plan. They will continue their review at the December 19th meeting. The Committee also has plans to meet more frequently to work on this project. 12/6/2005 Planning Board Minutes Page 1 of 8 Strategic Growth Plan: Ms. Hauth reported that although Mr. Farrelly was not able to be present at the Planning Board meeting, he and she had reviewed proposals from the four firms regarding the Strategic Growth Plan. She farther reported that the Selection Committee met twice and narrowed those firms in consideration from four to two and conducted interviews with the two finalist firms. The Committee of 6 unanimously recommended that Clarion Associates of Chapel Hill be recommended to the Town Board at the December 12th meeting for contract negotiation. Clarion's main staff person will be Roger Waldon, former planning director of Chapel Hill. ITEM #5: Discussion of updated water capacity analysis with Town Manager and Town Engineer: Mr. Boericke introduced Mr. Peterson and Mr. Keel to answer questions about water capacity analysis. Mr. Peterson distributed a packet of information regarding the Water Capacity Study which included amendments, corrections, and updates. The key points and/or changes noted by Mr. Peterson included projected increased average daily water usage in FY14 to 85.9 percent of current capacity with expansion of the reservoir to Phase II lowering that average daily demand to 76.1 percent. Projected peak day usage would increase to 125 percent of current capacity in FY14 and even with Phase II expansion of the reservoir and expansion of the Water Plant Capacity projects peak day demand at 110.7 percent in FY14. Under this model, the peak day deficit would start in FYI as it includes more development than the town can supply on peak days during a Stage 5 Water Restriction at Lake Orange. In addition the updated study projects that the town will reach the 80 percent mandated planning and 90 percent potential moratorium thresholds at the same time as projected in the previous study. With the current supply situation, the estimate is that peak day capacity will reach 100 percent by July 2009. At the same time average daily usage will be only at 68.6 percent. Mr. Peterson noted that methods of addressing the deficits projected in the study could include expansion of the reservoir to Phase II, expanding the water plant soon after, or negotiating a water purchase agreement with neighboring utility system(s). Hillsborough would need to purchase water for only a few days in the initial year with increasing needs in years following. He suggested that purchasing water from other systems might be the most economically feasible method to serve as a "bridge" to address water needs during a transitional period if the town decides to expand the reservoir and water plant. Following the distribution of the information packet, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Keel reviewed the tables and spreadsheets in the packet which detailed the analysis from which the projections were derived. Included in the packet was information regarding the impact of committed and potential residential development, committed and potential non-residential development, and other committed water demands. Also included were summaries showing the impact of committed development only and of the impact based on all potential development. Mr. Peterson assured the Board that assumptions on which the analysis was based could be changed or adjusted by request or recommendation of the Planning and/or Town Boards which will be working together on this project. In response to questions, Mr. Peterson further explained that the State has two major thresholds or triggers when it comes to water supply versus allowing development. When 80 percent of peak day 12/6/2005 Planning Board Minutes Page 2 of 8 capacity is reached, the State mandates a plan to find other sources of water if development is to continue. When 90 percent usage is reached, the State may impose a development moratorium. Mr. Oliver questioned if neighboring water sources had been approached and whether those neighbors were going to be able to sell water in years when Hillsborough might need it --2008, 2010, 2014. Mr. Peterson indicated that Durham officials had approached Hillsborough expressing interest in an Equity Partnership on sewer and water. Mr. Peterson stated that a feasibility study will be started with the City of Durham and explained the benefits of such a partnership in increasing water capacity and potentially lowering costs. Much work is yet to be done in this area. Mr. Keel indicated Hillsborough already has emergency purchase contracts with Durham and OWASA for 2 mgd from either source for emergency purposes, not long-term. There is also a connection with the Orange -Alamance water system. In response to a question from Mr. Oliver and Mr. Boericke regarding how a State -imposed moratorium is initiated or can be lifted, Mr. Peterson explained that the State uses information provided by the town regarding water capacity. Mr. Keel added that the town's Water Supply Plan states capacity of the water plant as 3 mgd and the allotment from Emergency Purchase Contracts. The State uses that information to determine status of water supply. An important point emphasized by Mr. Peterson was that in FY08 it will be necessary to find additional water sources, whether working on Phase H or otherwise under the committed or planned scenario. Also important is that in FY14 the Peak Day Capacity is projected at 110 percent and 76 percent of Average Day Capacity. The Planning Board and Town Board have options to include or take out uncommitted items from the projections as they determine which way they wish the town to go. Mr. Boericke asked for a definition of moratorium. Mr. Keel explained that it means the State will not approve new water lines through the permit process. Typically a moratorium prohibits the extension of water lines. A previous moratorium in Alamance County caused the initiation of an extended contract with Haw River to purchase water from Burlington. Mr. Peterson commended the board on being forward thinking in anticipating and addressing problems in this area. Mr. Boericke thanked Mr. Peterson and Mr. Keel for their efforts and presentation. ITEM #6: Annexation/Rezoning/Special Use Permit: Mr. Boericke introduced the issue of the annexation, rezoning, special use permit to authorize the Ashton Hall development. Ms. Hauth commented that it was not required that the board make a recommendation at the current meeting. Applicants were previously provided comments from Board. The property line issue has not been resolved and there is not a ready water and sewer extension contract for this project, so the Town Board cannot vote on the issue at its December meeting. When asked about the status of the application for the project, Ms. Hauth indicated that although the formal application does not fit this particular type of project, the applicants have provided relevant information in terms of lot sizes, setbacks, and so forth. The only thing the ordinance calls for which has not been submitted is the Environmental Protection Plan including a tree survey. Most applications for large parcels have been allowed a variation from that requirement of the application. The tree information is most often used to make slight adjustments to preserve mature trees in edge areas of development. 12/6/2005 Planning Board Minutes Page 3 of 8 Ms. Ellis questioned the difference in proposed unit numbers which originally had been stated as 242 and were in the current information as 272. Mr. Smyre made a Powerpoint presentation demonstrating the location of the development and responded to questions raised previously by the board. Regarding the recreation facilities proposed to be a part of Ashton Hall which include a pool, playground area, cabana, greenway, pedestrian walkway, and natural surface trails, he stated that every resident in the development would automatically be a member of the homeowners association and eligible to use the recreation facilities. Dues would cover routine maintenance of the facilities as well as long-term maintenance The model is self-sustaining over the long term. It is designed to serve up to 272 homes with the option to reduce to approximately 260. As requested, the developers had investigated the recreational facilities at the Meadowmont development in Chapel Hill for comparison with the Ashton Hall plan. In the comparison with Meadowmont, it was noted that the Meadowmont facilities are much larger and were designed to accommodate memberships from the wider community. All users must purchase memberships daily or seasonally as they are not included in the homeowners association dues. In addition guests must pay a fee if they live within 30 miles; whereas, guest of Ashton Hall owners will be welcomed without charge. The Meadowmont clubhouse has interior space and is a commercial recreation facility which can be rented out. Meadowmont also has on-site staff as well as lifeguards for its facilities which Ashton Hall does not. The Meadowmont facility is approximately triple the size of that proposed for Ashton Hall. The developers do not feel that the proposed Ashton Hall facilities are of a size to accommodate opening them to the public in a similar fashion to Meadowmont. In response to Mr. Remington's question regarding the fees which will be charged to homeowners in Ashton Hall, Mr. Smyre gave a general estimate of $350 to $475 per year. Regarding the Vision 2010 Plan and the location of the cul-de-sacs in the subdivision, Mr. Smyre showed the site plan and topographical diagrams and explained that the cul-de-sacs are placed according to the topography of the site to accommodate drainage and the knolls in the topography. This prevents forcing streets through steep slope areas. Mr. Wilson noted that the developers sought to minimize the number of cul-de-sacs, maximize a curvilinear layout, and protect the environment in so doing. In response to a question from W. Boericke, it was explained that where the roadway appears to run across the grade, it actually is in an area of very slight slope and runs with the contours, and driveways were considered when the lots are on steep slopes. Mr. Smyre noted that Lot 37, is an example of a basement -type setting where the lot drops off steeply. In cases of significant vertical relief, the lot has enough depth to allow for a walk -out basement or storage. The lots were laid out in a manner to accommodate such construction appropriately. In response to the Submitted Boundary issue, Mr. Smyre stated that the developers believe the boundary is set. A certified, signed, and sealed survey was submitted with the application. A peer review of the survey was done by a second survey firm and agreed with the first. Regarding the issue with an unresolved estate holding, a copy of the deed was provided to show where the two acres in question had transferred through time. Mr. Boericke commented that this board did not have any jurisdiction in this particular issue. Mr. Smyre noted that all parties have been given more than six months to present evidence and have not done so at this point. Mr. Wilson continued the presentation with a review of the Townhome street connection. After review, the developers believe they can accept a condition where Street E would connect through to 12/6/2005 Planning Board Minutes Page 4 of 8 the secondary entrance road. They would ask as part of that condition that they be given the opportunity to shift the two lots that would be lost from the Charleston component to townhomes on the south side of the road if there is appropriate space. The board indicated to the developers that this recommendation be incorporated in the plans. Mr. Smyre next addressed the issue of the Location of the Primary Entrance where he indicated that the entrance could be shifted slightly to the west of the original proposal. This would put the entrance in an area of steeper slopes but can be accommodated if the Planning Board feels it is important. Ms. Ellis requested that a letter be provided by the Department of Transportation District Engineer regarding and approving the entrance as is it over a hilltop and there might be a sight limitation. Mr. Wilson responded that he believe such documentation had been submitted with the application but would provide copies if the board so desired. Regarding the issue of the Southern Property Edge, Mr. Wilson explained that a greenway is proposed for mixed use to offset the commercial properties from the residential area. Aknowledging that the board had indicated interest in having a fence on that edge of the development, he proposed a possible swap of removing the greenway, which would no longer be necessary and replacement of it with a fence if the board requested. In response to a question regarding landscaping behind the townhomes if the greenway were replaced by a fence, Mr. Wilson replied that the developers would provide landscaping to meander between the rear of the townhomes and the fence so that townhome owners would not be looking straight back at a fence. There also would be a sidewalk running parallel to the alley to the connection to the mixed use area. Ms. Hauth read from a petition which opposed the Ashton Hall project and expressed concern for water and wells. The petition also requested that in the event of approval of the development that an 8 -foot vinyl fence be erected and maintained by the Ashton Hall owners association. The petitioners included residents whose property adjoins the proposed Ashton Hall property as well as some located in Poplar Ridge and further away. Mr. Boericke asked if it was the board's pleasure that the developers adjust their plans to accommodate the wishes of the petitioners. Ms. Wallace commented affirmatively that if it was what the neighbors wanted, the developers should make those changes. Mr. Oliver agreed and brought up the issue of safety as the neighbors might have farm implements, sheds, and animals that are accustomed to separation from people. Mr. Campanella added that the changes would present a win-win situation for both new residents and existing neighbors. Mr. Remington expressed mixed feelings but felt the fence was the best choice. Mr. Oliver suggested that with 46 feet as a minimum and the landscaping proposed with the fencing, both the fence and greenway could be accommodated. Mr. Smyre responded that there would be no need for the greenway because there would be no pedestrian connection to the south which was the reason for the greenway. Mr. Remington brought up what he felt was a bigger safety issue of kids cutting across properties to get to the commercial areas which would mean kids walking across Highway 70 and asked if there might be a future possibility of a pedestrian underpass. Mr. Smyre suggested that the owner of the "attractive nuisance," the County, would be the appropriate entity to reply to Mr. Remington's inquiry It was agreed that the fence with landscaping was a good compromise for all involved. In response to a question from Ms. Ellis, Mr. Smyre explained that the fence would be of opaque 12/6/2005 Planning Board Minutes Page 5 of 8 material, perhaps a stockade -type fence, approximately six feet high to prevent trespassing which was a concern of the petitioners. Mr. Wilson concluded that the presentation had addressed key issues previously of concern to the board and the additional information for the special use permit submitted in July. He offered to respond to further questions or readdress issues. Ms. Wallace inquired about the blasting. Mr. Smyre commented that the developers try to match grade and minimize the need for blasting. If blasting is necessary, the blasting company monitors and takes precautions to control ramifications and is responsible with the development entity for changes. Mr. Wilson added that if approved, the project will be adding quite a bit of water main and renting public water and improving service to residents in the area. Other methods than blasting are available to be used to get the pipes in and hopefully can be employed. Ms. Hauth advised the board that the Ashton Hall project was unlikely to be on the agenda for the Town Board at its next meeting because the water and sewer contract is not yet in place. However, if the Planning Board wished to take action it was within its purview and ability to do so. The survey with the neighboring property is the only issue still open, and only the applicant's signed and certified survey has been received. Clarification from the Town Attorney will be necessary before the Town Board takes action. Mr. Wilson then requested to submit the deeds presented earlier into the record as additional information related to the survey issue. Mr. Remington commented that in contrast to the Owl's Wood plan, which was rejected, the Ashton Hall plan as presented is consistent with the Vision 2010 Plan and is a very good plan for the site. Mr. Campanella concurred and suggested that it might be a model of the type of development the board might want to encourage. Ms. Vandemark observed that if the town did not annex the area, it would remain part of the county and the town would have no control over its development. Mr. Oliver stated that he was not willing to commit the use of water resources until the town had a strategic plan and recommended waiting a year. Mr. Boericke agreed that it was almost irresponsible to approve the plan until the town has a plan for addressing the water issue in light of the possibility of negative State action for over use. Ms. Vandemark inquired about what the actual impact of approving the development would be on the water usage planning. Ms. Hauth responded that the spreadsheets for the water usage plan had been emailed to board members and that they could try making the changes and see the exact impact if they wished to do that. Ms. Wallace commented that the town was going to grow, and she did not see approving the development as an obstacle. Mr. Jones questioned whether anything should be approved on the basis of size until a strategic plan is in place. Ms. Ellis agreed that it was unwise to approve developments which might increase costs to existing residents without knowing what the town expects of a strategic plan. Ms. Wallace expressed her thought that this development will not change the need for planning nor that it puts anybody at risk. Mr. Remington stated that the numbers for the development were not far from the numbers anticipated for the property prior to the proposal for Ashton Hall. Mr. Newton agreed that the plan was good and the water situation will have to be dealt with in any case. He felt that the Strategic Growth Plan should be in place as that has become important since the town invited the developers to submit their proposal. Ms. Hauth commented that the Plan should be adopted in a year. The town has been looking at the concept of a moratorium. Currently the town is looking more at regulating the number of items at public hearings and enforcing the completeness of applications and having all outside 12/6/2005 Planning Board Minutes Page 6 of 8 reviews done so that once an application is complete, it can get on an agenda. This would add a number of months to the process and would temper the number of things which could be reviewed during a period of time. Ms. Vandemark suggested that in essence disapproval of the Ashton Hall application would be placing a moratorium on project approvals for a year. Ms. Hauth advised that some projects will have to be voted on because of vested interest or annexation. Mr. Newton added that the Town Board at a meeting in November had instructed Ms. Hauth to inform folks that the town was undergoing a strategic growth process and approval was less likely than previously was the case. Mr. Campanella stated that he did not see the Ashton Hall project as being out of line with best development practices for growth in the region but delaying could mean loss of this project and possible worse proposals in the future. Mr. Boericke and Ms. Hauth commented on the necessity of looking at what was "on the radar" in order to be in a position to make the trade-offs necessary as the town moved through the process of determining its water usage needs. Mr. Remington said that he believes that the Strategic Use Plan would identify the Ashton Hall area as a residential growth corridor. Mr. Boericke requested a motion and expressed some concerns regarding the water and his desire to know that the town has addressed it and has a strategy for providing water before the board commits to the development. Mr. Boericke asked Mr. Peterson about the length of time necessary to negotiate the deals with other sources to provide water, i.e, Durham. Mr. Peterson replied that the time could be from six months to six years. Negotiations have begun with Durham. He further explained that with Phase II of the reservoir, the town has the capacity to serve almost all proposed developments "on the radar." His suggestion to the board was that if the development under consideration was a high quality project and consistent with the town's long-term vision, the board should feel free to approve. If the project was mediocre or substandard, then he did not think the board would want to commit the water capacity to such a project. It also it would be economically feasible and consistent with plans to move toward 100 percent capacity and buy water from another source, Durham or OWASA, as a "bridge" while Phase 11 is under development. Mr. Remington brought up the consideration of affordable housing. Ms. Hauth responded that it was within the board's purview to deal with that issue. Mr. Newton stated that his understanding was that the developers were in disagreement with Mr. Hallman's request for affordable housing because the developers don't believe there is sufficient evidence to prove a need for it. Mr. Campanella commented that this type of development inherently includes a variety of house types and so accommodates a wider range of income groups. Mr. Boericke summarized the alternatives as-- - postponing action since the Town Board will not be addressing the issue at its next meeting, - recommending the project to the Town Board, - recommending to the Town Board that they deny it or postpone it, - postpone it and ask the Town Board what their pleasure is concerning either the water or the strategic plan. The Planning Board can take action or postpone until January without affecting action by the Town Board. 12/6/2005 Planning Board Minutes Page 7 of 8 MOTION: Ms. Wallace stated a preference for going forward with action on the project and made a motion that the Board recommend approval of Ashton Hall to the Town Board with the modifications of the connector, the fence, and moving of the driveway as offered by the developers in their presentation. SECOND: Mr. Campanella VOTE: Approved by a vote of 7 to 2 with Mr. Oliver and Ms. Ellis dissenting. A desire was expressed by the Board that the minutes reflect the detail of the discussions of the Planning Board regarding this issue and that Ms. Hauth carry the information to the Town Board of the deliberations and considerations of the Planning Board. Ms. Hauth assured the Board that both requests would be fulfilled. Mr. Oliver invited all to attend the Town Board meetings to see how the communication between the boards works. ITEM #7: Mr. Newton made a motion to adjourn. A member of the audience commented that it was unfair that she was not given an opportunity to rebut what had been said about the boundary issue. Mr. Boericke stated that unfortunately this meeting was not the jurisdiction in which to resolve her issue. Ms. Hauth responded that the issue was not yet closed as the Town Board would not vote on the issue until its January meeting. The audience member noted her difficulty in finding someone to do the required survey. Upon request from the audience member for direction, Ms. Hauth advised her that the Town Board would need something in writing stating how much time was needed so that her request could be considered. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Y - Marga t Hauth, Secretary 12/6/2005 Planning Board Minutes Page 8 of 8