Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19900830 151 1111 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 30, 1990 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met jointly with the Chapel Hill Town Council, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and the Orange County Planning Board for a Joint Planning Public Hearing on August 30, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the auditorium of Phillips Junior High School, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. , and Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell, Shirley E. Marshall and Don Willhoit. CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL: Mayor Jonathan Howes and Council Members Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Herzenberg, and Arthur Werner. CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN: Mayor Eleanor G. Kinnaird and 4111 Aldermen Jay Bryan, Jacquelyn Gist, Hilliard Caldwell, Tom Gurganus and Frances Shetley. COUNTY ATTORNEY: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr. , Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Emily Crudup and David Stancil. NOTE: All documents referenced in these minutes are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRMAN Moses Carey, Jr. called the meeting to order and welcomed the members of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, the Chapel Hill Town Council, staff members from the two municipalities, the Rural Character Study Committee and the citizens to the Joint Planning Public Hearing. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chairman Moses Carey Jr. read the public charge. C. JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING • COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE RURAL CHARACTER STUDY COMMITTEE CLINT BURKLIN, Chairman of the Rural Character Study Committee stated that the Committee is composed of a broad sampling of 152 the many groups that work and live in the rural buffer as well as • other groups in the county. The diversity in both the committee and the community meetings taught them a lot about the needs of the rural buffer community. They learned from the farming community about the importance of land to their livelihood today and as a source of income when they retire. They learned from the established family about the importance of being able to give small portions of their land to their children and grandchildren. They learned from the conservationists and the custodians of Duke Forest about the importance of open space and natural areas to the supply of clean air and clean water and they learned from the Economic Development Commission about the importance of growth to the economic health of this community. They learned about the need for affordable housing. When they focused on developing recommendations, they learned how hard it was to meet the diverse needs of the many community groups in the Rural Buffer. They studied numerous options going back to the community for help and suggestions. Through the process they had to share in the give and take of individual benefits for the sake of the greater benefits of the community as a whole. Tonight, the Study Committee presents their recommendations to the governing boards. They feel the recommendations meet their two basic objections. First, the recommendations provide the residents of the Rural Buffer with greater flexibility to develop their land. There are five options in the recommendations with each option being the choice of the landowner and incentives for compensating the landowner for inconveniences of 4111 preserving rural open space. Second, the recommendations provide greater protection for the beauty of the natural areas of the Rural Buffer. Each option promotes less disturbance to the land than the current development options. Burklin referred to a request that a study group of the three governing boards be established to take over the Rural Character Study after this public hearing. The Committee is concerned that this approach may overlook the vast amount of knowledge that has been developed by the Study Committee and runs the risk of reinventing the wheel and the time delays associated with that which may not involve the public in the process. He invited everyone present to take this opportunity to make this a learning process and to share and exchange ideas. LIVY LUDINGTON, member of the Rural Character Study Committee, talked about the committee itself. It allowed those with different backgrounds, interests and issues to work together and air their differences and come up with an agreement. The common bond of all these different groups is that they all care about this community. She feels they have a respect for each other and an understanding about the priorities of each group which led to a plan which is a beginning. There has been a lot of giving and taking and a lot of listening to other people in the community. The Committee feels this has been a cooperative effort with a real balance in the plan. She hopes that those who work on the plan after tonight understand that there is a very continuous balance and that it is built on the trust that they feel they have established with each other and with other citizens in the community by listening to them. She hopes that thos that make suggestions think about how they can all be working together 153 • and to be listening to each other. BOB STRAYHORN, member of the Rural Character Study Committee, stated that he recommends the changes being presented tonight to his friends who own property in the Rural Buffer. The changes will make it better for them to live with the Land Use Plan and what is happening in the RB. If this is adopted, it will remove most of the frustrations in getting through the process. He stated that there is no way to satisfy those people who want no rules in the RB or those that want no growth in the RB. This is a good balance with a lot of give and take. They tried to be sensitive to the concerns of the landowner. He hopes that the Committee will be allowed to bring this study to a conclusion and that it will not be given over to another committee. NOTE: The following three items are so integrally related to each other that they were considered together under one presentation. Following each item is a brief summation of each topic. The presentation and comments follow these brief summaries: 1. CONCEPTUAL GUIDELINES FOR THE RURAL BUFFER This item was presented to receive public input on the recommended strategy for the Rural Buffer, as adopted by the Rural Character Study Committee. 2. LUP-4-90 JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN 1111 This item was presented to receive public input on a proposed amendment to the text of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan for Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro. These amendments are part of a three-part package, related to the recommended strategy for the Rural Buffer entitled Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer, and an amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement. The amendments to the text of the plan involve changes to the following sections: Section III. Infrastructure and Public Services Section V. Joint Planning Operating Principles Section VI. Future Land Use - JPA Section VII. Overview of Implementation Strategies These amendments all deal with one of the following issues: 1) Extension of water and sewer into a defined corridor for planned "Rural Villages" . 2) Development standards for lots in the rural Buffer. Currently, a minimum lot size of two-acres is required. The proposed standards would retain that standard as one of five permitted development options, adding others that provide for larger lots and/or environmentally-sensitive site design through clustered or planned developments. • 3) Creation of "Rural Villages", with a small scale commercial core designed to serve the village only. 154 3. JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT • This item is to receive public input on a proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement for Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro. This amendment is directly related to and contingent upon the previous related items. Specifically, the proposed amendment would add language which refers to the creation of five permitted development options with a range of lot sizes and open space set- asides. Language would also be added to qualify the prohibition on public water and sewer service extension to allow an exception for extensions into a predefined service corridor only for the development of planned "Rural Villages" . SLIDE PRESENTATION (The complete narrative is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office) . DAVID STANCIL made the presentation of the staff report. He stated that the Committee began by considering its four goals: (1) Agricultural Preservation (2) Natural Resource Protection (3) Visual Resource Protection (4) Growth Management Also, they considered a fifth unwritten goal of providing rural buffer property owners with more flexibility. In the Conceptual Guidelines • for the Rural Buffer, each goal is addressed both individually and comprehensively. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION Since many farmers were concerned that making a living in agriculture was becoming more difficult, the Committee adopted strategies that would encourage agriculture to coexist with future development by allowing agriculture in open space set-asides. NATURAL AND VISUAL RESOURCES The Committee concluded that by recognizing and encouraging the protection of natural resources in the buffer by landowners, the goal of protecting the environment might be greatly furthered. This can best be accomplished by encouraging development to cluster with open space set-asides that include environmentally-sensitive areas. The further use of flexible site-sensitive design standards in the strategy for the rural buffer also enhances this goal. GROWTH MANAGEMENT The Rural Buffer, as a part of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan for Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro plays a critical growth management role for the future of both the County and the Towns. Its purpose as a rural "greenbelt" separating the urbanized areas from other suburban and urban areas is very clearly stated in the Joint Land Use Plan. The Committee's goal was to find a way to encourage clustered development that discouraged rural sprawl, are 1 density and yet protect and preserve open space and resources through 155 410 sensitive site design. Such a program would meet both the goals of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and the Committee. In hearing the concerns of the rural buffer residents (including those on the Committee) the task force decided that a fifth unstated goal of the study should include finding a way to achieve the aforementioned goals while at the same time providing flexibility for rural residents who have no desire to carve their entire tract into two-acre building lots. The allowance of current permitted uses, the provision of up to 2 1-acre lots to keep "family-type" developments from becoming large- scale ones, and incentives for large-lots are ways that flexibility is provided in this package. THE FIVE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS In coming up with development options for the rural buffer, the Committee felt strongly that each option (with one exception) should be permitted by right, since all achieve the goals of the rural buffer in one manner or another. All of the options use voluntary conservation encouraged through open space set-asides and conservation easements in large lots. All allow slightly different overall densities depending on open space and resource protection. Even the most dense of the options the Rural Village has an overall low density. The options utilize a sliding scale that offers slight density bonuses in exchange for the provision of permanent open space. 410 OPTION A is basically the current standard of two acre lot development. It would allow residential development averaging 1.84 acres per lot. This option would utilize voluntary conservation through conservation easements that might protect natural sites within the private open space of a lot. OPTION B encourages those who would go above and beyond the proposed low-density standard to create lots of five acres or more. Such developments would be limited to a maximum of 200 acres per development. OPTION C utilizes open space set-asides in return for slight density bonuses. Property owners determined to develop their land might set aside almost 1/2 of their tract in agriculture or natural forest and develop the other half with lots of almost 1-acre in size. OPTION D expands upon Option C in that property owners wishing to develop might set aside 2/3 of their tract in agriculture or natural open space and develop on the remaining 1/3 using lots of 1/3 acre average. This development option would require community water and sewer. OPTION E is that of the Rural Village. The Rural Village would be a self-sustaining community that allows residential lots averaging at 1/4 acre surrounding a commercial core designed to provide services such as banking, dining and goods to the village residents only. This "urban-like atmosphere" would be surrounded by vast amounts of open 1111 space on all sides, such that it would be buffered from roadways and environmentally-sensitive areas. Four of every five acres in a tract to be developed as a rural village must be left in open space. Only one of every five acres could be developed. Public water and sewer 156 would be required, and therefore these developments would be permitt110 only in a predefined corridor mutually agreed upon by the County, Towns and OWASA. A minimum tract size of 200 acres would be required. In order to augment the package proposed by the Committee, they identified several issues for further study. (1) the potential use of a Transfer of Development Rights System, (2) the endorsement of a Purchase of Development Rights system where agricultural and natural sites might be preserved (3) the endorsement of the proposed County Monitoring and Maintenance for wastewater systems and others. David Stancil concluded the slide presentation by stating that the Rural Character Study Committee has attempted to propose a package that recognizes both resource protection and private property rights for what they are, and identified a first step toward peaceful coexistence of these two land concepts as Orange County approaches the 21st Century. STAFFS RECOMMENDATIONS All three staffs are in consensus on the positive aspects of the concepts that have been identified by the study committee in their strategy. In the agenda is a joint staff report. Four areas have been identified as concerns by the governing boards: (1) EXTENSION OF PUBLIC SEWER TO RURAL VILLAGES Currently water and sewer is not present in the buffer By extending water and sewer into these areas, development may be encouraged at densities in the future beyond those seen in the Joint Land Use Plan. The study committee has recommended that these lines be designed to service these villages only. (2) OVERALL MINIMUM LOT SIZE BASIS The Rural Character Study Committee proposed that the overall minimum lot size calculations for developments in the RB revert back to a "80, 000 square footage" base rather than the current "2 .0-acre" base. The concern of Chapel Hill and Carrboro staff is that reducing the minimum lot size from 2.0 acres to 1.84 acres will result in a greater number of dwellings in the Rural Buffer than was envisioned by the Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan. Orange County staff feels the increase that might be seen in number of dwellings is very slight, and that any increase would be offset by the flexibility granted - yielding more sensitive site design. (3) MINIMUM LOT SIZE VERSUS AVERAGE LOT SIZE The Rural Character Study Committee has recommended allowing the use of "average" lot sizing rather than "minimum" lot sizing for non-sewered residential developments in the Rural Buffer. The Chapel Hill staff is concerned that this flexibility would be III achieved at the expense of increased densities and number of dwellings over what was envisioned in the 157 • Joint Planning Agreement and Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The position of Orange County and Carrboro staffs is that the increase that might be seen in number of dwellings is very slight and that any increase would be offset by the flexibility granted - yielding a more sensitive site design. (4) ONE-ACRE LOTS FOR EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD The Study Committee proposed to allow 2 1-acre lots for each 1987 lot of record. All three of the planning staffs agree that the allowance of all such tracts to create two one-acre lots might be damaging to the concept and function of the Rural Buffer. The staffs recognize the concerns that the Committee were trying to address and would pledge to pursue other methods and means of achieving that goal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF EACH JURISDICTION CHAPEL HILL PLANNING STAFF The Chapel Hill Planning Staff recommends conditional approval of the Rural Buffer strategies as outlined in the staff report. The staff recommends against specific provisions that would allow public sewer extension to rural villages, square footage minimum lot size, average lot size flexibility and two one-acre lots per 1987 4111 lot-of-record. In addition, the Chapel Hill staff further recommends that, as proposed in the Town Council's public hearing resolutions, a Joint Work Group be appointed to further discuss the policy issues of the proposals. It is recommended that this Joint Work Group consist of elected officials from each jurisdiction, a representative from OWASA, and a representative from the Rural Character Study Committee. The Chapel Hill staff also recommends that the proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Agreement be deferred pending conclusion of discussion by the Joint Work Group. CARRBORO PLANNING STAFF The Carrboro Planning Staff recommends endorsement of the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer with two exceptions. First, that the provision calling for reintroduction of lot sizes based on square footage not be pursued, and second that the proposed allowance of two one-acre lots per 1987 lot of record also not be pursued. The Carrboro staff recommends approval of those amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Agreement that do not conflict with these exceptions. The Carrboro staff does not recommend the establishment of a joint work group unless said group was very narrowly focused, had a deadline for resolution and did not duplicate the efforts of the Rural Character Study Committee. 4111 ORANGE COUNTY The Orange County staff recommends endorsement of the strategies contained in the Conceptual Guidelines with the sole exception being the provision of two one-acre lots for each 1987 158 IIIlot-of-record. They recommend approval of the proposed Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Agreement amendments. In regard to the Joint Work Group, the staff recommends against the establishment of such a group. However, if such a work group is desired, County Staff would recommend a limited scope of review to issues, specified timeframe and the appointment of two members of the Rural Character Study Committee to insure continuity. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BOARDS MAYOR ELEANOR KINNAIRD questioned if an option is chosen for the large acreage of land which is setaside, how can the land be guaranteed to be setaside forever. David Stancil indicated this would be a condition of final plat approval. COUNCIL MEMBER JULIE ANDRESEN asked what assurances would be made to be sure that roads are adequately built so that the cities would not need to repair or replace them at a later time. Stancil stated that this concern would be addressed in the County Ordinances. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR BETTY EIDENIER stated that the Rural Character Study Committee has worked to achieve a consensus. She feels it extremely important that elected officials accept these concepts and begin to implement them rather than study them further. In answer to a question about the extension of water and sewer, David Stancil stated that other communities have been able to address this concern but not in the same context. COMMISSIONER STEPHEN HALKIOTIS stated that the report represents a compromise. He does not support alternative systems. He supports • the extension of water and sewer which is controlled by sizing and regulations. COUNCIL MEMBER JULIE ANDRESEN stated she is greatly disturbed about putting water and sewer in the Rural Buffer. She feels it would change the Rural Buffer to something that is urban and by adding that element change significantly the Joint Planning Agreement. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS JUDSON EDEBURN, Duke Forest Resource Manager, read a prepared statement. He asked that a paragraph be included in Section II.4 of the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer which would provide appropriate measures to protect and enhance the values of the large contiguous tracts of open land represented by the Duke Forest within the Rural Buffer and facilitate continued management of the Duke Forest as a research and teaching resource. LOIS HERRING, Chair of the OWASA Board of Directors read a prepared statement. OWASA believes that the recommendations for limited extensions of public water and sewer service into portions of the Rural Buffer may not be possible to implement. They feel that these issues should receive substantially more technical and policy consideration before the Joint Planning documents are amended. Also, OWASA would like a clear answer regarding what role, if any, OWASA is expected to play regarding water and sewer service in the Rural Buffer. VICTOR TRIPP, speaking on behalf of the Chapel Hill and Bingham Landowners Group, commended the Rural Character Committee for their 159 • work. He read a prepared statement endorsing the recommendations. He stated that the recommendation reflects the true consensus of the property owners. They are workable and less complicated than the regulations now in place. These recommendations promote development at affordable prices. He feels the rural boundary will be protected as well as the resources. Also, the rights of the property owner to develop their property have not been denied. MARX O'NEAL, local real estate broker and developer, commended the Committee for their time and effort to understand the issues and to build a consensus among a varied group of individuals. He supports the recommendations because they have taken an approach which creates incentives as opposed to mandates. With the creation of the Rural Buffer, houses in excess of $200,000 are being created. The Committee's proposal creates an opportunity to create housing in the $150,000 category. Through the tighter clustering process, the preservation of green space is greatly enhanced and the areas are larger. Many of the concerns of the smaller property owners are addressed in the recommendations. In summary, he feels the County has a very good framework to move forward and he hopes the governing representatives will approve. DON COLLINS voiced his approval of the Conceptual Guidelines. While he does not approve of alternative septic systems, he does agree with extending water and sewer into the Rural Buffer because there is 60-70% of the land in the RB that will not perk. • HENRY WHITFIELD asked about land that does not perk. He asked who will support the empty land or open space. He asked how many total people they estimate would be put in this 38, 000 acres. He wanted to know if development in this area would increase the tax base or cost the County additional money. In answer to Whitfield's question about land that does not perk, David Stancil indicated that according to soil scientists, 45% of the land does not perk. There are two provisions that enhance this situation. With regard to open space, it could be private, public, deeded to a private conservation organization, etc. It is entirely up to the property owner. The proposal will not alter the number of people placed in the Rural Buffer. The big difference is that two to three times more open space will be preserved. Mr. Whitfield feels the County has put constraints on the use of the property he owns in the Rural Buffer. SCOTT RADWAY, land developer consultant, expressed concern about the open space. He feels that once there is a consensus from a diverse group, the governmental bodies should be very cautious about changing it. He feels that lot averaging may give someone one or two lots and feels it has many more benefits than problems associated with it. He stated that if lot averaging allows someone one or two more lots and is a good design and functions and can provide a variety of lots and a variety of housing which may have different pricing within the same development area that these things are all positives -- not • negatives. As he understands the permitting of two one-acre lots would add about 330 additional units in that option which would represent the consumption of one percent of the land area. He feels this is a minor issue. He referred to Option B and indicated that the 160 process of approving a plan is important and input is valuable. JEF stated that the society of the County is changing. He feels that as society changes so will development. He does not feel that the concept of infill will be avoided by clustering. He feels the Conceptual Guidelines should include regulations for annexibility. TED LATTA commended the Study Committee for the work they have done. He stated that one thing not mentioned is that the Rural Buffer was put in place to stop Chapel Hill/Carrboro growth. He feels that Chapel Hill will continue to grow and that there will be water and sewer in the Rural Buffer. He feels the plan is a good one and one that the governing boards should consider and approve. DOLLY HUNTER, member of the Rural Character Study Committee, noted that in regard to ownership of open space, that in a cluster development, all the people that buy into the development could jointly own the open space and have in their covenants guidelines for doing so. The ratio the Committee created for the cluster plans and the rural village presents some different options. She stressed that these numbers were very difficult to get to. These options help a lot toward affordable housing. She asked that they not be changed. They have recommended that the villages be near the municipalities so that it will be affordable to extend water and sewer. CHAIRMAN MOSES CAREY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING CHAIRMAN CAREY asked for a motion to refer the recommendations t the appropriate planning staffs for a recommendation and/or specific items to a work group for further study. COMMISSIONER HARTWELL noted there is not a consensus on extending water and sewer. He made a motion to refer the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer, except scenario "E", to the Orange County Planning Board and for action to the two Town Boards. Commissioner Marshall seconded this motion. (This motion was withdrawn after further discussion) . COMMISSIONER WILLHOIT suggested that those items be referred on which there is a consensus and the remaining items be considered separately to determine how to handle. COMMISSIONER MARSHALL stated that one of the main reasons for a work group is the complexities of what citizens don't exactly feel and understand. She does have a problem with the work group in that the last time there was a work group, there were suggestions made and yet there was an awful lot of feeling that because the group was composed of members of each governing body that the final agreement would be one that would be endorsed by all. This was not the case. Not one or two members of any board can speak for the whole board. It is extremely important to understand that this is advisory. She commended the Committee for facing up to the difficulties encountere and the leadership provided to reach out into the community which has 161 1111 gained public support. She would like at least four or five members of the Rural Character Study Committee on any study group that is developed to do any further studying. MAYOR JONATHAN HOWES commended the members of the Study Committee. The degree of support is quite unique on issues of this kind in Orange County. He does not want to do anything to revisit the issues that would destroy the consensus that the Committee has brought to the process. The suggestion that some kind of a working group be created was an attempt to recognize that as the Committee gets the recommendations to a point of being adopted by the governing boards that those governing boards are going to have the final say and need to work it over a little bit to be sure they are comfortable with it. The concern of staff and Town Council is the issue of water and sewer extension. The question of lot size has a technical dimension that also has a policy dimension. These are concerns that will require some deliberation by the Council. He is not sure what the composition of such a group should be but is not against there being a substantial representation of the Rural Buffer Task Force or as many as possible. TOM GURGANUS stated he has never heard such consensus for any one group as for this Study Committee. He encouraged the group not to form another committee or subgroup. He feels the issue would center on water and sewer and once that issue is turned over to the public officials, it would possibly unravel everything the committee has recommended. He endorses all the recommendations of the Study Group. • COMMISSIONER STEPHEN HALKIOTIS stated that there is no way anyone has a full understanding of what has been involved with doing this study. He feels that a study group is not necessary. If a study group is approved, it is vitally important to use the expertise on the Study Committee. CHAIRMAN MOSES CAREY stated that there seems to be a consensus that if a study group is established that members of the Study Committee be included as well as a limited number of elected officials from each of the governing boards and a member of OWASA and the Economic Development Commission. The purpose of the working group is to provide a forum for which elected officials can be educated more than they have up to this point and to continue discussions in a forum that move the issues closer to consensus. He also asked that Hillsborough be included in the discussion to broaden their knowledge of the issues addressed by these guidelines. CHAIR CAREY restated the motion to refer all options except "E" to each of the towns and to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to come back no sooner than October 1. SUBSTITUTE MOTION COMMISSIONER WILLHOIT made a substitute motion to refer to a study group made up of members of each municipality, the Rural Character Study Committee and OWASA the issue of extension of sewer 1111 into the Rural Buffer and that the remainder of the Conceptual Guidelines be referred to the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than October 1. This 162 motion was seconded by Commissioner Marshall. • NOTE: NO VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION. COMMISSIONER MARSHALL noted that there is a disagreement on the dividing of two one-acre lots. The Planning Staff indicated their awareness of this problem and that this would again be restudied for a resolution. She feels that this should also be studied by the study group as well as the extension of sewer into the Rural Buffer. COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER stated that in order to implement this proposal, action will need to be taken by three separate governing bodies. The Chapel Hill Council has not discussed this fully and not expressed their opinion and he believes Carrboro has not fully discussed it either. He would like to have the opportunity for the Council to discuss the entire study so they can decide their position without having any of the options ruled out before doing so. He asked how the Study Committee felt about adopting parts instead of the whole report. Clint Berklin stated he feels it very important to discuss it as a whole package because it is part of a balance of a give and take effort. It is best discussed as an overall package. The Committee would be willing to supply as many committee members to help with the education effort. They have worked with the public during the entire process. If the report was taken apart, they would feel it important to go back to the community groups they have promised the whole package to because it would not be the same thing they took to them before and their comments would not apply. • SUBSTITUTE MOTION Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to refer the entire package to the Governing Boards for consideration and to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to come back to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1. COMMISSIONER HARTWELL WITHDREW THE ORIGINAL MOTION ON THE FLOOR. THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION BECAME THE MAIN MOTION ON THE FLOOR VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT With no further items to be considered at this Joint Planning Public Hearing, Chairman Carey adjourned the meeting. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk • 4 APPROVED 9-18-90 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD REGULAR QUARTERLY HEARING AUGUST 30, 1990 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Joint Session with the Orange County Planning Board for the regular Quarterly Public Hearing on August 30, 1990 at 9: 15 p.m. in the auditorium of Phillips Jr. High School, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. , and Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell, Shirley Marshall and Don Willhoit. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Betty Eidenier and members Chris Best, Virginia Boland, Clinton Burklin, Amanda Cantrell, Dan Eddleman, Jean Hamilton, Barry Jacobs, Bill Waddell, Larry Reid, and Pegge Abrams. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Lewis COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Gene Bell, Emily Crudup, Eddie Kirk, Don Powell, Mary Scearbo and David Stancil, and Beth McIver. NOTE: All documents referenced in these minutes are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk' s office. John McGovern, Martha Klopfer and Emily Crudup were sworn in by the Clerk to the Board. 1. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT a. PD-3-90 Carolina Friends School This presentation was made by Emily Crudup. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed application for a Planned Development - Class A Special Use Permit for Carolina Friends School. The property contains 32 . 94 acres and is currently zoned Rural Buffer. It is also designated Rural Buffer on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The proposed zoning classification is PD-RB, Planned Development - Rural Buffer. Article 6. 20. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits in the AR and RB districts large ground absorption systems for sanitary sewage disposal with a design capacity of 3000 gallons per day or more except as approved through a Special Use Permit or a Planned Development district. The existing sewage disposal system used by Carolina Friends School consists of a package treatment plan, storage lagoon and spray irrigation system permitted by the North Carolina Division of Environment Management in 1978 and 1987 for a design capacity of 4000 gallons per day. Records have been submitted by the applicant which indicate that the actual daily flow of the system does not exceed 3000 gallons per day. Due to increased enrollment, the school has requested approval to expand the school facility by adding a modular classroom for twenty-five students. The sewage disposal system will not have to be upgraded to accommodate the additional students. However, a Class A Special Use Permit for a Planned Development is necessary to allow expansion of the school facility since the design capacity of the system already exceeds that allowed according to Article 6.20. 1. The application for rezoning and a Class A Special Use Permit meets all ordinance requirements for approval with conditions. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD In response to a questions from Commissioner Willhoit, Crudup indicated that the Division of Environmental Management has a set of guidelines for estimating design flow for day school facilities. It is broken down based on number of students, whether or not the school has a cafeteria, gymnasium and/or shower facilities. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS Mr. John McGovern, Assistant Principal of Carolina Friends School, spoke in favor of granting this Special Use Permit. He indicated that the water use was approximately 5. 8 gallons per day per student which was well under the 10 gallons per day allowed by the State. Ms. Martha S. Klopfer, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Carolina Friends School, spoke in favor of granting this Special Use Permit. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be received before the end of this Public Hearing under Items for Decision. VOTE: Unanimous b. Z-4-90 Dorothy C. Bane This presentation was made by Eddie Kirk. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a rezoning request submitted by Dorothy C. Bane and Willie F. Ward. The property in question is located on the south side of US 70 approximately 750 feet west of Mount Herman Church Road (SR 1713) . It is known as part of Lot 35, Tax Map 26 of Eno Township. The total tract contains approximately 2 acres and fronts on US 60 for a length of approximately 25 feet. Access is proposed to be provided by a private road that extends along the south side of the property. The current zoning on the property is R-1 (Rural Residential) . The proposed zoning is I-1 (Light Industrial) . The .I-1 zone allows a limited range of uses. The area is designated as Twenty Year Transition and Commercial/Industrial Node in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has submitted a minor subdivision for the proposed lot with a request for a private road along the south side of the property. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD • In response to a question from Commissioner Willhoit, Kirk indicated that crematoriums were a permitted use under I-1. Commissioner Willhoit asked for an explanation of the difference between a crematorium and a pathological incinerator. Kirk will find out and forward this information to the Board of Commissioners. Ms. Dorothy Bane, owner of this property, spoke in favor of this rezoning request. Mr. Will Ward spoke in favor of this rezoning request. His prepared statement is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. In response to a question about the cost of cremation, he stated the cost is $700. 00. He indicated that the State checks these facilities on a regular basis. He indicated that there is not a difference between a pathological incinerator and a crematorium in terms of pollutants going into the air. There is a difference in reference to certain types of pollutants and materials which are being disposed of. Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than October 1. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2 . STREET NAME CHANGE a. Old N.C. Highway 86 from I-85 to New Hope Church Road/Arthur Minnis Road - Change to Old Chapel Hill Drive This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item was presented to consider changing the name of Old N.C. Highway 86 to Old Chapel Hill Drive. The portion of highway affected by such a change extends from Interstate 85 to New Hope Church Road/Arthur Minnis Road. On May 29, 1990 a public hearing was held on the assignment of house and building numbers for Rural Route 7- Hillsborough and Mr. Bob Haas spoke in opposition to the road name, indicating that the road was called Old Chapel Hill Road when he moved to the area years ago. Subsequent to this hearing Mr. Haas presented petitions from 42 of 66 property owners (66%) requesting that Old N.C. Highway 86 be renamed to Old Chapel Hill Way or Drive from I-85 to the New Hope Church Road/Arthur Minnis Road intersection. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Halkiotis mentioned that from Eubanks Road to Arthur Minnis there are several different road name signs posted. He asked who was responsible for these green signs. Collins indicated that they were the responsibility of the Public Works Department. If there are inconsistencies they will correct them. In response to a question from Commissioner Halkiotis, Mr. Haas indicated that this road was known as Old Chapel Hill Road when he moved onto it. It also mentioned that the Department of Transportation's address, in the phone book, is Old Chapel Hill Road. Chairman Carey entered a letter into the record from Janet Rigsbee, Hillsborough Planning Director, indicating opposition to the renaming of this road. Mr. Haas stated that he was in receipt of a letter from Horace Johnson, Mayor of Hillsborough, to the Orange County Board of Commissioner indicating that the Hillsborough Town Board voted unanimously to recommend that the road be named Old Chapel Hill Drive. Goff Coe, Planning Assistant for the Town of Hillsborough, indicated that the Planning Staff and the Town Commissioners held different views on this issue. Commissioner Willhoit asked if the name Old Chapel Hill/86 had been considered? Mr. Joe Tyler, a resident of Old Highway 86, spoke in favor of renaming of the renaming of Old Highway 86. Mr. Don Collins, a resident of Old Highway 86, spoke in opposition to the renaming of Old Highway 86. Ms. Sharon Tyler, a resident of Old Highway 86, spoke in favor of renaming of Old Highway 86. Commissioner Hartwell suggested dropping the word "Old" from the name and calling it Chapel Hill Drive/Hillsborough. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to table this matter to receive further information from the staff and for clarification of Hillsborough's position on this renaming. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. ASSIGNMENT OF HOUSE/BUILDING NUMBERS a. Rural Route 7 Hillsborough b. Rural Route 3 - Hillsborough c. Rural Route 1 - Cedar Grove This presentation was made by Marvin Collins. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on proposed house and building numbers to be assigned to Orange County Rural Routes 7 and 3 Hillsborough and Route 1 Cedar Grove. Per an agreement reached between Orange County and the US Postal Services, all rural box numbers are being converted to street addresses within the County. Route 7 Hillsborough encompasses an area from Wildwood Subdivision on NC 86, southward to include Stagecoach Run Subdivision, Wood's Edge Mobile Home Park and Acres of New Hope Subdivision at Cheyenne Drive; then crossing westward to Old NC 86 beginning at the DOT Maintenance Complex and extending southward to include Oakdale Drive, and ending at Davis Road. Route 3 Hillsborough begins at Davis Road and moves south on Old NC 86 to New Hope Church Road; then west on Arthur Minnis Road, south on Union Grove Church Road, west on Albert and Dairyland Roads to Orange Grove Road; then south to include Teer Road, returning northward along Orange Grove Road and eastward along Davis Road to the beginning point. Other roads included in part or in their entirety include: Ode Turner Road, Tree Farm Road, Kimbro Road, Borland Road, Rocky Ridge Road, Buckhorn Road, and Dodson' s Crossroads North and South. Route 1 Cedar Grove encompasses an area north along Wilkerson Road from NC 57 to Person County, including portions of Sawmill Road East and West, Hawkins Road East and West, Ormond Road, and Olin Road; then southwest along Hurdle Mills Road, across NC 86 North to McDade Store Road, and south along Efland-Cedar Grove Road to Highland Farm Road; then west from Cedar Grove Community along Carr Store Road to Carr Community and eastward along NC 49 to Caswell County. Roads included in their entirety or portions thereof are: Wheeler' s Church Road, Caviness Jordan Road, Art Road, Bama Road, Hensley Road, Allison Road, Burton Road, NC 86 North, Tom Pope Loop, McCullough Road, Oakley Road, Lee' s Chapel Road, Governor Scott Road, Mill Creek Road, Lonesome Road, Lib Road, Penecost Road, Allie Mae Road,Doc Corbett Road, Made Loop and Wade's Dead End. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Halkiotis mentioned that the initiative to change these house and building numbers comes from the United States Postal Service. Collins indicated that assigning permanent house numbers will eliminate the problem of having to reassign house numbers whenever the rural postal routes need to be redistributed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to defer action on Route 3 and 7 in Hillsborough and to approve the assigning of building and house numbers for rural route 1 in Cedar Grove. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Article 22 Definitions (Arts & Crafts Studios) b. Article 4.3 Table of Permitted Uses (Arts & Crafts Studios) This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to include arts and crafts studios as a permitted use in commercial zoning districts. An arts and crafts studio may qualify as a home occupation, but there is no category in the Table of Permitted Uses which addresses a studio as a freestanding use. The proposed amendment defines arts and crafts studios as the working area for artists or craftsmen and gives examples of typical studio uses. Studios would be permitted by right in the commercial zoning districts. Sale of only those goods which are custom-made could occur on-site. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer these items to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS a. Section IV-B-1 Lot Standards This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive public comment on a proposed amendment to establish minimum lot sizes needed to accommodate various types of wastewater disposal and water supply. It is recommended that 40, 000 square feet remain the minimum lot size where both a well and septic tank are used. Where there is no well,the lot size could be reduced to 30, 000 square feet. Where there is no well, the lot size could be reduced to 30, 000 square feet. Where there is both public water and sewer, the minimum lot size is recommended to remain 15, 0000 square feet. If an easement is proposed for use by another property, an additional 20, 000 square feet is needed to accommodate a septic disposal system. A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by • Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer these text amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Section III-C-2 Application Requirements (Minor Subdivision - Final Plat) This presentation was made by Mary Scearbo. In summary this item was presented to receive public comment on a proposed amendment to require that eight (8) copies of the Final Plat for a minor subdivision be submitted with the application. Five (5) copies of the Final Plat are now submitted with an application for Final Plat approval for minor subdivision. Additional copies are needed for distribution to the appropriate utility providers and school district. The cost to the applicant of supplying additional copies of the plat would not exceed one (1) dollar per copy, according to two local surveyors. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer these items to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS • In summary this item was presented to receive public comment on a proposed amendment to consider traffic impacts of efficiency apartments and duplexes in determining the private road classification required for subdivision approval and eliminate approval of Class A roads for minor subdivisions by the Board of Commissioners. To account for the traffic impact of potential additional residences, it is proposed that efficiency apartments and duplexes be considered in determining the appropriate classification for a private road. An efficiency apartment is expected to create about half of the traffic generated by a single-family residence. A duplex is expected to generate about the same amount of traffic as a single-family residence. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer these road standards to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ITEMS FOR DECISION 1. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT (Continued) a. PD-3-90 Carolina Friends School ***This item was presented earlier in the meeting. Ms. Betty Eidenier, Chairman of the Planning Board, read a prepared statement indicating that the Orange County Planning Board recognizes the need for expeditious consideration of the Special Use permits for the Carolina Friends School. However, they strongly protest the manner in which this matter has been considered outside the ordinary procedures and protections, such as allowing written public comment. They trust that no precedent has been set by this case. She stated that they found in the affirmative for the three conditions before approving the Special Use. They concur with the Planning Staff recommendation with the eight conditions, as amended. Commissioner Hartwell informed the Board that after a building permit was issued the staff at the school discovered that they had not gotten a permit for the deck. A representative of the school went to the Planning Department to get a permit. At that point, it was mentioned that the permit had been revoked. The problem arose from the fact that although the school staff was aware that they needed a special use permit, they were not aware that it was a different permit from the original building permit which they were issued. He pointed out that this exception was made only because of the oversight on the part of staff in explaining what was needed. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, that the Board finds a preponderance of evidence to indicate compliance with the General Standards, specific rules governing the specific use and that the use complies with all required regulations and standards with the exception of those standards for which the Planning Board found a lack of compliance and as to those standards the Board finds that a preponderance of evidence is not present to indicate compliance. Provided, however, among the eight (8) conditions recommended by the Planning Board are conditions which if met will satisfy the standards not satisfied by the evidence. The Board further finds that the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted and the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property and the use is in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the county as embodied in these regulations or in the comprehensive plan or portion thereof, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, and therefore the Board approves the rezoning from Rural Buffer to Planned Development-Rural Buffer and the Class A Special Use Permit including the eight (8) conditions as recommended by the Planning Board and Administration as listed below: (1) The sewage disposal system must at all times be operated and maintained according to standards and conditions set forth by the NC Division of Environmental Management in Permit WQ0002161 and as may be amended in the future. (2) Provide and maintain screening along the eastern boundary line to screen parking areas and dumpsters. (3) Provide the legal description of the property to which the Special Use Permit will apply. (4) Revise the table of figures on the site plan to comply with Article 5. 1. 2 . (5) With applications for building permits, provide documentation of how the proposed construction will access the existing sewage disposal system as well as estimates for any increase in daily flow through the system. Each application which will create additional demand on the system must be accompanied by an approval letter from the Division of Environmental Management. All information will be submitted to the County Engineer for review to determine that the system demand does not exceed 4000 gallons per day. No building permits will be approved for any additions/renovations without prior approval from DEM and approval of an amendment to this Special Use Permit. (6) The final site plan and supporting documentation for the project, incorporating all changes, deletions, and additions through the final approval of the project, are to be incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and supporting documentation are to remain on file in the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. Any applicable permits, upon application, will be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. (7) The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and attachments supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions. (8) If any of the above conditions is held invalid, the Special Use Permit shall become null and void. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT With no further items for consideration, Chairman Carey adjourned the meeting. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on September 4, 1990 at 7: 30 p.m. in the Old Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chairman Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk • • MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 30, 1990 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met jointly with the Chapel Hill Town Council, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and the Orange County Planning Board for a Joint Planning Public Hearing on August 30, 1990 at 7: 30 p.m. The meeting was held in the auditorium of Phillips Junior High School, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. , and Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell, Shirley E. Marshall and Don Wilihoit. CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL: Mayor Jonathan Howes and Council Members Julie Andresen, Joyce Brown, Joe Herzenberg, and Arthur Werner. CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN: Mayor Eleanor G. Kinnaird and Aldermen Jay Bryan, Jacquelyn Gist, Hilliard Caldwell, Tom Gurganus and Frances Shetley. COUNTY ATTORNEY: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr. , Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Emily Crudup and David Stancil. NOTE: All documents referenced in these minutes are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk' s office. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRMAN Moses Carey, Jr. called the meeting to order and welcomed the members of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, the Chapel Hill Town Council, staff members from the two municipalities, the Rural Character Study Committee and the citizens to the Joint Planning Public Hearing. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chairman Moses Carey Jr. read the public charge. C. JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE RURAL CHARACTER STUDY COMMITTEE CLINT BURKLIN, Chairman of the Rural Character Study Committee stated that the Committee is composed of a broad sampling of the many groups that work and live in the rural buffer as well as other groups in the county. The diversity in both the committee and the community meetings taught them a lot about the needs of the rural buffer community. They learned from the farming community about the importance of land to their livelihood today and as a source of income when they retire. They learned from the established family about the importance of being able to give small portions of their land to their children and grandchildren. They learned from the conservationists and the custodians of Duke Forest about the importance of open space and natural areas to the supply of clean air and clean water and they learned from the Economic Development Commission about the importance of growth to the economic health of this community. They learned about the need for affordable housing. When they focused on developing recommendations, they learned how hard it was to meet the diverse needs of the many community groups in the Rural Buffer. They studied numerous options going back to the community for help and suggestions. Through the process they had to share in the give and take of individual benefits for the sake of the greater benefits of the community as a whole. Tonight, the Study Committee presents their recommendations to the governing boards. They feel the recommendations meet their two basic objections. First, the recommendations provide the residents of the Rural Buffer with greater flexibility to develop their land. There are five options in the recommendations with each option being the choice of the landowner and incentives for compensating the landowner for inconveniences of preserving rural open space. Second, the recommendations provide greater protection for the beauty of the natural areas of the Rural Buffer. Each option promotes less disturbance to the land than the current development options. Burklin referred to a request that a study group of the three governing boards be established to take over the Rural Character Study after this public hearing. The Committee is concerned that this approach may overlook the vast amount of knowledge that has been developed by the Study Committee and runs the risk of reinventing the wheel and the time delays associated with that which may not involve the public in the process. He invited everyone present to take this opportunity to make this a learning process and to share and exchange ideas. LIVY LUDINGTON, member of the Rural Character Study Committee, talked about the committee itself. It allowed those with different backgrounds, interests and issues to work together and air their differences and come up with an agreement. The common bond of all these different groups is that they all care about this community. She feels they have a respect for each. other and an understanding about the priorities of each group which led to a plan which is a beginning. There has been a lot of giving and taking and a lot of listening to other people in the community. The Committee feels this has been a cooperative effort with a real balance in the plan. She hopes that those who work on the plan after tonight understand that there is a very continuous balance and that it is built on the trust that they feel they have established with each other and with other citizens in the community by listening to them. She hopes that those that make suggestions think about how they can all be working together and to be listening to each other. BOB STR.AYHORN, member of the Rural Character Study Committee, stated that he recommends the changes being presented tonight to his friends who own property in the Rural Buffer. The changes will make it better for them to live with the Land Use Plan and what is happening in the RB. If this is adopted, it will remove most of the frustrations in getting through the process. He stated that there is no way to satisfy those people who want no rules in the RB or those that want no growth in the RB. This is a good balance with a lot of give and take. They tried to be sensitive to the concerns of the landowner. He hopes that the Committee will be allowed to bring this study to a conclusion and that it will not be given over to another committee. NOTE: The following three items are so integrally related to each other that they were considered together under one presentation. Following each item is a brief summation of each topic. The presentation and comments follow these brief summaries: 1. CONCEPTUAL GUIDELINES FOR THE RURAL BUFFER This item was presented to receive public input on the recommended strategy for the Rural Buffer, as adopted by the Rural Character Study Committee. 2 . LUP-4-90 JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN This item was presented to receive public input on a proposed amendment to the text of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan for Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro. These amendments are part of a three-part package, related to the recommended strategy for the Rural Buffer entitled Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer, and an amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement. The amendments to the text of the plan involve changes to the following sections: Section III. Infrastructure and Public Services Section V. Joint Planning Operating Principles Section VI. Future Land Use - JPA Section VII. Overview of Implementation Strategies These amendments all deal with one of the following issues: 1) Extension of water and sewer into a defined corridor for planned "Rural Villages" . 2) Development standards for lots in the rural Buffer. Currently, a minimum lot size of two-acres is required. The proposed standards would retain that standard as one of five permitted development options, adding others that provide for larger lots and/or environmentally-sensitive site design through clustered or planned developments. 3) Creation of "Rural Villages", with a small scale commercial core designed to serve the village only. 3. JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT This item is to receive public input on a proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement for Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro. This amendment is directly related to and contingent upon the previous related items. Specifically, the proposed amendment would add language which refers to the creation of five permitted development options with a range of lot sizes and open space set- asides. Language would also be added to qualify the prohibition on public water and sewer service extension to allow an exception for extensions into a predefined service corridor only for the development of planned "Rural Villages" . SLIDE PRESENTATION (The complete narrative is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk' s Office) . DAVID STANCIL made the presentation of the staff report. He stated that the Committee began by considering its four goals: (1) Agricultural Preservation (2) Natural Resource Protection (3) Visual Resource Protection (4) Growth Management Also, they considered a fifth unwritten goal of providing rural buffer property owners with more flexibility. In the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer, each goal is addressed both individually and comprehensively. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION Since many farmers were concerned that making a living in agriculture was becoming more difficult, the Committee adopted strategies that would encourage agriculture to coexist with future development by allowing agriculture in open space set-asides. NATURAL AND VISUAL RESOURCES The Committee concluded that by recognizing and encouraging the protection of natural resources in the buffer by landowners, the goal of protecting the environment might be greatly furthered. This can best be accomplished by encouraging development to cluster with open space set-asides that include environmentally-sensitive areas. The further use of flexible site-sensitive design standards in the strategy for the rural buffer also enhances this goal. GROWTH MANAGEMENT The Rural Buffer, as a part of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan for Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro plays a critical growth management role for the future of both the County and the Towns. Its purpose as a rural "greenbelt" separating the urbanized areas from other suburban and urban areas is very clearly stated in the Joint Land Use Plan. The Committee's goal was to find a way to encourage clustered development that discouraged rural sprawl, are low density and yet protect and preserve open space and resources through sensitive site design. Such a program would meet both the goals of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and the Committee. In hearing the concerns of the rural buffer residents (including those on the Committee) the task force decided that a fifth unstated goal of the study should include finding a way to achieve the aforementioned goals while at the same time providing flexibility for rural residents who have no desire to carve their entire tract into two-acre building lots. The allowance of current permitted uses, the provision of up to 2 1-acre lots to keep "family-type" developments from becoming large- scale ones, and incentives for large-lots are ways that flexibility is provided in this package. THE FIVE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS In coming up with development options for the rural buffer, the Committee felt strongly that each option (with one exception) should be permitted by right, since all achieve the goals of the rural buffer in one manner or another. All of the options use voluntary conservation encouraged through open space set-asides and conservation easements in large lots. All allow slightly different overall densities depending on open space and resource protection. Even the most dense of the options the Rural Village has an overall low density. The options utilize a sliding scale that offers slight density bonuses in exchange for the provision of permanent open space. OPTION A is basically the current standard of two acre lot development. It would allow residential development averaging 1.84 acres per lot. This option would utilize voluntary conservation through conservation easements that might protect natural sites within the private open space of a lot. OPTION B encourages those who would go above and beyond the proposed low-density standard to create lots of five acres or more. Such developments would be limited to a maximum of 200 acres per development. OPTION C utilizes open space set-asides in return for slight density bonuses. Property owners determined to develop their land might set aside almost 1/2 of their tract in agriculture or natural forest and develop the other half with lots of almost 1-acre in size. OPTION D expands upon Option C in that property owners wishing to develop might set aside 2/3 of their tract in agriculture or natural open space and develop on the remaining 1/3 using lots of 1/3 acre average. This development option would require community water and sewer. OPTION E is that of the Rural Village. The Rural Village would be a self-sustaining community that allows residential lots averaging at 1/4 acre surrounding a commercial core designed to provide services such as banking, dining and goods to the village residents only. This "urban-like atmosphere" would be surrounded by vast amounts of open space on all sides, such that it would be buffered from roadways and environmentally-sensitive areas. Four of every five acres in a tract to be developed as a rural village must be left in open space. Only one of every five acres could be developed. Public water and sewer would be required, and therefore these developments would be permitted only in a predefined corridor mutually agreed upon by the County, Towns and OWASA. A minimum tract size of 200 acres would be required. In order to augment the package proposed by the Committee, they identified several issues for further study. (1) the potential use of a Transfer of Development Rights System, (2) the endorsement of a Purchase of Development Rights system where agricultural and natural sites might be preserved (3) the endorsement of the proposed County Monitoring and Maintenance for wastewater systems and others. David Stancil concluded the slide presentation by stating that the Rural Character Study Committee has attempted to propose a package that recognizes both resource protection and private property rights for what they are, and identified a first step toward peaceful coexistence of these two land concepts as Orange County approaches the 21st Century. STAFFS RECOMMENDATIONS All three staffs are in consensus on the positive aspects of the concepts that have been identified by the study committee in their strategy. In the agenda is a joint staff report. Four areas have been identified as concerns by the governing boards: (1) EXTENSION OF PUBLIC SEWER TO RURAL VILLAGES Currently water and sewer is not present in the buffer. By extending water and sewer into these areas, development may be encouraged at densities in the future beyond those seen in the Joint Land Use Plan. The study committee has recommended that these lines be designed to service these villages only. (2) OVERALL MINIMUM LOT SIZE BASIS The Rural Character Study Committee proposed that the overall minimum lot size calculations for developments in the RB revert back to a "80, 000 square footage" base rather than the current "2. 0-acre" base. The concern of Chapel Hill and Carrboro staff is that reducing the minimum lot size from 2 . 0 acres to 1. 84 acres will result in a greater number of dwellings in the Rural Buffer than was envisioned by the Joint Planning Agreement and Land Use Plan. Orange County staff feels the increase that might be seen in number of dwellings is very slight, and that any increase would be offset by the flexibility granted - yielding more sensitive site design. (3) MINIMUM LOT SIZE VERSUS AVERAGE LOT SIZE The Rural Character Study Committee has recommended allowing the use of "average" lot sizing rather than "minimum" lot sizing for non-sewered residential developments in the Rural Buffer. The Chapel Hill staff is concerned that this flexibility would be achieved at the expense of increased densities and number of dwellings over what was envisioned in the Joint Planning Agreement and Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The position of Orange County and Carrboro staffs is that the increase that might be seen in number of dwellings is very slight and that any increase would be offset by the flexibility granted - yielding a more sensitive site design. (4) ONE-ACRE LOTS FOR EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD The Study Committee proposed to allow 2 1-acre lots for each 1987 lot of record. All three of the planning staffs agree that the allowance of all such tracts to create two one-acre lots might be damaging to the concept and function of the Rural Buffer. The staffs recognize the concerns that the Committee were trying to address and would pledge to pursue other methods and means of achieving that goal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF EACH JURISDICTION CHAPEL HILL PLANNING STAFF The Chapel Hill Planning Staff recommends conditional approval of the Rural Buffer strategies as outlined in the staff report. The staff recommends against specific provisions that would allow public sewer extension to rural villages, square footage minimum lot size, average lot size flexibility and two one-acre lots per 1987 lot-of-record. In addition, the Chapel Hill staff further recommends that, as proposed in the Town Council's public hearing resolutions, a Joint Work Group be appointed to further discuss the policy issues of the proposals. It is recommended that this Joint Work Group consist of elected officials from each jurisdiction, a representative from OWASA, and a representative from the Rural Character Study Committee. The Chapel Hill staff also recommends that the proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Agreement be deferred pending conclusion of discussion by the Joint Work Group. CARRBORO PLANNING STAFF The Carrboro Planning Staff recommends endorsement of the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer with two exceptions. First, that the provision calling for reintroduction of lot sizes based on square footage not be pursued, and second that the proposed allowance of two one-acre lots per 1987 lot of record also not be pursued. The Carrboro staff recommends approval of those amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Agreement that do not conflict with these exceptions. The Carrboro staff does not recommend the establishment of a joint work group unless said group was very narrowly focused, had a deadline for resolution and did not duplicate the efforts of the Rural Character Study Committee. ORANGE COUNTY The Orange County staff recommends endorsement of the strategies contained in the Conceptual Guidelines with the sole exception being the provision of two one-acre lots for each 1987 lot-of-record. They recommend approval of the proposed Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Agreement amendments. In regard to the Joint Work Group, the staff recommends against the establishment of such a group. However, if such a work group is desired, County Staff would recommend a limited scope of review to issues, specified timeframe and the appointment of two members of the Rural Character Study Committee to insure continuity. OUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BOARDS MAYOR ELEANOR KINNAIRD questioned if an option is chosen for the large acreage of land which is setaside, how can the land be guaranteed to be setaside forever. David Stancil indicated this would be a condition of final plat approval. COUNCIL MEMBER JULIE ANDRESEN asked what assurances would be made to be sure that roads are adequately built so that the cities would not need to repair or replace them at a later time. Stancil stated that this concern would be addressed in the County Ordinances. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR BETTY EIDENIER stated that the Rural Character Study Committee has worked to achieve a consensus. She feels it extremely important that elected officials accept these concepts and begin to implement them rather than study them further. In answer to a question about the extension of water and sewer, David Stancil stated that other communities have been able to address this concern but not in the same context. COMMISSIONER STEPHEN HALKIOTIS stated that the report represents a compromise. He does not support alternative systems. He supports the extension of water and sewer which is controlled by sizing and regulations. COUNCIL MEMBER JULIE ANDRESEN stated she is greatly disturbed about putting water and sewer in the Rural Buffer. She feels it would change the Rural Buffer to something that is urban and by adding that element change significantly the Joint Planning Agreement. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS JUDSON EDEBURN, Duke Forest Resource Manager, read a prepared statement. He asked that a paragraph be included in Section II.4 of the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer which would provide appropriate measures to protect and enhance the values of the large contiguous tracts of open land represented by the Duke Forest within the Rural Buffer and facilitate continued management of the Duke Forest as a research and teaching resource. LOIS HERRING, Chair of the OWASA Board of Directors read a prepared statement. OWASA believes that the recommendations for limited extensions of public water and sewer service into portions of the Rural Buffer may not be possible to implement. They feel that these issues should receive substantially more technical and policy consideration before the Joint Planning documents are amended. Also, OWASA would like a clear answer regarding what role, if any, OWASA is expected to play regarding water and sewer service in the Rural Buffer. VICTOR TRIPP, speaking on behalf of the Chapel Hill and Bingham Landowners Group, commended the Rural Character Committee for their work. He read a prepared statement endorsing the recommendations. He stated that the recommendation reflects the true consensus of the property owners. They are workable and less complicated than the regulations now in place. These recommendations promote development at affordable prices. He feels the rural boundary will be protected as well as the resources. Also, the rights of the property owner to develop their property have not been denied. MARK O'NEAL, local real estate broker and developer, commended the Committee for their time and effort to understand the issues and to build a consensus among a varied group of individuals. He supports the recommendations because they have taken an approach which creates incentives as opposed to mandates. With the creation of the Rural Buffer, houses in excess of $200, 000 are being created. The Committee' s proposal creates an opportunity to create housing in the $150, 000 category. Through the tighter clustering process, the preservation of green space is greatly enhanced and the areas are larger. Many of the concerns of the smaller property owners are addressed in the recommendations. In summary, he feels the County has a very good framework to move forward and he hopes the governing representatives will approve. DON COLLINS voiced his approval of the Conceptual Guidelines. While he does not approve of alternative septic systems, he does agree with extending water and sewer into the Rural Buffer because there is 60-70% of the land in the RB that will not perk. HENRY WHITFIELD asked about land that does not perk. He asked who will support the empty land or open space. He asked how many total people they estimate would be put in this 38, 000 acres. He wanted to know if development in this area would increase the tax base or cost the County additional money. In answer to Whitfield' s question about land that does not perk, David Stancil indicated that according to soil scientists, 45% of the land does not perk. There are two provisions that enhance this situation. With regard to open space, it could be private, public, deeded to a private conservation organization, etc. It is entirely up to the property owner. The proposal will not alter the number of people placed in the Rural Buffer. The big difference is that two to three times more open space will be preserved. Mr. Whitfield feels the County has put constraints on the use of the property he owns in the Rural Buffer. SCOTT RADWAY, land developer consultant, expressed concern about the open space. He feels that once there is a consensus from a diverse group, the governmental bodies should be very cautious about changing it. He feels that lot averaging may give someone one or two lots and feels it has many more benefits than problems associated with it. He stated that if lot averaging allows someone one or two more lots and is a good design and functions and can provide a variety of lots and a variety of housing which may have different pricing within the same development area that these things are all positives -- not negatives. As he understands the permitting of two one-acre lots would add about 330 additional units in that option which would represent the consumption of one percent of the land area. He feels this is a minor issue. He referred to Option B and indicated that the process of approving a plan is important and input is valuable. JEF stated that the society of the County is changing. He feels that as society changes so will development. He does not feel that the concept of infill will be avoided by clustering. He feels the Conceptual Guidelines should include regulations for annexibility. TED LATTA commended the Study Committee for the work they have done. He stated that one thing not mentioned is that the Rural Buffer was put in place to stop Chapel Hill/Carrboro growth. He feels that Chapel Hill will continue to grow and that there will be water and sewer in the Rural Buffer. He feels the plan is a good one and one that the governing boards should consider and approve. DOLLY HUNTER, member of the Rural Character Study Committee, noted that in regard to ownership of open space, that in a cluster development, all the people that buy into the development could jointly own the open space and have in their covenants guidelines for doing so. The ratio the Committee created for the cluster plans and the rural village presents some different options. She stressed that these numbers were very difficult to get to. These options help a lot toward affordable housing. She asked that they not be changed. They have recommended that the villages be near the municipalities so that it will be affordable to extend water and sewer. CHAIRMAN MOSES CAREY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING CHAIRMAN CAREY asked for a motion to refer the recommendations to the appropriate planning staffs for a recommendation and/or specific items to a work group for further study. COMMISSIONER HARTWELL noted there is not a consensus on extending water and sewer. He made a motion to refer the Conceptual Guidelines for the Rural Buffer, except scenario "E", to the Orange County Planning Board and for action to the two Town Boards. Commissioner Marshall seconded this motion. (This motion was withdrawn after further discussion) . COMMISSIONER WILLHOIT suggested that those items be referred on which there is a consensus and the remaining items be considered separately to determine how to handle. COMMISSIONER MARSHALL stated that one of the main reasons for a work group is the complexities of what citizens don't exactly feel and understand. She does have a problem with the work group in that the last time there was a work group, there were suggestions made and yet there was an awful lot of feeling that because the group was composed of members of each governing body that the final agreement would be one that would be endorsed by all. This was not the case. Not one or two members of any board can speak for the whole board. It is extremely important to understand that this is advisory. She commended the Committee for facing up to the difficulties encountered and the leadership provided to reach out into the community which has gained public support. She would like at least four or five members of the Rural Character Study Committee on any study group that is developed to do any further studying. MAYOR JONATHAN HOWES commended the members of the Study Committee. The degree of support is quite unique on issues of this kind in Orange County. He does not want to do anything to revisit the issues that would destroy the consensus that the Committee has brought to the process. The suggestion that some kind of a working group be created was an attempt to recognize that as the Committee gets the recommendations to a point of being adopted by the governing boards that those governing boards are going to have the final say and need to work it over a little bit to be sure they are comfortable with it. The concern of staff and Town Council is the issue of water and sewer extension. The question of lot size has a technical dimension that also has a policy dimension. These are concerns that will require some deliberation by the Council. He is not sure what the composition of such a group should be but is not against there being a substantial representation of the Rural Buffer Task Force or as many as possible. TOM GURGANUS stated he has never heard such consensus for any one group as for this Study Committee. He encouraged the group not to form another committee or subgroup. He feels the issue would center on water and sewer and once that issue is turned over to the public officials, it would possibly unravel everything the committee has recommended. He endorses all the recommendations of the Study Group. COMMISSIONER STEPHEN HALKIOTIS stated that there is no way anyone has a full understanding of what has been involved with doing this study. He feels that a study group is not necessary. If a study group is approved, it is vitally important to use the expertise on the Study Committee. CHAIRMAN MOSES CAREY stated that there seems to be a consensus that if a study group is established that members of the Study Committee be included as well as a limited number of elected officials frbm .each of the governing boards and a member of OWASA and the Economic Development Commission. The purpose of the working group is to provide a forum for which elected officials can be educated more than they have up to this point and to continue discussions in a forum that move the issues closer to consensus. He also asked that Hillsborough be included in the discussion to broaden their knowledge of the issues addressed by these guidelines. CHAIR CAREY restated the motion to refer all options except "E" to each of the towns and to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to come back no sooner than October 1. SUBSTITUTE MOTION COMMISSIONER WILLHOIT made a substitute motion to refer to a study group made up of members of each municipality, the Rural Character Study Committee and OWASA the issue of extension of sewer into the Rural Buffer and that the remainder of the Conceptual Guidelines be referred to the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than October 1. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Marshall. NOTE: NO VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION. COMMISSIONER MARSHALL noted that there is a disagreement on the dividing of two one-acre lots. The Planning Staff indicated their awareness of this problem and that this would again be restudied for a resolution. She feels that this should also be studied by the study group as well as the extension of sewer into the Rural Buffer. COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER stated that in order to implement this proposal, action will need to be taken by three separate governing bodies. The Chapel Hill Council has not discussed this fully and not expressed their opinion and he believes Carrboro has not fully discussed it either. He would like to have the opportunity for the Council to discuss the entire study so they can decide their position without having any of the options ruled out before doing so. He asked how the Study Committee felt about adopting parts instead of the whole report. Clint Berklin stated he feels it very important to discuss it as a whole package because it is part of a balance of a give and take effort. It is best discussed as an overall package. The Committee would be willing to supply as many committee members to help with the education effort. They have worked with the public during the entire process. If the report was taken apart, they would feel it important to go back to the community groups they have promised the whole package to because it would not be the same thing they took to them before and their comments would not apply. SUBSTITUTE MOTION Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to refer the entire package to the Governing Boards for consideration and to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to come back to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 1. COMMISSIONER HARTWELL WITHDREW THE ORIGINAL MOTION ON THE FLOOR. THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION BECAME THE MAIN MOTION ON THE FLOOR VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT With no further items to be considered at this Joint Planning Public Hearing, Chairman Carey adjourned the meeting. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk