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