Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19840409i~~ ~~ 1 ORANGE COUNTY BpARD pF COMMI552pNERS APRIL 9, 1984 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in special session on April 9, 19$4 at 5:00 p.m. in the Commissioners Room of the Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina for the purposes of (1) receiving a report from the County Manager on the current status of the Efland Sewer Project, and (2) considering a Special Use Permit for Hampton Downs - planned development and subdivision Phase T. Commissioners Present: Chair Don Willhoit and Commissioners Lloyd, Marshall, Walker and Whitted. 1• (see copy of report in the Clerk's permanent file ,) John McAdams, Engineer for the John R. McAdams Company, made remarks about the revised water and sewer extension feasibility report dated April 5, 1984. He noted that Cheeks has been divided into two parts: (1) immediate - where development exists, and (2) future - north and south of 70 along I-85 where development is expected to occur over the next 5-10 years. The immediate area would be divided into six (6) phases. fIe gave the expected water consumption and sewer flow for the immediate and future areas. In the future area a 12" line is proposed to serve the water needs and demands of the area. The first phase would have a capacity of 55,000 gallons of water based on the assumption of 212 connections. There would be 23 pumps which the county would own and maintain. McAdams reiterated the costs as contained in the report on page 29. Willie Glover of Farmers Home Administration stated that 50$ of the money could be in the form of a grant but the amount was questionable. NOTE: At 6:05 Chair F?illhoit was excused from the meeting and Vice--Chair Shirley Marshall conducted the meeting. Commissioner tarshall noted the $oard needs to talk with Hillsborough and also needs to know the actual amount expected from FHA. Commissioner Whitted indicated policy issues that need to be addressed at the public hearing: (1) 2/3 net debt reduction bond - the purpose and impact on Orange Counties financial condition, (2) Grant from the general fund. These two things are important because of similar _ requests in the past that were denied and for future decisions on other areas of the county requesting consideration for similar projects and similar grants. Commissioner Marshall noted that the mandatory tap fee issue and the monthly fee needs to be decided before the public hearing. McAdams indicated that if everyone is not required to tap on, the project would not be feasible. ' Commissioner Walker questioned the capability of everyone in the sewer district tapping on - that some cannot afford to tap on and same will not. Commissioner Y?hitted emphasized that the operating and maintenance cast is based on 212 people paying 572,000 a year. McAdams indicated the only way to not make the tap on mandatory would be for the county to expect to cover an operating deficit in the early years of the system. 1b~ 2 Commissioner ~•~hitted pointed out that if this project is subsidized, a decision will need to be made for subsidizing other like projects. Commissioner Lloyd noted that at least 50v of the septic tanks in the sewer district were malfunctioning. A gentlemen from the audience who lives in Efland and who has a good septic tank emphasized that because of health reasons he was willing to tap on to help the remainder of the people in the area. 2- H&ME~~I3 no~sj~T$ "- Pj„A1+1NED DEVELDPME~)T A;yLD,~~UBDIVIkSION_ PHASE. I Commissioner i~iarshall presented this agenda item. The January 23rd public hearing was held open to receive the Planning Board's recommendation on this development and subdivision. NOTE: Because this is a special use permit procedure, parts of the following is verbatim. Vice-Chair ASarshall explained that Hampton Dawns would be considered as presented in the agenda and at the January 23rd public hearing which was held open to receive the Planning Board's recommendation on both the Hampton Downs Planned Development and the Subdivision Phase I. A:arvir. Collins, Director of Planning, presented the following information: The Planning Board considered a number of item's and made the recuired findings. Collins went through the findings and the final Planning Board recommendation. One of the first decisions made was in regard to article 8.8 concerning special uses which had to do with the regulations governing the individual special uses and in particular the planned development requirements and application requirements. A list was supplied to the developers of all the planned development requirements and application requirements. The Planning Board found that the applicant had complied with all the requirements of 8.8. The second consideration was article 8.2.1(b) where they had to make findings concerning compliance with specific rules governing the special use. One of the first things considered had to do with the provision in the ordinance which allows for modification--in particular the 100 foot buffer requirement for planned development. There was a motion to grant the modification but it failed due to a lack of a second and the Planning Board moved that the developer be required to adhere to the 100 foot buffer on all sides and this motion passed. In regard to the finding effect on article R.2.1(b) the Planning Board recommended finding that the developer was not in compliance with all the requirements and that they had not complied with the 100 foot setback. __ The next finding of fact that is required to be made concerned Article 8.2.2(a) that the use will or will not promote the public, health, safety, - and general welfare. One of their major concerns was the traffic generated by the development and the access points to the development. The Planning Board recommended finding that the applicant had not complied with Article 8.2.2(a) due to the fact that the traffic generated by development would use John Breckenridge Drive and other local residential streets for access. The next article in which a finding had to be made was article 8.2.2(b) which concerned whether or not the use would maintain or enhance the value of continuous property. There was some discussion on this and the motion ar action taken indicated compliance with the buffer strip requirement was lacking and although no specific evidence was presented at the hearing which +on,,l ri ;nr;; rata tha;- tha lark of tha 10(1 fnnt htiffar wnttld r7 []VArRPIV a'Ff ect 1 b 3 the property value, they did recommend finding that based on the assumption in the ordinance that buffers were specifically required to preserve and protect adjacent properties and that in their opinion they had conflicting basis on which to make a recommendation. So, therefore, the Planning Board really did not recommend a specific finding. They felt it impossible to make a finding due to the conflicting evidence. In terms of Article 8.2.2(c) - compliance with the general plans - the Planning Board recommended finding the applicant in compliance. Tn terms of article 8.2.4(a) the adequacy of the utilities proposed to serve the development, the Planning Board recommended finding the applicant in compliance. Tn terms of Article 8.2.4(b) the plans proposed with the protection of fire, police and rescue squad, the Planning Board also recommended finding the applicant in compliance. The next article 8.2.4(c) - the adequacy of vehicular access recommended finding that the applicant did not meet the requirements for adequate access because of the use of John Breckenridge Drive and other residential streets for access purposes. The Planning Board considered 8.2.1(a).- vrhether or not overall the applicant had provided competent evidence to support the propasal and the Planning Board recommended finding that the applicant did not present competent evidence in that they had not complied with the 100 feet buffer strip and were also using local residential streets for access. They then considered the requirements set forth in Section 7 which deals specifically with Planned Development. The first one they considered was section 7.4.1 in relation to transportation facilities and again they sited the problems with the use of John Breckenridge Drive as a means of access and they approved a motion which indicated a problem with compliance with Article 7.4.1. They then discussed Article 7.4.2 which also deals with the adequacy of public utilities and Article 7.4.3 the relation to surrounding properties and in partecular vrhether or not there were conditions on the site such as soils, flooding, or topographical conditions which would create hazards for people living in the area. They recommend finding that there were no such problems. The Planning Board then considered Section 7.1.4 - site plan requirements for Planned Developments and whether the applicant had complied and they approved a motion indicating that based on the previous findings dealing with the special use permit it was not necessary to make public comment and what they were specifically saying was that the applicant had not complied with all the requirements. It was not a motion related to the approval of the entire project. The motion was made to recommend to the Board of Commissioners that the proposal in its present form be denied and the motion carried 6-1 so the Planning Board's recommendation is for denial of the request. Commissioner Marshall requested Attorney Gledhill to breef the soars on the procedures for making decisions under the special use process as required by court ruling. Gledhill briefed the Board on the procedures for making a decision in the special use process. The process is that of deciding facts on which you make findings and issue the special use permit. For denial et must be determened that there is a health, safety and welfare problem with the project. Tf all the requirements are met and evidence still shows there es a health, safety and welfare problem that was not anticipated then that is a basis for denial. Article 7 and 8 requirements must all be met and the procedure followed as outlined in Article 7 in order to essue a special use permit. If a finding has not been met the special use process stops and the ~ ((~ 1Cv 4 project cannot be approved. Section 7.3 gives the Board of Commissioners - the authority to make a specific modification of the regulation in a particular case. The role of the Planning staff in the special use process is to make recommendations to the Planning Board. The Soard of Commisioners is to go through all the evidence to determine if all the findings have been met. In a special use process all decisions must be justified. Commissioner Whitted requested a form be set up for use in the special use process showing (1) on what items a finding must be made, (2) Planning Board action, (3) blank column for the Board o` Commissioners finding, and (4) the evidence used to support the findings. Gledhill noted that the staff comments should be only considered as a work product of the Planning Board. A motion was made by Commissioner 4ihitted, seconded by Commissioner Lloyd that the supporting evidence has been provided for 'Article 8.8 (the regulations Governing Individual Special Uses and requires that certain information be provided on a site plan and submitted as part of the application. VOTE : UNAN1Al0US . Gledhill indicated that Article 8.2.1(a) and 8.2.1(b) describe a process and there are no specific standards of evaluation in either of those two sections. Xou have to go to the dimension requirements in Article 5 and Article 6. Motion was made by Commissioner WYiitted, seconded by Commissioner Marshall that evidence has not been submitted to support the requirements as set forth in Article 7.14.3(a)4 relating to the 100 foot setback on all sides. Gledhill stated that if the public purpose underlying the requirement for the 100 foot setback is satisfied to an equal or greater degree, the Board can modify the requirements on the setback. However, all findings should be made before a modification is considered. Commissioner tarshall withdrew her second so that all findings could be voted an at one time. The motion would include the following: Article 7.4.1 - Relation to Major Transportation Facilities - Commissioner Whitted noted that evidence has been presented to satisfy this Article. Article 7.4.2 ~- Relation to Public Utilities, Facilities and Services -Commissioner Whitted noted that evidence has been presented to satisfy this Article. Article 7.4.3 - Relation to Surrounding Property -Commissioner Whitted noted that evidence has been presented to support that Article. Article 7.14 - Planned Development Flousing (PD-H) Districts - Commissioner vThitted noted that evidence has been presented to support this -- Article, except for Section 7.14.3(a)4. Article 7.14.3(a)1 - Principal vehicular access points shall be - designed to encourage smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movements and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Whitted noted that evidence has been presented to support this Article. Article 7.14.3(a)2 - Access for pedestrians and motorcyclists entering or leaving the district shall be safe and convenient routes. Conunissioner T•~hitted noted that evidence has been submitted to support this Article. Article 7.14.3(a)3 - Protection of visibility; automotive traffic, .•t...l;cte a»rl narlactrianc_ shall ha ncnarally nrnvir3pC1 in ArY_icle 6. ~~c 5 Commissioner Whitted noted that evidence has been submitted to support this Article. Article 6.8 - Visibility at Intersections - Gommissioner Tr7hitted noted that evidence has been submitted to support this Article. Article 7.14.3(a)4 - Uses adjacent to single-family residence districts. Commissioner Whitted noted that evidence submitted does not support this Article. -- Article 7.14.3(a>5 - Yards, fences, walls or vegetative screening at edges of PD-H districts shall be provided where needed to protect residents from undesirable views, lighting, noise or .other off-site influences, or to protect occupants of adjoining residential districts fram similar adverse influences, or to protect occupants of adjoining residential districts from similar adverse influences with the PD-H district. Commissioner Whitted noted that evidence has been submitted to support this Article. Article 7.14.3(a)6 - Height limitations at edges of PD-H districts. Commissioner Whitted noted that evidence has been submitted to support this Article. Article 7.14.3(a)7 - Signs visible from outside PD-H districts. Commissioner ivhitted noted that evidence has been submitted to support this Article. Article 7.14.3(b)1 - Streets, drives, parking and service areas shall provide safe and convenient access to dwelling units and general facilities, and for service and emergency vehicles. Commissioner Whitted noted that evidence has been submitted to support this Article. - Article 7.14.3(b)2(a) - If the street or portion thereof serves fifty or less dwelling units, vehicular access from off-street parking and service areas may be directly to the street from the sites of individual dwelling units. Commissioner VThitted noted that evidence has been submitted to support this Article. Article 7.14.3(b)2(b) - Vehicular access to other streets or portions of streets from off-street parking and service areas shall be so combined, limited, located, designed and controlled as to channel traffic fram and to such areas conveniently, safely and in a manner which minimizes marginal traffic friction and promote free flow of traffic on streets without excessive interruption. Commissioner Whitted noted that evidence has been submitted to support this Article. Article 7.14.3.3 -Ways for pedestrians and cyclists; use by emergency or service vehicles. Commissioner Whitted noted that evidence has been submitted to support this Article. Note: Commissioner Willhoit returns. - Article 7.14.3.4 and P.rticle 7.14.3.5 - Protection of visibility; automotive traffic, cyclists and pedestrians and open spacing of buildings or portions of buildings containing dwelling units., Commissioner Vmitted noted that evidence has been submitted to support these Articles. Commissioner Marshall seconded the above findings in that all requirements have been met except for Article 7.14.3(a)4. Cor~ur,issioner Y)alker pointed out that Article 7.3 gives the Board of Commissioners the right to make modifications. Gledhill pointed out that this concludes the process that is described in 8.2.1 of the zoning ordinance. VOTE: UNAPIIMOUS. ~~i 6 Motion was made by Commissioner Lloyds seconded by Commissioner Walker to modify Article 7.14.3(a)4 which requires 100 feet between this district and a residential single family district. Commissioner Fihitted noted that the requirement for the 100 foot setback is to have that much of a buffer between residential areas and in this case to have that much of a buffer between a single family residence and the planned development. The purpose behind the setback is to separate residential communities and questioned haw this motion would take care of that situation. ' Commissioner Lloyd stated that a 50 foot buffer in its natural state and very possibly in the next property that is developed adjacent to that may not be in the squeeze with the topography being as it is - that the y lOD feet that he may vote against modifying anything on that if there is adequate land there to do it so assuming it could be 100 on that and a 50 on the other you are talking about 150 feet or if you did modify it in a 100 foot buffer - its natural state would be adequate. Commissioner Willhoit noted you are shifting the burden from one side to the other. Gledhill noted that if you modify the 100 foot buffer you may impose the condition that the 50 foot buffer would have to stay in a permanent open space and in its natural state. Commissioner Lloyd included this condition in his motion. Commissioner Marshall read the narrative that was put forth into evidence by the developers as follows: Article 7.I4.3(a)4 sets forth the ,-- maximum building setbacks for planned development. Housing developments meet these requirements in many areas. However, because of the physical constraints of the site, requirements are not met all along the perimeter. The developer wishes to have the site plan approved as drawn in regard to this section. The setback requirements are intended to protect adjacent property but it is the desire of the developer to .provide maximum protection for the owners of homes in the housing development also. There is na building construction proposed within 50 feet of any property line. Commissioner Vrhitted noted that it appears that the 100 foot setback required in the ordinance to separate the districts had merit and that the project under consideration does not meet the requirement. Commissioner Marshall reiterated that if you vote for the motion, you believe that the motion set forth satisfies the standard of the zoning ordinance for Article 7.14.3(a)4. If you vote against the motion you believe the modification as proposed does not satisfy the purpose of the standard that is presented in the zoning ordinance. VOTE: Ayes, 2; Noes, 3 (Commissioner Parshall, Willhoit, and Whitted) Commissioner Marshall pointed out that most of the standards had been met and the developer can redesign and present another plan that would meet the standards as stipulated in the zoning ordinance. g~4v~~r~ENT Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Whitted to adjourn. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly slythe, Clerk ~tovED 8/6/84