HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19990330APPROVED 8/17/99
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN
MARCH 30, 1999
MINUTES
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen met in
joint session on Tuesday, March 30, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in the Community Meeting Room,
Southern Human Services Center, 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina for the
purpose of holding a work session.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Alice M. Gordon and
Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Stephen H. Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs
CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN PRESENT: Mayor Mike Nelson, and members
Hilliard Caldwell, Jacqueline Gist, Joal Hall-Broun, Allen Spalt and Alex Zaffron
CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN ABSENT: Diana McDuffee
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
ORANGE COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Planning
Director Craig Benedict, Environment and Resource Conservation Director David Stancil and
Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker. Other staff members present will be identified in the
minutes as appropriate.
TOWN ATTORNEY PRESENT: Mike Brough
CARRBORO STAFF PRESENT: Town Manager Robert Morgan, Planning Director Roy
Williford, and Planner Trish McGuire.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Alice Gordon called the meeting to order and invited Mayor Nelson to speak. Mayor
Nelson thanked everyone for attending. He stated that the Town of Carrboro welcomes the
opportunity to present the Small Area Plan. He indicated that town staff and the attorney would
present the proposed Small Area Plan and answer questions.
INTRODUCTIONS:
Craig Benedict, the new County Planning Director, and Joal Hall-Broun, the newest
member of Carrboro Board of Aldermen were both introduced, as well as Carrboro Planner Trish
McGuire.
ADJUSTMENTS TO AGENDA: None.
CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CARRBORO LAND USE
ORDINANCE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FACILITATED SMALL AREA PLAN
FOR CARRBORO'S NORTH STUDY AREA:
a) Presentation by Carrboro Staff on the proposed amendments to the Carrboro
Land Use Ordinance
Planning Director Roy Williford indicated that he would present the following sections
of the Ordinance: Section 2: Adjusted Tract Acreage, Yield Plan; Section 3: Open Space
Standards; Section 6: Affordable Housing Density Bonus; Section 19: Stream buffers in the
Northern Transition Area (NTA); Section 21: Road buffer in Northern Transition Area (NTA) and
Planner Trish McGuire would present the remaining sections of the Ordinance.
A copy of the Carrboro's Land Use Ordinance including the amendments which will
implement the recommendations of the facilitated Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study
Area is incorporated herein by reference. A copy of this document is in the permanent agenda
file in the Clerk's office.
Williford opened his presentation with Section 2 Residential Density of Maior
Developments in Certain Districts: (page 2 of the Ordinance): He stated that notwithstanding
the provisions of Section 15-182, when any tract of land within the R-10, R-15, R-20 and RR
districts is developed under circumstances requiring the issuance of a special or conditional use
permit, the maximum number of dwelling units that may be placed on that tract shall be
determined in accordance with the provisions of this section. If the development is to be served
by OWASA owned water and sewer lines, then the maximum number of dwelling units for any
type of residential development other than an architecturally integrated subdivision shall be
determined by dividing the adjusted tract acreage by the "minimum square feet per dwelling unit"
associated with the zoning district of the property to be developed as set forth in Section 15-182.
The adjusted tract acreage shall be calculated by deducting from the gross acreage of the tract
the sum total of a variety of categories, including floodways, wetlands, steep slopes, etc., which
may be located within the tract in question. If an area within the tract qualifies under more than
one of the categories, then that area shall be included only within the one category that involves
the most restrictive deduction. If the development is not to be served by OWASA owned water
and sewer lines, then the maximum number of dwelling units shall be determined in reference to
an actual yield plan prepared by the developer in accordance with the provisions of this
subsection. The yield plan shall be a conceptual layout of asingle-family residential subdivision
that could be developed within the tract in question in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter. In addition, the yield plan shall be prepared under the assumption that each lot will be
served with an individual septic tank located on the same lot as the house it serves.
Williford presented two different scenarios, one with many development constraints and the
other with very few constraints. He mentioned that in scenario one all of the categories to be
deducted from developable land are identified. If there are two items, which apply to the same
portion of the tract then the item with the highest factor, is the one which dominants in the
calculations. He stated that the parcel being used in this example would allow 195 dwelling
units with 28 acres being adjusted out of the possible developable land. There are 24.54
adjusted acres. Another 15% are deducted because it is an integrated subdivision. This leaves
20 developable acres and 91 units. If it were developed using conventional zoning 195 units
would be allowed. He then presented a site with very few constraints. This site consisted of 48
acres and after adjustment there were 46.5 acres of developable land.
He then presented Section 3. Open Space Standards (page 3) which refers to definitions of
"primary conservation areas" and "secondary conservation areas". He pointed out that the
development would need to occur on the secondary and unconstrained portions of the parcel
being used for the demonstration.
Section 6 -Residential Density Bonuses for Affordable Housing was discussed. For purposes
of this section, an affordable housing unit means a dwelling unit that is offered for sale at a price
that does not exceed two and a half times an amount equal to eighty percent of the annual
median income level for a family of four in the Raleigh, Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan
statistical area or is offered for rent at a monthly rate that does not exceed an amount equal to
35 percent of the monthly median income level for a family of four in the same area. A complete
review of these calculations can be found on page 20 of the Ordinance.
Section 19 -Buffers in Northern Transition Area presents a formula which mirrors the
requirements found in the University Lake Watershed. That formula is as follows: "Measure
along a line running perpendicular to the edges of the floodplain (or if no flood plain has been
demarcated, the center of the stream) one hundred (100) feet from the edge of the floodplain (or
edge of the water) plus an additional distance equal to 4 x slope x 100..." A complete
explanation of the buffer requirements can be found on page twenty-nine and thirty of the
Ordinance.
Carrboro's Planner Trish McGuire presented the following sections of the Ordinance:
Section 4 -Village Mixed Use District establishes a Village Mixed Use (VMU) district. This
district is established to provide for the development of rural new villages at a scale intended to
continue Carrboro's small town character as described in its Year 2000 Task Force Report and
to promote a traditional concept of villages. The applicant for rezoning to this district must
demonstrate that its planning, design and development will achieve, but not necessarily be
limited to, all of the 10 specific objectives listed in the ordinance on page six. No more than 350
gross acres may be rezoned to the VMU district and no more than a total of three villages may
be approved. Also, they would need to be served by Orange Water and Sewer Authority.
Section 5 -Village Mixed Use Development describes a village with mixed use development. A
maximum of 10 percent of the total gross acreage of the tract, or five acres, whichever is less,
may be used for purposes permissible in the B-3T (Business -Transition) or OA (Office
Assembly) districts, subject to any conditions or limitations contained in the remaining provisions
of this section, the Master Plan, or the conditional use permit that authorizes the development in
question. A complete explanation of the VMU can be found on pages 9 through 20.
Section 7 -Table of Permissible Uses will be amended by adding a new classification entitled
"Village Mixed Use Development".
Section 8 - O/A CU -Office/Assembly Conditional Use district is identical to the O/A district and
shall be subject to all regulations applicable to the OA district (including but not limited to the
performance standards set forth in Part 1 of Article XI except as listed in (a) through (e) of
Section 8.
Sections 9 - 16 are housekeeping in nature and set forth "good neighbor" performance
standards.
Section 17 -Site Planning Procedures for Maior Subdivisions speaks to the need for a site
analysis plan being submitted. After the site analysis plan has been submitted, the planning staff
shall schedule a mutually convenient date to walk the property with the applicant and the
applicant's site designer. The applicant must be prepared to demonstrate compliance with a 4-
step site planning procedure as well as fourteen objectives that elaborate on the requirements.
Section 18 - Stormwater requirements modifies the general standard use to evaluate impact.
The general standard is modified in several ways, which are listed in items 1 through 14 of
Section 18.
Section 20 - Clearcutting prohibits clearcutting within the Transition Area portion of the
Carrboro Joint Development Area.
Section 22 -Plant Species deletes two types of plants, which are currently on the
recommended list of trees and shrubs because they are considered invasive plants.
Section 23 -List of Invasive Plants adds a list of invasive plant species to the Ordinance.
Section 24 -Northern Transition Area Advisory Committee (page 31 -33) establishes this
committee.
Section 25 through 29 -Issues of Clean up are simply issues of clean up.
Section 21 -Protective buffers along the major roads requires that there be a 100 foot
protective buffer along Old 86, Dairyland Road, Union Grove Church Road, Homestead Road,
Eubanks Road and Smith Level Road.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR BOARD
OF ALDERMEN:
Commissioner Brown asked if a natural constraints map is included as part of this document.
McGuire stated that there is one in the Ordinance and it is referenced in the Small Area Plan. In
response to a question, she also stated that the 40% open space applies to residential areas but
not to Office/Assembly (OA's) areas.
Commissioner Brown asked if Carrboro had ever adopted the County's Inventory of Natural
Resources. Mr. Williford stated that it has been adopted and incorporated into their existing
Ordinance. Commissioner Brown asked if the Wildlife Corridor proposal would become a part of
this document. Williford indicated that the buffer requirements along the streams are quite
extensive and are similar to those required in the Wildlife Corridor proposal. He felt that the
Wildlife Corridor proposal could be adopted if the Town Board chose to do so.
Commissioner Brown asked for clarification about the Master Plan approval process.
Carrboro's Attorney Mike Brough stated that the Master Plan approval process recognizes that
this would be a substantially sized development by definition. If a situation arose where there
was virtual discretion about whether to decide to rezone or not, one option for the developer
would be to apply for rezoning and a conditional use permit at the same time. The developer
would have that as an option. They would also have the option of doing what Chapel Hill does
for their major mixed use developments where a rezoning is applied for together with a master
plan that would have a considerable amount of detail but less detail than that required for a
Conditional Use Permit. Essentially when looking at the master plan you would know exactly
what is being proposed with a great deal of detail. The concept is that the developer would
either submit a master plan together with a rezoning or a conditional use permit with a rezoning.
If they felt comfortable that they are going to get approval they would submit the Conditional Use
Permit at that time. If they were uncertain about whether or not their proposal would be
approved, they would submit a Master Land Use Plan for the project together with a rezoning.
He stated that in the Conditional Use Permit process there are four (4) general criteria that
have to be met. Those are that it has to be in harmony with the area, consistent with public
health and safety, cannot depreciate the property values and must be in conformity with the land
use plan. This is saying that if you receive approval in the Master Plan process for a project,
then a Conditional Use Permit cannot be denied on the basis of one of those general criteria if
the basis for such denial involves a development or would affect a development that has
previously been specifically addressed and approved in the Master Plan process unless one of
three things has been found to be true. Those three things are: 1) it can be demonstrated that
the information presented to the Board of Aldermen at the Master Plan approval stage was
false, 2) conditions have changed substantially in a manner that could not have been anticipated
or 3) a basis for denial for reasons as set forth in Section 15-54(c) 4 is demonstrated by clear
and convincing evidence.
Commissioner Brown asked how the joint planning process figures into this process. Mr.
Brough stated that the decision for the Board of County Commissioners is the rezoning
decision, not the approval of the Master Plan or permitting issue. In as much as the two are
intertwined, if the Commissioners are not happy with the Conditional Use Permit or the Master
Plan, then they would not approve the rezoning. It is true that while the Commissioners do not
make decisions directly influencing the Master Plan or Conditional Use Permit, they do have
influence on its passage.
Town Manager Bob Morgan mentioned that the Town and County staffs would have to develop
a process to review these plans so that it moves smoothly and does not require a huge amount
of time to review.
Commissioner Brown asked that there be a greater degree of consistency of definitions in the
document. She complimented Carrboro on the open space component of this plan. She asked
for further clarification about how parks, greenways and public transportation figured into the
plan.
Morgan stated that they are currently working on the Capital Improvements Plan and the Mayor
has proposed a Millennium Project for capital needs. Those issues will be addressed and
developed further in the near future.
Chair Gordon asked for further clarification about the Master Planning process.
County Attorney Gledhill asked if there were procedures for Master Plan approval that are not in
this document.
Attorney Brough referred to Page 8 #3 which states that "if the applicant submits a proposed
Master Plan, then the rezoning application and Master Plan Proposal shall be reviewed
concurrently by the Board of Aldermen according to the same procedures and in accordance
with the same standards applicable to other zoning amendments." It will go through the same
process as the rezoning application. None of the findings that are issued when the Conditional
Use Permit is issued have to be specifically addressed because this is a legislative process.
This is a specific Land Use Plan for a specific piece of property. Whatever issues get raised and
addressed in the Master Plan approval process may be raised again under one of the four
circumstances mentioned above. He stated that the distinction between the Master Plan and
the Conditional Use Permit is one of detail. The kind of details in the Conditional Use Permit
application will not be of particular interest to the Board of Commissioners. All of the things that
are relevant for the Boards' consideration are going to be in the Master Plan. If they are not,
then one board or the other will insist that more information be included or they will not approve
the plan. He said that the Commissioners would be truly included in the process.
Alderman Zaffron stated that given the nature of the rezoning process and the level of discretion
that the Board of Commissioners has in determining these standards, the Board could ask for
additional information if they felt that was necessary to satisfy questions that they have.
Chair Gordon asked if it would be possible to bring up an issue after the Master Land Use Plan
process was complete. For example, could you bring up a traffic issue that was not brought up
in the rezoning process. Mr. Brough said that you could bring up a traffic issue with the Board of
Aldermen if it were a public health and safety issue.
Chair Gordon said that if a rezoning and a conditional use permit were being considered there
would be a focus on public health and safety, harmony and traffic issues because those findings
must be determined. A Master Land Use Plan does not have to focus on these issues but if
they do come up, then the presumption is that they have been dealt with. If they do not come up
then the presumption is that you have not dealt with them and you could bring them up later.
Mr. Brough said that even if they had been dealt with they could be dealt with again if you could
show "by clear and convincing evidence" that they should be considered again.
Commissioner Brown stated that she was not convinced that using the Master Plan process
really works well for the neighborhoods. She referred to earlier examples where this process
was not effective, i.e. Meadowmont and Southern Village.
Mayor Nelson asked Commissioner Brown to share with the Town of Carrboro any suggestions
she has which would strengthen the Master Plan process.
b) Comments by Orange County Planning Staff
County Planning Director Craig Benedict stated that in reviewing these proposed
amendments County staff asked the following questions:
1) Are they consistent with the Facilitated Small Area Plan.
2) Is there anything in this implementation ordinance that was not in the plan.
3) Was there anything that was in the Plan but missing from the implementation Ordinance.
He referred to Attachment 3)b.1, entitled Orange County Planning Staff Comments -
Consistency Between the Facilitated Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study Area and
Proposed Amendments to the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance in which staff reviewed the
document for consistency and applicability. He mentioned that there was a very high degree of
consistency. He briefly reviewed Section 1 through Section 29. He then referred to attachment
3)b.2 in the agenda packet, entitled Orange County Planning Staff Comments -Plan
Recommendations not reflected in Proposed Ordinance Amendments. This document
contains, on asection-by-section basis, a list of recommendations that were not carried forward
in the proposed ordinance amendments. These documents are in the permanent agenda file.
He mentioned that the general category that Orange County staff felt needed strengthening had
to do with greenway connectivity. There is mention of greenways and floodplains within the
ordinance, however, it only addresses areas within the Carrboro area. It would be helpful to take
a look at how this fits into the County Conservation Corridor Plan and the Triangle Land
Conservancy Wildlife Corridor Plan to determine if these areas could be connected. Also, he
suggested that there be a higher percentage of conservation lands that are not severely
constrained by flooding, wetness or steepness. He mentioned that the Transportation Plan
needs to be carefully coordinated so that this area is connected to some of the major
transportation routes in the area. He noted that comments had been made this evening
indicating that Carrboro has carefully reviewed potential traffic patterns/changes, which could
result from additional development. Some of the higher densities could be handled by widening
roads or developing a connectivity plan. These rural roads could see a change in their character
as a result of this plan and it will be important to promote coordination between developers for
the planning of bicycle, pedestrian, transit and automobile transportation routes. Also, increased
incentives could be included in the plan to encourage developers to dedicate additional lands for
park development and to ensure that the dedicated parklands would be interconnected. Its
important to make sure that land is dedicated in such a way as to serve the entire community by
having these lands be interconnected rather than having small five-acre parcels distributed
throughout the area. He mentioned that this may already be addressed in Carrboro's Parks and
Recreation Ordinance. If that is the case, he suggested that it be referenced in this document.
The same idea could be implemented into the Office Assembly (OA) so that it does not result in
many one-acre OA areas. Lastly, he commented on Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) .
He suggested that there be support for statewide enabling legislation to allow the Transfer of
Development Rights. This is an opportunity to implement the Transfer of Development rights
program in an area which has all of the characteristics of a "receiving area", such as water and
sewer and good transportation. Some of the TDR techniques could be implemented with this
area being the receiving area. He stated that County staff would continue their review of the
existing Town Ordinance. Finally, he mentioned that it is important that the County be brought
in the process for informal review as soon as is possible in the process.
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS:
Chair Gordon asked if the Ordinance could be annotated by strikethrough or bold type so that it
would be easier to track the modifications.
Town Manager Morgan stated that they have annotated changes in the past but the current
changes are extensive and they had not attempted to do that. He indicated that they were
available to Orange County staff to make sure that they clearly understood the changes.
Chair Gordon referred to the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) and suggested finding a
way that TDR's could be implemented without holding up the process of adopting these
amendments. She suggested that there could be a reserve section that could be fleshed out at
a later time. If the Ordinance were adopted with the higher densities put into place it could not
be changed later, however, if a reserve section were included, then the reserve section could be
fleshed out later.
Alderman Gist stated that she was thinking along similar lines of creating a "bookmark" which
would allow TDR's to be included in the plan at a later date.
Mayor Nelson stated that he was supportive of TDR's as a concept and he felt that they could
possibly work in this particular case. However, he also felt that it could be difficult to get
community support in the Small Area Planning area. This is suggesting funneling density into
an area where residents probably do not want more density. It would be possible to build that
type of community support because it would in fact take density away from areas we want to
protect and locate it where density could be better supported. If the Board of Commissioners
are interested in pursuing this it will take a great deal of time to work with people in this area
building that kind of support.
Chair Gordon stated that she had made the assumption that this density would be created in the
villages as a part of the plan.
Alderman Gist stated that there would be density but there seems to be a perception that the
density would be greater than is currently being envisioned.
Alderman Spalt stated that he also supports TDR's as a concept. His initial response is that in
this case, where the underlying zoning density is not being changed, the residents would not
have a need for receiving areas. In fact, their density would be less under the new plan than it is
now. The villages are already complex and require an approval process that is more
complicated than for a conventional subdivision. They will be denser than the conventional
subdivision but if you add new and experimental requirements, it would be another hurdle and
there may never be any villages. If that happened, and the area was developed under this plan,
the result would be to create substantially less density than is currently possible. That is not the
intention of this plan.
Alderman Zaffron stated that there was a discussion at a joint meeting about the possibility of
moving forward with TDR's cooperatively. The formation of a task force was mentioned at that
time. In order to build the community support that has been mentioned it will be necessary to
open up the process so that the residents can buy into this idea. Tough decisions need to be
made about where to locate appropriate receiving areas and what sort of regulatory
mechanisms need to be used to accomplish this. He expressed concern about tying TDR's into
this plan now, however, he did agree with the idea of leaving the door open by book marking
this idea.
Aldermen Gist remembered that there was a TDR Task Force created at some point in the past.
She asked that the information generated by that Task Force be located and distributed to the
elected officials. She also suggested that the term Transfer of Development Rights be used
rather than "receiving area."
NEXT STEPS:
Carrboro Board member Joal Hall-Broun stated that she envisions a process where there is a
final list of concerns regarding the implementation of the facilitated Small Area Plan. The Board
of Aldermen is looking for an end result that they could respond to so that this matter could go to
Public Hearing.
County Manager Link stated that staff would organize the comments that have been made at
this meeting and specifically the Carrboro presentation as well as questions and comments
received. This would then be on the Board of Commissioners April 20th agenda and again on
May 4t" agenda.
Chair Gordon agreed that there are two meetings available for discussion. A list of concerns
could be finalized after those meetings and then forwarded to Carrboro. She said that it has
been very helpful to receive the staff presentations from both Carrboro and Orange County.
JOINT SCHOOLS AND LAND USE COUNCILS:
County Manager John Link reviewed a memo from Gene Bell, dated November 9, 1998, and
entitled Possible Structure for Communication. This sets out a basic framework for enhanced
communication between local governments and the two school systems in Orange County. In
response to a question, he indicated that staff is reviewing several options for how to best show
the impact of new housing on schools, including the number of bathrooms and/or bedrooms per
unit.
Commissioner Gordon stated that the Small Area Plan would be an excellent place to use this
document. There was agreement on this suggestion.
John Link also mentioned the Memorandum of Agreement, which is currently undergoing a final
review by the members of the joint Schools and Land Use Councils. After this review is
complete this document will be forwarded to each unit of government for their review. The joint
Schools and Land Use Councils will be asking the units of government to officially adopt the
Memorandum of Agreement.
RECREATION AND PARKS TASK FORCE UPDATE:
Environment and Conservation Department Director David Stancil reported that
recommendations should be forthcoming from this Task Force within the next several months.
He mentioned that there are representatives on this Task Force from each of the elected bodies,
the Recreation and Parks Councils and Duke University. They will meet in April to consider a
draft report. That report will be finalized in May at which time it will be forwarded to the elected
bodies.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. The next regularly
scheduled meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on March 31, 1999 at 7:30 p.m.
at the Southern Human Services Center, Homestead Road, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Alice M. Gordon, Chair
Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk