HomeMy Public PortalAbout8.1.2006 Planning Board Agenda and MinutesTown
ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum.
ITEM #2: Adoption of minutes from June 26 meeting.
ITEM #3: Additions to the agenda & agenda adjustment.
ITEM #4: Committee reports and updates
• Board of Adjustment
Parks and Recreation Board
US 70/Cornelius Street Corridor Task Force
AGENDA
PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, August 1, 2006
7:00 PM, Town Barn
ITEM #5: Consideration of extending Preliminary Plan approval for Willowbend
subdivision for 6 months.
Action requested: Vote to extend preliminary plan approval.
ITEM #6: Recommendation to the Town Board regarding Walters' rezoning request
Action requested: Recommendation to Town Board, including 160A-383
statement
ITEM #7: Recommendation to the Town Board regarding Old 86 zoning and Master Plan
request
Action requested: Recommendation to Town Board, including 160A-383
statement
ITEM #8: Recommendation to the Town Board regarding Churton Street corridor plan
Action requested: Recommendation or discussion
ITEM #9: Discussion of potential public planning event to develop concepts for the Daniel
Boone and Collins properties
Action requested: Discussion
ITEM 410: Adj ourn
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
August 1, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Matthew Farrelly, Neil Jones, Paul Newton, Eric Oliver, Dave
Remington, and Toby Vandemark.
ABSENT: Jim Boericke, Edna Ellis, Tom Campanella, and Barrie Wallace; absence excused.
STAFF: Margaret Hauth and Bob Hornik.
ITEM #1: Call to Order and Confirmation of a Quorum.
Mr. Farrelly called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and confirmed the quorum.
ITEM #2: Adoption of Minutes.
MOTION: Mr. Newton made a motion that the minutes of the June 26, 2006 Planning Board
meeting be adopted.
SECOND: Mr. Jones.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
ITEM #3: Additions to the Agenda and Agenda Adjustment.
MOTION: Mr. Newton moved to postpone discussion on Items #4, Committee Reports, and Item
#8, the Churton Street Corridor Plan.
SECOND: Mr. Newton.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
ITEM #4: Committee Reports and Updates. Postponed to the September meeting.
ITEM #5: Consideration of extending Preliminary Plan approval for Willowbend subdivision
for six months.
Mr. Farrelly noted that the actual request was to extend preliminary plan approval. Ms.
Hauth provided a brief overview of the issue, and called the Board's attention to the
letter from the developer contained in the packet.
Mr. Oliver asked if they had to have the preliminary plan completed, or was it the fact
that they needed to turn in a final plat before the two-year time limit was up. Ms. Hauth
said they needed to turn in a final plat, which meant that the entire infrastructure was
complete or they had submitted a bond for the price of the outstanding infrastructure.
Mr. Oliver said then they could have submitted a bond rather than ask for the extension.
Ms. Hauth said there was the issue of the bond running for a year, which might not have
been acceptable to the developer.
Mr. Oliver asked if the final plat had to be approved or only submitted by the time limit.
Ms. Hauth said submitted only, noting it required a staff approval
MOTION: Mr. Newton moved to extend the preliminary plan approval for the Willowbend
subdivision for six months.
SECOND: Mr. Remington.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Oliver asked how many extensions were allowed. Ms. Hauth said there could be
successive extensions, but she was not aware of a limit on the number. Mr. Oliver said
2
then the developer would have to make another request to the Board to extend it further.
Ms. Hauth said that was correct. Mr. Homik said no limitation was provided in the
Ordinance or the Code regarding the number of extension a person could ask for. He
said it was at the discretion of the Board.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
ITEM #6: Recommendation to the Town Board regarding Walters' rezoning request.
Ms. Hauth provided an overview and reminded the Board of the discussion that had
taken place on July 25. She said there had been a valid Protest Petition submitted,
which represented more than 5% of the property area as required. Ms. Hauth said there
was some question regarding the map submitted by the applicant, noting there appeared
there might be some discrepancy between the Town's zoning map and the applicant's
map. She said the question regarded some implication that the road carried some
zoning. Ms. Hauth said it was a public easement but not necessary a dedicated right-of-
way that had been accepted by NCDOT, so that implied from looking at the Land
Records that that land was still owned by the person who owned the property, and
therefore would carry a zoning.
Ms. Hauth said this was an unusual circumstances and not often seen. She said she had
included the Goals and Objectives section of the Vision 2010 Plan and an excerpt from
the new Planning legislation 106A-383, which stated the Board had to offer a
recommendation or statement to the Town Board for all new rezoning actions.
Mr. Oliver said Highland Loop was basically a gravel road. He asked if that was used
by the US Postal service to deliver mail. She said she did not know. Mr. Oliver stated
there were a couple of houses off of that loop, and asked if the Town or the County
patrolled that road. Ms. Hauth said she believed the County did since it was outside the
Town's limits. She said the deed that called out the easement said that it was dedicated
for public use, but it was never specifically dedicated to the NCDOT. Mr. Oliver said
he had visited the site and there were no signs indicating it was a private road, so it was
considered a public right-of-way in that anyone could drive down the road. Ms. Hauth
said that was correct. She said the property owners that abutted the road maintain it at
their expense, since the NCDOT did not.
Mr. Hornik said Ms. Hauth's point was that fee title to the property had never been
surrendered to the State or to any other entity. He said with most subdivisions the roads
were dedicated or conveyed to the Town, but that was not the circumstance here. Mr.
Homik said you have an easement created by deed that benefited the public generally,
but the fee title to the property had never been conveyed out to any public entity.
Mr. Oliver said in 1992 this had come before the Board and was turned down and asked
if there was a record of why. Ms. Hauth said it was her recollection that it was because
of opposition from the neighborhood.
Mr. Newton said then with the exception of this one parcel that had requested rezoning,
the surrounding parcels were already zoned Commercial. Ms. Hauth said that depended
on what was meant by surrounded. Mr. Newton said the property on the other side of
the road were zoned Commercial. Ms. Hauth said that was correct.
08/01/2006 Planning Board Minutes
Mr. Oliver said having driven the site and visited Highland Loop Road, that on the
Walters' side there was a ditch that the length of the property that further separated it
away from the area zoned Commercial on the opposite side. He said it seemed to be a
clear separation to him, with no connection between the two. Mr. Oliver said he saw
that this property had much more to do with the residential aspect of the area than the
commercial. He said he saw the roads as the boundary for the Commercial.
Mr. Newton provided copies of the Vision 2010 Plan map and said the request is
consistent with that Plan. Mr. Oliver said that the Plan seemed to dictate retail activity
on that particular parcel, so that rezoning did appear to be consistent with the 2010 Plan
based on the Land Use Map. Mr. Newton added that some of the membership on that
Vision 2010 Plan committee actually lived on St. Mary's Road.
Mr. Farrelly asked whether "retail activity" was the same as General Commercial area.
Ms. Hauth noted that General Commercial zoning included retail. Mr. Farrelly said
since we had no zoning that was strictly for retail the designation could be interpreted as
vague with respect to all the uses that were permitted under General Commercial. Mr.
Hornik said he wanted to remind the Board that what this Board and the Town Board
were suppose to be considering with respect to requests to rezoning property to a
General Use district was the suitability of a particular property for all of the uses that
were permitted in that district. Mr. Homik stated that if the Town Board rezoned it to
General Commercial, then any one of the uses allowed under that zoning could possibly
be placed on this property, so that was something that had to be considered.
Mr. Farrelly said that the General Commercial district also stated that normal standards
would be used to assure the absence of adverse impacts beyond the zoning district
boundary. He said it was hard to reconcile all of those things because, for instance, a
dry cleaners was one of the listed uses, so if a property were zoned General Commercial
there would be a necessary consideration regarding the chemicals that were used. He
said it might be determined that a dry cleaners carried an adverse health impact. Mr.
Farrelly said it would seem superficial on some level, but at the same time it was an
impact. Mr. Hornik stated he believed we could go down the list of uses and imagine
such a use on the site with the associated impacts, to help get an idea as to whether this
particular piece of property was suitable for such uses.
Mr. Farrelly said he could not imagine the traffic flow, and asked with people coming
off of US 70, how would they turn into the site. He said if a restaurant were placed
there it could generate high volume during rush hours. Mr. Farrelly said anything like
that which could generate a high volume of traffic would not be pleasant. He
mentioned that noise might also be an issue for neighbors.
Mr. Remington said it was possible that a convenience store might be placed there,
although a service station would require a Conditional Use permit with Board of
Adjustment approval. Ms. Hauth said that process was not as flexible as a Special Use
Permit, but was not as tightly drawn as a site plan.
08/01/2006 Planning Board Minutes
El
Mr. Farrelly said the terminology of the Vision 2010 Plan was not consistent with
zoning, so that was one vagary. He said the other was he wondered how closely people
inspected each lot with regard to the Plan. Mr. Hornik said he was sensing some
discomfort by the Board as to the possible uses of this property. He said the Board's
recommendation to the Town Board could contain a statement such as according to the
Vision 2010 Plan, this intersection was designated as a retail activity area, however
when we look at the list of uses allowed in a General Commercial district and consider
the suitable of the property for each and every use allowed, then we are concerned about
these particular uses. Mr. Hornik said that could be the basis for a recommendation that
the General Commercial district was not appropriate for this parcel.
Mr. Oliver agreed that when retail was used as a description in the Vision 2010 Plan
that was too narrow. He said they should have used terminology and descriptions in
keeping with the Zoning Ordinance, and in this case this description was too narrow for
what the zoning might be on this particular parcel. Mr. Oliver said he believed this
parcel needed to remain residential, since many of the possible uses could seriously
disturb the neighborhood. Mr. Farrelly said he felt the same, noting there were too
many possibilities of incompatible uses should it be rezoned.
Mr. Remington said we were basing our thoughts on the character of what was adjacent
to it now, but if some of the other property that was already zoned General Commercial
had more typical uses on it like a dry cleaners or a restaurant, then this piece of property
would loose its value. The members discussed the adjacent property and its potential
use and access.
Mr. Newton said he found the rezoning request to be consistent with the surrounding
property. He said this area would have commercial and retail development at some
point. Mr. Jones noted his discomfort with the "retail activity" terminology.
MOTION: Mr. Oliver moved that the rezoning request for the 1.67 acres at 430 St. Mary's Road be
denied. He said the property was more consistent with the residential area in which it
currently resided and abuts, and there would be negative impact on the residential area
should it be rezoned to allow retail uses. Mr. Oliver said that even though the Vision
2010 Plan map indicated that this area was to be retail, the General Commercial zoning
was too broad and had uses that would have negative impacts on the area.
SECOND: Mr. Remington.
DISCUSSION: A question was asked regarding intended uses of the property. Mr. Hornik responded
that if the applicant came back at a later time with a plan in place for the parcel's use,
then it was possible a Special Use or Conditional Use might be granted. Ms. Hauth
added that if they came in for an Entranceway Special Use zone then the Board would
tie the request to their specific proposal. She said that meant they did have an
alternative. Ms. Hauth added that there was another zoning district, Neighborhood
Business, that was much more limited. She said while it had retail in it, it only
contained about ten permitted uses.
VOTE: The vote was 5-1, with Mr. Newton voting Nay.
ITEM #7: Recommendation to the Town Board regarding Old 86 Zoning and Master Plan
request.
08/01/2006 Planning Board Minutes
5
Mr. Farrelly said that several of the. Board members had not been present when this had
first come before the Board, and asked if the applicant should provide a thumbnail
overview. Ms. Hauth said there was no new information provided by the applicant at
the last hearing. She said by the next meeting the Board would have minutes from both
public hearings to refer to.
Mr. Farrelly suggested the Board have some limited dialogue. Mr. Oliver said currently
the parcel was two lots, and wanted to make it three lots that would allow them to sell
any one of the three lots. He said the request was for annexation, then rezoning with a
Master Plan. He said if we annexed and rezoned, then the applicant could sell any one
of those three lots at any time. Ms. Hauth said the Master Plan did provide in broad
stokes what could be developed, but they would still have to go through the Special Use
Permit process. She said our ordinance also provided that if someone requested a
Special Use Permit that was not consistent with the Master and the Board went ahead
and approved it, then the Master Plan was considered to be amended.
Mr. Hornik said essentially this request was for a Special Use rezoning, and though the
applicant had not provided us with what they envision the site, if the Town Board were
approve this then they might propose some conditions on the Master Plan. He said he
was concerned that they were using impervious surface in Lot 2 to allow the building in
Lot 1. He said if they were to sell lot 1, they could not use that impervious surface in
Lot 2 to cover Lot 1, and then it be sold.
Mr. Hornik clarified that the Section 160A-383 statement that was required for the
recommendation to the Town Board was regarding the zoning, not the annexation. Ms.
Hauth said this Board did not have a formal role to plan in the annexation, but they
could make a recommendation they choose to. Mr. Hornik said this Board could ignore
the entire annexation part of this, since by Statute that was purely a legislative decision
that did not require any recommendation from this or any other Board in order for the
Town Board to act on it. He said that was not to say that if the Board thought it was
relevant as far as its consideration of the entire project that they could not say
something about the annexation as well. Mr. Hornik said but, what the Board was
suppose to be focusing on was the land use aspects of the proposal and not whether or
not it because a part of the Town or not. Mr. Farrelly said this Board was an advisory
board, so he believed they could give advice on any thing they chose to.
Mr. Newton said if you looked at our currently approved Comprehensive Plan, that
looked like a portion of what was being asked for was considered to be mixed use non-
residential, and the part north of the creek was considered to be mixed use residential.
But, he said, on the Strategic Growth Plan Committee, they did not have any kind of
formal document but did have four drafts of scenarios, and in three of those scenarios it
appeared that the portion north of the creek was considered to be an area for new
development. He said he believed that was worth noting. Mr. Newton passed around
scenarios maps the consultants are using for the Strategic Growth Plan.
Mr. Hornik asked if those three scenarios forecast a use. Mr. Newton said they only
stated that they were areas for new development. He said he guess based on the
Committee's creative thinking exercises was that commercial development was the
08/01/2006 Planning Board Minutes
on
choice, not residential. Mr. Newton said he believed one of the scenarios would be
reviewed later this month.
Mr. Farrelly wondered if it would be more useful to get into this in more detail after the
Board had an opportunity to see the minutes from both minutes. Mr. Oliver said it was
important for the applicant to hear any concerns that the Board might have, so that those
issues could be address at the next meeting. He said it was more important that more
than just the six of us cast opinions on this, so hopefully we would have a better
attendance at the next meeting.
Mr. Oliver said he was concerned that this parcel would be split into three lots and sold
to separate people, and anything that the Master Plan said we would have no control
over. He said he was concerned that any restrictions they placed on the lots, such as
complying with CPTED restrictions, might not be carried over to the new owners. Ms.
Hauth said regarding the imperious surface that was part of the flexibility that this
district allowed, to transfer the development intensity across the parcels. She said the
Boards were then charged with determining if that was appropriate. Ms. Hauth said the
impervious surface limit in this district was 50% and they met that, but do they meet
that on an individual parcel. She said the answer was no, not necessarily, but that was
one of the issues that came with this increased flexibility.
Mr. Remington said he had a concern about the building on Lot 3 because of the
floodplain, regardless of whether the Town allowed the elevation. He said he believed
allowing that building on Lot 3 would contribute to the flooding concerns, because there
would be less area for floodwaters to spread out.
Mr. Newton said he would like to see some effort on the part of the developer to address
the concerns regarding the fence that were brought forward by the neighbors,
particularly regarding a barrier.
Mr. Oliver said about Lot 3, he was concerned about the floodplain as well, noting that
the parking lot was located in the floodplain as well. He said he did not have as much
concern about Lots 1 and 2, but wished they were one lot. He said the fence was an
issue of concern for him as well.
Mr. Remington said the neighbors had some obvious concerns that were not satisfied by
the vegetation, but he was not an advocate of big walls. He said some of the issues that
the neighbors had brought up were not compatible as well. He said there appeared to be
a lot of room to develop a creative way to deal with the concerns raised by the
neighbors, and do it in ways that were realistic.
Sheila Pierce, the applicant, clarified that they had brought back information at the
Public Hearing to address the twelve points they were given, and with Ms. Hauth's help
had answered every one of those items, including the TJCOG's report that addressed the
CPTED in regards to this property. She said she believed a lot of new information had
been provided. Mr. Newton asked had there been any modifications made to the plan.
Ms. Pierce responded no. She said regarding the fence, they were open to engage in a
conversation about what type of fence the neighbors might consider, taking into
08/01/2006 Planning Board Minutes
CPTED's language about not putting in a wall. Ms. Pierce said they were not opposed
to an opaque fence with good vegetation, but she had great concerns regarding the
placement of a brick wall for many reasons. She said it would unfairly disturb the
environment to construct it, particularly the placement of the footings. Ms. Pierce said
it was cost prohibitive, and was not a long-term good idea when there were other
alternatives. She reiterated that they were not opposed to putting in what might be
considered a reasonable fence to accommodate not only the design to limit the view but
to block access and provide some boundary for the neighbors.
Ms. Pierce said regarding Lot 3, if they were to enter into a conversation about
eliminating the opportunity to build on Lot 3, she would ask that the Board consider the
fact that she needed to somehow and recover some of the value of that Lot. She said
she did not want the cost of the infrastructure to exceed the value of the lot. Ms. Pierce
asked she would like to keep Lot 3 in such a way that she had some options for it. She
suggested that the Town or the County might have interest in it for green space.
Ms. Pierce said she had spoken recently to the Triangle Land Conservatory to discuss
the opportunity to donate property. She said there would be some tax credit in that it
would allow her to recover some of the value of the property. Ms. Pierce said if they
did decide to follow that path, she asked if it would be possible to move the property
line to take in the entire creek and include it with the green space. She said she was
open to discussing that.
Tony Whitaker, with Civil Consultants, Inc., stated that if this project were to be
annexed and approved with the Master Plan, it would be fair to say in response to the
question regarding the zoning that it was an Entranceway Special Use district with a
specific Master Plan attached. He said if someone tried to carry out something other
than the Master Plan with Special Use Permit, they would be in violation of the zoning.
Mr. Whitaker said regarding the impervious surface, it had been interpreted in past
instances of this zoning district being approved that imperious surface transferred
between lots, so that if one lot had less than the required 50% then impervious surface
was considered comprehensively of all the lots involved and not lot by lot. Mr.
Whitaker said that was their specific request for this application as well.
Mr. Farrelly said regarding the fence, what he wanted to see was the applicant making
an effort to work with the neighbors to come up with something they could both live
with, and if they could not then to come back and alert the Board about that.
Mr. Jones asked if Ms. Pierce had said a brick wall as suggested was not an option. Mr.
Whitaker said it was their position that a brick wall was not a feasible option, and was
not feasible from many sources and perspectives. He said the brick wall option as
described by the neighbors, being mostly a continuous brick wall along the property
line, was not on the table as an option because it was not an option they believed could
be implemented and did not want to waste time talking about it. Mr. Whitaker said they
did want to spend the time talking about what could be done.
08/01/2006 Planning Board Minutes
Mr. Oliver agreed that the brick wall should not be an option, noting it was mostly for
sound deadened and not to separate neighborhoods from this kind of development. He
said it was more appropriate to separate a neighborhood from a street. Mr. Oliver said
he would anxiously advise the neighborhood to think about alternatives and the
opportunity they had to control what happened in that parking lot. He said if you had a
fence such as a wrought iron fence that you could see through, but made it difficult for
people to cross over into the neighborhood, then if someone was in the lot after hours
they could alert the police.
Mr. Oliver noted that with an eight -foot brick wall, they would not be able to see what
was happening in the lot. He said having a fence that you could see through provided
for some Neighborhood Watch activities. Mr. Oliver added he did not believe there was
a need for sound protection as much as there needed to be a clear delineation to keep
people out of the neighborhood, and a wrought iron fence or something like it was more
appropriate.
Mr. Whitaker stated they did have several ways to be creative about expanding the
actual depth of that buffer without loosing any development opportunities. Mr. Newton
said he believed they were heading in the right direction, and knew Mr. Whitaker was
very creative. He said he did not want to discuss this further, but rather he wanted to
see what was planned. Mr. Jones said he was in favor of not developing Lot 3, and
believed that some sort of fence would have to be constructed.
Ms. Pierce asked if there were any other major issues that needed to be addressed when
this came back on September 5. Mr. Newton asked if any changes would require
another public hearing. Ms. Hauth said if the changes were a reduction, it would not
require another public hearing.
Mr. Newton said if they were to look seriously at an offer for the property from Orange
County or the Town, would that cause problems for either of the two. Ms. Hauth said
we did not have a pot of funds available in order to make an offer to purchase, but we
could accept it as a donation for green space. Mr. Whitaker said under that scenario,
Lot 3 would exist with stringent limitations on what it could be used for, but it would
not have to be bought or committed to any anyone at the point of approval. He said it
would be available for future disposition in a variety of ways, one of which could be
purchase by a public entity. Ms. Pierce asked if there was any comment on her
suggestion to move the lot line. Mr. Oliver asked Ms. Hauth if it were permissible
through the current process to grant some sort of exception for impervious percentages
if the applicant were to donate all of this property that took away their capability to
meet some impervious percentage. He asked if the donation of the property allow them
to have something like that. Ms. Hauth said it was possible to do that. Mr. Hornik said
looking at the 11+ acres as a whole package and saying that 50% of that had to be
impervious, the idea would be that later on if you exhausted your entire 50% on the first
two lots then on the third lot you would have zero impervious surface, so there would
have to be a limitation built in on that. He said if you used 48% of it on Lot 1, then that
meant that on Lots 2 and 3 you had only 2%.
08/01/2006 Planning Board Minutes
Margo Pinkerton asked to be allowed to speak, and Mr. Farrelly noted that this was not
a public hearing and that much was already a part of the public record. He allowed her
to speak for one minute.
Ms. Pinkerton said the CPTED report was presented from only one point of view, and
she had contacted them and they admitted they had not realized a neighborhood was
involved. She said because of that, the Board should ask for further clarification of that
point of view. Ms. Pinkerton said if you had 50% impervious surfaces on the lots and it
was placed on one lot, that was a huge percentage. She said there was an unmarked
stream that was not indicated on the map.
ITEM #8: Recommendation to the Town Board regarding Churton Street Corridor Plan.
Postponed to the September meeting.
ITEM #9: Discussion of potential public planning event to develop concepts for the Daniel
Boone and Collins properties.
Mr. Farrelly said he believed everyone had either heard or read about the news that the
Daniel Boone property and Collins properties were on the market. Ms. Hauth stated
that there were firms that we could hire to run a variety of public process to involve the
boards, the property owner, or the public regarding what we might want to see on this
property. She said that Clarion Associates was one such firm, and she wanted to give
the Board the opportunity to offer suggestions about a scope and description and a
proposal either for firms to respond to or for the Board to respond to.
Ms. Hauth said they hoped, ideally, to be able to host something in October or no later
than November so that it would not negatively impact any timeframe that the potential
property owners might have. She said it was her understanding that only the Daniel
Boone Village portion of the site was on the market, but it appeared to her that it would
be to our advantage to look at the entire piece with a broader view.
Mr. Newton stated that his initial reaction was that this site was a great opportunity. He
said there had been a report done in 2001 regarding how much commercial
development Hillsborough could handle. Today, he said, we have had many
commercial properties approved but we had commercial spaces that were empty. He
asked how much more commercial could we realistically support, and were we already
beyond our saturation point. Mr. Newton said we wanted to be sure that new
commercial property built would be filled with new businesses. Mr. Newton expressed
concern about the length of time for any process. He said if we come up with a four-
year process like we did with Waterstone, then all a developer had to say was they
would not develop it. He said if we came up with a monstrous process, it might be
overwhelming to a developer who wanted to redevelop the property. Mr. Newton said
he really wanted to know where we were in our commercial capacity. He said it was
likely that whatever happened at that location, there would be a good deal of
commercial involved. He said the 2001 report said that Hillsborough could support two
large box stores, but since then we had approved many other commercial sites. Mr.
Newton said it would be worthwhile to have that question answered.
08/01/2006 Planning Board Minutes
10
Ms. Hauth said she saw the event as a one -day event, and described how she envisioned
that day would be scheduled, similar to a design charette. Mr. Newton asked if Clarion
would be the company she would recommend. She said possibly, noting she had
worked with them on a number of projects, but there were many firms that did this type
of work. She said they would look into some of those firms, and would also contact
Peter Bachelor at the School of Design at NC State.
Mr. Newton said Roger Waldon with Clarion had done an excellent job working with
the Strategic Growth Planning Committee, but on the other hand it may be good to get
some fresh perspectives. Ms. Hauth said she did not consider planners to be design
professionals, and that was what we needed. Mr. Oliver said this was an incredible
opportunity with incredible risk. He said we would all like to improve that property,
but it could change the entire nature of Hillsborough because it would be the
geographical center of the Town once Waterstone was completed. Mr. Oliver said if we
did not have the right kind of development, we might end up with a Daniel Boone
Village II.
Mr. Farrelly wondered if NC State or UNC's business schools might be willing to
comment on our capacity for retail. He said he did not know who could get down to
that level of forecasting, but it would be interested to find out. Mr. Farrelly said we
could have something thrive in this location at the risk of causing others to fail
elsewhere. Mr. Remington said one of the things in the Churton Street Corridor Plan
concerned redevelopment potential, and this area was mentioned. Mr. Remington said
his concern was that the thing that would kill the new urbanism, which he really liked,
was the gentrification of the area, that is, the normal every -day businesses that we rely
on would move away. Mr. Newton noted that some businesses would be lost with the
redevelopment due to the difference in rents between the existing Daniel Boone spaces
and new space. Mr. Oliver asked Ms. Hauth if our water plan covered any additional
development in this area. Ms. Hauth said not in the model, but there was remaining
capacity in the model to accommodate redevelopment on the Daniel Boone site. She
said there was an allocation in the model for the Collins property.
Mr. Oliver asked who would be involved in that Saturday public planning process. Ms.
Hauth said it would be open to anyone who wanted to participate. She said there would
be plenty of press coverage to advertise the event. Ms. Hauth said when we hired a
designer to facilitate the event, we would want to specify what the base knowledge
necessary to inform that day was, and the market study would be one of those things so
that there was some basis in reality.
ITEM #10: Adjourn.
MOTION: Mr. Oliver moved to adjourn the meeting.
SECOND: Mr. Newton.
VOTE: Unanimously approved. Mr. Farrelly adjourned the meeting at 8:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Margare Hauth, Secretary
08/01/2006 Planning Board Minutes