2026-10-12 - Planning Board

01:59Mhm.

02:44>> 8 2026 meeting minutes. Do we have any

02:47comments, questions, or do we have a

02:49motion?

02:50>> Motion to approve.

02:52>> Second.

02:52>> We got a motion to approve and a second.

02:55All in favor?

02:56>> Aye.

02:57>> Any opposed?

02:59All right.

03:01The next item on the agenda is the city

03:03council action updates.

03:08>> As we discussed at the last meeting, the

03:09council has not met yet. So, this is

03:11just a reminder of that schedule.

03:14The rezoning requests that were

03:15considered by the planning board in

03:16September will be on the agenda for

03:19council next Tuesday. And then those

03:22considered this evening will be on the

03:24November council agenda.

03:27>> And the next item is text amendments to

03:30table 4-1-1 of the Mebane Unified

03:32Development Ordinance.

03:36>> This request is coming related to the

03:39rezoning request for property on South

03:41Second Street.

03:43Um in 2021, there was an applicant

03:46initiated text amendment to allow for

03:49residential uses in the B-1 zoning

03:52district. A couple of residential uses

03:55were left out of that request including

03:57two-family dwelling or duplex and

03:59single-family detached.

04:01Staff has assessed um the idea of a

04:04two-family dwelling duplex being allowed

04:06in B1 and think um that this is

04:09something that's possible and would have

04:12low impact. So, the idea is to make the

04:15two-family dwelling permitted by right

04:17in the B1 zoning district. Currently,

04:19this use is only allowed in the R8

04:22zoning district and the R6 zoning

04:23district. It requires a larger minimum

04:27lot area than is typical in R8 and R6

04:31and also has to meet the standard

04:32setbacks

04:34of that residential zoning district.

04:37You'll see at the bottom of the slide

04:40that um I've included information from

04:43Article 3 of the Mebane UDO which has a

04:45description of the different zoning

04:47districts.

04:49And for B1, um the section that covers

04:53residential in that description says

04:56that the B1 zoning district is intended

04:58to allow for higher density residential

05:00dwellings consistent with the denser

05:02development type of an urban center.

05:08This is a map showing you what

05:10properties in Mebane are currently zoned

05:12B1.

05:13It's less than 2% of properties. This is

05:15our central business zoning district, so

05:18it is fairly concentrated around what is

05:21commonly known as downtown Mebane.

05:24The hatched red white that you see are

05:28conditional district zonings, so they

05:29already have site-specific plans

05:32or other development restrictions

05:34associated with them.

05:36Nearly all of these properties are

05:38developed with some type of structure or

05:40some type of parking lot.

05:42So, if there's any concern about

05:45duplexes emerging in the surrounding

05:47residential around downtown that would

05:50necessitate

05:52a rezoning. So, it would be a public

05:54process.

05:57Are there any questions for me about the

05:59text amendment request?

06:04>> I have a question.

06:05Um

06:08Why

06:10why do this now? Like, I'm

06:14it when I was looking at this, it seemed

06:16like it would make more sense if you

06:19wanted to if you wanted to sort of

06:23extend

06:24duplexes duplexes by right to somewhere,

06:28it seemed like it would make more sense

06:30to do it in like R10, for example, and

06:33then this person could apply and be R10.

06:37The B1 thing feels weird both because,

06:41as you pointed out, it's unlikely to

06:43have any practical effect. There are are

06:44no empty properties.

06:46Second, like, although this property is

06:48adjacent to Kings Down, which is B1

06:52conditional,

06:54it's in the middle of a residential

06:56neighborhood, and it seems unlikely that

06:59they're going to be more B1 rezonings

07:03there.

07:04Um and then also, as you said, the um

07:08duplexes would require larger lot sizes

07:11than are typical in either B1 or R6. So,

07:14I'm just

07:15like, I'm all for incremental expansion

07:17of the duplexes. Like, don't get me

07:18wrong. I love I love duplexes. I want to

07:20see them more. It's it just seems weird

07:23that we're picking B1 as the target

07:25here. Like, can is it just that there

07:27was this oversight before, or like, why

07:29are we doing this?

07:30>> So, we're drifting [clears throat] into

07:31the rezoning request. I was tempted to

07:34ask to combine these, so I'm going to

07:35ask now that I go ahead and do my staff

07:37report for the rezoning request, since

07:39they're both legislative decisions.

07:42>> I would think.

07:43>> Okay.

07:44Um so, the rezoning request on the

07:47agenda

07:48is uh for property on South 2nd Street.

07:51It's currently addressed 106 and 108.

07:54Um this is a request by the property

07:56owner. The lot size is very small.

07:59Um by GIS records, it's approximately

08:02just over 5,000 square feet. Um some old

08:05plats I looked at, it could be around

08:086,000 square feet.

08:10Um it's currently zoned R12. And their

08:13request is to go to B1.

08:16You'll see the zoning around this

08:18property.

08:20You have um central business district

08:22conditional district across the street,

08:24which as mentioned is the district on

08:26Washington development, the old King

08:28Street property.

08:29To the north is office and

08:31institutional. It's adjacent to the

08:33Mebane Public Library site. And then um

08:36you'll have some R6 within walking

08:38distance here um with the apartments

08:42there.

08:46It is in our city limits in Alamance

08:48County.

08:50And it currently has a two-family

08:52dwelling or duplex on the property.

08:55This duplex has an open code enforcement

08:58case dating back to 2024. It has not

09:01been occupied for at least the last 6

09:04months,

09:05which means it's a non-conforming use

09:07that no longer can continue.

09:10The reason staff recommended the text

09:13amendment and rezoning to B1 is because

09:16this lot size does not correspond with

09:18any zoning district.

09:20The setbacks of the current structure do

09:22not meet any residential zoning

09:24setbacks.

09:26Um and then, as was mentioned, it is

09:28proximate to downtown and

09:32a stone's throw away from B1 zoning.

09:36The surrounding uses include single

09:37family,

09:39public library, and multi-family uses.

09:42Those multi-family uses being either

09:44existing or approved to be constructed.

09:49And the property is in the downtown

09:52future land use place type. Um as you

09:56all know, the Mebane 2045 comprehensive

09:58plan was adopted in December 2025

10:02and included an expanded downtown

10:04envisioned with that. Um so,

10:07this also was reason for staff

10:10supporting the idea of central business

10:13district zoning here in this location.

10:20So, to get to the question as to why

10:23the lot does not meet hardly any

10:25requirements of residential zoning,

10:28um

10:29the only other zoning district it could

10:31possibly conform with is B-3

10:33neighborhood business,

10:35but then the setbacks may also come into

10:37question there.

10:39Um it's more the side setbacks that are

10:41the most problematic and probably the

10:43front. So, the idea is to

10:48allow the two-family dwelling to

10:50continue to exist on the lot.

10:52With it being such a small lot, it's

10:54going to be right up there at the 14

10:56units per acre if you were to go and

10:58figure out that calculation. So, that's

11:00our densest residential district, R-6,

11:03but it can't meet the lot size and can't

11:05meet the setbacks of R-6. So, then we're

11:07looking at conditional zoning if we're

11:10um going to go into that.

11:12>> Okay, so I have two follow-up questions.

11:14Can you go back to the slide that shows

11:15the zoning?

11:16>> Yep.

11:18>> Okay. So, I know that the property just

11:23south of this is also non-conforming

11:26multi-family. Is that right? But they're

11:28still grandfathered in because they've

11:29been in continuous occupancy?

11:31>> They should not be using it for

11:32multi-family purposes.

11:33>> Oh, they should not.

11:34But

11:35>> They've also been recommended to rezone.

11:36>> Okay, yeah, that's sort of where I was

11:38going is like

11:39>> They could rezone B1. The definition of

11:42multi-family in our unified development

11:44ordinance is three units or more. So,

11:48that is developed to be a quadplex, four

11:51units would be permissible in the B1

11:54zoning district. So, the staff several

11:56years ago recommended they pursue a

11:58rezoning.

11:59>> Okay, but they've only got one occupant

12:01there now, so they're okay for now. But,

12:04it seems like that would be the next

12:05proverbial I mean, it's probably bad

12:07analogy, but the next domino to fall

12:09would be that one going to B1. Are there

12:11any other

12:13odd multi-family like or zero setback

12:16lots in that area that that could go to

12:19B1 in the near future if they wanted to

12:21do something?

12:23>> In that general area, no. Um, we do have

12:27some duplexes in this area is zoned.

12:30>> But, they're already

12:31>> Sure. I don't know if they meet the

12:33setbacks, but they are an allowable use

12:35in the zone.

12:35>> Yeah, okay. And then the other thing I

12:38wanted to mention is so, if you do zone

12:42this for B1, then

12:45it you you include all of the other B1

12:49uses by right, right? So, like somebody

12:51could be like, I'm going to put in a

12:53vape shop or

12:54>> [laughter]

12:56>> So,

12:57yes and no. If they want to use the

12:59existing structure, it's going to be

13:00very expensive to build it to commercial

13:03code as is. It would be a demolition

13:06site.

13:07>> So, yeah.

13:08Okay, and so, if but if they wanted to

13:11demo and then build, um, what what would

13:15be what kind of process would they have

13:17to go through if they were if someone

13:18was like, you know, this is right next

13:21to the library, there's like probably a

13:23bunch of kids. Let me build like a FroYo

13:26shop there. Like, could they do that by

13:28right if it's B1 or is there a process

13:30they have to go through?

13:31>> Yes, it would be allowed by right.

13:33>> Okay. So, I was just something that

13:35uh council would need to take into

13:37account is like you're opening the if

13:38you make this B1, it becomes like a

13:41business, you know, or

13:43Okay.

13:44Those are my questions. Thanks.

13:48>> Does that go to your neighborhood

13:48business?

13:49That where you had said it possibly

13:51could have been B3. Does that Is

13:53neighbor is neighborhood business

13:55different than

13:57>> I think she said it couldn't meet the

13:58setbacks for B3. Is that right?

14:00>> I would have concerns about setbacks. Um

14:02yes.

14:04Lot size-wise, that's the only other one

14:06that would correspond.

14:11And we do not allow any residential uses

14:14in B3. B1 we do already, so

14:17that was another reason for the line of

14:19thought.

14:26I believe the applicant is here. If you

14:29would like to hear from the applicant on

14:31the rezoning request.

14:34>> What do they intend to do with this

14:36property?

14:38>> We can let him come and talk to you

14:39about it.

14:45>> Hi, please state your name and address

14:46for so we can get it in the record.

14:48>> My name is Javier Hernandez. I'm

14:49actually here and representing my mother

14:51that unfortunately had a car accident

14:53earlier today, so she wasn't able to

14:54make it.

14:56Um but yeah, so

14:59she bought this house in purpose of, you

15:01know,

15:02remodeling the duplex and having my

15:04siblings living in the duplex uh in the

15:07in the future. Um she has spent a lot of

15:10time and money into this property

15:11already, um

15:13which is the reason why we hope and pray

15:16that this gets uh

15:18gets done or gets approved because she's

15:20put a lot of sweat and tears into it,

15:22and my father's actually here. He's not

15:24very fluent in English and has hearing

15:26problems, but um

15:28he's actually done most of the work

15:29here.

15:31Um but the intent uh to answer your

15:33question, the intent for the property is

15:35still to renovate it as a residential

15:38duplex and um you know, potentially have

15:40a family living in the property,

15:43um which is what the original intent

15:46was. Um now, when she purchased the

15:48property, um you know, she didn't know

15:50anything about the

15:52setbacks and none of that. You know, she

15:54figured, "Okay, there's a duplex already

15:56there. We'll remodel it, you know, when

15:59we can." It she

16:01it's not like we're a business or

16:02anything. It's we're just a small family

16:04that's trying to expand their, you know,

16:06rental portfolio.

16:07Um and she said, "Okay, we'll do it

16:10without time." We didn't know there was

16:12a time limit to, "Hey, you got 6 months

16:14to do all this."

16:15Uh which if you look at it, it requires

16:17a lot of money and time. And uh you

16:20know, she was just going through it as

16:21funds came available. Unfortunately, you

16:24know,

16:24post-pandemic, everything that happened,

16:27she wasn't able to, you know, get it

16:29where she wanted to be at at the moment.

16:31Um but the plans are still to, you know,

16:34uh finish the remodeling and um

16:38you know, make it a family residential

16:41uh structure.

16:47>> Questions for the applicant or for

16:48staff?

16:52Questions? All right, do we have a

16:54motion from the board? Oh, you have a

16:55question?

16:55>> motion first on the text amendment. Just

16:58Okay.

16:59>> Thanks.

17:03>> The parking

17:04>> It's to the right on the left-hand

17:07picture. Yeah.

17:08>> Yeah.

17:11>> It goes around behind, I think.

17:13>> So,

17:15potentially when she bought the

17:16property, you know, they it was uh

17:19occupied when we bought it by tenants.

17:21Um

17:22some of the tenants did park on that

17:24side on that right side. And then you

17:26had the people on the left. There's

17:28actually

17:29I

17:30if I'm not mistaken, there's also a

17:31parking that goes into that as well. And

17:35then their second car would be on the

17:37side on the front.

17:39Now, this is this was a

17:42I believe a 2 1 on both sides. So, there

17:45wasn't a lot of like, you know,

17:47cars involved, huh?

17:49Yeah.

17:56>> Is there a motion on the text?

17:58>> Yeah.

17:58>> On the text amendment first.

17:59>> That'll be on the backside there.

18:01>> On the backside of this one here.

18:07>> I make a motion

18:09to approve the text amendment to table

18:124-1-1

18:13of the city of Mebane unified

18:15development ordinance as presented. The

18:18amendment is consistent with the

18:19objectives and policies for growth and

18:22development in Mebane 2045 comprehensive

18:26plan.

18:27>> All right, we've got a motion on the

18:28text amendment. Do we have a second?

18:29>> I'll second.

18:31>> All right, we've got a motion and a

18:32second on the text amendment. All in

18:33favor, say I.

18:34>> I.

18:35>> Any opposed?

18:37All right, now we need um a motion on

18:39the uh

18:41rezoning for this particular property.

18:47>> I'll do that one.

18:49Uh

18:50I move to approve the E1 zoning as

18:53presented and find that the application

18:55is consistent with the objectives and

18:57goals in the Mebane 2045 comprehensive

18:59plan. Specifically,

19:01the request is for a property identified

19:02as downtown in the future land use map.

19:05>> All right, we've got a motion on the

19:07rezoning. Do we have a second?

19:09All right, we've got a motion and a

19:10second. All in favor, say I.

19:12>> I.

19:13>> Any opposed?

19:15All right, thank you. Uh Council will

19:16hear this on November 2nd.

19:18>> Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate

19:19that.

19:19>> you.

19:22Okay.

19:23>> I hope your mother's well.

19:25>> Thank you very much.

19:26>> Yeah.

19:27>> She'll be happy to hear that.

19:29>> [laughter]

19:30>> All right, the next item on the agenda

19:32is the request to rezone the plus or

19:34minus .46 acre property at 715 Roosevelt

19:38Street from R-20 residential district to

19:40R-8 residential district by Pop Homes

19:43HBI LLC.

19:48>> This is a request being made by the

19:49current property owner of the

19:52property at 715 Roosevelt Street.

19:55It is just under half an acre and is

19:57currently zoned R-20. The request is to

20:00rezone the property to R-8.

20:02As you can see on the zoning map, it's

20:04primarily residential zoning, but

20:06there's a bit of a mix. We have

20:08R-15, R-12,

20:11R-20, and R-8. And so, those numbers

20:14just correspond with minimum lot sizes

20:16and reflect density and lot width

20:18requirements.

20:21This property is currently in the Mebane

20:24city limits in Alamance County, and city

20:27utilities are available to serve the

20:29site.

20:32It is undeveloped. Surrounding uses

20:34include single-family residential, a

20:37public greenway,

20:38and forested undeveloped land.

20:41You'll see here that many of the

20:42properties on Roosevelt Street are

20:45smaller in size, and it's included with

20:48the applicant presentation in in the

20:50packet to the planning board.

20:52Um the survey that was done, it's very

20:54similar to the rezoning that occurred on

20:56West McKinley Street several months ago,

20:59where these are old paper lots that were

21:01never developed. They were combined for

21:03tax

21:05purposes. We have a section in Article

21:0810, non-conforming lots, that say if the

21:10same owner owns adjoining properties,

21:12they have to be combined if they don't

21:14meet the zoning standards.

21:17Um so, in order to develop those paper

21:19lots from 1919, um a rezoning is

21:22necessary.

21:25This is in the suburban neighborhood

21:27place type in the Mebane 2045 future

21:29land use map, um as is most of the

21:32surrounding area.

21:35Are there any questions for me at this

21:36time?

21:39Okay, I'll invite the applicant forward

21:41to give an overview.

21:48>> Hi, my name is Kelby Bauer. I work for

21:50Pop Homes HBI LLC. Um we are a

21:52single-family residential home builder

21:54in the area.

21:55And she pretty much hit nail on the

21:58head. That's our proposed plat right

22:01there. This was the size of the lots

22:02originally.

22:04And I guess they [clears throat] just

22:05became combined at one point. So, with

22:07the de-combination, so to speak, and

22:10rezoning, we would be able to build two

22:12um single-family residences on the

22:14property.

22:15>> [sighs]

22:17>> All right.

22:19Any questions from anyone?

22:23>> Just cuz I'm uh not sure I followed

22:25everything, they

22:27they were they were originally platted

22:29as distinct lots, but they were then

22:31combined

22:33because they had to, or because they

22:34wanted to?

22:36>> It's my understanding there's not a

22:37legal record combining the lots. They've

22:41been deeded together as lot seven and

22:44lot eight reference to this plat.

22:46Um but, if you look on GIS, the tax

22:49office has created one parcel.

22:52Um because of the language we have in

22:55Article 10 about non-conforming lots,

22:59they being the same owner, we would ask

23:01that they be combined. So, we've

23:03directed a rezoning similar to the one

23:05done a few months ago in order to allow

23:07separate development on lot seven and

23:09lot eight.

23:09>> Okay, so the rezoning will allow them to

23:11be split and and all that

23:15>> It'll meet the lot width and lot area

23:16requirements of the R8 zoning district.

23:19>> Got it.

23:22What do you plan to build on the lot?

23:23Single family?

23:25>> Single family detached, yes sir.

23:26>> Single family detached.

23:28>> Yep.

23:29>> You have room for your parking behind

23:31it, in front of it, beside of it?

23:32>> So, they will have a two-car garage as

23:35part of the house.

23:36>> Oh, great.

23:38>> How wide are these actually in real

23:41life?

23:42>> So, these are um

23:43are is a 1,800 square foot plan that

23:47will be about 24 ft wide. So, that

23:51leaves room for your 10 ft setbacks and

23:53and then some on each side of them. Um

23:56It's

23:56>> I think they're wider than they look on

23:58the picture.

23:58>> Yeah, well,

23:59>> [laughter]

23:59>> they must be.

24:00Yeah.

24:02>> They are It's cuz the lots are very

24:04>> They're deep, yeah.

24:05>> So, if you wanted a if you wanted a

24:06100-ft house, but [laughter] we don't

24:08have a lot of those, so

24:09>> Right.

24:10>> I feel like it's going to be one of the

24:11ones where it's like mostly garage when

24:13you're looking at it.

24:14>> I do have the elevations um if you want

24:16to take a look at them.

24:18>> Yeah.

24:20Who on paper?

24:23Real paper. Come on, let's see. It's a

24:25It's a garage with a door on it.

24:28>> Oh, my. Oh, yeah.

24:30>> Mhm.

24:31>> And the second page is from the side.

24:36>> Okay.

24:37>> Okay.

24:37>> Mhm.

24:38>> Mhm.

24:38>> Thank you.

24:39>> Perfect.

24:42>> You will have to use a nice garage door.

24:44>> Yes, sir.

24:45>> [laughter]

24:49>> All right.

24:51Any further questions or

24:56>> [clears throat]

24:57>> Do we have any further questions?

24:59>> Just one.

25:00All right.

25:01Come on up. While we are not a public

25:02hearing, we do welcome questions from

25:04the general public. So, please come up

25:06and and

25:08ask your questions or or make your

25:09comments.

25:13>> Okay. Um

25:14Good night, everyone. Uh I'm Carlos

25:16Cruz. I live in 708 Russellville Street.

25:20>> Okay.

25:20>> Came here because I did have some

25:22questions about this project and I I got

25:25the notice on the mail saying it I could

25:28voice my concerns and questions.

25:31I think one of the questions got

25:32answered. We wanted to know what kind if

25:36this was going to be redeveloped going

25:38from R-20 to R-8 or the other way.

25:41Uh how many units were going to get

25:44built? Uh that's one concern. So, if

25:48this gets approved, would it be a

25:50conditional or a permanent uh

25:53rezoning, like meaning

25:556 months from now, they decide to change

25:57the plans. If it gets approved and they

25:59put four houses

26:01Okay.

26:02>> No, because of the zoning the

26:04requirements with the zoning they're

26:05moving to, there would be only certain

26:07things that they could do. So, they

26:09wouldn't be able to come in and build a

26:11multi-family home on the property or,

26:13you know, anything like that. This would

26:15just be a single-family home.

26:16>> Okay.

26:17>> And I don't think they could do anything

26:18but that in R-8.

26:19>> Yeah, they could do a duplex, but um

26:23that would require them to keep the lot

26:25as is in size and

26:27>> Okay.

26:28So, with this change, they'll have to do

26:30single-family.

26:31>> Okay. And then the other question, I

26:34know our street and pretty much all that

26:36neighborhood is

26:38is still under developed. There's a lot

26:39of empty lots, but also our roads are

26:42are very narrow. They're usually maybe

26:44half 1 and 1/2 lanes. So, as we increase

26:48the density of families in our roads in

26:51our in that neighborhood, there's

26:53concerns at least for me about parking

26:55and what is the city planning to do to

26:58improve like or have you looked at the

27:02what's going to happen with the traffic

27:03and parking on that road?

27:06Like if someone parks in front of our

27:07driveway, we pretty much cannot get out

27:09because it is so narrow or if someone

27:11parks on the street that creates a

27:13problem for cars coming uh through

27:17through the street. So, what are the

27:20plans from the city

27:22to address traffic and parking on on

27:25streets like Rosabel Street or even Gyle

27:27Street where we have seen some

27:29uh now multi-home buildings the same as

27:33McKinley Street. So.

27:34>> Mhm.

27:35>> All right. Thank you.

27:36>> Thank you.

27:36>> Staff may want to talk, but I do know in

27:39this plan, which he did say and I'm sure

27:41you heard, that they are going to have a

27:43two-car garage. How much space will be

27:45available outside of the garage that

27:47would also allow parking?

27:48>> Yes, that garage is two-car wide, so at

27:51least 24 wide.

27:52>> And then

27:53>> At least enough for you know

27:54>> The

27:55>> four cars.

27:56>> So, could you have four cars total on

27:58still be on the property without parking

28:00on the street? So, that's that gives a

28:01little a little more parking available

28:04that you could have four cars there and

28:06hopefully keep people from needing to

28:08park on the street.

28:10For both of these. Thank you very much.

28:14Any other comments about parking street

28:16parking?

28:16>> I would have to discuss that with other

28:18departments.

28:19>> Okay.

28:19>> This is an older road, so I'm sure it's

28:21not quote unquote up to code.

28:24>> Mhm.

28:24>> Um as are many of the roads in that

28:27area.

28:31>> All right.

28:32>> And there's sidewalks.

28:33>> No sidewalks.

28:34Um any other questions from

28:37from the board?

28:39Or comments?

28:42All right. Do we have a motion?

28:52>> I'll make motion to

28:54make the motion to approve for the RA

28:56zoning as presented.

28:57Motion find the applicant consistent

28:59with the objectives and goals of the

29:00Mebane 2045 comprehensive plan.

29:05>> All right, we've got a motion. Do we

29:06have a second?

29:08>> Second.

29:08>> All right, we've got a motion and a

29:09second. All in favor?

29:11>> I.

29:12>> I.

29:12>> I.

29:13Any opposed?

29:15All right, thank you. This will be um

29:16coming to council on November 2nd.

29:19All right, I think that is the

29:22end of our agenda items.

29:25Um last thing is going to be any

29:27announcements.

29:29>> No big announcements, just wanted to put

29:31the reminder on the screen.

29:32>> All right. All right, well thank you

29:34very much and we will be adjourned.

29:58>> Thank you.

29:58>> Oh, thank you.