Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19950828APPROVED 10/2/95 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 28, 1995 The Orange County Board of County Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on Monday, August 28, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners William L. Crowther, Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis and Don Willhoit. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair William Waddell and members Paul Hoecke, Karen Barrows, Elizabeth Walters, Cheryl A. Howie, Renee A. Price, Arnie Katz, Cherie Rosemond, Margaret Brown and Leo Allison NOTE: All documents referred to in these minutes are in their entirety in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Carey welcomed everyone to the meeting. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Carey dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Amendments Related to Economic Development Districts a. CP-1-95 I-40/Old 86 Economic Development District (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) b. Z-6-95 I-40/Old N.C. 86 Economic Development District (Zoning Atlas Amendment) These two items were presented together. Planner Mary Willis explained that the Land Use Planning amendment and the Zoning Atlas amendment would expand the I-40/Old N.C. 86 Economic Development District (EDD). The district was originally approved on January 17, 1995 and the boundary was amended on June 26 to include a strip of properties along the west side of Old NC 86 north of Cates Creek. At issue are two properties split by the EDD boundary. One property is also split by the boundary between Primary and Secondary Development Areas. The total acreage in the Addison property is 114 acres. Approximately 80 acres of this property on the east side of Cates Creek was included in the EDD as Primary Development area. The property owner has requested that the portion of the lot located on the west side of Cates Creek also be included in the EDD. The area in question contains about 34 acres. It is bounded by I-40 to the south and west, and Cates Creek and the boundary of the existing EDD to the east. The Planning Staff recommends that the entire parcel be included in the EDD and be designated as Primary Development Area. The other parcel in question is the Moren property. This consists of an 87-acre tract located in the northernmost portion of the northeast quadrant of the EDD. Most of the Moren property was included in the EDD except a small area containing about four acres adjacent to Stagecoach Run Subdivision. Of the area in the EDD, about one-half is designated as Primary Development Area, and the other half as Secondary Development Area. The property owner has requested that the remaining acreage be included in the EDD and that the entire parcel be designated as Primary I. The Planning Staff recommends that the remaining Moren property be included in the EDD as Secondary Development Area. It is also recommended that the existing Secondary Development Area remain as a buffer between the Primary Area and existing or potential residential development to the east. With reference to the Addison property, Commissioner Gordon asked why some of the property is not secondary, especially next to Cornwallis Hills. Mary Willis said that the property itself, because of the natural constraints, will limit the use of the property to some extent. In terms of the uses allowed in both the primary and secondary, the secondary area is much more limited and by designating it as primary, it does allow more flexibility in terms of uses and trying to tie into whatever types of activity occurring on the remainder of the property. Commissioner Crowther asked if the undeveloped portion of Cornwallis Hills was annexed with the developed portion. It was clarified by a citizen living in Cornwallis Hills that no annexation has occurred yet. In answer to a question from Chair Carey, Willis said that on the Moren property there is not a road that is built in that area but that there is an easement for access purposes. Commissioner Willhoit asked for the rationale in adding the Addison parcel and not the other area adjacent to it on the north. Willis said that area is zoned R-3 and may be an expansion of Cornwallis Hills but they have not received a request. The reason for not zoning the Addison property R-3 and making it a part of the EDD is primarily its proximity to I-40 and that because of the topography, the uses will be limited. The frontage along the northern boundary could provide a more central stream crossing to access this area. The reason for receiving public comments at this time is that this parcel was not included in the previous public hearing advertisement. Willis said that in terms of the expansion of the EDD, the staff can come forward with requests for expansion. With the addition of these two parcels, they view this as an effort to fine-tune the specific locations of the boundaries. With reference to the area with the slope, there will be design constraints in terms of providing areas for building and parking. Willis indicated that these are the only two identified parcels that want to be added. In terms of the access road into the EDD, it is their intent for these roads not to go through a residential area. CITIZEN COMN~NTS Jo Soulier, President of the Cornwallis Hills Homeowners Association, clarified that the annexation of Cornwallis Hills is due to happen next April or May. She made comments on the addition of the remainder of the Addison property to the EDD. Their concern is that this property is adjacent to 50 acres of future development of Cornwallis Hills. She said that if it is included, perhaps some of it could be left as green space. She is glad that the access is not going to come through Cornwallis Hills, but it will disturb the creek. Regarding the proposal that eliminates the 100 foot buffer along jurisdictional lines, she feels that the wording of this proposal will mean that, once Cornwallis Hills is annexed, the jurisdictional line will be the same as their property line and there will be no buffer between the EDD and their homes. Future jurisdictional lines are moving targets under this proposal the way it is worded. She suggested that the buffer be left in place and changed only through a special use permit. Judy Brown who lives on Stagecoach Run made reference to a map and section III of Stagecoach Run. She showed her location on lot 7 and the two lots being proposed for addition to the EDD. They bought their lot in 1993 and were told that they were part of Section III and that they would have a buffer as a residential lot. They have restrictive covenants which indicate that each and every lot should be used for residential purposes only. She noted that the two lots comprise such a small area and questions what purpose they would serve. She is opposed to the addition of these two lots to the EDD. Dan Lanigan read a letter from Mr. Stephen K. Riddle, President of the Stagecoach Run Homeowner's Assoc. This letter is in the agenda on page 17. He asked that lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 on Tax Map 4 SE, Sec. 3, Block A, plat book 27, page 5 remain part of the Stagecoach Run development and that there be a 100 foot buffer between the boundaries of the Stagecoach Run development and the EDD. They asked that the Orange County Planning Board exclude Lot 4.45..2E from the EDD and include the 100 foot buffer originally proposed and agreed upon at their meeting with the Planning Dept. in May of 1993. Mr. Lanigan stated that he strongly opposes the inclusion of these four lots into the EDD and furthermore the two lots north of that would be landlocked with no road access if this was approved. He asked that this amendment not be approved. Mr. Huge Moren stated that he and his wife are co-owners of the land requested for inclusion in the EDD. He was unaware of the concerns of the neighbors in the Stagecoach development. He noted that with part of his land in primary and part in secondary, it makes it very difficult to develop property in two different zonings. He does have a letter from one of the adjacent property owners supporting this amendment. He pointed to the map and said that part of this is a natural revive that will serve as a buffer. MOTION A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 2, 1995. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Article 6.29.3 - Economic Development Districts Design Manual (Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment) To receive public comments Planner Mary Willis presented a proposed amendment to eliminate the requirement for a 100-foot buffer along the perimeter of an Economic Development District (EDD) which abuts an EDD adopted by another planning jurisdiction. The area added to the EDD on June 26 including properties along the west side of Old NC86 north of Cates Creek ranges from 300 to 500 feet in depth, and the perimeter buffer of 100 feet poses development constraints. The staff proposes that the Design Manual be modified to state that where the perimeter of the EDD abuts, not just another jurisdictional boundary but one where the EDD provisions have been adopted, that in those cases the perimeter boundary not apply since there is the same zoning on either side of the property. In answer to a question from Commissioner Willhoit, Willis said that the goal of the buffer is to protect adjacent properties from any effects of the EDD. He is concerned that this will look like a commercial strip and wonders if there should be some kind of buffers. Willis explained that there are still setback and landscaping/screening requirements that are a part of the Design Standards that prevent that strip from occurring. In answer to a question from Bill Waddell, Willis said that the natural constraints, floodplains, etc. of the creek itself would remain to whatever width is applicable. Mary Willis clarified that the 100-foot wide buffer need not be provided when the land located in the jurisdiction of the other local government has been zoned Economic Development District and designated the same (e.g. Primary Development, Secondary Development) as the land located in the Orange County Economic Development District. In answer to a question from Planning Board member Renee Price, Willis said that there will be open space. Planning Director Marvin Collins said that in the adopted Economic Development Design Manual there are schematic plans that designate certain areas as open space and in addition to that there is a large amount of green space. Based on calculations, within that whole area, there will be at least 400 open space. Mary Willis clarified for Karen Barrows the area to which this proposed amendment would apply. Renee Price noted her concern is the gateway into Hillsborough and she wonders what this area will look like for those living in Cornwallis Hills. She is concerned about the elimination of the buffer even with the Design Standards in place. Mary Willis said that when the district was first adopted there was no buffer that was specifically required along NC86 for addressing the concerns that were known. When this portion was added, the only reason that the buffer was shown around this area was because it was the perimeter of the district in our jurisdiction. Karen Barrows reminded everyone that the Primary I area requires less landscaping than Primary II. The Planning Staff will provide to the Planning Board members information on setback requirements. CITIZEN COMN~NTS Richard Allison, homeowner in Cornwallis Hills, asked about the area this buffer requirement would cover and Mary Willis clarified that this amendment only affects those properties on NC86 - not the sides, back or corner. In answer to a question from Billy Smith who lives at the corner of NC86 and Oakdale Drive, Willis said that, in terms of buffer requirements, both sides of NC86 will be treated the same. The station that is located on the east side is noncomforming because it was built before Hillsborough adopted the EDD guidelines. Billy Smith feels it should be the same for both sides. June Haas showed on the map that there is no buffer from Hillsborough to I-40. She does not support there being a buffer on one side and not the other. Commissioner Willhoit asked that the Planning Board look at the adequacy of the buffer between this designated property and Cornwallis Hills so that if they are thinking of eliminating one of the roadside buffers, they may be able to add a little more buffer on the back side to protect and buffer Cornwallis Hills better. In answer to a question from Renee Price about the reason for eliminating the buffer to provide more room for building, Willis said that the property is narrow and with a 100 foot buffer on both sides, there is limited use of the property. She noted that when the EDD was approved there was only the Orange County EDD. When there is the same district from the other jurisdiction and the same design standards throughout, it makes the purpose of that buffer no longer necessary. Renee Price said that her concern is the buffer between development and residential areas. Willis said that this area went through a lengthy public hearing to look at what is reasonable and what those property owners could do with their property and there were meetings with citizens in Cornwallis Hills. She pointed out that this area is more restrictive than other areas in the EDD. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 2, 1995. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Gordon said it was her understanding that according to County policy, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zoning Amendments for a given area are not discussed at the same quarterly public hearing. Marvin Collins said there is such a policy. However, in the case of Economic Development Districts, the two sections of amendments were presented as a package because of the unique nature of EDDs. 2. Amendments Related to Landscaping and Buffer Requirements a. Article 12.3 Plan Review and Approval (Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment) b. Section IV-B-8 Landscape Plan Review and Approval (Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment) Planner Emily Cameron presented for citizen comments a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations regarding the amount of a financial guarantee for required landscaping. This amendment would make it clear that the intent of the financial guarantee submitted for required landscaping must cover the cost to purchase and install the required landscaping including labor cost. In the event the County ever had to get the money guaranteed by a bond, letter of credit or escrow, there would be enough money to hire someone to complete the improvements if the developer does not do so. She distributed a revision to this amendment which included the sentence that would make it clear that the person preparing the estimate needs to be a qualified individual and someone other than the owner or someone with an ownership interest in the project. THERE WERE NOT COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 2, 1995. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Amendments Related to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Planner Mary Willis presented for citizen comments a proposal that would replace the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance to correspond exactly with the model ordinance that has been prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Every several years representatives from FEMA meet with the various counties to see how the federal standards are being administered for the flood insurance program. They met with FEMA and there are no problems with what the County is doing to meet the FEMA standards. In fact, the County regulations are more stringent than the thresholds of FEMA in that the County does not allow development in the floodplains whereas the FEMA requirements are more geared on how to develop in the floodplain. The changes are relatively few with some new additions added as well as definitions for renovating and improving existing structures in the floodplains. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the proposed ordinance. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. Proposed Public Water & Sewer Service Boundaries Planner Gene Bell presented this item to receive public comments regarding the report of the Water and Sewer Service Boundary Task Force as described in the agenda. The report of the task force has been submitted to governing boards for review. It includes preliminary utility service area boundaries, as well as related implementation objectives. In answer to a question from Commissioner Crowther on Durham's interest in serving the areas on the east side, Gene Bell said that Durham's involvement is included in the next phase as well as Orange Alamance and Mebane. Commissioner Willhoit said that if there is any thought in seeking legislation to define those service areas, he would think that the area on the east side would be a County interest. Actual service provision could always be contracted out and would give Orange County more control over the planning of that area. Chair Carey said that the intent was not to seek legislation but to enter into interlocal agreements that would be binding like that in the Joint Planning Area. Commissioner Willhoit emphasized he feels the County needs to designate that area as a County interest so that Durham is aware of this. Commissioner Halkiotis agreed. It was clarified that the first objective needs to include sewer service as well as water. Gene Bell clarified that it is proposed that the County will be responsible for the EDD section at Buckhorn Road. Commissioner Willhoit said that the Board has talked about including the southwest quadrant in the EDD -- making the whole interchange as part of the EDD. This is included in the revised goals. John Link stated that the County will probably need local legislation for the area along the Durham/Orange County line to prevent Durham from bringing in water and sewer. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon about how far Durham's Vision Plan goes into Orange County, Marvin Collins said that the 2005 plan takes in basically the EDD district. The Durham/Hillsborough waterline agreement has a line that runs along the western boundary of the EDD district that extends to other areas stopping at the Rural Buffer. There are no planned extensions from Person County. Bill Waddell asked about OWASA serving some additional areas on the west side and east side. He noted that this seems, rather than the first item, to support orderly growth and efficient provision of water and sewer service a denial of water service to certain areas in the future. Chair Carey said that in the case of a water emergency, for protection of health and safety, the County would know who to contact and if it is the blue area as shown on the map, they would contact OWASA. In the Cane Creek area there will probably not be water and sewer service. Planning Board member Elizabeth Walters noted that the way the lines are drawn, it is inviting OWASA to move into the Rural Buffer and provide water and sewer. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Crowther to refer this report to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be received not earlier than October 2, 1995. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D . ADJOURNMENT With no further items on the agenda, Chair Carey adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board will be held on Tuesday, September 5, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. at the Caldwell Community Center in Rougemont, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk