TOWN OF BOONE
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 11, 2013 at 6 PM
Meeting Minutes
Members Present: Chairperson Eric Woolridge, Vice-Chairperson Greg Simmons, Cameron Lippard, Donald Dotson, Robert Cherry, Phoenikx Buathier, Susan McCracken, Tom Purpur and Web Alexander
Staff Present: Mr. Bill Bailey-Director of Planning and Inspections, Jane Shook-Planner, Christy Turner, Planner and Marlene Crosby-Board Secretary
Call to Order
Chairperson Woolridgecalled the Planning Commission meeting to order at6:05PM.
Adoption of Agenda
Member McCracken made a motion to accept the agenda as written, seconded by Member Buathier.
Vote:Aye – All
Nay- None
The vote is unanimous.
Approval of Minutes
Member Lippard made a motion to accept the January 14, 2013 Planning Commission meeting minutes with four changes made by Vice-Chairperson Simmons,seconded by Member Dotson.
.Vote:Aye – All
Nay- None
The motion passes.
CASE 20120726 Watauga Medical Center, Zoning Map Amendment Petition for General Use District, request to rezone 140, 176 and 180 Mary Street (PIN: 2910706816000) from R-2 Two Family Residential to O/I Office Institutional
Vice-Chairperson Woolridge asked Mr. Bill Bailey, Director of Planning and Inspections, if he had any comments on this case. Mr. Bailey said no and that the staff can answer questions on this case. Vice-Chairperson Simmons asked if this case is related to temporary uses. Mr. Bailey said it does not relate to temporary uses. Mr. Bailey referred to map in the meeting packet. Mr. Bailey said now that the Watauga Medical Center has control of the said property, they want to rezone the property from the R-2 zoning classification to anO/I zoning classification. Mr. Bailey said that this zoning request change would better fit into the plans they have for this property. Vice-Chairperson said that he asked the temporary use question because of the information he read on page one of the staff report under Analysis – Land Use and Zoning “At the time the temporary classrooms were permitted, they were permitted with a temporary use permit standard which is no longer available with the modification of temporary uses within the last year". Vice-Chairperson Simmons clarified that the temporary use is no longer available. Mr. Bailey said it is a legal non-conforming use. Vice-Chairperson Simmons asked if in the current Table of Permissible Uses the temporary use is permitted by right. Mr. Bailey said yes.
First motion and vote:
Planning Commission Member Buathier made a motion, seconded by Planning Commission Member Cherry, that the proposed amendment to the Town’s zoning map is consistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and other applicable adopted plans of the Town which relate to this application because the adjacent properties are O/I or business; the rezoning would go along with the existing uses already in the area; the property is located in the Boone Comprehensive Plan Primary Growth Area; Comprehensive Plan 2.1.2 (B) “office development shall be encouraged to locate in planned shopping centers, office parks to stop the proliferation of strip development”; Comprehensive Plan 2.1.2 (I) “O/I development may be encouraged as a transitional use between residential areas and higher intensity commercial activities; and because the property is located in a regional center on the 2030 Land Use Plan.
Vice-Chairperson Simmons offered a friendly amendment to outline the town policies that support this motion. Vice-Chairperson Simmons noted the following sections of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, 2.1.2 B, 2.1.2 I and he also pointed that this is a regional center on the 2030 Land Use Plan. Member Buathier accepted this friendly amendment.
VOTE: AYE- All
Nay- None
The motion passes.
Second motion and vote:
Planning Commission Vice-Chair Simmons made a motion, seconded by Planning Commission Member Alexander, to recommend approval because the temporary use permit standard assigned for the parcels is no longer available with the modification of temporary uses within the last year, and a general district change to O/I is appropriate for this area, given the parcels proximate location to other O/I zoned property contracted by the hospital.
VOTE: AYE- All
Nay- None
The motion passes.
CASE 20130001 Town of Boone, UDO Text Amendment Request, Supplemental standards for multi-family uses.
Paper copies of the handouts received at the February 4, 2013 Quarterly Public Hearing and copies of recent emails since the February 4, 2013, Quarterly Public Hearing meeting that were received by staff from the Planning Commission members regarding this case.
Chairperson Woolridge asked Mr. Bailey, if the staff had any general comments regarding this case. Mr. Bailey said they had no additional comments from what was said at the Quarterly Public Hearing and the staff is available to answer questions on this case.
Chairperson Woolridge opened the floor for general questions regarding this case. He explained that if there were questions of the Affordable Housing Task Force members in the audience; a public hearing would have to be opened to hear additional testimony.
Member McCracken wanted to know the ultimate goal of the Affordable Housing Task Force. She explained that there is the task force doing work, there is a county process, there is the revising of the UDO and a housing study. She asked for clarification on how all of these things fit together.
Mr. Bailey said the goal for the UDO was to clarify and make changes to improve the Table of Permissible Uses. Mr. Bailey explained how different parts of the ordinance link back to the Table of Permissible Uses. Mr. Bailey said that regarding the changes to the Table of Permissible Uses,the staff is adding other uses because case law demands that they be more specific and elaborate in the explanation of the uses. Mr. Bailey said that the staff has reformatted the UDO because it was running out of space. Mr. Bailey said the staff simplified the language and looked at the processes and removed any unnecessary language to the specific text. Mr. Bailey said that the UDO revisions are not impacting other code changes the Town Council may consider.
Mr. Bailey said the Affordable Housing Task Force was set up in 2007. Mr. Bailey said their goal was to find a solution to the lack of affordable housing in the Town of Boone. The people of the town were hearing that there was student housing but not family-oriented housing. The Affordable Housing Task Force was directed by the Town Council to focus on this type of housing.
Member McCracken asked if the Affordable Housing Task Force had a goal to submit a report with comprehensive recommendations. Mr. Bailey said that he would need to leave that answer up to the Town Council. Mr. Bailey said that currently there is a housing study and it will produce recommendations that will go to the task force and they will create a report to submit to the Town Council. Mr. Bailey said the report might cause another public hearing and Planning Commission meeting to review the new information.
Chairperson Woolridge asked about the completion of the housing study. Mr. Bailey said it is under contract and it has a fairly short time frame to be completed; but he did not know when it would be completed. Mr. Bailey said the staff was able to provide the people doing the study with some information from a previous study that will speed up their process.
McCracken asked if the study was being done by an outside contractor. Mr. Bailey said yes because the staff was working on the UDO revisions. Member McCracken noted that there is a chance that the proposed text amendment will change after the recommendations are submitted by the outside contractor to the task force. Mr. Bailey said yes and the Town Council can change it, when they adopt it.
Chairperson Woolridge asked if there was a reason why this case has come before them; now rather than waiting for the results of the housing study. Mr. Bailey said that the task force felt pressured by the Town Council to move forward with their proposed definitions and interpretations of UDO Section 175.
Member Lippard said that he is a member of the Affordable Housing Task Force since 2011. He said the way that he looks at the task force is that it is an evolution. He said that this proposed amendment can change due to the result of the housing report. He said that the task force did feel pressure to move forward with their proposed definitions and interpretations. He said that well before he joined the task force, there had been a lot of time spent on this topic by the task force.
Vice-Chairperson Simmons noted that the title of this case is Supplementary Standards for Multi-family Housing Development and the petitioners are the Affordable Housing Task Force. He said it became clear to him as he was reading through the task force meeting minutes, that in early 2011 that the discussion moved from affordable housing to family-orientated multi-family housing. He said as the proposed amendment is presented, it doesn’t have anything to do with affordability. He said it has to do with Supplementary Standards for Multi-family Housing Development. He also noted that hundreds of hours of work have gone into studying this topic by the task force. He noted that by February 7, 2012 the Town Council unanimously endorsed this new direction of study. He said that initially the task force was charged to work on affordable housing.
Member Lippard said that he was defending the task force; by talking about the Town Council assigning the task force with the monumental and multi-faceted problem to focus on housing that was not student housing. He said the way the task force looked at this assignment from the Town Council was just one way to make this type of housing available in the Town of Boone. He said in what zoning district should there be affordable housing.He said the Town Council wants to protect the R-1 zoning district or residential single family. He said it was not the intent of the task force to not allow students affordable housing. He said that he believes that when the housing study results are completed that the report will show many facets of ways to approach this assignment.
Member McCracken asked if the task force had discussed a comprehensive report to be rolled out in stages. Member McCracken asked if there were other things that should be expected to come forth from the task force in the near future. Member Lippard said he was not sure but there could be other facets that would need to be rolled out from the housing study or from the Quarterly Public Hearing or Planning Commission meetings. Member Lippard talked about the City of Davidson, North Carolina and how they had a public private commitment for the housing in their city. Member Lippard said that there needs to be more discussion on housing and the task force needs more direction from the Town Council on how to figure out how to resolve affordable housing.
Member McCracken asked Mr. Bailey of all the multi-family complexes that have been built in the town’s jurisdiction, how many of those complexes have been built under a conditional district zoning permit process. Mr. Bailey said for the most part the complexes have been built under the conditional district zoning permit process.
Member McCracken said one of her concerns came from the quarterly public hearing for this case. Her concern was if this proposed amendment is passed, it will be a blanket for all multi-family developments with no exceptions. Member McCracken said she is curious, if these recommendations in the proposed amendment could be provided as options through another mechanism. Member McCracken said she is concerned that these recommendations will go for every single building that is built until something else comes along and the text gets changed. Member McCracken talked more about conditional district zoning.
Discussion ensued on allowing this type of housing by right.
Chairperson Woolridge asked each Planning Commission member to talk about their thoughts on this case.
Member McCracken talked about the research that she did on this case. Member McCracken said she saw where other towns have a goal to allow 10 percent of their housing stock for affordable housing and this meets their guidelines for affordable housing. She talked about offsetting the costs somewhere else through another mechanism to make this a viable and attractive option for developers and a place that people can truly afford to live and work here.
Member Cherry said that overall he supports the proposed amendment but there are some issues with it. He said that he is sensitive to the developers needing to make a profit. He said there is definitely a need for affordable housing in the Town of Boone. He said that he works for the Blue Ridge Parkway Park Service and there are rangers making descent salaries that cannot afford to live in the Town of Boone. He said they live in Lenoir, North Carolina or out in Watauga County.
Member Purpur said that at this point, he is totally undecided. He said there is a need for affordable housing and he is sensitive to the increased costs for the builders.
Member Dotson said that he agrees with Vice-Chairperson Simmons, when he said it is not a perfect solution but it is a starting point.
Member Buathier said that her concern is for parking in the multi-family developments. She said overall the proposed amendment was good but she felt that the language should be tweaked to add some strong limitations to the parking.
Member Alexander said that he appreciates the hours of work that was put into the proposed amendment and the spirit in which it was presented at the quarterly public hearing meeting. But, he thinks there are a lot of flaws in it. He said that he is not sure that it will create affordable housing without increasing costs to the builders.
Member Lippard said that the proposed amendment needs more tweaking and more public input. He said maybe it was time to ask the Town Council to get more investment from the people who said we need affordable housing.
Vice-Chairperson Simmons reiterated that once he was able to let the word “affordable” go from his thinking, he was able to focus on housing and the supplemental standards for multi-family uses. He said the only reference to the word “affordable” is in the petitioner’s name. He said that he called Mr. Jim Smith from United Developers in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Vice-Chairperson Simmons talked about Mr. Smith’s concerns on affordability regarding the proposed amendment. Vice-Chairperson Simmons talked about the federal and state requirements for developers. Mr. Smith told Vice-Chairperson Simmons that his concern is high land costs because the Town of Boone land costs are three times the amount of land in Randolph or Guilford counties. Mr. Smith’s other concern was the 50 percent of open space. Vice-Chairperson Simmons talked about different types of housing and when adding a layer of affordability over them is a difficult thing to do. Vice-Chairperson Simmons said that in 2011 the Town Council changed their direction and asked the task force to focus on family-orientated and multi-family housing. Vice-Chairperson Simmons saidif this proposed amendment is about affordability, he does not see it achieving affordability.
Discussion ensued on changing the title and removing the name affordable. Member Lippard said if it is a matter of semantics, the name can be changed and that is an easy fix. Vice-Chairperson Simmons said then the question becomes does the new name help you obtain your goal of affordability.
Member Buathier asked if the R-3 zoning district is the only district that student housing can be built in. Mr. Bailey said student housing can go into the B-1, B-2 and B-3 and O/I zoning districts. Mr. Bailey went over the other zoning districts that student housing can be built in with a mixed-use component. Member Buathier asked
Chairperson Woolridge talked about the old Watauga High School property and how will this proposed amendment affect it. He said the Town Council can suggest a higher density to allow this type of project to move forward. He said he would like to know what the commission members think about it.
Member McCracken said it more than semantics. She wanted to know the legal options to locate certain zoning districts for certain kinds of housing. Shetalked about locations for student housing. She said it is her concern that if this proposed amendment is approved, it will increase the monthly rent costs for students and add to their debt.
Vice-Chairperson Simmons said that housing options are one thing and who can live there is a different issue.