HomeMy Public PortalAbout6.21.2007 Planning Board Minutes and Agenda01994 Town of Hillsborough
AGENDA
PLANNING BOARD
Thursday, June 21, 2006,1
7:00 PM, Town Barn
ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum.
ITEM #2: Adoption of minutes from May meeting
ITEM #3: Additions to the agenda & agenda adjustment.
ITEM #4: Committee reports and updates
• Board of Adjustment
• Parks and Recreation Board
ITEM #5: Review, discuss and formulate recommendation regarding Cornelius Street/US 70
Corridor Plan
Action requested: Recommend action to the Town Board
ITEM #6: Discuss Zoning Ordinance text amendment to remove density bonus option for
attached dwelling units
Action requested: Vote required scheduling this item for public hearing
ITEM #7: Discuss Zoning Ordinance text amendments related to Phase II stormwater
compliance.
Action requested: Vote required scheduling this item for public hearing
ITEM #8: Discuss Zoning Ordinance text amendments to maintain new meeting and public
hearing schedule.
Action requested: Vote required scheduling this item for public hearing
ITEM #9: Discuss Rules of Procedure amendment to change meeting time and month or
organizational meeting
Action requested: Motion to approved changes
ITEM #10: Adjourn
Please call the Clerk or Planning Department if you cannot attend
732-1270 ext. 73
101 East Orange Street • P.O. Box 429 • Hillsborough, North Carolina 2 72 78
919-732-1270 • Fax 919-644-2390
MINUTES
PLANNING BOARD
June 212007, 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Matthew Farrelly, Edna Ellis, Eric Oliver, Dave Remington, Toby
Vandemark, and Barrie Wallace.
STAFF: Margaret Hauth.
ITEM #I: Call to Order and Confirmation of a Quorum.
Mr. Farrelly called the meeting to order at approximately 7:03 and confirmed a quorum of
the Planning Board.
ITEM #2: Adoption of Minutes from the May 17, 2007 meeting.
Mr. Oliver stated that under Corbin Creek, the first motion was placing in on the agenda for
the June 11 public hearing. He said he believed that was the June 11 Board meeting at
which they would call a public hearing. Mr. Farrelly said on page 5, the first full paragraph,
second line, the word "toilers" should be "toilets."
MOTION: Mr. Oliver moved to approve the minutes as amended.
SECOND: Mr. Remington.
VOTE: Unanimously approved.
ITEM #3: Additions to the Agenda and Agenda Adjustments.
Ms. Hauth noted she would provide a staff update during Item #4. There were no other
additions or adjustments to the agenda.
ITEM #4: Committee reports and updates.
Board of Adjustment: Mr. Remington stated the BOA had begun consideration of the site
plan request for the asphalt plant. He said the hearing was continued to July 5.
Parks and Recreation Board: Ms. Wallace said the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
was complete and that Board voted to recommend to the Planning Board that it be sent to
public hearing, but was not sure when that would be. She said that Board's next project was
the Community Access Plan for pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between all parks and
parts of Town.
Ms. Wallace said the Parks and Recreation Board would hold a summit in August with
various agencies to discuss what each group was working on and to provide information
regarding the Master Plan. She added that the Hillsborough Fit Communities grant had
been denied, but there were other grant opportunities.
Ms. Wallace stated that Walkable Hillsborough Day was a success, and next year they were
considering adding a bicycle tour. She said that Kings Highway Park would be opened
soon, possibly in July.
Ms. Hauth said they had hired a Senior Planner, and he would begin work on August 1. She
said his primary responsibility would be the Board of Adjustment.
Staff Updates: Ms. Hauth provided an overview of the July public hearing items. She said
the Parks and Recreation Master Plan was ready for public hearing; that American Asset
would be back with the information requested at the last hearing; that the Hampton Point
Planning Board June 21, 2007 page 1 of 7
convenience store/restaurant would be back with modifications, noting that Huddle House
was no longer part of the application; possibly two small annexation requests; rezoning of
the parcel that was Gold Park due to the required setbacks in the floodplain; and, any text
amendments on tonight's agenda that the Board chose to include.
Mr. Farrelly said regarding American Asset, at the last hearing there was too much
information to be thoughtful about it. He said there was a wide range of issues to get
through, and this was the biggest project the Board had ever seen. Mr. Farrelly said it made
sense to him to organize the topics, such as traffic, density, configurations, and so on. He
suggested they pick several topics to concentrate on, and leave the others for the next
meeting. Mr. Farrelly said if American Asset was not willing to do that, and wanted to
throw all issues out at once, he did not see how other topics could be placed on the agenda.
Mr. Oliver said regarding the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, what would the steps be
once it was placed on the public hearing schedule. Ms. Hauth said it would go to public
hearing and this Board would make recommendations, and it would then go to the Town
Board for consideration. She said there had not yet been significant public input, but the
summit in August was aimed to do that prior to the public hearing.
Mr. Oliver said he believed this Board would be amazed by the document, noting it was a
quality piece of work and the Parks and Recreation Board had done a great job on it. He
suggested that it be placed on the Town's website for a couple of months and comments
solicited prior to it being placed on the public hearing schedule. Ms. Wallace agreed.
Ms. Hauth said she would talk with the Mayor and American Asset regarding organizing
topics for discussion.
Ms. Hauth commented that although reported differently, the parking amendment for
Corbin Creek was not approved by the Town Board. She said the Town Board felt that
since the project was outside the Town limits, they had additional flexibility to not extend
water and sewer to it.
Ms. Ellis remarked that the Town Board also believed the project may not meet the
requirements for a cluster subdivision. Ms. Hauth stated that the Town Board wanted the
cluster subdivision ordinance to be a priority of the ordinance rewrite.
ITEM 5: Review, discuss, and formulate recommendation regarding Cornelius Street/US 70
Corridor Plan.
Ms. Hauth said the Cornelius Street/US 70 Corridor Task Force had been meeting for about
a year to recommend some redevelopment concepts including commercial and residential
development, some safety and code enforcement issues, and others. She said an open house
was held in December attended by about 30 people.
Ms. Hauth said at this point, the Task Force was asking that the Cornelius Street/US 70
Corridor Plan be endorsed by the Town.
Ms. Wallace asked why the Orange County Planning Board had expressed concern about
the level of involvement of the corridor residents. Ms. Hauth said even though she had
communicated with them repeatedly about the Town's efforts to involve those residents and
how supportive those residents had been, the County had not believed her.
Planning Board June 21, 2007 page 2 of 7
Mr. Oliver said he had been surprised by that concern, noting he had attended the December
open house and a lot of exchange had taken place, adding that the residents of the corridor
had been very involved in the process.
Ms. Vandemark said she was surprised by the concern as well, agreeing that the residents
had been involved in the process from the beginning.
Mr. Remington said regarding redevelopment, the idea was to have businesses fronting
directly on the road. He wondered if given that it would be a four -lane highway, was that
what they really wanted. Mr. Remington suggested perhaps having the businesses back up
to the road as they did at Hampton Point, which he agreed was not attractive.
Ms. Vandemark said the idea was to have the businesses front the road, but noted they
would not be right on the roadway but set back with walking and bike paths between them
and the roadway. Ms. Hauth said those types of principles were considered and building
fronts were preferred, rather than building backs.
Mr. Remington said then the parking would be behind the businesses, and asked were the
residents okay with that since parking lots hidden away sometimes had safety issues. He
said the residences would be behind those parking lots. Mr. Oliver responded that residents
were used to looking at buildings and parking lots. He said visibility was preferred so that
residents could see what was happening in the parking lots.
Mr. Remington asked how supportive the residents of the high density aspects were. Ms.
Vandemark replied very supportive, noting that many of the suggestions came from the
residents themselves, with some coming from business owners already in that corridor. She
said that mixed use was accepted as being more vibrant. Mr. Remington said the comments
offered eased his concerns, noting he had been concerned about that mix of uses.
Ms. Wallace asked if people had a problem with the high density, and was some of that
concern because the area was in the historic district and they didn't want that area to
change.
Mr. Remington said some people did not want high density, noting that it was indicative of
big cities. Ms. Vandemark said there was a big difference between this and the
Boone/Collins redevelopment, where there were hundreds, possibly up to a thousand people
involved. Mr. Remington agreed, noting the scale of the Boone/Collins redevelopment was
troubling. He commented that this plan was a nice effort.
Ms. Ellis said she would like to see the Plan extended a block further to improve that
entrance into Town. Ms. Hauth said that area was the next to be looked at.
MOTION: Mr. Oliver moved to recommend to the Town Board approval of the Cornelius Street/US 70
Corridor Plan as presented.
SECOND: Ms. Vandemark.
VOTE: Unanimous.
ITEM 6: Discuss Zoning Ordinance text amendment to remove density bonus option for
attached dwelling units.
Planning Board June 21, 2007 page 3 of 7
Ms. Hauth stated that the Town Board had expressed interest in doing this, but had not done
so. She said some time ago the Town had made it easier to build duplexes and quads, and
the ordinance contained language that allowed a density bonus to allow more intensity with
approval of the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Hauth said some developers were looking at that
ordinance closely which was causing the Town some concern, because it was being
considered for use in the historic district.
Ms. Hauth stated that the historic district guidelines discouraged density in order to
maintain the scale, appeal, and character of the district. She said the Town Board was
looking at ways to identify what the character of the historic district was, and then find a
way to craft an ordinance that would work along with the historic district guidelines to
protect that district.
Ms. Ellis said some of the lots at issue were in West Hillsborough, which was not in the
historic district. Ms. Hauth stated that was true, but there was some concern in West
Hillsborough that multiple lots would be purchased together, with what existed being torn
down and something else being constructed.
Mr. Oliver said if there was a concern with a specific area of Town, rather than taking the
density bonus totally out why not apply it to just the areas of Town of concern. He asked
did they really want to eliminate it so that it could not be used in areas of Town where it
might be beneficial, such as the Cornelius Street/US 70 corridor. Ms. Hauth said she did
not believe this ordinance had ever been used to increase density. Mr. Oliver said he
understood that, but certain areas of the Town were beginning to be developed, and this
ordinance might be useful in that.
Ms. Ellis asked how that would affect the Corbin Creek area. Ms. Hauth said in theory, you
could apply to increase the density, but the lots there were very small and it would be highly
unlikely that they would meet the necessary standards of the zoning ordinance. She
remarked that the lot sizes were already smaller than allowed by the ordinance, so how
could they possibly hope to receive a density bonus.
Mr. Remington asked how the sentence prior to the language struck through in Item D was
different from what was already struck through. Ms. Hauth said if you had a 20,000 square
foot lot zoned R-10, you could build a duplex by right. But, she said, if you had that same
20,000 square foot lot and you wanted to try to put a third unit on it, you could come before
the Board of Adjustment and ask for a Conditional Use Permit.
Ms. Wallace said owners could still attempt to get a density bonus through the Planning
Board and the Town Board to achieve the same end. Ms. Hauth said that could only be
done through a rezoning, and removing this provision from the ordinance would make that
very difficult.
Mr. Farrelly said the other thing connected to this was that someone could go to the
Planning Board or the Board of Adjustment, with no connection between the two. He said
someone could apply for the density bonus and choose to go to the Board of Adjustment
and skip the Planning Board. Ms. Hauth responded there were Conditional Use Permits 1
that were for intensive uses such as mining operations, sewer plants, or very tall cell towers.
She said they had to come before the Planning Board who would then offer an advisory
opinion to the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Hauth said anything else was a Conditional Use 2
Planning Board June 21, 2007 page 4 of 7
which went straight to the Board of Adjustment, adding the applicant did not get to choose
which process they went through. Mr. Farrelly said because the process mentioned only
duplexes and did not mention triplexes or quads, it was hard to follow.
Ms. Wallace said that this change, then, would protect the Town from the creativity of a
developer who might think to do something the Town had not anticipated and were not
ready to do, especially in West Hillsborough and the historic district.
Mr. Oliver stated that the historic district did not need protection, noting the Historic
District Commission did that. He said frankly, he would like to see West Hillsborough
developed.
Mr. Farrelly said he was not sure that the Historic District Commission could protect the
historic district. He said one question was what the timeline would be to develop some
other process, because he believed they should be thinking about creating density where it
made sense.
Mr. Remington said if this Board did not vote to send this to public hearing, the Town
Board could request that it be done anyway. Ms. Hauth said yes, but the question was could
they do it as quickly since it was too late for the July meeting, and they did not meet in
August. And, she added, even though it was discussed at the Town Board's last meeting no
motion was made to send it to public hearing. Ms. Hauth said that was why it was brought
before the Planning Board. Mr. Remington said he believed the issue was worth a public
hearing.
MOTION: Ms. Wallace moved to recommended that this item be placed on the public hearing
schedule.
SECOND: Mr. Remington.
VOTE: Unanimous.
ITEM 7: Discuss Zoning Ordinance text amendments related to Phase II stormwater
compliance.
Ms. Hauth noted that Hillsborough was a Phase II community and would need to do some
additional work on stormwater control, including nutrient loading and runoff. She said that
would require a number of amendments to the zoning ordinance that would need to be in
place by October 1, and would be brought to this Board in July. Ms. Hauth said primarily,
the County had agreed on a contract basis to review the Town's stormwater plans and allow
the Town to use the County's ordinance to determine the nitrogen loading and other things
to help the Town meet the State regulations under Phase II. She said the State also wanted
to see some specific provisions in the Town's ordinance, rather than just stating the plans
would meet Orange County's ordinance. Ms. Hauth said those specific provisions would
pertain to high and low density options, and other items regarding the proper references in
the ordinance.
Ms. Hauth said the Town's current ordinance Section 5.20 would likely be substituted for
sections that more clearly described a higher level of control for stormwater.
Mr. Oliver wondered if these new stormwater control regulations would in any way prohibit
the draining of a stormwater retention pond or a detention pond almost directly into a creek.
He said that capability existed in the current ordinance. Terry Hackett, with Orange
County, stated initially they had believed they would only have to deal with nitrogen
Planning Board June 21, 2007 page 5 of 7
reduction, but had recently discovered that was not the case. He said that was where the
high and low density options came in. Mr. Hackett said the requirements would require
additional stormwater BMPs, i.e. detention. He said water could be released into a creek,
but only by meeting certain provisions. Mr. Hackett said those provisions would include
that the water released could not cause erosion, so the outlet structure would have to release
the water in such a way that it did not increase velocity.
Mr. Oliver asked were there restrictions about where the outfall actually occurred and how
far it had to be away from a stream, so that it had an opportunity to percolate through the
ground to get to the stream rather than running directly to the stream. Mr. Hackett said yes,
noting there would be two standards to govern that. He said the requirements would
address stormwater volume, velocity, and impervious surface. Mr. Hackett said because
Hillsborough was in the Neuse River Basin which was a nutrient sensitive water shed, the
Neuse rules had to be complied with as well, which was the Orange County part of this. He
said part of those rules covered diffuse flow before the water entered the stream buffer,
which was where level spreaders came in although not all of the ones put in place worked.
Mr. Oliver asked was there any strong restrictions today about what could be released from
a detention pond, for instance one from a manufacturing site that might contain
contaminants. Mr. Hackett said not in these rules, but those types of industrial facilities
were governed by another set of rules which would require permits. He said under the
Phase II rules, what was reaching a detention pond should strictly be what was coming off
of roofs and parking lots and across the ground, and not coming into contact with chemicals
or raw materials that might be stored in a manufacturing or industrial facility.
Mr. Remington asked for an explanation of a level spreader. Mr. Hackett said basically
when you have a detention pond collecting stormwater runoff from a development, then
depending on the design it would fill up and let water out at a given rate. He said that water
would flow through either an open ditch or possibly a pipe into a junction box, and the first
bit of that water would flow across a curb, so that when the water topped the curb it caused
the flow of water to be a sheet flow as opposed to a channel.
Mr. Farrelly asked what a BMP was. Mr. Hackett stated that was Best Management
Practices.
Mr. Oliver asked if the level spreader was required to handle the first 1/2 inch of water. Mr.
Hackett said that was correct. Mr. Oliver asked if there was any requirement for a level
spreader if you had three inches in an hour and the detention pond was overfilled. He asked
would a relief valve or some other mechanism be required. Mr. Hackett said no, stating the
level spreader was designed so that if more than 1/2 inch of water was released there would
have to be a bypass channel, which he said seemed to short-circuit the process. He said that
part of the requirements would likely be reconsidered.
MOTION: Mr. Oliver moved to recommend that this item be placed on the public hearing schedule.
SECOND: Ms. Vandemark.
VOTE: Unanimous.
ITEM 8: Discuss Zoning Ordinance text amendments to maintain new meeting and public
hearing schedule.
Planning Board June 21, 2007 page 6 of 7
Ms. Hauth said this was to officially change the meeting time of public hearings to the
fourth Tuesday rather than the third Thursday, and the same with the Rules of Procedures in
Item #9. She said these issues could be delayed until October.
Mr. Oliver said he did not necessarily want to give up the opportunity for a Planning Board
public hearing. He said that would be like giving up four Planning Board meetings each
year. Ms. Hauth said that was correct. Mr. Oliver said he did not want to do that.
Mr. Remington said he agreed with that concern, and suggested waiting a while longer to
see if the schedule interfered with the Board's work. Ms. Hauth said there was no rush to
do anything, but agreed that the Board would see a difference in their work load if the
schedule was changed. She said the fact that the Board was able to receive minutes from its
last meeting at its current meeting had proven valuable.
Ms. Ellis said she believed there should be more time between the public hearing and the
time when the Board actually had to vote on an issue, to allow more time to digest all the
information. She said she believed there should be at least a month between the two. Mr.
Farrelly said that time was available now, so he did not understand her concern.
Mr. Remington agreed that what the Board was doing now on a trial basis was giving them
that time to consider issues.
Mr. Oliver suggested that perhaps an additional meeting could be added to the schedule
each quarter for particular issues. Ms. Hauth asked was he suggesting that the additional
meeting would be used to work on what the Board wanted to work on and not on
development applications. Mr. Farrelly said that was a fair statement.
The Board agreed by consensus to table Items 48 and 49.
ITEM #9: Discuss Rules of Procedure amendment to change meeting time and month of
organizational meeting.
Tabled.
ITEM #12: Adjourn.
Upon a motion by Mr. Oliver, seconded by Ms. Vandemark, the Board moved to adjourn
the hearing. The vote was unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Margarel Hauth, Secretary
Planning Board June 21, 2007 page 7 of 7