Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2.15.2007 Planning Board Minutes and Agendaf l ' i of ill stmt i AGENDA PLANNING BOARD Thursday, February 15, 2007 7:00 PM, Town Barn 01994 Town of Hillsborough ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum. ITEM #2: Adoption of minutes from January meeting and January Public Hearing 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 Task Force • Boone/Collins project ITEM #5: Recommendations to Town Board on text amendments heard at the January public hearing: • Cemetery, non-profit • Prevention of Demolition by Neglect Action requested: Consider making a recommendation on each item ITEM #6: Recommendation to Town Board regarding Zoning Request from CCD Corp to annex 3.48 acres on NC 57 and have it zoned Light Industrial to match the 38.58 acres to the north. (Part of 4.4..1). Action requested: Consider making a recommendation for Town Board action ITEM #7: Recommendation to Town Board regarding Master Plan modifications for Waterstone to increase the allowable retail square footage in Parcel 13 and Parcel 22. Action requested: Consider making a recommendation for Town Board action ITEM #8: Recommendation to Town Board regarding Rezoning and Special Use Permit Request from Coucoulas/Knight Properties for Courtyard condominiums. Action requested: Consider making a recommendation for Town Board action ITEM #9: Recommendation to Town Board regarding Special Use Permit for Bellevue Development, LLC to convert the existing industrial buildings at 202 S Nash St to 85 apartment units. Action requested: Consider making a recommendation for Town Board action ITEM #10: Discussion of items for March agenda. ITEM # 11: 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 2 72 78 919-732-1270 - Fax 919-644-2390 Minutes PLANNING BOARD February 15, 2007 PRESENT: Chair Matthew Farrelly, Tom Campanella, Edna Ellis, Kathleen Faherty, Neil Jones, Paul Newton, Eric Oliver, Dave Remington, Toby Vandemark, and Barrie Wallace. STAFF: Margaret Hauth, Bob Homik. ITEM #1: Call to Order and Confirmation of a Quorum. Mr. Farrelly called the meeting to order at approximately 7:01 and confirmed a quorum of the Planning Board. ITEM #2: Adoption of Minutes from January 18 meeting and January 23 public hearing. Ms. Faherty noted a correction to the public hearing minutes, page 6, second paragraph, of the Bellevue discussion to note the developer had said they had never had a project fail to be qualified for tax credits. MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to approve the minutes as amended. SECOND: Ms. Faherty. VOTE: Unanimously approved. ITEM #3: Additions to the Agenda and Agenda Adjustments. Ms. Hauth suggested that Committee reports be held until the end of the meeting. The Board agreed to do so. ITEM #4: Committee reports and updates. Postponed until after Item #10. ITEM #5: Recommendations to the Town Board on text amendments heard at the January public hearing: Cemetery; Non-profit: Ms. Ellis asked if the text amendment would apply to any area within the Town, and was there a potential site in mind. Ms. Hauth said they did have a site in mind that was currently zoned residential, which was why they had brought this request forward to create the language and to permit a cemetery in residential districts. Ms. Ellis asked if surrounding neighbors would need to be notified. Ms. Hauth said this would be a Conditional Use Permit process which would include a public hearing and a notice sent to neighbors within 500 feet. MOTION: Mr. Oliver moved to recommend approval to the Town Board of the text amendment. SECOND: Mr. Campanella. VOTE: Unanimously approved. Prevention of Demolition by Neglect: Mr. Newton said he would likely be on the dissenting end, and wanted to explain why. He said he believed the intent was well-meaning, but believed that it would be a bad policy because it would depend on the court system to mandate historic preservation. Mr. Newton said generally when Hillsborough went to court, they lost. He said the policy appeared to be a punitive policy to compel people to preserve their historic property and would not be effective, noting it had not been so far. Mr. Newton said compulsory historic preservation was not a function of government. MOTION: Ms. Wallace moved to recommend approval to the Town Board of the text amendment. 2 SECOND: Ms. Vandemark. VOTE: Approved 7-2, with Ms. Ellis and Mr. Newton voting Nay. Mr. Jones arrived at the meeting. ITEM #6: Recommendation to the Town Board regarding Zoning Request from CCD Corp. to annex 3.48 acres on NC 57 and have it zoned Light Industrial to match the 38.58 acres to the north (Part of 4.4..1). Ms. Hauth said the motion to approve or deny should carry a statement regarding its compliance or non-compliance with the overall plan. Ms. Ellis said this property was recently purchased by CCD from the Wilkerson family so it was not a recombination, and it adjoined residential property. She said that would indicate to her that a buffer was needed to protect those residences. Ms. Hauth said if that land was zoned residential at the time that a development proposal was submitted, the Town's ordinance did require a land use buffer on industrial adjacent to residential. Paul "Roy" Wilkerson, Sr. stated that his two sons had purchased the 3.48 acres to annex it to the existing shop, but they had learned that could not be done so it remained residential. He said after the town accepted their proposal for the other land, they had to disconnect it from the lot and break it down so it could be reattached to the existing 38.58 acres. Ms. Hauth said the question was how the lots on Rabbit Lane were zoned. Mr. Wilkerson said the six lots on Rabbit Lane that had four buildings on them were zoned commercial. Ms. Ellis asked if there were residences on Rabbit Lane as well. Mr. Wilkerson said yes, on the south side. He said one of the owners of a building had his home next to it. Mr. Oliver said annexation was the first step, then rezoning. He said under the ordinance, Light Industrial could not be located next to Residential, but it could be next to Agricultural. Ms. Hauth said the ordinance read "as generally applied," which left wiggle room. Mr. Oliver said then if that was zoned Residential then there was wiggle room to say that this request did not meet the conditions. He said it was not zoned residential, but it was an important point to understand. Mr. Wilkerson said present zoning was Light Industrial on one side of the road and Commercial on the other. Mr. Remington said there was nothing in the conditions to contradict the request. MOTION: Mr. Oliver moved to recommend that the Town Board rezone the 3.48 acres Light Industrial as it meets the application criteria of Item 1, Adjacent Land is Zoned GI, LI, AR or HIC, water and sewer lines exist at the site, and direct vehicular access to a public street exists. SECOND: Mr. Newton. VOTE: Unanimously approved. ITEM #7: Recommendation to the Town Board regarding Master Plan modifications for Waterstone to increase the allowable retail square footage in Parcels 13 and 22. Ms. Hauth reminded the Board that this was a modification to the approved Master Plan, and all previously approved conditions for Waterstone would hold. She said this was a request to increase the square footage in two commercial pods. 02/15/2007 Planning Board 3 Ms. Ellis asked if a signal light will be installed at Lafayette. Ms. Hauth said there was no guarantee, but she believed it would meet traffic warrants. Dave Denison with Stratford noted they were being required to install one there. Ms. Ellis confirmed that Mr. Denison would provide a traffic signal at Lafayette. Mr. Remington asked what the basis was for the current square footage for those parcels. Ms. Hauth said Waterstone came on the heels of Hampton Point, and during the Hampton Point review the Town Board funded a retail market study to advise the Board on what retail market existed and what was proposed for Hillsborough to help guide them so that not too much square footage was approved. She said that number was used to guide the square footage at Hampton Point, and because Parcel 22 was so similar in size to the parcel at Hampton Point the square footages were similarly set. Mr. Farrelly said he wanted to establish that this Board was not considering cavalierly changing something that was fully negotiated. He said there was a lot of deliberation, but not on the square footage. Ms. Vandemark asked if the lot size was still a concern, in that would adding the requested square footage be more than what the Town Board had envisioned in regards to the market study. Ms. Hauth said the Town Board had expressed a concern in the past with other projects, but this applicant had not submitted any retail market studies to justify the additional square footage. Ms. Faherty asked what the current square footage was of those two parcels. Mr. Denison said the increase in parcel 22 was from 380,000 to 450,000 square feet, and then in parcel 13 from 70,000 to 90,000 square feet. Mr. Newton stated that the area was an economic development district, and in general the Town wanted more commercial. He said there was no data to suggest that the increase in square footage was a bad thing to allow this increase to make the property more marketable. Mr. Newton said he did not believe the applicant should be penalized based on what was happening with some other piece of property in another part of Town. Ms. Vandemark asked if the square footage increase could be justified based on any market data. Mr. Denison explained how they marketed the space and solicited tenants, and used that to determine how much square footage was needed on the acreage available. He said he believed the opportunity was present to allow for a better shopping facility to be built to better service the community by allowing the maximum allowable square footage. Mr. Denison said if the market was not there when they began to build, they would not build to that maximum. Mr. Jones asked if the increased square footage would have any negative impact on stormwater runoff or any other environmental concern. Ms. Hauth said any impact would have to be resolved in the Special Use Permit process to meet the ordinance requirements. MOTION: Mr. Newton moved to recommend approval to the Town Board the modification to the Master Plan to allow for the additional square footage in parcel 13 and parcel 22. SECOND: Mr. Campanella. DISCUSSION: Mr. Oliver confirmed that there would be a traffic signal at Churton and Lafayette and Cates Creek Parkway. He said the McAdams Company's traffic impact analysis 02/15/2007 Planning Board Ll addendum that was submitted on January 5 stated that it appeared that the projected volumes would not satisfy the peak hour signal warrant. Mr. Denison said their agreement with the Town included putting up an Engineer's Estimate and a Letter of Credit for 125% of the projected cost, and included in that was $110,000 for a light at Lafayette when it was warranted. He said they could not place the signal there until DOT approved it based on traffic counts. VOTE: Unanimously approved. ITEM #8: Recommendation to the Town Board regarding Rezoning and Special Use Permit Request from Concoulas/Knight Properties for Courtyard Condominiums. Ms. Hauth said this was a two part application, and reminded the Board that the Special Use Permit approval could carry conditions. She stressed that a valid Protest Petition was received from neighbors which impacted the Town Board's vote but did not necessarily affect this Board. Mr. Newton stated he had received a letter at home from people in support of the project, and disclosed the contact the record. Mr. Farrelly asked Ms. Hauth to characterize the major remarks made at the public hearing. Ms. Hauth said a number of speakers had expressed support as well as opposition. She said opposition remarks centered on the general concept of applying a Special Use in this location, and those in support were expressed agreement with the general concept of the type of dwelling units and the diversity. Mr. Newton said he saw two things happening here. He said he saw an argument being presented that said the Entranceway Special Use zoning was inappropriate here, and then the other side was that this project was consistent with the Town's vision and the Churton Street design plans. Mr. Newton said regardless of whether or not Entranceway Special Use was appropriate for this parcel, it was irrelevant because those were the rules that were in place now. He said he did not see how they could legally or legitimately deny it, since you could not apply the argument that Entranceway Special Use could not go there. Mr. Newton said this project was in keeping with the Town's vision. He said those plans advocate for higher density in the central core, and could not see any evidence that it would have an ill effect on the Town. Mr. Farrelly asked if the Town Attorney had determined where the Entranceway Special Use could and could not be applied. Ms. Hauth said the Town Attorney had said in the past that the Town Board had to determine if a project did or did not meet the criteria. She said this was not the finding of fact, but a per person call based on what they had heard as to whether or not that was an appropriate location for the zoning. Ms. Wallace said the ordinance was written to provide flexibility, and this was the kind of development we were looking for and we had the power to use the ordinance in that way, and she believed they should use it in that way. Mr. Remington said he agreed on both points, noting he saw nothing to indicate that it did not apply. He said that was the one vehicle they had if they wanted these kinds of mixed uses. Mr. Remington said it was consistent with the Churton Street plan, and was a good location for landmark architecture. 02/15/2007 Planning Board `1 Mr. Campanella remarked that this corner was an entranceway to the community, and it was not stretching the ordinance unreasonably to apply it here. He concurred with the view that in an urban design sense this was a place that could sustain more density. Mr. Oliver commented that his views were essential the same, in that from the Board themselves who had participated in the Strategic Growth Plan hearings and the Churton Street Corridor Plan had said that this was a reasonable request. He said he wanted to apply a condition to the Special Use Permit to require an additional sidewalk from the parking lot to adjoin the existing sidewalk in the plans. Ms. Ellis said she was concerned about the single access and the traffic. She distributed an aerial view of the entranceway. Ms. Ellis said in 1985 US 70 Business in Hillsborough north of Corbin to just south of US 70 bypass was listed as one of the most dangerous. She said in 1987 the thoroughfare study showed that Churton Street was operating beyond its desirable capacity, which was still true today. Ms. Ellis said she was concerned about traffic and pedestrian safety. She said the problem on Churton Street was it was the only way to cross the Eno River near the Town, resulting in frequent trips. Ms. Ellis said she saw people walking to businesses where there was no sidewalk. She said she wanted consideration given to traffic and the safety of people who had to travel that corridor in vehicles and on foot. Ms. Ellis said she was in disagreement with there being only one entranceway into the project. Mr. Farrelly asked if she agreed with the rezoning, because some of what she was saying could be addressed in that way. Ms. Ellis said she would vote against the project, because it did not fit the neighborhood and there was too much traffic. She said there was insufficient parking, noting you could not double -count spaces by using Sinclair Station spaces. Jim Parker with Summit Engineering responded that regarding parking, all spaces for Sinclair Station would remain the same in number and added to the required parking for the 20 units. So, he said, there was not a shared parking issue, since enough parking was being proposed for both projects. Mr. Parker said regarding the issue with Corbin Street, they had written confirmation from DOT that a turn lane was not required at that location. He said DOT had commented that they were glad that the second entrance that currently existed beside the wall and ramp would be removed. Mr. Parker said he would provide that written confirmation to the Planner Department tomorrow. Ms. Wallace asked why the concern about one entrance. Ms. Ellis responded that if emergency vehicles such as fire trucks were present no one could pass. She said another exit should be provided, should someone have an emergency and need to leave immediately. Mr. Remington said this would be a Special Use Permit, and under the rezoning the Sinclair Station would come under that. He asked was there anything that would place limitations on the use of the Sinclair Station that needed to be addressed. Ms. Hauth said it was currently zoned Neighborhood Business, which had a restrictive list of permitted uses. 02/15/2007 Planning Board She said changing the zoning to Entranceway Special Use would broaden the options allowed, such as larger retail operations. Mr. Remington said he was wondering if it were reasonable to consider that there would be some kind of conditions placed on the rezoning to keep what was now allowed from changing. Mr. Farrelly said if this Board decided to place conditions, would they be in the form of recommendations to the Town Board. Ms. Hauth said as it was a Special Use Permit, she believed this Board could place a condition limiting the uses to that were associated with Neighborhood Business. Lee Ann Brown, Allen Knight's attorney, said her interpretation of what this Board would approve was that if they approved the change in zoning, this change would only go towards whatever was on the approved Special Use Permit you had. She said the Sinclair Station was shown on the Special Use Permit, and her interpretation of that was that that was the use that was approved for the Sinclair Station as it existed. Ms. Brown said it that had to change for some reason he would have to go back through the process to get that change. She said she believed what Mr. Remington was seeking assurance that the Sinclair Station would not change, and the change in zoning would only be for the exact and specific permit approved. Ms. Brown said if it would make the Board more comfortable to have a condition to the Special Use Permit that stated that the Sinclair Station would continue to be used only for the uses as approved in its original site plan, she believed they would be comfortable with that. Ms. Hauth said that would be the most flexible way to achieve that. Mr. Jones said one of the buildings to be demolished was an historic structure. Ms. Hauth said the small white house closest to Sinclair Station was a contributing structure in the local historic district, and the Historic District Commission still had to review this approval. She said that board would have to approve the demolition of those buildings. Mr. Remington asked what the grade was for the driveways for the parking underneath. Mr. Parker said they were at 8% to 10% in order to get down to the level of the basement. Mr. Remington said on the plans, the first floor elevation on the south side of 625 feet, and the entrance to the parking underground was 615, so it was 10 feet lower. He said it looked like the proposed grading along that south end was 614 feet, so parking that was underneath actually started one foot above that level. Mr. Remington said it appeared to him that the elevation drawing did not show how that tied in to the ground line. Mr. Knight replied that there would be leveling at the rear where the grades would go into a sub -grade basement level. He said the front and sides would essential what was shown on the front elevation. Mr. Remington said on the south side it appeared the grade would drop another 11 feet. Mr. Parker said he believed Mr. Remington was referring to the outside wall of the south side of the building, which was the exposed portion of the lower level wall. He said that could be graded and leveled to make it appear to be at grade, then replanted. Mr. Parker said much of that brick facade could be hid, and perhaps windows could be added higher up to improve the appearance. 02/15/2007 Planning Board 7 Ms. Faherty asked about the location of the dumpster pad. Mr. Parker said it had been relocated based on comments at the public hearing. He said the dumpster pad was now located in the Sinclair Station parking lot, which was a more centralized location. Ms. Ellis stated she was not ready to vote on this tonight, and wanted more information. Mr. Farrelly said that was up to the Board. Ms. Ellis said she wanted to see the letter from DOT stating that one entranceway was preferred, and that no turn lane was necessary. She said she did not believe they had enough information on the plan as it stood, noting she had seen no dimensions on the buildings. Mr. Farrelly said the interior floor plan was not under the Board's purview. Mr. Newton commented that he found this application to be in the vision of the Town. He said he had been critical of previous projects proposed by Mr. Knight, but this proposal was a good plan and was done exactly the way the Strategic Growth Plan said to do it. Mr. Newton said Mr. Knight had done his homework and that was reflected in this proposal. Mr. Farrelly said he agreed that this proposal was consistent with the Strategic Growth Plan. He said it was interesting to note that those in support of the project represented Town businesses, and he believed this project supported the kind of density that we wanted to support a vibrant downtown. Mr. Farrelly said it would enhance the character of the Town. Mr. Remington said regarding the 50 foot setback in the front, he asked was that from the street or from the sidewalk. Ms. Hauth said it was measured from the edge of the right-of- way. Mr. Remington asked did that include the sidewalk. Ms. Hauth said the sidewalk was within the right-of-way. Mr. Knight pointed out that the height from the street was 50% of the actual distance to the street. He said the setback was 50 feet, and then the area of the right-of-way to the street which was at least 15 feet. Mr. Newton said the ball had already started, noting that high-density, multi -story buildings were the way of the future for Hillsborough. He said he did not see how this project could be turned down based on other projects that had already been approved. Ms. Wallace agreed with Mr. Newton, adding she appreciated the consideration that Mr. Knight had shown to make this project fit with the historic character of the Town. MOTION: Mr. Newton moved to recommend approval of the rezoning to the Town Board based on the criteria as stated in Section 2.16.a and 2.16.c of the ordinance, and based on its full consistency with the Churton Street Corridor Plan and the Strategic Growth Plan. SECOND: Mr. Oliver. DISCUSSION: Ms. Ellis said she believed the Strategic Growth Plan had recommended no residential beyond the core of the business district, that it should all be located south and east. Ms. Wallace said that was referring to residential out of Town, north of US 70, VOTE: Adopted 9-1, with Ms. Ellis voting Nay. MOTION: Mr. Newton moved to recommend approval of the SUP to the Town Board based on the fact that it was compliant with the Section 4.39.1 and 4.39.2, with the conditions that a sidewalk be included in the parking lot as pointed out by Mr. Oliver, and that it abide by the original site plan for Sinclair Station and its current permitted uses. SECOND: Mr. Remington. VOTE: Adopted 9-1, with Ms. Ellis voting Nay. 02/15/2007 Planning Board H., ITEM #9: Recommendation to the Town Board regarding a Special Use Permit for Bellevue Development, LLC to convert the existing industrial building at 202 S. Nash Street to 85 apartment units. Ms. Hauth said at the public hearing the neighbors had a number of concerns, and the applicant had indicated some favorability towards those. She said the applicant wanted to go through those tonight. Ms. Hauth said there were a number of special considerations being requested by the applicant, and she suggested going through those point by point as the Board considered the Special Use Permit. She reminded the Board that conditions could be placed on the approval of the Special Use Permit. Ms. Hauth said there were a number of things brought up at the public hearing that would need special consideration, such as the driveway coming out onto Bellevue, noting Bellevue did not meet the classification requirement for a driveway into a multi -family project, and setback issues both in the parking lot on Nash Street and where some parking was located behind and in the general vicinity of Knight and Holt Streets, noting it was close to the corner residence. Henry Campen, the owner's representative, addressed several of the points raised by neighbors at the public hearing. He said the West Hillsborough Neighborhood Watch had provided a list of 7 priorities for the project. Mr. Campen said they had reviewed those and would like to go through them quickly. 1. That the developer improve conditions on Bellevue Avenue between Benton Street and Eno Street, that Bellevue needed to be cleared of undergrowth or rugged soil or gravel, and pavement needed to be added to make the entire section 18 feet wide. Mr. Campen noted these were not matters in the purview of the developer, rather were matters within the jurisdiction of the Town. 2. Add two speed tables on Bellevue Avenue. Mr. Campen said these as well were within the jurisdiction of the Town, not the developer. Responding to a comment from a Board member, Mr. Campen stated that the items under the purview of the Town could be performed by the developer, but only with the Town's approval. Ms. Hauth added that because this property did not have frontage on Bellevue, work on Bellevue would depend on the willingness of the applicant to perform any work, in negotiation with the Town. 3. Painting a solid centerline on Bellevue between King Street and Eno Street. Again, Mr. Campen said, this was not in the developer's purview. 4. Addition of crosswalks at the intersection of Benton and Bellevue and Eno and Bellevue. Mr. Campen said this too was something the Town would have to undertake, possibly with DOT approval. Mr. Campen said there were some things that were within the developer's purview, and which they would like to offer for consideration. He said one was a request for a walk along South Bellevue for the extent of the property. Mr. Campen said the developer was willing to add a five-foot mulch walk along Bellevue, although it would not go all the way to Eno Street because a church owned the property between Eno and this property. He said that walkway would provide a considerable improvement. Mr. Oliver asked if that walkway would be in the Town's right-of-way. Mr. Campen replied no, that it would be on property owned by the developer. 02/15/2007 Planning Board Mr. Campen stated one issue had to do with the landscaping the parking from Bellevue, and it was explained at the public hearing that that had already been incorporated into the plans, so that was no longer an issue. He said as well, the developer was agreeable to the deeded walking easement, as described in the fourth priority listed by the Neighborhood Watch. Mr. Campen said beyond the Neighborhood Watch's concerns were two other concerns raised. He said one had to do with the elm tree on Nash Street, and noted that there was no guarantee that the tree could be preserved in any event. Mr. Campen said they believed the chances of it living longer could be improved by shifting the lot 8 feet from the street and creating an island around the elm tree to protect it to a large degree from construction activity. He said that would require that the buffer shown on the original plan be reduced from 14 feet to 7 feet. Mr. Campen said the planting yard would be 7 feet with 1 foot remaining for a wooden fence on the property line. He said presently there was gravel in that area, which was about 8 feet from the property line. Mr. Campen what was being proposed, therefore, was approximately the same size as what was there now. Mr. Oliver asked Mr. Campen to describe what you would see if you were standing in the gravel looking at the back of the parking lot looking east. He asked would you see the back of the house, a house, a tree or bushes. Mr. Campen displayed an aerial photograph, pointing out that it was sparsely wooded. Ms. Faherty noted some neighbors had fences on their property, and you could see the backs of houses and tree stumps. She said there was no plantings that would mask the backs of homes. Ms. Wallace asked if it were possible to remove a couple of parking spaces to give the elm tree more room. Ms. Hauth said 85 units were proposed, with 2 parking spaces per unit, plus 1 guest space for every 5, so there were one or two spare spaces but not significant extra. Ms. Wallace said she would be in favor or providing more protection for the tree. Mr. Campen said no reduction in parking spaces was necessary if they shifted the buffer as he had described and added the island to protect the tree. Mr. Campen said the final item he wanted to mention was providing a mulch path along the sewer easement from West King Street down to the access road. He said the developer was willing to provide that walking path, adding it would provide considerable connectivity. Mr. Campanella asked if the mulch walkway was acceptable in terms of the Town's vision for sidewalks and ADA compliance. Ms. Hauth responded that walkway would be privately owned and privately maintained, because it was not in the public right-of-way. Mr. Campanella asked if this was consistent with the community's desires. Ms. Hauth said a member of the community was present that might answer that question. Jennifer Williams, Secretary of the Westside Community Watch, stated that their priority was the safety of the residents. She said they had envisioned a concrete sidewalk in the Town's right-of-way. Ms. Williams said the mulch walkway was a step in the right direction, but it did not continue along the entire length of Bellevue to Eno Street, because of the church property. 02/15/2007 Planning Board 10 Mr. Campanella asked what the options were to put a full sidewalk here that went all the way to the corner to meet the community's needs. Ms. Hauth said the major problem was that the road was not paved in the center of the right-of-way, so there was not enough room in the public right-of-way for a sidewalk. She said the right-of-way was on the other side of the street. Mr. Campanella said he appreciated the offer of the mulch walkway, but was concerned about its durability over time. Mr. Remington said in the past a poly pavement surface binder had been approved for a project that bounded the surface so that it was durable. He said it might not be cheaper to install, but it would be cheaper to maintain. Mr. Remington asked if that might be an option. Mr. Campen responded they had not gotten into that level of detail as yet regarding materials. Mr. Campen said regarding access, the developer was willing to provide the same access easement along the walkway on Bellevue as along the sewer easement. He said that would provide some continuity and ensure that it remained available in the future. Ms. Vandemark said there was stil•1 the issue of the church property, noting there was no resolution for that issue. Mr. Campen said to the extent that the fence was on the developer's property, the developer was willing to remove that if the Town requested it. Ms. Faherty asked what happened when you got to Eno Street, noting it was a reckless road with lots of traffic including many trucks. She asked what the foot traffic to Eno Street would be for. Mr. Oliver stated it was part of Phase I of the sidewalk plan to come down Alison to Eno and along Eno. Ms. Hauth stated there was not a sidewalk on Eno, but there was a crossing from Eno across the railroad tracks and around the corner to go down Alison or Eno Mountain Road, to provide access to Riverwalk. Mr. Newton noted that having a sidewalk on the church's property was out of the purview of what was before the Board now. He said the Board of Adjustment had required unwilling developers to build sidewalks on their property because the ordinance required it. Mr. Newton said those developers had been unwilling because it was their view that it would result in "sidewalks to nowhere." He said the BOA's standard response was you had to start somewhere. Mr. Newton said this was a unique situation because of the lack of right-of-way, so he was appreciative of whatever the developer was willing to offer. Mr. Oliver said there was no right-of-way on the church property, and we would be dumping pedestrians into that. He asked what kind of statement that would send to the public, to be dumping pedestrians onto property where there was no right-of-way. Mr. Oliver suggested having the developer take whatever funds he had earmarked to use for the walkway and deposit it with the Town to be used to eventually provide a concrete sidewalk on the other side of the street where right-of-way existed. Mr. Campanella said Ms. Ellis had left him a note to be read at the appropriate time, reminding the Board that Ms. Ellis had been excused from the remainder of the meeting. He said her note asked if the entrance could be made from Bellevue Street and the exit onto Holt Street, in order words a one-way system. Mr. Campen said he had concerns 02/15/2007 Planning Board 11 about a one-way configuration. He stated that Knight and Holt Streets were even narrower than Bellevue, and directing any traffic to that area would be problematic. Terry Snow, traffic engineer with Wilbur Smith Associates, confirmed that Holt, Knight, and Webb Streets were very narrow, and the curvature of those streets made it problematic. He said they had recommended that a connection not be made to those streets for that reason. Ms. Faherty said the sidewalk discussion was worth pursing, but the issues in general of traffic and speed bumps and so forth were important as well in terms of safety. She said although the developer could not address many of the concerns, it seemed to her that the traffic burden and the two blind hills on either side of Benton were of even greater concern to her. Ms. Faherty asked how that could be included. Ms. Hauth said it could be included as part of the motion to ask the Town Board to authorize the developer to do those improvements or the Board could simply state that it agreed with the concerns and ask the Town Board to handle it. Ms. Faherty said she believed the issue of the blind hill as you turn onto Bellevue should be addressed. Mr. Oliver said the speed bumps would be hard to supply given the current requirements. He said he believed making that a 4 -way stop was the best solution, although it would be unpopular. Ms. Faherty said painting a centerline would be useful. Ms. Wallace asked how a centerline would help. Ms. Faherty said it would keep people more mindful of how narrow the street was, particularly at night. She said a reflective middle line would remind people that it was a two-way street. Ms. Hauth agreed centerlines did work for traffic calming, because it kept people closer to the ditch and therefore slowed them down. Mr. Newton said if the Board offered as part of its recommendations to the Town Board conditions for approval, and the Town Board approved them, was that not an implied authorization to carry out the conditions. Ms. Hauth responded yes. Mr. Newton suggested that this Board add those issues not in the purview of the developer as conditions, so that the Town Board had the opportunity to approve them and the developer to carry them out. Mr. Oliver said he would like to see Bellevue made 18' wide consistently along its length, as well as a 4 -way stop intersection on Bellevue and Benton. Ms. Hauth said the lots on Knights and Holt Street, particularly the one on Holt, was just a little less than what would have been required for a multi -family development. She said the industrial setback was 50' adjacent to residential, and the multi -family requirement was 40'. She said the parking spaces were close to the drive aisle, but the drive aisle was not considered structure, but parking spaces were. Mr. Campen said his landscape architect had talked with the neighbors prior to the public hearing, and after various conversations they had indicated they were now comfortable with the plans. A citizen commented that regardless of whether the land was considered multi -use or commercial use, there were standard setbacks. She said the developer was requesting a Special Use Permit, and there were bringing the parking lot within 12 to 15 feet of her property line, which was much closer than what was required. She asked that the Board place a special condition to require a deeper setback from her property line. 02/15/2007 Planning Board 12 Ms. Hauth said there was about 200 parking spaces provided and the ordinance required 187, so there was some flexibility depending on how the time-limited parking lot was treated on the west side of Nash Street. Ms. Wallace said she would be interested in pulling that setback away from people's homes as well as to loose a parking space or two to protect the elm tree. Mr. Newton added he believed they should use the multi -family standard. Ms. Wallace said from an environmental standpoint, whatever the developer was willing to do to preserve the tree, the town was likely to require more. Joe Rees said he was grateful to the developers for considering the possibility of saving the tree. He said he and a landscaper had looked at the parking lot, and behind his lot there was some space to go forward at the northern end several feet. He would be happy to have that happen. Mr. Rees said the tree was a significant tree, and to save it would add to the neighborhood as well as serve as a marketing tool for the developer to show their concern. Mr. Campen said to save the tree only 40% of the root could be eliminated. He said moving the parking had allowed them to retain room all the way around the tree. Ms. Wallace asked would that likely save the tree. Mr. Campen said no one could make that promise, but they would do as much as they could. He said a whole new row of trees would be planted between Nash Street and the parking lot, and ideally the elm tree would survive and contribute to the canopy. Mr. Rees commented that if the elm tree were to be lost, perhaps a Princeton Elm could be planted in its place. He said there would be an advantage to break up the parking lot; otherwise it would be a monotonous long strip of cars at Nash Street. Mr. Sikes asked if Mr. Rees was talking about going 10 feet to the north. Ms. Hauth said that would be a setback encroachment. Mr. Rees said there was considerably more than ten feet there if the dumpster were placed elsewhere. Ms. Hauth noted that Orange County was proposing that the dumpster be placed on the east side of the property, but all the residences were on the west side of the property. She said that dumpsters were generally served very early in the morning, so the dumpster should likely be relocated. Mr. Rees said that should leave room for at least two parking spaces. Ms. Wallace asked Mr. Campen if he had read or addressed the Orange County comments other than the dumpster regarding showing the brown fields on the drawings, the suggestion that there may be safety problems with the lighting and the landscaping, and the location of fire lanes. Jason Gable, with Eddie Belk Architect, said one of the comments from the County was that the driveways associated with the parking lot at Nash Street should be aligned if possible. He stated aligning the southernmost driveways would result in dead end parking on the lot across Nash Street, and that was not acceptable. Mr. Gable said the parking lot circulation was one-way, so cars would move in only one direction as opposed to crossing back and forth. He said the drives at the north end of each lot could potentially be aligned somewhat, but again they would loose parking spaces in order to achieve that. Mr. Gable said they had just a few to sacrifice. Mr. Gable said the new drives into the parking lot on Nash Street would have a smaller apron width and drive width than what existed now. He commented that the dumpster enclosure was located to allow the dumpster truck to make the fewest turns and not force it 02/15/2007 Planning Board 13 to back up onto Nash Street. Mr. Gable said the dumpster truck would enter at the south drive of the Nash Street lot, proceed in a straight line up to the dumpsters, empty them, and turn left and go out onto Nash Street. He said if the dumpster enclosure was moved further east into the Nash Street lot and further away from Nash Street, the dumpster truck would have to make up to four turns in a small area to service the dumpsters. Mr. Gable said people would have to carry their trash across the street to the dumpsters, just as they would carry anything else when they cross the street to their cars. He said people generally would take out their trash when going to their cars, rather than make a dumpster run only, so it made sense to have the dumpster enclosure close to the parking lot. Mr. Oliver said he would not personally subject these neighbors to the north or to the east of that parking lot to the noise of the dumpster being serviced. He said they had a large area, and it should be moved onto their property and not next to the neighbors. Mr. Gable said they would think about what could be done. As to the transportation issue, Mr. Gable said it was possible to put a stop on Nash Street at the east end if necessary. Ms. Hauth said the way the parking lot was configured, it was possible that a bus could run through the parking lot and no pull -off or public improvement would be needed. As to the fire lane issue, Mr. Gable said they had not addressed that because there was ample street frontage all along Nash Street in range of the buildings. He said they had not discussed with the Fire Marshal as yet about the need for an additional fire hydrant, possibly at the west edge of the property. Mr. Gable said there was plenty of water on the site, and the buildings would be sprinklered. Mr. Sikes said regarding the dumpster, it could possibly be moved, but it would affect the neighbors on that side of the property. He said it could presumably be placed in a corner, but there was a steep grade there. Mr. Campen said they would look at all possible sites. He said if the dumpster enclosure was located near the property lines, they would work out with the contractor what time of day they would be serviced. Mr. Campen said with a residential facility, it was perhaps better to do that during the day when in theory most people would be away. He said they would re-evaluate all possible locations before the meeting next month. Ms. Faherty said she was uncomfortable with residents having to cross the street to take their trash to the dumpster. Mr. Campen said one option that might be viable was to have people take their trash to a designated site within the building, and management would haul it by cart to the dumpster. He said that would reduce or eliminate the need for residents to cross the street to the dumpster Ms Wallace asked for comment son the landscaping and lighting. Mr. Gable responded that the lighting was done to meet the ordinance regarding the maximum allowable light. He said regarding safety they would as designers make sure that there were no places where people might hide by landscaping or other means. Mr. Gable said they wanted the space to be lit and lit safely without exceeding limits. 02/15/2007 Planning Board 14 Ms. Faherty said regarding traffic, even though it had been analyzed with the Gateway Center, the developer should keep in mind the long-term effect particularly on the two approaches to that on Margaret Lane and King Street. Mr. Oliver asked if the Board wanted to collect all of the items still at issue and asked the developer to come back with responses, or do we want to take that list and pass it on to the Town Board. Mr. Newton said he believed they should have the developer come back with responses to the Board's list. He said there appeared to be issues that were still open as well as what the developer might be willing to do, and he would like to see those details before the Board made a recommendation. Mr. Farrelly listed the issues as follows: move the dumpster, deal with the setback to multi- family for that parking lot, save the elm tree, ask the developer to take the money to be spent on the mulch walkway and contribute that to the Town for an eventual sidewalk on the west side of the street. Ms. Hauth said there were things the applicant offered that the Board might want to accept, and that was the perpetual easement, and the pathways. Mr. Farrelly said they would also want the 4 -way stop, the widening of Bellevue to 18' feet for its entire length, a centerline on Bellevue, and crosswalks at the intersections of Benton and Bellevue and Eno and Bellevue. Mr. Remington said it may be that the offered mulch pathways would better serve the needs of the residents in the area given the right-of-way conditions. Ms. Hauth said the Board could ask the developer to come back with alternatives. Mr. Oliver said having mulch pathways would not be a "deal breaker" for him. Mr. Campanella said this project would being a lot to this community, and it was great to see such a sterling effort on the part of the community and the developer to articulate their needs. He said this was a model project all around. ITEM 910: Discussion of items for March agenda. Ms. Hauth said as of now, Bellevue would be the only development project to be considered on the March agenda. She said there was time to go back and pick up some of the text amendments that the Board had been looking at over an extended period of time. Ms. Hauth said the Town Board had requested at Monday's meeting that this Board consider the noise requirements and forward at least a partial package of the ones that were ready and spend time on the others. Ms. Hauth said at the State of the Town address, the Mayor had noted that this year and the coming year would be "the years of construction," and the Town Board was concerned about the impact of construction noise on residents in the downtown. She said if the flood ordinance was to come back in April, this Board needed to discuss it in March so that people would understand any impacts to them. Ms. Hauth said this Board had also been asked to schedule a meeting at the end of this month on the Boone/Collins project. 02/15/2007 Planning Board 15 Ms. Wallace noted that Ms. Ellis had wanted streams addressed. Mr. Farrelly said Ms. Ellis was referring to creeks and ephemeral streams Town -wide. Ms. Hauth said these three issues were adequate given the other meeting commitments for the month. Ms. Wallace said she had received a letter from Jim Boericke that she believed was a petition. Ms. Hauth said the letter stated that some downtown residents in light of looking at the County's projects had noted that the Town's zoning ordinance required too much parking. She said that would be addressed by the consultant during the rewrites of the ordinance. Ms. Hauth said the letter did not specifically state what the parking standards should be. She said she was not sure it was necessarily a project for this Board to address now. Ms. Hauth said the downtown residents who wanted the parking requirements changed would have to choose what they believed to be the most reasonable requirement for parking before it was could be put into the process for consideration. RETURN TO ITEM #4: Committee reports and updates. Board of Adjustment: Ms. Wallace said last night the Board of Adjustment had approved the site plan for the Orange County campus for the new library, offices, and a parking deck. A short discussion ensued regarding the proposed asphalt plant and the need for impartiality from all board members when that issue was considered. Ms. Wallace also noted that the Board of Adjustment had approved a site plant for Bryant Air and Heating the Meadowlands last night as well. Parks and Recreation Board: Mr. Jones said the Parks and Recreation Board had recognized that the Turnip Patch Park was being well -used. He said they were looking at installing a privacy fence to protect neighboring properties and installing signage along the roadways to indicate children were at play. Mr. Jones said they were looking to get a fit Communities designation, and the Eagles Way project had been moved to the top of the priority list. US 70/Cornelius Street Task Force: Ms. Vandemark stated they would be meeting on the 21 st Boone/Collins Project: Ms. Hauth said an open house/joint workshop with the Planning Board and the Town Board would be held on Tuesday, February 27th, hopefully at the Big Barn. She said it would begin at 7 pm., with the doors opening at 6 pm. Ms. Hauth said the public hearing would most likely be either March 22 or March 27. ITEM 411: Adjourn. Ms. Vandemark moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Remington. The motion was adopted unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m. R spectful , submitted, Margaret Hauth, Secretary 3)16/4,7 02/15/2007 Planning Board