HomeMy Public PortalAbout11.7.2006 Planning Board Agenda and MinutesTown
of
Hi&1lsnce 175
AGENDA
PLANNING BOARD
gh Tuesday, November 7, 2006
7:00 PM, Town Barn
ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum.
ITEM #2: Continued Public Hearing for Rezoning and Special Use Permit regarding
Courtyard project in 500 block of North Churton Street.
Action requested: Vote to close or continue public hearing; consider making
recommendation to Town Board if the hearing is closed.
ITEM #3: Continued Public Hearing for Master Plan amendments in Waterstone.
Action requested: Vote to close or continue public hearing; consider making
recommendation to Town Board if the hearing is closed.
ITEM #4: Adoption of minutes from September 5 meeting
ITEM #5: Additions to the agenda & agenda adjustment.
ITEM #6: Committee reports and updates
• Board of Adjustment
• Parks and Recreation Board
• Strategic Growth Plan
• US 70/Cornelius Street Task Force
ITEM #7: Interviews of candidates for in town vacancy
Action requested: Recommend volunteer to Town Board for appointment
ITEM #8: Recommendations to Town Board of rezonings from October public hearing
A. Queen Street Partners
B. AMBA Ventures
C. Weaver Community LLC
Action requested: Consider making a recommendation on each item
ITEM #9: Discussion of Draft Strategic Growth Plan document
Action requested: Discussion
ITEM #10: Discussion of potential schedule changes.
Action requested: Discussion if desired
ITEM #11: Follow-up discussion from September 25 training
Action requested: Discussion if desired
ITEM #12: 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
November 7, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Matthew Farrelly, Jim Boericke, Edna Ellis, Neil Jones, Paul Newton,
Eric Oliver, Dave Remington, Toby Vandemark, and Barrie Wallace
TOWN BOARD PRESENT: Frances Dancy, Eric Hallman, Brian Lowen, and Evelyn Lloyd.
ABSENT: Tom Campanella.
STAFF: Margaret Hauth, Bob Hornik.
ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum.
Mr. Farrelly called the meeting to order at approximately 7:03 and confirmed a quorum
of the Planning Board. It was noted that no quorum of the Town Board was present as
yet, so discussion of Items #2 and 3 would be delayed until later in the meeting.
ITEM #4: Adoption of minutes from September 5, 2006 meeting.
Ms. Ellis noted she had referred to Old 86 Commons and said she had talked with Mr.
Ivens with Erosion Control, noting the work on.the drainageway had been done two
days after her contacting him, and wanted the minutes to reflect that her conversation
with him.
MOTION: Mr. Oliver moved to adopt the minutes as amended.
SECOND: Mr. Boericke.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
ITEM #5: Additions to the agenda and agenda adjustments.
Ms. Hauth announced that next Monday night an open house would be held at the Big
Barn for the Boone/Collins property. She said from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m. people could
come by and ask questions, or stay and participate with the designers.
ITEM #6: Committee reports and updates.
Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment had not met.
Parks and Recreation Board. Mr. Jones said that on October 21 Turnip Patch Park
was dedicated to the Town. He said the Board continued its work on the Master Plan.
Strategic Growth Plan Committee. Mr. Newton noted that Committee was
beginning to wind down, and at the last meeting had used the time to go over the draft
document.
US 70/Cornelius Street Task Force. Ms. Vandemark stated they had last met on
October 18, with guest speaker from Chapel Hill regarding their main street program.
She said the Task Force had looked at the revised ring analysis and its demographics.
Ms. Vandemark said they had discussed how the road might be redone, as well as
greenways, lighting, and the types of businesses that might be desired.
ITEM #7: Interviews of candidates for in -Town vacancy.
Mr. Farrelly noted that none of the candidates were present this evening, so interviews
would be delayed.
ITEM #8: Recommendations to Town Board of rezonings from October public hearing.
A. Queen Street Partners. Ms. Hauth stated that the Queen Street Partners request is
the 2.74 acres adjacent to the current Queen Street Partners site on 86 North that was
under development. She said it was a landlocked parcel that had no legal road
N
frontage, and it was planned it use the parcel for parking. She noted that parcels zoned
Light Industrial were normally not adjacent to residential uses, so that was a concern.
Mr. Oliver commented that this parcel did not meet dimensional requirements for this
zoning. Ms. Hauth said the parcel would be combined with the adjacent property, so
that requirement was met. Mr. Remington asked if there was some visual screen
between this parcel and the residences to the west. Ms. Hauth responded yes, noting it
would have to be maintained in some fashion.
Mr. Farrelly asked if there was any Light Industrial adjacent to R-10 or R-15 anywhere
else in Town. Ms. Hauth said she knew of none. Responding to a question regarding
setbacks, Ms. Hauth stated that the setback from the property line was 20 feet. She
said the buffer was a performance standard and not a physical size or depth
requirement, although the setback was fixed.
Mr. Remington said if approved, the Partners could later build on that parcel if they
could get approval. Ms. Hauth said that was correct. She said since there was a creek
on the parcel any grading or use of the site would be significantly north of that creek.
Ms. Wallace said what might be later built on the parcel was of concern to her. Mr.
Farrelly said if the Partners were to change the nature of their current business, then
that might have an impact on this parcel as well. Mr. Oliver noted he thought that area
was zoned R-40 to keep other uses away. Ms. Wallace said she was not comfortable
with this rezoning, noting that there were no neighbors present to offer comments.
Ms. Vandemark said there was no much that could be done with this parcel, so she was
not sure how much concern the neighbors might have. She said she would not want to
have Light Industrial adjacent to her backyard.
Ms. Ellis asked if there were environmental concerns, and if Erosion Control staff
should be contacted. She asked where runoff was routed. Ms. Hauth said eventually to
Stroud's Creek. Ms. Ellis said then it was an environmental issue.
MOTION: Mr. Remington moved to make a recommendation to the Town Board to not grant the
rezoning request due to the fact that it did not meet the adjacency standards for Light
Industrial.
SECOND: Mr. Jones.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
At 7:28 p.m. it was noted that a quorum of the Town Board was now present with the
arrival of Commission Hallman. Commissioner Dancy called the public hearing to
order and noted that the Boards would discuss items 1 and 2 before continuing with
item 8. She then turned the meeting back over to Mr. Farrelly.
ITEM #2: Continued Public Hearing for Rezoning and Special Use Permit regarding
Courtyard project in 500 block of North Churton Street.
Ms. Hauth noted that the applicant had sent the Board a letter asking that the hearing be
continued until January. She said at the previous public hearing Commission Gering
had asked for additional information regarding her analysis of the appropriateness of
applying entranceway special use somewhere closer to the heart of Town.
11/07/2006 Planning Board
K3
Vickie Wilson, who had been previously sworn, said her and her neighbors' concerns
were documented at the October 24 public hearing. She said their main concern was
with the entranceway special use permit, and its seeming ability to be applied
anywhere. Ms. Wilson said they were concerned that developers would use this zoning
application as a vehicle to place high impact projects on historically and
environmentally sensitive lots. She asked that the use of this process be examined to
avoid pain and expense for property owners, developers, and the Town staff in dealing
with inappropriate applications.
Allen Knight, the applicant and previously sworn, said his understanding of the
entranceway special use zoning was that his project did meet the requirements, and
asked that this item be continued to the January public hearing to allow him to examine
the issues raised at the October 24 public hearing.
Mr. Oliver said if this issue were to be continued to January, he would prefer that Ms.
Hauth provided additional information at that time so the information would be fresh
Ms. Ellis asked that Ms. Hauth read the Neighborhood Business District regulations as
well as the regulations for special use districts, noting she questions where this
application actually met the requirements as outlined in the ordinance. Ms. Hauth said
it was not up to her as staff to determine if an applicant met the intent as written in the
zoning ordinance. She said that was the purpose of appearing before these two Boards.
Ms. Ellis said she would like to have the requirements read so that the public could
hear exactly what the ordinance contained.
Mr. Farrelly said the issue was whether or not to continue the hearing to January. Mr.
Remington said he believed it would be useful to have an evaluation of the number of
parking spaces per unit that other jurisdictions found appropriate for similar
developments. Mr. Boericke recommended that at the next Planning Board meeting
that the Board discuss the applicability of the entranceway special use to situations
such as this, noting he shared the concern expressed by others.
Mr. Newton asked that the applicant disclose who he shared information with
regarding this project, whether it be mailings or personal meetings. He said he would
like to know which Town officials he had met with or mailed information to, so that all
of that information could be entered into the record.
Ms. Ellis said she was in disagreement with the application, and read an excerpt from
the zoning ordinance, Section 2.17.A, Entranceway Special Use District. "There is
hereby established an Entrance Special Use (ESU) district. The purpose of this district
is to provide for the development of well planned and fully integrated projects
containing a diverse mixture of commercial, office, and employment uses along the
primary entrances to the Town of Hillsborough." Ms. Ellis said she could find
nowhere where residential was included in that district.
MOTION: Mr. Oliver moved that the public hearing be continued to the public hearing scheduled
for January.
SECOND: Mr. Newton.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
11/07/2006 Planning Board
S
ITEM #3: Continued Public Hearing for Master Plan amendments to Waterstone.
Ms. Hauth said the new information contained in the packet was a comparison of
information regarding impervious surfaces and open spaces, the County's courtesy
review comments, as well as relevant sections of the traffic analysis.
Jack Smyre, who was previously sworn and was representing the Marin's, entered into
the record continuing correspondence between the two parties regarding the Master
Plan amendments. He said the Marin's counsel had written Waterstone expressing
complete willingness to uphold our end of the agreement, and the reply was contained
in the Board's packet of materials. Mr. Smyre said that was an indication of who was
being cooperative and who was not on this matter. He said also submitted at the
previous public hearing was the traffic impact analysis which he had reviewed. Mr.
Smyre said there had been assertions that Waterstone Drive would actually handle the
entire traffic from Waterstone, that is, if the connection were not opened up to
Beckett's Ridge Drive and to Millstone. However, he said, he pointed out that within
this analysis that connection was assumed to be opened and in fact, 60% of the
residential traffic was routed out through that street in the assumptions that were made.
Mr. Smyre said it was important to understand what was being analyzed.
Mr. Smyre also noted that in the analysis, it said that if Lafayette Drive was not
upgraded to include a traffic signal and even if Waterstone were never built it would
continue to deteriorate to letter grade E or below, and with Waterstone traffic added in
future years Lafayette Drive would deteriorate to an almost immeasurable F. Mr.
Smyre said these and others were very good reasons why the Master Plan was
approved the way it was and why it should remain that way, and there were no barriers
from the Marin's as to why it could not remain that way.
Mr. Hornik asked if the owners had now agreed to the slope easements and to the
initial right-of-way area on Old 86. Mr. Smyre said they had never disagreed with it.
Mr. Denison said he wanted to make sure it was on the record.
Responding to a remark by Ms. Ellis, Mr. Smyre stated that it had been previously
pointed out that the analysis run on the Waterstone Drive/Old 86 intersection did not
have any future traffic coming from any other source, so future conditions had not been
analyzed where that was a loaded four-way intersection. He said the original Master
Plan was for the dispersion of traffic out three major ways to avoid that sort of
concentration at that intersection.
Dave Denison, the applicant and previously sworn, responded to questions that had
been posed at the previous hearing. He said one was to increase the amount of square
footage allowed on retail parcels 13 and 22. Mr. Denison said parcel 13 had now
approval for 70,000 square feet, and they had requested an increase to 90,000 square
feet. He said they were now approved for 380,000 square feet of building space on
parcel 22, and were requesting that it be increased by 70,000 square feet to a total of
450,000 square feet.
Mr. Denison said on parcel 22 there was a total of 57.14 acres, and was proposing
450,000 square feet of building space, resulting in a coverage of 17.8% of building
11/07/2006 Planning Board
5
space to land area. He said the total imperious acreage would be 35.7 acres, or 62.5%,
and open space would be 21.44 acres or 33.9%. Mr. Denison said in parcel 13, the
coverage and open space percentages were very similar to that on parcel 22. He said
these percentages were very similar to shopping areas in other communities.
Ms. Ellis asked regarding the percentages, what was he basing his percentages on? She
asked if he had tenants that wanted to much square footage, noting she did not want
him to building something that big when no one needed that much space. Mr. Denison
said they were currently talking with three different retail entities interested in this
development. He said they believed the property was underutilized with the current
zoning and had seen an opportunity to better utilize the property but still keep the
coverage low and the open space percentage high. Mr. Denison said once they were
ready to get the project financed and build it, then they would have to develop a market
study to determine if they should build to that square footage. He said in his opinion
the market would be there.
Ms. Ellis said she remembered that Mr. Denison had said someone would provide to
the Board examples of why they needed this much square footage. She asked if there
was any indication now that this amount of square footage was needed. Mr. Denison
said that Barbara Todd of ETD, their land planner, had prepared the concept plan to
show how 450,000 and 90,000 square feet would work on these two parcels. Ms. Ellis
said she had been expecting an update from Ms. Todd regarding the need for the
additional square footage. Mr. Denison said they were conducting talks with different
retailers, but no commitments had. yet been made.
Mr. Hornik asked what was the difference between coverage and total imperious area.
Mr. Denison said generally the total imperious area would be approximately the same
as the open space, such as landscaped areas or detention ponds versus rooftops and
parking lots. Mr. Homik asked if coverage was basically the percentage of retail
square footage to total acreage. Mr. Denison responded that was correct. He said the
coverage was the building space, and impervious area was building space plus parking
areas.
Mr. Oliver said the examples Mr. Denison had provided regarding other developments
was not helpful, since things were done differently in Texas than here. He said in the
packet was the Orange County courtesy review of this project, noting there were
several questions addressing parcels 13 and 22. Mr. Oliver asked if Mr. Denison had
received and read that courtesy review, and had he made responses to those questions.
Mr. Denison said he had read it but had not yet responded to it.
Ms. Hauth noted that the County had made its comments prior to receive the traffic
impact statements. Mr. Oliver said some of the County's questions were transportation
related, but some were environmental. He said the questions raised were valuable, and
he would like to see them answered. Mr. Denison said regarding the road system, he
wanted to have their traffic engineer, Earl Lewellyn, respond to that.
Mr. Lewellyn, who was previously sworn, pointed out a map that indicated the
improvements being proposed at the Waterstone Drive/Churton Street intersection, and
the realignment with Rippy Lane. He said they were providing for dual left turn lanes
11/07/2006 Planning Board
J
coming out of Waterston Drive, providing for dual left turns coming southbound and
turning onto Waterstone Drive, and providing two lanes northbound on Churton Street
up to and beyond the intersection and then tapering back.
Mr. Lewellyn said at the previous hearing there were questions about level of service.
He provided two tables from the Highway Capacity Manual that spoke to and defined
what levels of service were for both signalized intersections and unsignalized two-way
stops. Mr. Lewellyn said the controlled delay in seconds per vehicle were shown in
those tables, noting that typically level of service D was an acceptable standard. He
said for unsignalized intersections there was no overall level of service grade, rather
what was reported was the worst level of service approach at that intersection. As a
result, he said, what you would find was that number listed in the traffic study.
Mr. Lewellyn provided an overview of the levels of service in the immediate study
area, including the signalized and unsignalized intersections. Regarding the projected
cues for those streets, he said they had found that the software for unsignalized
intersections that the methodology was not able to accurately calculate what the delays
would be. Mr. Lewellyn said to compensate, they take that number and look at other
factors to determine if the number was high or low. He said in this case, there was a
nearby signalized intersection that would help provide gaps to allow for left turns to
move. Mr. Lewellyn said it was important to note that regardless of the. access scenario
that intersection side street service would remain at a level of service F. He said in
fact, traffic would have the opportunity to travel to a signalized intersection to make a
left turn, so even through the level of service is noted a F they would expect much
better service that that.
Mr. Lewellyn said to follow up on that, they had looked at whether the volumes of
traffic warranted a traffic signal. He said the answer was that it did not come close to
warranting a signal, and it would not be appropriate to have a signal that close to the
one at Oakdale.
Mr. Lewellyn said in summary they were looking at very good levels of service overall
throughout the network. He said it was true that at the intersection of Waterstone
Drive and Churton Street level of service D would occur during the p.m. peak area
after full buildout. Mr. Lewellyn said they had included traffic associated with the
Oakdale Village traffic study, the remaining buildout of Hampton Point project, as well
as a growth rate. He said that double -counted some trips, because people from the
commercial and residential elements of Waterstone would travel to Hampton Point and
some to Oakdale Village, and to be conservative they had made no adjustment for that.
Mr. Lewellyn said in summary, the numbers were the worst case scenario, and they
expected the numbers to be much better than that in reality with the improvements
proposed.
Mr. Lewellyn said at the last hearing an assumption was made that the connection to
the north to Beckett's Ridge Drive was not available, but that connection had already
been built. He said there was also a comment made that because of the lack of the
ability to make that connection that emergency vehicles would be impeded in response
time by about two minutes. Mr. Lewellyn said obviously that would not be the case.
He said what would be the case was that instead of a difference of about two mintues,
11/07/2006 Planning Board
7
there would be a deviation of about 27 seconds based on the access at either Millstone
or Oakdale versus Cates Creek Parkway.
Mr. Oliver said there was a significant intersection missing from the chart, and that was
Lafayette and Churton Street, which he believed would have an impact. Mr. Lewellyn
said it was not included because this development would not be adding any traffic to or
from that area, noting that expected traffic from that area to use the retail component of
Waterstone, but it would not increase the trips. Mr. Oliver said it would impact the use
of Churton Street, and asked why it was not included. Mr. Lewellyn said they did not
feel it was relevant because they were comparing the two access options, but noted it
was in the traffic study and the results were that it would operate at a side street level of
service F and it would not meet signal warrants under either scenario. Mr. Oliver said
he believed this was another case of withholding information. Mr. Lewellyn said it
was not withheld, repeating that it was contained in the traffic study submitted to the
Town.
Ms. Ellis asked if the original Master Plan had an intersection at Lafayette and Cate's
Creek Parkway, and if so why were we not sticking to the Master Plan. Mr. Lewellyn
said that was what we were here to decide. Ms. Ellis said it was a dangerous
intersection because of limited visibility. She said it needed a signal light.
Mr. Remington commented that the comments about Lafayette ignored the fact that the
original plans would have Cate's Creek Parkway intersecting opposite Lafayette, and
for that reason there would be a light there to improve traffic for Cornwallis Hills, but
that would not be there anymore under this proposal. Mr. Lewellyn said it was not a
part of their proposal, but there was nothing precluding there being a signal there if it
met the warrants on its own. He said it was something NCDOT could do regardless of
this project. Mr. Remington said it would meet the warrants if we were using the
original plan. Mr. Lewellyn said he was not sure if that had been determined, although
it was likely it would at full buildout. He said NCDOT had not agreed that it would
ever be signalized.
Ms. Ellis said she had a letter from Mr. Chuck Edwards of NCDOT dated October 24,
2005 that spoke to its review of the Waterstone development, and it said that the
developer would be required to design and construct traffic signals at the intersections
listed below if deemed to be warranted, and it included Old 86 and I-40 eastbound and
westbound ramped intersections, Old 86 and the proposed Waterstone Drive
intersections, NC 86 and the proposed Waterstone Drive. Ms. Ellis said it seemed that
Mr. Edwards would conduct an analysis of that before we made a decision. She said
that Oakdale Village would contribute almost nothing, and wondered why it was listed
as a comparison.
Mr. Denison said they would attempt to address the questions and issues that were
brought up by the County's review regarding the land use of parcels 13 and 22. He
said regarding parcel 6, they had that under contract to close with an apartment builder
at the end of this month and that builder would be coming forward at the end of this
month with his SUP application. Mr. Denison said they needed to get the situation
with the roadway resolved as quickly as possible so they could move forward with that
part of the request.
11/07/2006 Planning Board
Mr. Newton said we had a situation where we had a developer saying one thing and the
property owner saying another, and now they were making their problems our
problems by pressuring us to make a decision because of a deadline. He asked staff if
they would provide information on the possibility of imminent domain. Mr. Newton
said there was a strip of land annexed that was clearly intended to be a road for Cate's
Creek Parkway, and asked if the Town could use imminent domain as a realistic
option. Mr. Homik said legally it was an option, but he could not answer if it was
viable politically or financially. He said taking property to build a road was public
purpose, so it was an option. Mr. Newton asked staff to determine what the cost might
be to do that. Ms. Hauth said they would estimate the value of the land based on tax
value, but that would not tell you what a court might award. Mr. Newton said that
information would be helpful in the decision-making process. He said we had been
through this four years ago and come to decisions, and now were being forced to go
through it again.
Mr. Oliver applauded the applicant for settling the problems regarding parcel 6 and it
use for apartments, and was happy to see that the applicant had developed an
alternative plan to move things along. But, he said, at this point he did not have
enough information to be in favor of either of the changes for parcel 13 and 22, or the
transportation changes. So, he said, if the public hear were closed, he would not be in
support of the application.
Mr. Remington said if more information was going to be presented to address the
County's courtesy review then the hearing should be kept open on the two parcels, and
perhaps on the transportation part as well. Mr. Hornik said one option available to the
Board would be to close the hearing on the road issue and continue it on parcels 13 and
22 if they believed it was appropriate.
Mr. Newton said on one hand we had a request to change the road orientation, and on
the other to increase the square footage to make larger retail areas, which in theory
meant more traffic, so he saw both of those as being related. He said he was not
opposed to the increase in retail, but if it came at the expense of the original road plan
not being built, then forget it. Mr. Oliver said the road issues needed to be resolved
before we could go forward with increasing the retail space. He said if we were to
decide to hold the hearing open, then the entire hearing should be held open.
Charles Nichols, the attorney representing the applicant and after having been sworn,
spoke on the issue of splitting the public hearing topics. He said when the hearing was
opened the question was raised as to whether the issues were linked or separate, and the
applicant made it clear they were separate issues. Mr. Nichols said if was very
important to the applicant to have some resolution on the roadway issue. He said if
that issue did indeed impact how this Board wanted to deal with parcels 13 and 22,
then it appeared to be logical to go ahead and resolve the road situation and continue
the other issue. Mr. Nichols said they had tried to resolve the right-of-way issues with
the Marin's for more than six months, and it was because of the various issues
regarding the right-of-way and the slope easements that they had begun to look at
alternatives. He asked that they not be held up any longer, but to give them an answer
11/07/2006 Planning Board
E
so that they could move forward with the project. He asked that the Board close the
hearing on the roadway issue so that they could proceed.
Ms. Wallace asked what would happen if the Boards decide to make them stick to the
original Master Plan. Mr. Nichols said they believed they had developed a better
proposal, but if necessary to move forward then they would do so under the original
Master Plan. Ms. Wallace said she did not believe it was necessarily a better proposal,
but just an alternative because there were no other choices.
Mr. Newton asked Mr. Oliver if he believed he had enough information to vote. Mr.
Oliver said he would have to vote no at this point. Mr. Newton said then perhaps we
should vote, noting he believed there were several good reasons to do so.
Mr. Smyre said there was no need for the Town to even contemplate resorting to
condemnation in order to obtain this corridor, noting it had been the result of an
agreement signed years ago between the Morens and the Trumps. He said they were
simply trying to get the other party to live up to their agreement. Mr. Smyre said they
had been urging the other party to identify the slope easements and right-of-ways
needed, noting the corridor was there and it should be built. He said there was no
reason that the Town needed to consider imminent domain, but instead should get what
was promised to it.
Mr. Smyre said on behalf of and with the authority to speak for Mr. Moren, they were
presented a plat that outlined the slope easements and rights-of-way needed including
that needed on Old 86, and they agreed to everything except who would sign the plat
because there is a question as to whether Dave Denison is an officer of the company
and could sign for the Stratford Group.
Mr. Hornik said one way or the other someone would be held accountable, and he
wanted to make sure that we had absolute and complete agreement. Mr. Smyre said we
already had an agreement, and only wanted them to act on that agreement.
Commission Lloyd said they had dealt with this project long enough, and she wanted
this to get done. She reminded Mr. Smyre that it was the Town Board who would
decide this, not the Planning Board. Mr. Smyre responded the agreement was signed
long ago, and they were only questioning whether or not Mr. Denison could sign the
plat. Mr. Hornik said it was similar to his question regarding whether or not Mr.
Smyre could speak for Mr. Marin.
11/07/2006 Planning Board
Mr. Farrelly said he wanted it clear in the record that these agreements had been made
so there was no question later on.
MOTION:
Ms. Vandemark moved that the public hearing regard the Cates Creek roadway be
closed and that the issue regarding the square footage increase for parcels 13 and 22 be
left open to the January public hearing.
SECOND:
Ms. Wallace.
VOTE:
Unanimously approved.
MOTION:
Commissioner Dancy moved to close the public hearing section of tonight's meeting.
SECOND:
Ms. Wallace.
VOTE:
Unanimously approved.
11/07/2006 Planning Board
10
MOTION: Mr. Remington moved that the proposal to move the access and eliminate the Cates
Creek Parkway connection be denied because: 1) it was unsound development to have
so few access roads to this major development; 2) the unsound design would impact
traffic and public safety in Beckett's Ridge and Millstone business park; and 3) it
would delay resolving increasing problems for access from Lafayette Drive and Old
86.
SECOND: Mr. Jones.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
The Board then moved back to the regular order of the agenda.
RETURN TO
ITEM #8: Recommendations to Town Board of rezonings from October public hearing.
B. AMBA Ventures. Ms. Hauth reminded the Board that this was the 3.12 acres that
fronted on NC 86 at the intersection with Highway 70A. She said it was down zoned
when the Town undertook a moratorium in 2000 to set up the Entranceway zoning
district. Ms. Hauth said properties in that vicinity were zoned Limited Office in the
hopes that people would come in and seek an Entranceway Special Use permit. She
said the site was already developed for storage use, and the zoning provided options for
Light Industrial or General Industrial development, as well as Commercial. She said
this project wanted to make use of the Light Industrial option.
MOTION: Mr. Newton moved that the Board recommend approval to the Town Board for this
rezoning. He said it was consistent with the Master land Use Plan and met adjacency
standards.
SECOND: Mr. Remington.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Oliver asked what was the current zoning. Ms. Hauth said Limited Office. Mr.
Oliver asked if there was a difference in setback between Light Industrial and HIC. He
said he wondered how close the buildings were to the property line, and if setbacks
might cause a problem. Ms. Hauth said she did not believe it would be any worse than
what it is under Limited Office. She said that adjacent to HIC would be zero, and
adjacent to Light Industrial would be zero, but Light Industrial adjacent to HIC would
be 30 feet.
Mr. Oliver said where it was zero before, we would be changing it to 30 feet. Mr.
Oliver asked about the proposed expansion. Ms. Hauth responded the applicant was
proposing to build over existing parking spaces that were no longer needed, so it would
not impact the setback to the HIC property.
Responding to a comment from Ms. Ellis, Mr. Hauth stated that the impervious surface
area would not increase, because the area he wanted build on was already paved.
VOTE: Approved 8-1, with Ms Ellis voting no.
C. Weaver Community LLC. Ms. Hauth said this was a request to rezone the back
half of the property from Residential to match the zoning on the front portion of the
property, which was Central Commercial.
Mr. Boericke noted he wanted to recuse himself from the discussion because he was an
adjoining property owner.
11/07/2006 Planning Board
11
MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to recuse Mr. Boericke from this discussion and vote due to his
being an adjoining property owner.
SECOND: Ms. Wallace.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
Speaking as a citizen, Mr. Boericke said his property abutted this property at the rear
where it was zoned R-20. He said in anticipation of something changing with this
piece of property, they had planted significant buffer so they were reasonably well
protected. Mr. Boericke said they had been in discussion with Mr. Horton regarding
how to protect that planting as well as protect some of the trees on his property so that
it would continue to contribute to the buffer area. He said given the proposal as to how
this property would be developed, he was enthusiastic about it and the neighbors had
provided favorable responses as well.
Mr. Boericke said given the specific request for rezoning, regardless of what would be
developed there they were prepared to accept whatever Central Commercial had to
offer. In light of what was proposed, they were delighted.
Responding to a question regarding Gateway, Ms. Hauth stated that N and K Street
would not pass this property, noting it would end at the point where the Gateway
property ended. Mr. Boericke said there was a sewer easement that ran right through
where you would put the road, noting it was in the floodplain. Ms. Hauth said the
right-of-way did not run any further west than the west line of this property.
MOTION: Mr. Oliver moved that the Board recommend to the Town Board approval of the
rezoning request, as it met the Vision 2010 Plan, abided by the Zoning Ordinance, and
the parcel met the general criteria for Central Commercial.
SECOND: Ms. Wallace.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
ITEM #9: Discussion of Draft Strategic Growth Plan document.
Ms. Hauth said the draft provided was not the final document, so there were places in
the document where there were choices that would soon be limited to only one. She
said the Land Use section was not yet ready and required some additional work with
the consultant. Ms. Hauth said the County would hold a public hearing on November
20, the Town will hold a public hearing on November 27, and invited the Board to join
in that discussion to be held in the Gordon Battle courtroom at 7:30. She said a revised
document would be prepared in advance of that public hearing.
Ms. Hauth said the map of most interest was on page 20, noting that the Interlocal
Agreement Version A was what was recommended. She said immediately upon
adoption of this plan, there would be additional processes to go through to extend the
ETJ, with public hearings to determine the zonings in those areas and lots of notices to
the public.
Mr. Oliver asked was it possible to revert back to the Pou family property and drop
Ashton off. Ms. Hauth said yes.
11/07/2006 Planning Board
12
Mr. Newton commented that there had been characterizations by many on what the
Strategic Growth Plan would accomplish or not accomplish. He said the emphasis of
this Plan was mostly on the edges of Hillsborough and it did not focus on anything
currently within Hillsborough. Mr. Newton said it was brought out at the last hearing
that another task force committee comprised of just Hillsborough citizens would
probably have to be established to really hone in on the land use pattern, which was
why there were questions about the land use map element.
Mr. Newton said the Strategic Growth Plan was not a silver bullet that would solve all
of our problems. He said it would interface the Town's land use and water use and the
ETJ with Orange County.
Ms. Ellis said regarding Ashton Hall, was the ETJ area much more desirable to build
on. She said we needed to take a close look at that. Ms. Hauth said Ashton Hall was
there only to draw the jurisdictions so that that property was truly in the Town's
jurisdiction and not an area for joint decision with Orange County.
ITEM #10: Discussion of potential schedule changes.
Ms. Hauth said they had discussed the difficulties when there was a public hearing one
week, the Planning Board met the next week and the Town Board met the following
week. She said the Town Board wanted full sets of minutes from Planning Board
deliberations, and the present schedule did not allow time for that. Ms. Hauth said in
light of that, she suggested a significant scheduling change that would remove the
quarterly hearing process and schedule it on the same night that the Board selected for
the Planning Board meeting. She also suggested shifting the Planning Board meeting
to later in the month. Ms. Hauth said that would result in holding public hearing one
month, not meet to make the recommendation until the next month when there were
minutes available, and then it would go to the Town Board two to three weeks later so
that the draft minutes from this Board would be ready for the Town Board to read. Ms.
Hauth suggested that the third Tuesday would be appropriate for Planning Board
meetings.
Ms. Ellis said it had been suggested in the past that the Board meeting on the Tuesday
after the Town Board met on Monday, which would allow a full month to get the
minutes prepared and submitted to the Town Board for their next meeting. Ms. Hauth
agreed that was a viable option.
Mr. Newton suggested providing the recordings of the meetings on the web site. Ms.
Hauth replied that the files were too large to do that. Mr. Newton stated that their
meeting place needed to be much bigger as well, and suggested the Gordon Battle
courtroom. He said he would like that to be considered along with these schedule
changes. Ms. Hauth said any changes did not have to be implemented immediately,
noting the January hearing might be the appropriate time in order to allow deadlines to
be adjusted. Ms. Hauth said it would carry more emphasis if the Planning Board
adopted a motion to say that the current meeting space was no longer adequate for
public hearings and a new meeting facility should be identified.
11/07/2006 Planning Board
13
MOTION: Mr. Newton moved that the Town Barn facility was no longer adequate to hold public
hearings, and that other facilities should be researched and obtained to hold public
hearings in the future.
SECOND: Ms. Vandemark.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
Ms. Hauth suggested that the Board discuss amending the quarterly meeting schedule
as well. She said there had been an interest by the Town Board not to meet in July, so
the schedule could be altered to meet February, May, August, and November, or
December, March, June, and September. She said she believed the February, May,
August and November schedule was better, noting December was not a good time to
meet.
MOTION: Mr. Newton moved to endorse the quarterly hearing schedule be amended to February,
May, August, and November.
SECOND: Ms. Remington
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
ITEM #11: Follow-up discussion from September 25 training.
Ms. Hauth asked if there were any issues from that session that the Board desired to
discuss. She said she could make the videotape available to anyone who wanted it.
Ms. Hauth said it could also be used as orientation for new members to the Board. A
short discussion ensued regarding the training and its benefits.
ITEM #12: Adjourn.
Upon a motion by Mr. Boericke, seconded by Ms. Wallace, the meeting was adjourned
the meeting at 9:16 p.m.
11/07/2006 Plarming Board