HomeMy Public PortalAbout3.22.2007 Joint Public HearingAGENDA
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD and PLANNING BOARD
Thursday, March 22, 2007
7:00 PM, Gordon Battle courtroom, New Orange County Courthouse
ITEM #1: Call public hearing to order.
ITEM #2: Annexation, Zoning, and Master Plan application from American Asset
Corporation for the development of the Collins property and redevelopment of the
Daniel Boone Village and Partin properties. The annexation covers
approximately 164 acres. The entire proposal covers 222.13 acres with access to
S Churton St between the NC Railroad and I-85. The zoning district requested is
Entranceway Special Use. The Master Plan calls for up to 550,000 sf of
commercial retail space, 88.1 acres of 6 units per acre single family residential,
18.2 acres of 24 unit per acre multi -family, 27.6 acres of 12 unit per acre
residential, and 12.45 acres as recreational and open space. Additionally, the 27.6
acres listed above may be converted to office and institutional uses. TMBL
4.40.A.4, 5, 26, 33, 33d. Speakers on this item will be sworn in.
ITEM #3: Discussion of whether to formally close or continue the public hearing and next
steps.
ITEM #4: Adjourn.
Please call the Clerk or Planning Department if you cannot attend
732-1270 ext. 71 or73
MINUTES
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
HILLSBOROUGH TOWN BOARD and PLANNING BOARD
Thursday, March 22, 2007
7:00 PM, Gordon Battle Courtroom, New Orange County Courthouse
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mayor Tom Stevens, Commissioners Frances
Dancy, Evelyn Lloyd, Mike Gering, L. Eric Hallman, and Brian Lowen.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Matthew Farrelly, Tom Campanella,
Edna Ellis, Kathleen Faherty, Neil Jones, Paul Newton, Dave Remington, Toby Vandemark, and
Barrie Wallace.
STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Eric Peterson, Assistant Town Manager/Public Works
Director Demetric Potts, Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Planner Stephanie Trueblood, and
Town Attorney Bob Hornik.
ITEM #1: Call the public hearing to order.
Mayor Stevens called the Joint Public Hearing to order at 7:05 P.M.
ITEM #2: Annexation, Zoning, and Master Plan Application from American Asset
Corporation for the development of the Collins property and redevelopment
of the Daniel Boone Village and Partin properties. The annexation covers
approximately 164 acres. The entire proposal covers 222.13 acres with access to
South Churton Street between the NC Railroad and I-85. The zoning district
requested is Entranceway Special Use. The Master Plan calls for up to 550,000
square feet of commercial retail space, 88.1 acres of 6 units per acre single-family
residential, 18.2 acres of 24 units per acre multi -family, 27.6 acres of 12 units per
acre residential, and 12.45 acres as recreational or open space. Additionally, the
27.6 acres listed above may be converted to office and institutional uses. (TMBL
4.40.A.4, 5, 26, 33, 33d)
Mayor Stevens explained the general process and format for the joint public hearing. He said they
would hear from Planning Director Margaret Hauth, then from the developer, American Asset
Corporation, and then take public comments. Mayor Stevens said no time limit would be placed
on the speakers, but encouraged everyone to be brief and to the point so that others would have the
opportunity to speak as well. He said if what you wanted to say had been said by a previous
speaker, make a not that you concur but don't repeat the information. Mayor Stevens then turned
the meeting over to the Chair of the Planning Board, Matthew Farrelly.
Ms. Hauth said tonight they would be considering a three-part application, which was an
annexation, a development, and a redevelopment. She described what the process was for each of
those three issues. Ms. Hauth said noted that some information had been placed at the various
participants' places, and noted that the handout from the applicant was somewhat different than
what was in the agenda materials. She said also provided was a blue sheet that contained revised
2
comments from Orange County which were different from that received earlier in the week. Also
included, she said, was a cost analysis of County services that was prepared by the County as
requested by the Town Board.
Ms. Hauth said because this was a quasi-judicial process, speakers would be sworn in and be
asked to sign in. She said she had received earlier today a letter to the Town Board signed by 25
residents who expressed general interest in single -story townhomes or patio homes being built as a
part of this development.
Commissioner Hallman said he believed they had agreed not to accept last minute additions to the
application since the public would have had no opportunity to review it. Ms. Hauth said that
would be only if the Board closed the public hearing tonight. Commissioner Hallman said the
Board had expressed that it did not like receiving information at the last minute.
Ms. Hauth asked each speaker to swear in by stating "I swear to tell the truth and nothing but the
truth," and then to sign their names on the sign -in sheet.
Note: from this point forward, all speakers were sworn at the time they first spoke.
Joe Dye, speaking as the applicant, apologized for the lateness in submitted the additional
materials, stating that they were attempting to respond to all questions and concerns. He provided
a brief overview of the process thus far and the materials submitted. Using slides, Mr. Dye
outlined some of the elements used to create their Master Plan, and added some comments derived
from the workshop and their responses. He outlined the plans considered as well as traffic
considerations.
Mr. Dye said they had engaged Chris Washholz as a consultant, who was knowledgeable about
moving buildings of historic significance and also reclaiming materials from buildings that could
be reused in various forms and fashions in an environmentally responsible way. He said given the
historic significance of the some of the structures on the site, it was appropriate to locate them
elsewhere on the site or relocate them off-site so they were not destroyed.
Mr. Dye pointed out the historic elements of significance that came out of the archeological
survey. Other elements discussed, he said, were green building techniques, affordable housing,
and open space. Mr. Dye said they would be committed to a LEEDs certification for Tract A, and
would use a "core and shell" program to assist with that. With respect to affordable housing and
open space, he said they were committing to providing 20 units in the residential area and
committing to dedicating 12.5 acres on Parcel E.
Mr. Dye said in the new Master Plan, they had taken many of the elements discussed and
comments received and included them in the new Master Plan being presented this evening. He
said that included further definitions of the parcels in the northern part of the Collins property, and
specific definition of the number of units for each parcel. Mr. Dye said that Parcel H was
dedicated as open space, and Parcel B, consisting of 6.5 acres, was to be made available to the
Town to use as it saw fit, adding that the HYAA fields were located in the northern part of that
land area.
Joint Public Hearing, 03-22-07
3
Mr. Dye said the number of units in the new Master Plan had been reduced from 1,300 to 1,100,
with no square footage change to the non-residential portion. He said Parcel A would still consist
of 550,000 square feet. To provide a relationship with those numbers, Mr. Dye said the Collins
property had some allocation presented to it separate from the allocation recommended in the
Strategic Growth Plan, on of which was about 150,000 square feet of commercial space. So
looking at the Collins property in particular, he said, what they were requesting was a
development right of another 150,000 square feet plus what currently existed, for an equivalent of
about 300,000 square feet. He said that would be taking 150,000 square feet against the capacity
as identified in the Strategic Growth Plan, or 6% of the remaining capacity.
Mr. Dye said Parcel A represented about 29% of the total development area in the Master Plan.
Looking at the residential property as a whole, he said that represented about 114.5 acres with
about 1,100 units. Mr. Dye said the residential mix was about 61% of the project area,
commercial was about 29%, and the public and open space was about 10%. He said those
allocations were not a perfect match to the Strategic Growth Plan but were close.
Mr. Dye said other staff present tonight were Cara Lacey and Brian Purdy, Planners with the John
R. McAdams Company and assisted in the development of the design guidelines, and Earl
Lewellyn, a Traffic Engineer with the John R. McAdams Company, whose team had prepared the
traffic analysis for this property.
Mayor Stevens asked Mr. Dye to restate the allocation of units. Mr. Dye responded that he had
understood that when the Town Board had gone through its allocation study, it applied some level
of allocation to the Collins property as a placeholder separate from the end results of that Strategic
Growth Plan. He said that Plan had an allocation of 1,900 residential units, and 1.56 million
square feet of commercial 'space. So, Mr. Dye said, when you take the placeholder allocation
already assigned to this property and subtract it from what they were proposing, that was the
differential they were proposing.
Commissioner Gering said he was curious about some of the statements in the Design Guidelines
that deferred definitions of things like transitional buffers and trail specifications to the Special
Use Permit rather than being specified. He asked why. Mr. Dye replied that the trails for example
would be defined as going in the 50 -foot easement, but the specific location would be designed at
the time. He said there was no fixed point within the 50 feet, noting that topography and other
issues would have to be defined at that site specific level.
Commissioner Gering said so the location may vary, but what would determine that on other
properties. Cara Lacey, with the John R McAdams Company, stated that at the Master Plan level
it was not a requirement, so they prefer to have those defined at the Special Use Permit (SUP)
level when each use was clearly defined. Commissioner Gering stated he did not understand that
the uses had not yet been defined, noting that was the whole point of A — G in the material. Ms.
Lacey said the commercial and residential uses had been defined, but what they did not know was
whether there would be a house directly adjacent to a commercial structure. She said if that turned
out to be the case, a buffer would be installed.
Joint Public Hearing, 03-22-07
Mayor Stevens said as a follow-up, he asked the Town Attorney when you have a general plan and
then get to the SUP level, did that mean it would get negotiated and had only to meet the
requirements of the Board. Town Attorney Bob Hornik said the Board could begin the discussion
about the Master Plan and setting some expectations or general parameters such as what you might
want to see buffered and the presumptive types of buffers with certain uses. Mr. Hornik said it
was correct that the SUP level was when you got the details and where the developer would 'be
specific about each parcel or use. He said it was appropriate to discuss buffers now, but in a non-
specific way since they would likely be modified later after specific uses were more closely
defined.
Ms. Lacey said they were open to having that discussion this evening. Mr. Hornik said the Board
had learned it was better to have that discussion early in the process so that everyone had their
eyes open later on when there may be issues. He said for example, they may not want to have a
gas station in pod B across from a house in pod G, so they had to begin thinking about a list of
uses that may or may not be appropriate next to each other.
Mayor Stevens said it was his understanding that if the proposal said the buffers were to be
determined at the SUP level, in order for the SUP to be approved the Board would have to agree to
the proposed buffers and could be as flexible as it chose. Mr. Hornik said buffers would be a
requirement at that time.
Mr. Dye said their intent was to not create a one size fits all approach. He said they were open to
providing some general parameters and working with staff to provide that at a somewhat more
specific level, but recognizing that more or less might be appropriate depending on how the site
plan took shape.
Commissioner Gering said with respect to street cross-sections in the residential area, particularly
the sidewalk width or planting strip and the landscaping in that strip, he saw no details about the
width of the type of landscaping. Mr. Dye said similarly, they would further define that but again
wee trying to avoid a one size fits all approach.
Ms. Lacey said in the Design Guidelines they had specified a minimum planting strip of 6 feet,
with a minimum sidewalk of 5 feet or greater throughout the project.
Mayor Stevens asked would they focus on a grid pattern for streets wherever possible. Ms. Lacey
said in the summary and introduction, it was stated that a grid pattern would generally be used, but
wanted to have some possible flexibility to meandering streets.
Mr. Remington said regarding the grid pattern, he asked if in the Master Plan the red arrows
indicated exact side street locations, and where they cul-de-sacs? Ms. Lacey said they were
schematic at this pint, and mainly showed potential access points into the parcels. Mr. Dye said
the focus was more on connectivity as allowed by topography.
Commissioner Hallman said in terms of LEEDs certification, was that tied to the overall Master
Plan or to individual SUPS. Mr. Hornik said that was an issue that could be addressed in the
Master Plan, and more specifically addressed in the SUP process as more specific proposals were
Joint Public Hearing, 03-22-07
61
offered. He said you could set general conditions and expectations at the Master Plan stage.
Commissioner Hallman said that was what he would like to do. He said regarding pedestrian
access in pod A along the railroad, he was skeptical that they would be able to obtain that right-of-
way. But if they did, he asked, would they be willing to provide a pedestrian overpass over the
railroad. Mr. Dye said without knowing what it entailed, they would be willing to provide some
kind of easement or provide an opportunity to make sure there was a location to make that
connection. He said in terms of providing it, he did not know what that would entail.
Mr. Farrelly said regarding the proposed 1,100 dwellings, what would that translate into in terms
of the number of residents, and what was that as a percentage of the current population of
Hillsborough. He commented that the proposed 20 dwelling units for affordable housing out of
the 1,100 total was slightly less than 2%. Mr. Dye said regarding the number of residents, they
had assumed at least 2 people per household. Regarding affordable housing, he said they had not
been given any specific direction other than to include it, and had proposed 20 because it balanced
with the other elements in the Plan.
Mr. Farrelly said it would be informative to know what percent of the current Hillsborough
population would qualify for affordable housing, just so they would have some comparison as to
what this development might provide in that context.
Commissioner Hallman said that he believed the figures were that 24% of Hillsborough's
population was at or below the median income of $25,000, making them eligible under the criteria
for affordable housing. Mr. Farrelly said those statistics provide an important framework to allow
the Town to assess access to affordable housing. He said it would give them perspective and
allow them to move the dialogue regarding affordable housing forward.
Commissioner Hallman said he had recommended the developers have a discussion with Robert
Dowling with Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, but did not believe that had has
happened. He said he would like to discuss the offer with Mr. Dowling, noting the 20 units were a
start.
Ms. Wallace said she did not understand question and answer regarding the pedestrian path. Mr.
Dye said the question was whether they would be willing to provide a pedestrian bridge over the
interstate, and they could not answer that at this time. Ms. Wallace asked how it was safe to have
the path on the tract. Mr. Dye said it would not be on the track, noting there was a 200 -foot right-
of-way along with a 50 foot buffer, so it would be appropriate to orient it on the inside of that area.
Mr. Farrelly asked Mr. Dye to restate the historical significance and how it was defined, as well as
what types of parameters were used. Mr. Dye said as he understood it, they used the various
records located with the State Preservation Offices and its specific criteria, as well s other records
related to existing buildings. He said that was really specific to the Collins property, and was
separate from his remarks regarding the significant structures within the Daniel Boone Village.
Mr. Dye said for example, the building that housing the Mexican restaurant had some historical
significance and they would look to preserve it either by using it in a residential setting on another
site or using it within the site as appropriate. He pointed out that the current owners would retain
the rights to that particular structure, and the may choose to use it in some other way. Mr. Dye
Joint Public Hearing, 03-22-07
2
added that there were a couple of areas in the archeological survey that were also reviewed as part
of that research, and nothing was found.
Commissioner Hallman suggested walking the land with local experts rather than visiting the Land
records office in Raleigh.
Ms. Wallace — Trading path organization (could not hear her remarks). Mr. Dye said it was
representative of the boundaries on the property in question.
Ms. Faherty said as it now stood, there was no safe way (could not hear her remarks). Mr.
Dye said that was the way it had been drawn, adding they could look at those opportunities staying
within the boundaries of the property. He said new difficulties arose when you went off-site.
Mayor Stevens asked how much information they had on the rail crossings across Highway 70A,
and asked if that was part of the traffic study. He asked had they researched making that a safe
crossing for vehicles and pedestrians. Mr. Dye said their hope and desire was to preserve that
connection. He said they had met with NC Railroad officials, and had been told their policy was
to not allow it. But, he said, it depended on the railroad's type of ownership of the corridor. Mr.
Dye said they could preserve the crossing if it were an easement situation, or if they had a fee
simple ownership then t hey would have much more control on how it got crossed. He said they
had engaged an attorney that specialized in that type of law to help them determine with some
degree of finality how that could be done.
Mayor Stevens asked would they be willing to go to the extent that was legally allowed. Mr. Dye
responded yes. Mayor Stevens asked if that determination would be rapidly forthcoming. Mr.
Dye said he had asked to have the analysis done as quickly as possible so that a determination
could be made.
Commissioner Hallman asked that specific County comments be addressed, particularly under C.
Transportation, third bullet. He said the County had commented that the transportation analysis
did not adequately address outside impacts, such as in the downtown, the historic district, and on
I-40. He asked for more information on the traffic impact outside of the immediate area of the
development. Earl Lewellyn, head of the Traffic Engineering Group with the John R. McAdams
Company, said the first thing they had done was to meet with NCDOT and set the scope of the
study. He said it was important to keep in mind was that with traffic studies, once you got away
from a certain central node, traffic dispersed quickly. Commissioner Hallman said three were not
a lot of places for it to disperse off of Churton Street. Mr. Lewellyn said he was speaking of once
it got to I-85 of US 70.
Mr. Lewellyn said beyond that point, the trips generated by the land uses proposed here would be
intercepted by other trips already trips already on the network, similar to pass -by traffic. He said
that meant your were attracting trips already on the network, which was why you did not go to
extremes to include every land use proposed, because it you did you would be double -counting
trips on the network. Mr. Lewellyn said NCDOT had agreed that this was the correct number of
intersections to be looked at.
Joint Public Hearing, 03-22-07
Commissioner Hallman asked for an estimate for additional trips south of I-85 and north of the
river. Mr. Lewellyn said they could give them an estimate of those trips, but reiterated that once
you got away from the development you go into not only the dispersal of traffic but trips generated
by existing traffic, so that the total number of trips they proposed to be generated were not actually
realized. Commissioner Hallman what he was asking for was the level of service analysis outside
the immediate area. He said he was mainly interested in the impact on Churton Street north and
south of the project. Commissioner Hallman asked had they done the traffic impact analysis
assuming that the rail crossing was not available to them as a point of ingress and egress. Mr.
Lewellyn said they had submitted the analysis to the Town as if the crossing was there. He said
they had also done a general analysis if the crossing was not there, but had not submitted it. Mr.
Lewellyn said it would mean two southbound through lanes as well as two southbound left -turn
lanes at Mayo Street at Churton, as well as an additional lane on Mayo Street to make the
intersection work.
Mr. Campanella said the Church Street Corridor study had determined that traffic circles would be
an improvement at various points, especially at Orange Grove Road. He asked had they
considered that. Mr. Lewellyn said they had, noting they had started with the assumption of
roundabouts at I-85, Mayo Street, and Orange Grove Road. He said NCDOT had looked at the
interchange and considered roundabouts, but NCDOT and he had concluded that roundabouts
would not work for the traffic generated in the future.
Ms. Ellis asked why this information was not provided prior to the meeting. She said the Town
Board had previously indicated it did not want handouts at the time of the meeting. Ms. Ellis
asked about the private street where they did not have right-of-way. She said that had been noted
as an alley before, and asked where they the same. Ms. Lacey said private streets typically did not
have rights-of-way. Ms. Ellis asked if private streets were only for use by the residents. Ms.
Lacey said yes. Ms. Ellis commented that the recreation area was provided across I-85, and that
was not acceptable for children. Ms. Lacey said the revised Master Plan brought that recreation to
the north in response to earlier comments. She said the handouts brought tonight were to show
response to comments received after submittal of the plans. Ms. Lacey noted that recreation area
had also been expanded from 4.5 areas to 6.5 acres.
Mr. Farrelly said in the new plan, given pod B & G, how do you envision children getting from
pod G to pod D? Ms. Lacey said when those areas were site planned at the SUP level, those areas
would have green spaces that were private to that area, and each of the pods would have access to
a pedestrian greenway. Mr. Farrelly commented that it would be a long hike to get from pod G to
pod D for small children, as much as a mile. Ms. Lacey said that was the area where the
recreational fields were now located.
Mr. Farrelly said with respect to open space, he would like some elaboration on their vision for
how that might be effectively used, noting it appeared to be isolated. Mr. Dye said that was why
they had prepared a recreation plan for that property. He said there was potential for connection
with other open space.
Commissioner Hallman asked if at this stage they were to identify a site for a school in pod G,
then would that be enforced at the SUP stage. Mr. Hornik said the way the subdivision ordinance
Joint Public Hearing, 03-22-07
read it would mean that the school had two years to either acquire the property for school use, and
if it was not used within the two years the property owner/developer could use the property as it
saw fit. Commissioner Hallman asked if that could be done after the Master Plan approval. Mr.
Hornik said he would have to check on that.
Mr. Remington said the Churton Street Corridor Plan called for live -work units in an either/or
section. He asked if there was any chance for it being an "and" instead. Mr. Dye said that was
hard to answer at this point, noting it might also be worked into the existing commercial area. Mr.
Remington said he was more interested in the flexibility rather than it being dedicated.
Commissioner Lloyd asked she saw 1,100 houses that would be using Hillsborough's water, and
she did not know how much this development would help Hillsborough. She said it would help
with tax revenue, but said she did not see many jobs being crated there. Commissioner Lloyd said
compared to others they had reviewed, this plan was very vague. Mr. Dye said they had 550,000
square feet dedicated for retail use. He said their market feasibility study had shown that was very
close to the limit that could be supported.
Ms. Vandemark said she had read market study, and had noticed that the type of commercial uses
were large stores. She asked was she wrong in thinking it seemed to be mostly large stores rather
than small independent stores. Mr. Dye said he numbers did not represent numbers of shops, but
rather square footage. He said a large anchor store, such as a Wal-Mart or a Home Depot, would
claim 100,000+ square feet, and they were aiming for 30,000 to 45,000 for anchor store space,
which would be suitable for uses such as a grocery store. Ms. Vandemark said then this would not
have the same look as Brier Creek. Mr. Dye said it would depend on what area you looked at. He
said the area around Dick's Sporting Goods to up close to the theater was more in line with what
you would see here.
Ms. Wallace said she did not like to see the residential area against the interstate. She asked
would they consider moving that component to a space that was more attractive and useful. Mr.
Dye said they could consider that, but added there was a 100 -foot setback from the edge of the
right-of-way to the edge of the commercial pod, so it was a consideration distance. Ms. Wallace
said she believed that area would be better used for commercial or office space.
Ms. Faherty asked if parcel D was for everyone's use. Mr. Dye said yes. Ms. Faherty asked who
would be responsible for it. Mr. Dye said it would be turned over to the Town.
Mr. Jones asked if they had had any additional dialogue with the existing tenants. Mr. Dye said
they were willing to do that, but it was premature now without an approval from the Town of any
plan. He said he had nothing to offer now that was concrete. Mr. Jones said there was still a lot of
fear on the part of the existing residents.
Ms. Ellis said she had read in the newspaper that it might be a few years before this project was
started. She asked if they were doing another project in another county. Mr. Dye said it wouldn't
have any bearing on this project. Ms. Ellis said if they were staring another project in another
county would the town have to wait to get this one started. Mr. Dye said no.
Joint Public Hearing, 03-22-07
E
Commissioner Gering asked had they had a chance to respond to the County comments. Mr. Dye
said they needed additional time to respond to that courtesy review in detail, but they had made
some initial response. Ms. Lacey said they had reviewed the original comments, but had received
the County's updated comments this evening so they had not had a chance to review those.
Commissioner Hallman, quoting from the Town Manager's comments in the fiscal analysis in
terms of the wastewater treatment plant, said "These plant capacities create a clear limit or ceiling
on how much development Hillsborough can reasonably and affordably accommodate. Therefore,
this continues to place a premium on the importance of budgeting the Town's future water and
sewer capacity as it relates to land use. It also communicates to perspective developers who were
requesting annexation and water and sewer services that access to Hillsborough's utilities was a
limited commodity that would ideally only be offered to projects that clearly provide financial and
quality of life benefits to the Town and its citizens." Commissioner Hallman said as they move
forward, he applauded what had been offered so far, but noted that contributions to the Town's
infrastructure was part and parcel of these discussions.
Commissioner Lloyd said because there would be children living here, she needed to hear what
life was going to be like for them in this development.
Bryant Warren, Chair of the Parks and Recreation Board, said he was glad to see the change on
parcel D, and added that parcel H was a bad place for open space although that might be all it was
good for. Mr. Warren said he appreciated the increase in the acreage for the HYAA fields, noting
they had not received enough funds from the developers of Waterstone. He commented the
developer for putting together a good plan, and said the only problem with it was that if it were
south of I-40 or north of Highway 70 it would be al lot better. Mr. Warren said the impact would
be significant, and they needed to keep in mind the magnitude, the open space, the rights-of-way,
trails and parks.
Commissioner Hallman commented that the allocation received from the Waterstone developers
for completion of the park was far short of what was needed, and ask that that be kept in mind.
Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, commented that the blue sheets distributed this
evening were an abridged version from that discussed at the joint board meeting Monday. He said
the population increase from this development of 2,500 people would increase the Hillsborough
population by 25%. He said school impact fees were not set at 100%, but rather at 60%, so this
project would have an appreciable effect. Mr. Benedict went through some of the other impacts as
noted on the blue sheet.
Mr. Benedict said they were suggesting that a school site be reserved as open space, that good
planning for transportation take place including the future use of a rail line close to pod D or E,
accommodation for future bus service, widen the scope of the traffic impact analysis from
Highway 70 bypass all the way to I-40, retain the Collins field, ensure connectivity to Cate's
Creek greenway, place some of the smaller commercial uses within the residential area to make
the communities more pedestrian friendly, have the project meet the nitrogen control requirements
as part of a committed element even though it was not required, to the degree possible cut and fill
should be minimized, make the County a part of the affordable housing discussions to arrive at a
Joint Public Hearing, 03-22-07
10
percentage that was fair, and provide more specificity to ensure that transitional buffers were
necessary.
Mr. Benedict said the County would like additional time to respond to the change in unit numbers
and the reorientation of some of the tracts. He said the fiscal impact of multi -family and single-
family units should be studied as well. Mr. Benedict said the impact to County services was
complex, and such services as library services, health services, and social services were affected.
He said they wanted a little more time to prepare a cost of services study and analyze what part of
the services were being supplemented by Hillsborough and what were still under County
jurisdiction.
Rich Shaw, a resident Burnside Drive, thank American Asset for the changes made to project as
the result of previous comments. He asked that they take advantage of the unique natural and
cultural assets of the property, such as the HYAA fields, Daniel Boone Village, the mature forest,
the rail line, and the road corridor across the site. Mr. Shaw asked that they consider incorporating
a portion of these items into the overall site.
Holly Reid, a resident of Burnside Drive and a member of the Walkable Hillsborough Coalition,
said she appreciated questions and comments from Board members directed towards American
Asset, noting they were good questions. She echoed the comments made by Commissioner
Hallman regarding the quality of life they wanted for Hillsborough. Ms. Reid read an except from
the "Ten Keys to Walkable Communities" by Dan Burden and provided details on each key. She
asked the developer to consider linkages from this development to other parts of Town, so that
people would not be forced to get in their cars to get there.
Dianna Garrett said she had not heard any information about the impact to Highway 70A, noting
the number of accidents in the area and her concern about safety. She commented on the impact
to wildlife, and the possibility of displacement of that wildlife.
Earl Tye, President of HYAA, stated they had been managing a baseball program for almost 40
years. He said they had 780 participants in the spring, summer and fall baseball programs, with 47
teams locally sponsored. Mr. Tye said they appreciated the revisions that had been shared tonight,
but he wanted to be transparent about their interests in this project. He said they were very
hopeful that as the project moved forward that they could work towards what was truly a baseball
complex that would accommodate the needs of HYAA. Mr. Tye said they were excited and
hopeful, and willing and anxious to be involved.
Steve Piscatelli, a member of the Board of HYAA, echoed Mr. Tye's comments. He said while
they appreciated the revisions, they had been hoping for more. Mr. Piscatelli said they saw this as
a real opportunity to develop a true baseball complex, and asked that pod D be made a little larger
to accommodate that. He said currently HYAA maintained the fields, but had been hesitate to
spend much money on it because they did not know what the future would hold.
Jay Zaragoza stated that he owned a 5 -acre tract with the sole access being across the railroad with
a recorded easement, but the railroad would not let him cross it which effectively made the parcel
landlocked. He said he believed it was irresponsible to show this connection because there was a
Joint Public Hearing, 03-22-07
11
good chance no access would be granted. Mr. Zaragoza said if the project was less dense, the
crossing wouldn't be needed. He noted he was involved in the cell tower on the southern portion
of the property, and said the applicant should be required to commit to keeping the tower.
Miriam McDivett, a resident of the campground, said she had lived there for 16 years. She said
she could hardly believe the publicity, adding it hurt to be labeled as "poor" and as "squatters."
Ms. McDivett said all the residents had been degraded. She said she had received a certified letter
indicating the campground would be closing on May 1, and because many of the trailers could not
be moved they were doomed.
Theresa Justice, a resident of the Partin mobile home park, said she could not move her mobile
home, and asked what they were supposed to do. She asked who would compensate them for their
homes. Ms. Justice asked if the mobile home park residents would get first rights to the affordable
housing as well as help with moving expenses.
Jennifer Miller said she had emailed her comments to the Board, adding she agreed with the
Orange County Planning Director's comments as well as previous speakers.
Ms. McDivett, daughter of Miriam McDivett, commented that the developers had likely never
lived somewhere like Hillsborough. She said she did not have a fancy house and was not wealthy,
but she was not poor, either. Ms. McDivett said she had spent her entire life here and hated to see
it change from a truly historical town.
Mayor Stevens thankedall those who had spoken tonight. He said many of those present were
being directly impacted either through their homes or businesses. Mayor Stevens suggested that
the Board members be polled to get a list of questions or needed items in order to generate a list
for the applicants.
Commissioner Hallman commented he would like to go through the new material first.
Commissioner Lloyd agreed.
Mr. Remington remarked that there were things they know at the present time that would enable
them to generate a preliminary list. Mr. Farrelly agreed that was reasonable.
Mr. Campanella, speaking to HYAA, asked what kind of facility they would like to have if they
had a choice. Mr. Tye said they actually had a drawing of a proposed complex, and would be
happy to share that with the Boards.
Commissioner Hallman suggested everyone compile there questions in the next day or so and
forward them to the applicant. Mr. Hornik suggested the lists go to Planning staff for compilation.
Ms. Wallace asked should they restate what's been said. Mr. Hornik said if it was important and
they wanted to make sure it was answered, then put it on the list.
Mr. Dye commented he would welcome the lists within the next few days.
Joint Public Hearing, 03-22-07
12
ITEM #3: Discussion of whether to formally close or continue the public hearing and
next steps.
Commissioner Lloyd remarked that tonight's hearing was not in today's paper. She suggested
continuing the hearing to the April 19 hearing.
MOTION: Commissioner Hallman moved to hold the hearing open until April 19, 2007. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Lowen. The vote was unanimous.
ITEM #4. Adjourn.
The joint public hearing was adjourned at 9:21 p.m.
Joint Public Hearing, 03-22-07