HomeMy Public PortalAbout2.7.2006 Planning Board Agenda and MinutesITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum.
ITEM #2: Adoption of minutes from January 3 meeting
ITEM #3: Additions to the agenda & agenda adjustment.
ITEM #4: Committee reports and updates
• Board of Adjustment
• Parks and Recreation Board
• Churton Street Corridor
• Strategic Growth Plan
AGENDA
PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, February 7, 2006
7:00 PM, Town Barn
ITEM #5: Special Use Permit request from Gandhi, Inc. to build a convenience store with 6 double -sided gas
pumps, 2 -bay carwash, and Huddle House restaurant at 620 Hampton Pointe Blvd (part of 4.45..4c)
Action requested: Recommendation of action to Town Board
ITEM #6: Special Use Permit for M/I Homes to build 134 single family homes on 51.7 acres in pods 1 and 2
of the Waterstone Master Plan
Action requested: Recommendation of action to Town Board
ITEM #7: Special Use Permit for M/I Homes to build 104 townhomes on 22.3 acres in pod 3a of Waterstone.
The plan also includes design and infrastructure for 24 additional units to be built by Orange
Community Housing and Land Trust
Action requested: Recommendation of action to Town Board
ITEM #8: Special Use Permit for Durham Tech to build a 40,000 sf, 2 story classroom building with 200
parking spaces and a 125 space park and ride lot at the intersection of Waterstone Drive and
College Park Road on pod 16 of Waterstone.
Action requested: Recommendation of action to Town Board
ITEM #9: Annexation and zoning request from CCD Corp. for 38.58 acres on the west side on NC57
between Rabbit Drive and Stroud's Creek Rd to be zoned Light Industrial
Action requested: Recommendation of'action to Town Board
ITEM #10: Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Riverbend Phase 2 to create 12 lots on 7.85 acres with access to
Tuscarora Dr and US 70 A. This request also includes a variance request for land use buffers along
the north and east (TMBL 4.37.C.2, 2a, l lc)
ITEM #11: Receive request to define the use "event center" and allow the use with a Conditional Use Permit in
R-20 districts.
ITEM #12: Discussion of Town Board's request regarding Gateway Center site plan modification.
ITEM #13: 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
February 7, 2006
MEMBERS: Jim Boericke, Eric Oliver, Edna Ellis, Toby Vandemark, Matthew Farrelly, Barrie Wallace, Paul
Newton, Tom Campanella, Neil Jones, and Dave Remington.
STAFF: Margaret Hauth. Robert E. Homik, Jr.
PUBLIC: Ray Watson, Dilip Gandhi, Dave Denison, Peter Henn, Ken Redfoot, Alan Pytcher, Wesley Cook,
Emanuel Castel, Alois Callemyn, Bonnie and Robert Bevan.
ITEM #1: Mr. Boericke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and confirmed the quorum.
ITEM #2: Adoption of the minutes from January 3 meeting:
Mr. Boericke suggested one change: Under the Parks and Recreation Board, it should be Bryant
Warren, rather than Brian. Ms. Hauth indicated Dave had two corrections in his report from the
Churton Street.
MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to approve minutes from January 3.
SECOND: Mr. Remington
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
ITEM #3: Additions to the agenda:
No additions. Mr. Boericke suggested switching Items #9 and #10 on the agenda, and there were no
objections.
ITEM #4: Committee reports and updates:
Ms. Hauth reported she has started to send her monthly report, the same report as Town Board gets,
to all the Advisory Boards.
Board of Adjustment:
Mr. Newton reported that the Board of Adjustment met on January 11 and considered a variance
request from Rachel Gaya to allow a tract zoned R20 to be divided into three lots. The Board ruled
against it because she didn't make the case of hardship required for granting that type variance. The
Board of Adjustment also reviewed site plan modifications for Gateway Center. The vote was three
for and two against, and since it required a super -majority, it did not pass. The Board considered the
Wachholz site plan for a Green Building Center at 1508 Orange Grove Road, and voted to approve it.
Consideration of the Orange County site plan was pulled from agenda. The consideration of a
conditional use permit for Talbert's Tire and Auto to conduct personal vehicle sales was approved
with the condition that they sell no more than five vehicles at a time.
Parks and Recreation Board:
Mr. Oliver reported that the Parks and Rec Board met on January 17 and discussed four items:
1. Reports came from members on maintenance needs in parks. A discussion was held of life cycle
funding, or continuing maintenance for the parks, which hasn't been included in original funding
for the parks.
2. A Riverwalk status report was presented by Ms. Hauth who had provided the update report to the
Town Board on 1/23. The Parks and Rec Board approved asking the Town Board to approve a
grant application for the Riverwalk park project, which the Town Board approved on 1/23.
3. A discussion was held of proposed residential components of Waterstone. There were two
2/7/2006 Planning Board
Page 1 of 16
concerns. One was a question of start time of building of the community park since the
completion date is the end of 2008. Also members expressed concern about the lack of tot lots in
Parcels 1 and 2 in Waterstone.
4. Other grant opportunities were discussed and the Board approved asking the Town Board to
submit grant application to fund an archeological investigation of the Riverwalk route,
particularly the old mill and the old bridge abutment area, and Town Board approved the request
on 1/23.
Churton Street Corridor Committee:
Mr. Remington reported that the Committee met January 30. Anne and Susan presented preliminary
ideas on street improvements. After looking at traffic projections, it was determined that part of the
road between I-85 and I-40 needs to be four lanes, two lanes in each direction. The Committee also
discussed development and re -development ideas within the corridor. The Committee agreed that the
Churton Corridor meeting on March 20 would be an open house for the various boards to come and
review the draft of the plan for the corridor.
Strategic Growth Plan:
The Committee held its first meeting January 26 and established some goals. The Committee plans a
website where the committee's plans, work, and meeting minutes will be posted. The next meeting
will be on February 22 at 5:30.
Ms. Hauth responded to a question from the audience about how to locate the website by saying that
the site hasn't been created yet, but it will be a link on the town's website, and the public will be
informed about the site by releases to the press. Ms. Ellis requested information be put out in the
media because not everyone has a computer at home. Mr. Newton said publication at the public
library on a bulletin board and in the newspaper had been discussed.
ITEM #5: Special Use Permit request from Gandhi, Inc., to build a convenience store with four double -
sided gas pumps, 2 -bay carwash, and Huddle House restaurant at 620 Hampton Pointe
Boulevard.
Ms. Hauth stated that the agenda packets contain relevant discussions and the ordinance. The first
page contains Findings of Fact that the Town Board will be asked to make in order to issue these
special use permits on Items 5, 6, 7, and 8. The packet also includes performance standards that
apply generally and then specific standards that apply to special use permits.
Ms. Hauth indicated the site plan is complete. It's a mixture of three uses --the gas sales, the
restaurant sales, and the motor vehicle service or car wash. The packet contains the specific
standards applicable. The summary of public hearing comments from neighboring residents were
about lights, signage, noise, hours of operation, traffic patterns and safety, and general consistency of
the mix of uses with the intent of Hampton Pointe and the goals of Hillsborough. Ms. Hauth had a
few recommended conditions she would like to see attached to all the special use permits:
1. final approval by the town engineer for water and sewer plans;
2. final approval by the town engineer and the engineer for storm water control plans; and
3. that the special use permit be generally consistent with the master plan for development,
particularly with reference to this case and Waterstone.
The applicant's representative, Ray Watson, with J.R. McAdams Company, invited questions
concerning the plans, and Mr. Gandhi was present also to answer questions.
2/7/2006 Planning Board
Page 2 of 16
Mr. Newton asked about the type of lights proposed for the gas station. In response, Mr. Watson said
they are to be white halide lights with the same fixture as Home Depot and lower than Wal-Mart
lights and that the lights have baffles to contain the glare within the property lines. The light will be
recessed in the fixture, which is different than the Wal-Mart lights.
Mr. Newton reported comments/feedback from residents; that they wanted the lights to be recessed
and prefer low-key lighting, the sodium vapor, amber color lighting. The Board suggested strongly
that the applicant consider the Board's preference for this type lighting. The applicant offered to
continue discussion of this issue with the Board, but Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Watson said the metal
halide lights provide a safer atmosphere and are used at other establishments owned by Mr. Gandhi.
Mr. Newton broached the subject of hours of operation and commented that the public has expressed
concern over 24 -hours of operation because of there already being another 24-hour establishment
right there and the problems it's created. Mr. Oliver indicated the applicant has already agreed to
reduce the hours of the car wash facility, and Mr. Gandhi confirmed that the car wash operation will
be closed between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Shutdown will be controlled by an automatic timer and
signage.
Mr. Newton said his interest was in the operational hours of all business there. Mr. Campanella said
that since the Board has allowed one business in Hampton Pointe 24 -hours of operation, it's would be
unfair to determine differently for this applicant. Ms. Wallace noted that because there are already
similar businesses in that location, the town doesn't need more of the same, and she said she doesn't
think the intent of the master plan was to have all these uses on one site.
Mr. Gandhi indicated that his business is bound by the franchise agreement for Huddle House that the
business has to stay open 24 hours a day. He said if Huddle House changes their rule, he would be
willing to consider not operating 24 hours. Mr. Gandhi believes the success of his business would
require operating in the fashion he has already planned to operate.
As far as safety is concerned, Mr. Gandhi indicated that he intends, if necessary, to hire his own
security/police force to ensure safety. As to the noise issue, he does not tolerate loud music on his
properties.
Ms. Vandemark noted that the Marathon station there already is open 24 hours and has white lights.
Mr. Newton mentioned that the Marathon station doesn't have a restaurant like the Gandhi operation
will have. He also expressed his awareness that the residents of Beckett's Ridge have complained
about the poor responsiveness of law enforcement when they are called.
Ms. Ellis indicated she was not present for the presentation of the master plan, having been on the
Board only a year, and asked if this site was designated for this project on the master plan. In
response, Ms. Hauth explained that a range of uses was specified and made available for all of the
outparcel sites, but no specific use was tied to any specific site.
The Board discussed that the atmosphere of such a 24-hour restaurant establishment is not an
attractive or desirable one, and that they were aware of comments from the community that this is not
seen as something that is a valuable contribution to Hillsborough. Mr. Farrelly indicated that the
locals are not supportive of the project in terms of preserving property values. Mr. Boericke
suggested polling the members on potential condition items to move the discussion along. He asked
for consensus about requiring the sodium lighting which is the more amber color. The members and
2/7/2006 Planning Board
Page 3 of 16
the applicant both agreed to that as a condition. Mr. Boericke asked about allowing the 24-hour
operation. Six members agreed and four (Ellis, Wallace, Newton, and Farrelly) did not.
Mr. Boericke asked for vote on whether to recommend the application to the Town Board. Mr.
Campanella asked for a caveat of a heavily planted buffer between 86 and the property.
MOTION: Ms. Wallace moves to recommend denial of the Special Use Permit.
SECOND: Mr. Newton.
VOTE: Seven for to three against. The motion was approved.
ITEM #6: Special Use Permit for M/I Homes to build 134 single family homes on 51.7 acres in pods 1 and
2 of the Waterstone Master Plan.
Ms. Hauth reported that the packets contained a list of suggested or potential conditions necessary to
be in compliance with ordinance:
1. compliance with applicable conditions of approved Master Plan;
2. approval of the drawings by Town Engineer;
3. adequate Public Schools;
4. tlming of the Park development;
5. the connection of Cates Creek Parkway to Old 86;
6. off-site road improvements.
The same standards apply generally in terms of the Findings of Fact that the Town Board will need to
make in order to approve the special use permit. Mr. Boericke suggested combining the discussion of
items 6 and 7.
Dave Denison with Stratford Company introduced himself and said he had been attending all
meetings concerning Waterstone since purchasing the property in April 2005 from Trump Group.
Mr. Denison presented the major items that were requested to be addressed by Stratford:
1. Northern connector road at 86. Right of way agreement being worked out with Mr. Moren.
Denison said that a meeting was set with attorneys the following day to finalize the issue, and
that construction of the road is to begin by July 18, '07. He stated that traffic engineering study
shows this July'07 date well in advance of traffic dictating necessity of road. He mentioned that
the applicant intends securing the commitment financially with the city which is to be discussed
the following day at meeting with attorneys. If construction begins on Parcel 6 before July 18,
'07, road construction will begin at the same time and no later than July 18, '07. The applicant
has engineer's estimates on the cost of the road and the widening of Old 86 and signalization of
the intersection. He is prepared to financially secure that full amount.
2. Access of emergency vehicles into the project until northern road open. Connection is being
built at Cates Creek Parkway to tie into Millstone. The Town Council put in the conditions that
they, the Council, will decide when the connection will be open to traffic in order to control
construction traffic through the neighborhood. The applicant is prepared to provide Type III
barricades at the connection and is willing to put up temporary landscaping on the north side of
the barricade as part of SUP requirements.
3. The Community design is being done by Charles Berger and David Swanson. The Applicant will
submit a preliminary design on the park to the Board by June 1, 2006 and by December 31, '07,
will submit for their SUP on the tract. The applicant will commit to begin construction on Phase
I by August 1, 2008, allowing five months for completion.
4. Tot lots to be addressed by Peter Henn.
2/7/2006 Planning Board
Page 4 of 16
Applicant took bids on all of Phase I the week prior to the meeting and is ready to start the
construction road into the community college within two weeks. The construction road should be
completed by March 1. Utilities are due by August. Waterstone is to be ready to open next year.
Peter Henn addressed the Board explaining an overview of the Waterstone Master Plan of 22 parcels.
Parcels 1 and 2 are single family; Parcel 3 is townhomes; Parcels 4 and 5 are the park; Parcel 6 is not
being discussed tonight, and Parcel 16 is the community college. He only intended to address Parcels
1, 2, and 3, single family and multi -family, at this meeting. At the Public Hearing on January 24, this
applicant submitted an application consistent with the town ordinance. Mr. Henn reported there was
no substantial, competent evidence from the public to refute any of the findings. Mr. Henn reported
that the public hearing issues that came up were design issues, and as the code is written, he reported,
the applicant has met and exceeded all standards, and also that M/I Homes' plan is 100 percent
consistent with the Waterstone Master Plan, 134 homes. The technical requirements have been met
in terms of buffers and width of road. In response to a question at the public hearing, Mr. Henn
reported that M/I Homes has six different product types offered, and Mr. Henn feels the variety will
be aesthetically pleasing.
Mr. Henn invited questions about traffic, design, the parks, and said he had consultants present to
respond. He reported that the applicant is looking forward to a positive recommendation from the
Board on the single-family parcels, 1 and 2.
Mr. Oliver addressed concerns of the Parks and Recreation Board and requested the applicant to
consider a tot lot, specifically with attention to the space between Lots 33 and 34, a space that has no
designated plans. Mr. Henn wished to first point out Parcel 3, the townhomes, has a pool/rec facility
for all single family and townhome residences to share. This is in addition to the community park
and the linear park provided. Mr. Oliver pointed out that Lots 33 and 34 would be a good location
for a tot lot, but the applicant indicated that lot has topographical challenges and suggested that the
lot between 76 and 77, to be called 67A will constitute a tot lot. The Board was in agreement.
Mr. Oliver commended the applicant for their tree survey and asked that a 52 -inch tree in the area be
preserved. Mr. Denison agreed to do his best to work around it and will report to the Board. Mr.
Remington addressed the half -acre lots as being a size to better fit a Charleston or bungalow type
house, and Mr. Denison indicated that at the public hearing in April the applicant will be talking
about Parcel 6, and they are looking at that type of product on that tract.
Mr. Newton reminded the Board that back in March'04, the Master Plan was approved, the applicant
promised the Board that local builders would be considered to work in Waterstone. Mr. Henn
responded that the mayor brought up the issue, and the mayor was not able to get a quorum to support
him. Mr. Henn also said he came back at a later time, talking about the Parcel 6 amendment, and said
to the mayor that since the applicant was requesting to change that parcel from apartments to single
family type product, they would offer to let some lots go to local builders on a first come, first serve
basis. Mr. Henn said he explained to the major and town Board that it is a $10 million project to get
the key infrastructure done, and M/I Homes can get the contract let but didn't think a local builder on
a one -by -one lot basis could handle that task. However, when ready to build the lots, he thought that
that later time is appropriate time to bring up the use of local builders.
MOTION: Mr. Boericke moved to recommend special use permit for M/I Homes to build 134 single family
homes on pods 1 and 2, with provisions stated about a tot lot on Lot 76A and given the conditions on
the road construction.
2/7/2006 Planning Board
Page 5 of 16
SECOND: Mr. Campanella.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Oliver requested consideration of 52 -inch diameter oak tree. Mr. Campanella and Mr. Boericke
agreed to the addition.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
ITEM #7: Special Use Permit for NO Homes to build 104 townhomes on 22.3 acres in pod 3a of
Waterstone.
Mr. Henn showed the townhomes for point of reference, indicating Parcel 1 and 2 which were just
approved and Parcel 3 which is the townhomes adjacent thereto. Of the 128 total, 104 will be built
by M/I Homes; 24 will be a parcel of land sold to Orange County Public Housing Land Trust. They
will then have the right to build 24 below market townhomes, and M/I Homes will contribute $5,000
for each of those homes. He also expressed the applicant's desire to have all 128 townhomes be a
cohesive community.
Mr. Oliver again addressed the tree survey by indicating there are some 29 -inch hardwoods in the
lower left-hand corner of the property. Mr. Henn indicated that that section is the one going to
Orange County Public Land Trust and that the Land Trust will do what they can to preserve trees, but
that his obligation is to deed the land to them. In response to a question from Ms. Ellis about clearing
the lots, Mr. Henn's said that that activity will be under M/I Homes' supervision but there will be
another earthwork contractor. He pointed out that Stratford has overall responsibility, and that they
are going to make sure all buffers are observed.
MOTION: Mr. Oliver moved to recommend that the special use permit for M/I Homes to build the townhomes
in Waterstone be approved.
SECOND: Mr. Campanella.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
ITEM #8: Special Use Permit for Durham Tech.
Ms. Hauth said plans were in the packets with suggested conditions indicated, similar to what's been
presented before. Ken Redfoot, with the architectural firm representing the Durham Tech Orange
County campus, indicated he's available to follow up on the public hearing. Barbara Baker also was
present and Richard Townes.
Mr. Oliver addressed the trees he had circled on the edges of the plan and asked Mr. Redfoot to
consider a couple of specific trees, a 32 -inch white oak and a 31 -inch poplar, to preserve. Mr.
Redfoot agreed to consider the request.
MOTION: Mr. Newton moved to recommend approval for Durham Tech to build a 40,000 square foot, two-
story classroom building with 200 parking spaces and a 125 -space park-and-ride lot at the
intersection of Waterstone Drive and College Park Road on pod 16 of Waterstone, contingent upon
the packet's list of items and the trees.
SECOND: Mr. Farrelly.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
ITEM #10: Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Riverbend Phase 2.
Ms. Hauth reported that the preliminary plan for Riverbend Phase 2 also includes a variance request
to reduce the buffer along the north edge of the property adjacent to the property owned by the
Classical American Homes Preservation Trust. She stated that the Table of Buffers speaks to
2/7/2006 Planning Board
Page 6 of 16
adjacent zoned and adjacent developed property. Since the property is owned by Preservation Trust,
the Board could determine that the adjacent land be considered "developed" rather than vacant, thus
changing the required buffer.
Ms. Hauth reported there was a neighborhood meeting for this project in January, and about 15
neighbors came for discussion with the applicant. With the exception of the buffer, the plan is
generally compliant with zoning of R20, with lots of 20,000 square feet, and the road would be state
maintained because the area is outside city limits.
In response to question from Mr. Boericke, Ms. Hauth suggested the Board make comments to the
applicant for issues to consider and respond to, or the Board could recommend approval of the plan to
the Town Board. She stated that the variance is an issue the Planning Board has sole authority over
and that it will be considered separately.
Ms. Hauth explained, in response to a question from Mr. Oliver about whether the request for
payment in lieu of recreation space is a variance, that the applicant chooses which they want to
provide since it is outside the city limits. If land was offered, it would be owned and maintained by
the Homeowners Association. This issue has not gone before the Parks and Recreation Board for
discussion. The applicant has the option to request it, and the Town Board has final authority.
Alan Pytcher, planner at Summit Consulting, representing Wesley Cook, who also was present, was
available to answer questions.
Mr. Campanella expressed concern that the access road will require destruction of a large white oak
tree, 17 feet in circumference. Mr. Cook said tree has a large hole which compromises the tree's
integrity. Mr. Campanella, Mr. Remington, and Mr. Oliver felt that an assessment of its integrity by a
professional forester is required.
Bill Crowther, registered agent for Classical American Homes Preservation Trust, indicated the Trust
has deed restrictions on the property. Development can be for educational purposes or walking trails,
but driveways and roads are not prevented by deed restrictions. After a question about whether the
entry for this development could be shared with the Trust property to save the tree, Mr. Crowther said
it would have to be approved by the Board of Directors of Preservation North Carolina and the Board
of Classical American Homes Preservation Trust.
Mr. Newton said this property had come before the Planning Board previously without an access to
Highway 70, and it was turned down. Ms. Hauth reiterated that the Town Board turned it down in
response to comments from the neighborhood that the existing entrance is very narrow and has very
poor visibility, and that there needed to be a separate access point. Wes Cook agreed that Tuscarora
needs the access road and sees no other way to do the project without eliminating the tree, unless
some land is obtained from the Preservation Trust.
Ms. Ellis stated that initially there was only one road on the project. Now the plan is not showing a
major subdivision when it is a major subdivision. She questioned the two tracts on 70A that are
zoned AR where one requires a buffer while the other does not. Ms. Hauth answered that it's based
on the minimum lot size and that those lots are considered developed. The Buffer Table indicates
this type of determination first, and then it goes to the zoning or the lot size. The ordinance says if
the adjacent lot is developed, you consider lot size in comparison. One lot is a 20,000 square feet, the
same as lots in the development. So it is nonconforming because it is too small for the zoning district
2/7/2006 Planning Board
Page 7 of 16
that it is in, but it is exactly the same as those being proposed. So there is no buffer required.
Mr. Pytcher responded to Ms. Ellis's question about open space appearing to have an overhead power
line by indicating open space in another area and indicated the line would not come down because it
serves houses there. Mr. Cook said that the lines also serve a factory and that Duke Power has
mentioned the possibility of taking the line down.
Ms. Ellis indicated the plan shows no recreation for children, and she also said the plan indicates
variable right of way, and that the space indicated for sidewalks shows five foot width and no
indication of depth, and that the ordinance requires a five inch depth. Mr. Pytcher agreed to comply
with the sidewalk ordinance. Ms. Ellis said she thinks the development needs to be annexed for
water and sewer, that streets should meet ordinance, and sidewalks should be put in now rather than
just the easement for them.
In response to the question on variable width of the public right of way, the applicant indicated the
variable width right-of-way is the existing right-of-way, and that the applicant has no way to change
that. He also indicated DOT accepted that right of way, to his surprise, because in most places it's
only 40 feet wide.
Mr. Cook said in the first part of Riverbend, the right-of-way is 50 feet and has not been turned over
to the State. The original road was 40 feet, and the applicant put ten more feet. Ms. Ellis said the
ordinance calls for 60 feet of right-of-way. Ms. Wallace saw the narrow street as a good traffic -
calming feature and did not think a wider street is needed. She noted that this was also the consensus
of the neighbors at the meeting regarding the project. Mr. Boericke agreed.
Ms. Ellis thought the present residents would want trees and shrubs planted to maintain privacy. The
applicant responded that there is an existing tree line on the back of the property line to the west, and
that on Preservation Trust's side, there is an open field. The applicant agreed to leave present tree
line.
In response to a question from Mr. Remington about curb and gutter, Ms. Hauth advised that streets
like this have been approved without curb and gutter. Mr. Newton asked why is curb and gutter not
on the plan and also indicated a preference for sidewalks on both sides of the street per ordinance and
with wider streets. The applicant responded that there is no curb and gutter in the rest of the
neighborhood, and the neighborhood residents expressed a desire to keep overall consistency. Mr.
Pytcher said that at a neighborhood meeting, concern also was expressed also about inconsistency of
sidewalks on both sides on the plan while the rest of Tuscarora does not have them. Ms. Wallace
said that no one in the neighborhood was upset about the sidewalks; they just expressed that it's
different from rest of neighborhood.
When Mr. Boericke suggested discussing the variance, Mr. Pytcher said the applicant is asking for a
reduction from 50 feet to 20 feet in the buffer zone between the Preservation Trust land at the north
end of the property and his zoned property.
When Mr. Crowther was asked to respond to the issue, he reported there was no opposition to the
development, but the variance was not addressed. The Preservation Trust thinks the current
ordinance that allows for the buffer needs to stay intact. The Cates Creek area walking trails will
require the buffer, and he doesn't see an unnecessary hardship need to relax this requirement. Ms.
Wallace agreed with this assessment.
2/7/2006 Planning Board
Page 8 of 16
Ms. Hauth responded to a question from Mr. Remington that the variance request is only for the north
side of three lots, 1, 2, and 3, and that the request is to reduce the rear setback from 50 feet to 20 feet.
And that the buffer needs to start at the edge of the property line and can be a freestanding lot that is
not part of the building lots or it's from lot line to a setback line on the private property. Ms. Hauth
pointed out that if that area becomes the buffer, then the property owner could not clear into their
setback.
Mr. Hornik pointed out that the subdivision ordinance is slightly different than the standard for a
variance on a rezoning ordinance and reads the ordinance, Section 8 - Variances, and reads the four
findings necessary to grant the variance. The Board has to make all four findings, and the reason for
giving the variance must be stated in the decision, in the minutes.
MOTION: Ms. Wallace moved that the Board not approve the variance application because she does not find
undue hardship on the developer.
SECOND: Mr. Remington.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Oliver requests discussion, and Mr. Boericke responded to W. Oliver's request for clarification
on what the Board is supposed to do at the current meeting by saying that the object is to approve or
disapprove the variance and choose whether or not to pass to the Town Board or to continue with
another hearing on it. W. Homik agreed by saying that Board has jurisdiction to grantor deny the
variance, but ultimately the Town Board has to act on the subdivision. So the Board can act on the
variance or not and make a recommendation to the Town Board or not on the subdivision plan.
Ms. Hauth responded to a question from Ms. Vandemark about property owner's rights and the
buffer that property owners can't do anything with it, plus the ordinance specifies a landscaping
standard that has to exist within that area. Since the applicant testified it is an open field, if the buffer
is there, they will have to replant it as a solid evergreen hedge to match the definition in the ordinance
for a certain level of opaqueness, meaning a Class D buffer is required. Ms. Vandemark considered
that the back buffer causing the houses to be pushed too far forward on the lots is a hardship. Mr.
Campanella pointed out that the buffer is a positive aspect because the land will never be developed.
Mr. Cook indicated there's already 100 acres in the Trust that won't be developed.
Mr. Remington requested in writing the requirements for approving a variance under the subdivision
ordinance and would like specifics on what the re -vegetation requirements are. Mr. Oliver pointed
out that the majority of the perimeter of the property has the required buffer, and since the applicant
took care of it on the east side, why not on the north side.
MOTION: Mr. Boericke reiterated that the motion on the table is to deny the variance.
VOTE: Three in favor of the motion, to seven against. Motion denied.
Ms. Hauth asked for input about requesting the applicant to supply more information, other than the
white oak tree issue. Mr. Farrelly asked if it can be reconfigured to give northern lots more room.
Ms. Ellis stated that she would like a new plan that shows streets that match ordinance.
An audience member responded that being from the neighborhood and having been present at
neighborhood discussion; that there was no concern about widening the street. There were concerns
expressed about covenants being consistent with what exist in the neighborhood. There was concern
about the road being used as a cut -through and that they wanted stop signs or speed bumps or
something to keep traffic slow. In response to a question by Mr. Campanella about the community's
2/7/2006 Planning Board
Page 9 of 16
response to a cul de sac, she stated there was a petition signed by people on Tuscarora saying they
would oppose the cul de sac because of safety concerns with only one access.
Ms. Wallace said that the neighborhood would like to keep the lighting very low if there is to be
lighting. Mr. Cook said that when Duke Power puts their line in, they put jacks in for street lights,
but that doesn't require the developer to use them. He assured Ms. Wallace that there will be a stop
sign at the cul de sac at Morelanda Road that will help to control speed of traffic.
Mr. Cook said that the covenants will be the same as Riverbend I. Ms. Hauth advised that the Board
should ensure that there are covenants to address anything the Board needs covered by the ordinance.
MOTION: Mr. Boericke moves to continue this issue to the next meeting.
SECOND: Ms. Ellis.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
ITEM #9: Annexation and zoning request from CCD Corporation for 38.58 acres on the west side of NC
57 between Rabbit Drive and Stroud's Creek Road to be zoned light industrial.
Ms. Hauth pointed out that this is the same item from January public hearing. Ms. Hauth had
answers to questions from the public hearing. Adjacent zoning was questioned by the Planning
Board, and almost everything surrounding is zoned AR. The parcels immediately to the south on
Rabbit Drive are existing commercial.
The distance from the existing city limits was a question at the hearing, and the closest city limit to
the south is at the north end of Harper Street, .64 miles. And there is also a satellite portion further
up 57 that are the Phelps and Freeland Farms, and the city limit is .5 miles south of that area, so the
parcel is almost equally located between the two.
The Vision 2010 Plans shows the area as mixed residential. There is a blue spot in this parcel
representing the elementary school as an institutional use. At the intersection of Coleman Loop and
NC 86, it is marked as an industrial node, which is noted in the County's Land Use Plan. Ms. Hauth
wanted the Board to know that as part of the new planning laws, in the future the Board needs to
provide a basis for the decision/ recommendation on zonings and rezonings.
Mr. Newton noted that the annexation and rezoning request didn't provide a site plan. Ms. Hauth
explained that that is necessary only when they're proposing a development as a special use, and that
light Industrial is not a special use zone. Mr. Hornik said the Town Board and this Board have to
consider whether this property, if it's rezoned, is suitable for all the uses that might be permitted in the
light industrial.
CCD agent, Callemyn, was present to answer questions.
Ms. Ellis reported that at the public hearing there was a question about the homes on Rocky Lane and
the distance to the Catholic Church property. Mr. Callemyn reported it is over 800 feet, being two
streets away, and that this property does not touch any homes on Rocky Lane. The only residential
neighbor it touches is Ms. Brown to the west, and Mr. Wilkerson talked to her, and at this point, she
has no opposition to it.
Mr. Boericke asked why not ask the county for Light Industrial zoning. Mr. Callemyn responded at
this time there is a right of way that runs through the property that is town water and sewer, and the
2/7/2006 Planning Board
Page 10 of 16
county has asked the town to provide water and sewer. Mr. Callemyn felt that this area will be town
property some day.
Ms. Ellis said the County had commented on January 13, with regard to the jointly funded Town of
Hillsborough/Orange County Strategic Growth Plan, and she quoted, "Annexation, especially
applying light industrial zoning, should await completion of plan and consideration of plan
recommendations." Mr. Remington agreed.
Mr. Oliver stated that he would like the Town Engineer to come and talk about the claims, about
what the town wants, and how this would be good for the town according to some of the claims made
in the application. To clarify, Mr. Boericke pointed out that the application states the town has an
interest in the water and sewer in this area and would be interested, therefore, in annexing and
rezoning it.
An audience member, Commissioner Mike Gering, was invited to contribute his expertise to the
issue, and said that the interest that the town has had with this property is the extension of services to
it on its way to Pathways, in conjunction with a project to develop affordable housing in northern
Fairview which will need additional water and sewer services provided to it, and there's a potential
for some financial cost sharing that would facilitate both of those projects. He reported that for
engineering reasons, some additional infrastructure needs to be in place. In response to a question
from Mr. Boericke about whether there's some sense of urgency for those needs to be met at Fairview
or Pathways before the Strategic Plan is completed, Mr. Gering answered, "Not from my
perspective."
Mr. Callemyn said he had spoken with several people involved with Strategic Planning. Their
response to Callemyn was that they were looking to the Town, as providers of water and sewer, to
provide the infrastructure for this type of growth. They felt the best place for growth of this type is
adjacent to existing utilities and infrastructure, not outlying areas, Cedar Grove, Schley, Little River,
and they don't desire to move quickly. Mr. Callemyn expressed confidence that this issue has been
addressed as far as the county is concerned.
Mr. Newton responded to a question from Mr. Boericke that the Strategic Plan has not gotten under
way yet, and that Mr. Callemyn is on the committee. After Mr. Boericke asked for a time frame for
the Strategic Plan, Mr. Newton responded that the committee is hoping to have it completed in a year.
Ms. Hauth also added that the committee is hoping for a proposal to go out for public comment this
fall so that by the end of the calendar year the plan would be into the public comment phase and the
Boards would have an opportunity to vote on it. She reported that the clock started January 1 and the
intention is to have it finished by December 31 in terms of approvals and that a draft is supposed to
be ready in September or October.
Mr. Oliver still wanted to see a response for the Board by town engineer to claims made in the
application. Mr. Oliver's opinion was that the plan meets requirements for light industrial and seems
like an acceptable use of this area but he wants more information on water and sewer. Mr. Boericke
agreed with the idea of light industry there but would be more comfortable with the Strategic Growth
Plan in place.
Ms. Ellis brought up a Speed Memo to the Board of County Commissioners from Orange County
Planning and Inspections, containing comments about the Neuse River buffer on the second page.
Mr. Oliver quoted from the Memo about development of this tract would result in much needed
2/7/2006 Planning Board
Page 11 of 16
sewer lines along the existing proposed sewer right of way to serve areas between NC 57 west of NC
86. Ms. Hauth added that the Neuse buffers apply whether annexed or not. Mr. Oliver said he
thought, if developed, it needs a buffer along 57, and that special use phase would address this.
Mr. Callemyn expressed confidence in getting a letter from the town engineer, and if the engineer
agrees, he would like the project to move on. Mr. Oliver would like the town engineer to appear in
person for interaction rather than just by letter.
Mr. Callemyn informed the Board that it is a financial burden on the landowners to wait a year for the
Strategic Plan to be in effect. Mr. Newton informed the Board that the Strategic Plan meeting was
scheduled for February 22. Ms. Hauth said it's too premature to expect a response from this
committee. They have had only one meeting.
Mr. Boericke suggested deferring this issue until the March meeting. There was consensus of the
board members on the delay, so no vote was taken Ms. Hauth felt confident the town engineer could
schedule to appear at the March meeting.
ITEM #11: Receive request to define the use "event center" and allow the use with a Conditional Use
Permit in R-20 district.
Ms. Hauth introduced the item by referencing a letter in the packet and a proposal to create a
residential event center as a conditional use within the R-20 district from Bonnie and Robert Bevan.
Ms. Hauth explained the "tourist home" definition, used for bed and breakfasts, has allowed some
event type activities with no specific authorization. Since the Bevans predominant interest is as an
event center rather than the standard tourist home, there exists greater risk in pursuing the application
for conditional use permit for a tourist home that also includes this major component without it being
specifically authorized in the ordinance.
Bonnie Bevan addressed the Board along with her representative, Lyle Cash. She reported that in R-
20 tourist homes are allowed and that normally tourist homes have meetings and receptions. She
wants to move a historic building to her property to have events on a small scale. In response to
questions, issues were discussed by the Board and by an audience member representing five other
neighbors to the proposed property about traffic created by an event center in a residential zone.
Ms. Hauth pointed out in response to a question from Mr. Boericke that the typical tourist home is
really a residential facility. The two currently in Hillsborough have had a few events, but the Bevans
are asking for more intensive events, focusing less on the lodging aspect. She reiterated her intent in
bringing it before the Board was to further amend the definition of a tourist home to include these
things or provide a new use that would stand alone to address the event type center.
Mr. Boericke pointed out that the issue at hand is that the definition in effect currently could apply to
any R-20 lot in town. After the Board approved the question on the table, then the details could be
addressed about the applicant's intentions.
Mr. Oliver's response was that an event center ordinance is good idea and the Board may want an
event center ordinance not tied to R-20. There needs to be some discussion about frequency or
numbers of participants. Mr. Boericke added his concern that with an ordinance change of this sort,
it opens the door to turning residential properties into commercial properties.
2/7/2006 Planning Board
Page 12 of 16
Mr. Newton redirected attention to the question of whether the Board wants to take on the endeavor
of refining the ordinance. Ms. Hauth added that if the Board chooses not to, then the applicant may
proceed with a text memo on their own.
Mr. Farrelly said he personally knows a family involved in this type of business, and he lives in
proximity to the proposed address, and questioned if he should recuse himself. Ms. Hauth said there's
no legal obligation since he has no financial interest in the outcome, but if he can't be objective, then
he can say so, and the Board can vote to excuse him.
Mr. Oliver reiterated that the question at hand is only about the ordinance, not about the property, and
Mr. Boericke concurred. Mr. Oliver indicated that he would like to take it on in order to have it
framed for future reference.
Ms. Ellis requested more information before making a decision and questioned whether the Board is
working on updating its ordinance at this time and got a positive in response. Ms. Hauth interjected
that the time frame for the re -write is after the Strategic Growth Plan is in place.
MOTION: Mr. Remington moved that the Board consider this and have it on a list of things to be working on.
SECOND: Mr. Oliver.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Boericke suggested the formation of a committee to present ideas back to the Board. Ms.
Vandemark, Mr. Boericke, and Mr. Oliver volunteered.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
ITEM #12: Discussion of the Town Board's request regarding Gateway Center site plan modification.
Mr. Boericke introduced the item by saying that the Town Board has asked the Planning Board to
look into the Board of Adjustment's decision to turn down the Gateway Center proposal at its last
meeting, and that the discussion tonight should be limited to the evidence in the record at the Board
of Adjustment meetings on this matter and particularly those items related to public safety since that
was the reason given for denial of its application.
Mr. Boericke stated the town attorney, Bob Hornik, has advised that the Planning Board has no
authority to direct its representative to the Board of Adjustment, Paul Newton, how he should vote
given the quasi-judicial nature of the Board of Adjustment. However, Mr. Boericke expressed the
Board's interest in the evidence in the record.
Mr. Hornik clarified that his recommendation was not directed specifically to Paul Newton but the
Board. Mr. Boericke pointed out that the Planning Board has received all the safety information from
all the Board of Adjustment meetings pertaining to the Gateway proposal. He directed questions to
Ms. Hauth or Paul Newton. He stated he was asking the Board members whether they think the
Gateway proposal should have been denied and was asking whether, based on the evidence in the
record, Mr. Newton might have been overly cautious, and, if so, would he change his vote. (Mr.
Hornik had to leave the meeting before the conclusion.)
Mr. Oliver asked for the legal precedent for this consideration and expressed his feeling that this
board has no right to review a Board of Adjustment decision. He asked whether the Town Board's
request is legal. In response, Ms. Wallace suggested it was just a request.
Mr. Newton stated that this question was not technically a request from the Town Board; it was a
request from two members of the Town Board, according to the record he received from Ms. Hauth.
2/7/2006 Planning Board
Page 13 of 16
Ms. Hauth received the draft minutes from the Town Board's clerk which indicated no motion by the
Town Board to request this.
Mr. Oliver reported he was at the town meeting and understood there was a desire of members of the
Town Board to see if the Planning Board could direct the Planning Board member on the Board of
Adjustment on how to vote. He reported that the decision from the town attorney said the Planning
Board cannot do that.
Mr. Campanella reported he was also present at the Town Board meeting being discussed, and, in his
understanding, there was also a sense that there's a collective body of expertise on the Planning Board
that may be consulted when assessing site plans. He saw the intention on the part of the Town Board
was to consult the Planning Board and their expertise.
Mr. Oliver interjected that there is 12 months worth of meetings on this subject and that this Board
cannot get the whole story from a packet of information.
Ms. Wallace suggested requesting the courtesy of Mr. Newton's explanation of what occurred. Mr.
Oliver stated the lack of understanding of what happened at the meeting is due to the minutes not
being published yet and expressed that he happens to be in favor of the Gateway Center, but he
believes this Board has nothing to lend to the decision due its lack of history and complete
information.
Mr. Boericke reiterated his understanding that Mr. Newton objected to the proposal on public safety
grounds, and, if so, since public safety and nothing else was cited as the reason for objection, the
Board doesn't need to look at the whole gamut of information. He expressed his interest in
understanding the background enough to appreciate Mr. Newton's answers.
Ms. Ellis agreed with Mr. Newton's vote, she said, because in 1987 there was a study plan, and the
capacity/efficiency report said Churton Street at that time was currently operating at beyond its
desirable capacity, carrying about 12,000 vehicles per day. She concurred that in her experience in
that area traffic problems exist four different times a day presently.
Mr. Farrelly said he would like to talk about it just in summary and hear Mr. Newton's perspective in
that a lot of people are talking about it. Mr. Oliver acknowledged it is a subject that a lot of people
are interested in, invested in, but he strongly objected to any action taken by this Board to try to
recommend a decision to Mr. Newton or to have any vote on this subject.
Ms. Wallace said she believes if the Board members have questions of another Board member, that
person is obligated to answer them, as a representative of this Board.
Mr. Boericke suggested taking the voting off the agenda. Mr. Oliver asked if there, in fact, was to be
a vote. Mr. Boericke admitted he was curious if, in fact, after reviewing the public safety
information, if the Board might feel that it warranted denying the proposal, and suggested discussion.
Mr. Oliver agreed.
Mr. Jones questioned if any member of one board appearing at another Board's meeting can re -vote,
and wanted to know how the vote is influenced. Mr. Boericke responded that Mr. Hornik's
conclusion was that the member is independent, and with regard to the Board of Adjustment in
particular, given its quasi -legal status, the members of the Board have to make their own decision.
2/7/2006 Planning Board
Page 14 of 16
Mr. Boericke restated that he just wants to know what happened and requested that Mr. Newton
explain.
Mr. Newton indicated he was not sure what he should say considering the newspaper has reported
that the applicant intends to sue the town, and the attorney, Mr. Homik, isn't present to consult. Ms.
Wallace said if there is a lawsuit, it's all based on what is in the record. Mr. Newton said the Board
of Adjustment has to make decisions based on evidence presented at the meetings, and that tie in with
Mr. Hornik's statement that members of one Board can't tell a member on another Board how to vote
since that influence is not testimony that's being presented to the Board.
And he stated there was evidence given which is not in the packet, and reiterated that this Board does
not have all the evidence by the applicant or operations people for Weaver Street Market about their
traffic impact analysis. Mr. Newton reported that a representative of Weaver Street stated they intend
to take annual sales of $5 million a year and an average transaction is $20, and that this would
indicate anywhere from 685 to 700 transactions a day. The applicant said there would be outdoor
concerts, art displays, and that it would be a new town center. Mr. Newton added that the traffic
impact analysis from the consultant paid for by the applicant was presented. When the motion was
made to approve the project, he dissented because of the fact that the traffic impact analysis made it
clear that the Gateway Center would require certain traffic improvements at intersections of N and K
and Churton Street and Exchange Club Park and Churton Street. The recommendation for a traffic
signal was not in the plan of the applicant. Ms. Hauth said the applicant has the ability to pay for one
and offer to install it, and it is installed when DOT says so.
Mr. Campanella asked if the Board could have approved it pending the suggested considerations, and
Mr. Newton said the applicant wasn't willing to and that the applicant was misstating that
signalization wasn't warranted while the traffic impact analysis indicated otherwise.
Ms. Wallace asked about the Gateway Center that was originally approved and why the traffic report
previously was approved. Mr. Oliver indicated there were different businesses in the two proposals.
Mr. Campanella asked if the traffic signal had been agreed to, would that have gotten approval. Mr.
Newton indicated he had other concerns but that the applicant was not offering and showed no
indication they would include the signal. The applicant stated that the MUTCD standards did not
warrant the signal, while in the same document the traffic engineer indicated the level of service
required, and his report had recommended it.
In response to a question from Mr. Farrelly, Mr. Newton said that, to his understanding, if the
applicant expressed interest in changing their position, they can resubmit. Ms. Hauth advised that to
resubmit, they have to wait a year and that conditional use and site plans don't carry the option for the
Board to waive the waiting period.
Mr. Newton asked Ms. Hauth if she was going to investigate the question that a vote of three to two
would mean it wasn't approved but it wasn't defeated, and whether that gave them a right to re -submit
without waiting a year. Ms. Hauth's response was she hasn't gotten a definitive answer from the town
attorney. Ms. Hauth indicated in response to a question, that there can be only five participating
members on the Board of Adjustment at any meeting. There are seven members including two
alternates, but an alternate can only sit when there's a member absent. Mr. Hauth explained that with
re-application, the applicant can come forward with a substantially different proposal, or in order for
2/7/2006 Planning Board
Page 15 of 16
the Board of Adjustment reconsider the application, the motion has to come from one of the two
members that voted against it.
Ms. Wallace asked Mr. Newton if there is anything he could hear from the applicant that would affect
his position. Mr. Newton said the Board of Adjustment made it clear in the December meeting the
concerns that they had about safety and traffic and that the Board had asked the applicant to address
these issues in the site plan.
Mr. Newton pointed out, in response to a question from Mr. Boericke that the updated traffic impact
analysis provided by the applicant listed the light as a specific requirement and that their final traffic
analysis said there are two intersections that require improvements. Mr. Newton reported that the
applicant's response to this information was that they said it wasn't warranted based on the MUTCD.
Mr. Remington concurred by reading from the applicant's response that, "Installation of this signal is
not currently warranted based on standards presented in the most recent edition of the MUTCD."
Mr. Oliver stated that the decision wasn't made on one issue. There was a significant change in the
proposal perceived by some as a significant improvement from December to January, and perhaps the
vote was pushed by the application prematurely. In response to a question from Ms. Vandemark, Mr.
Newton reiterated that, yes, the original plan was approved without the light, but the revised plan
created safety concerns due to outside events, similar to the Carrboro establishment, and that the
safety concerns outweighed even their precautionary proposed iron fence. Mr. Boericke expressed
appreciation for Mr. Newton's responses.
ITEM #13: MOTION: Mr. Boericke made a motion to adjourn.
SECOND: Mr. Farrelly.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
�Ll-
MargaretHauth, Secretary
2/7/2006 Planning Board
Page 16 of 16