HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19840827~~~
1
i~I I N U T E 5
ORAPdGE COUNTX BOARD OF COtdMISSIONERS
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
AUGUST 27, 1984
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session with the
Planning Beard on August 27, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in the Superior Courtroom,
F3illsborough, i`?. C. for the purpose of holding a Joint Public Hearinc..
COj),~S.SSIQt7ER5 PRESENT: Chair Don Willhoit, Commissioners Shirley
;_. aiarshall, Norman t9allcer and Richard Whitted.
P AP7I~T ivG BOARD tdEtZBERS PRESEI~?T: Chair Alice Gordon, Steve Kizer,
Nancy Laszlo, Frank Pearson, Sharlene Pilkey, Carl Cvalters, and Steve Yuhasz.
pj,~1~~??*iG BOARD ~Ett~E_~$ ~~~ENT: Tom Bacon, Ruth Barnette, Valerie
Greenberg, David Shanklin, John t4ilson.
PI~BN~YNG $'T'j),FF PRESEP:T: I~Zarvin Collins, Susan Smith, Jeff Coutu,
Warren Faircloth, and Joanna Bradshaw.
A. rOARD COfiI~tEIQTS
2~one
B. AUDIF.P?CE COt-4j~~
1. Matters on the Printed Agenda
None
2. Matters not on the .Printed Agenda
t?one
C. gt]~jr~~ HEARIIQG dJ ~~
-. 1. g ~ - - (see file
~" in the permanent files)
I~Sarvin Collins, Susan Smith, Jeff Coutu, Caarren Faircloth,
Griffin Graves, Dan Sears, Thomas Heffner, and Ed Vick were sworn in.
The staff presentation was made by 1+Sarvin Collins, Director of
Planning.
This agenda item is to receive public comment on the Planned
Development request by Goforth Properties for 44.83 acres of land located
adjacent to Interstate 40 and north of Weaver Dairy Road. The purpose of the
request is to allow the construction of a 224-unit apartment complex.
The property in cuestion is knorm as Lot X15, Tax Diap 17, Chapel
I3ill Township. The present zoning designation of the property is R-1
Residential while the requested designation is PD (H)°R-5.
The property is located in a Ten-Year Transition Area as
designated in the Orange County Land Use Plan. That designation permits a
range of residential densities from R-1 (one unit/acre) to R-13 (13
__ units/acre) provided certain zoning and development standards are met, and a
Special Use Perr~i'r: is obtained before development becins.
-...: The proposed Planned Development would allow medium density
residential development of the site at a density of 5.0 units per acre.
Correspondence entered into the record are: (1) Johnston letter;
(2) Johnston agreement; (3) Chapel Hill Planning Aepartment memo; (a) OI~IASA
letter; (5) extra page in traffic report; (6) Carol Woods' letter; (7) South
Orange Rescue Squad letter; (8) Homeoom ers Association By~-Laws; (9)
Iiomeotaners P.rticles of Incorporation; and (10) Restrictive Covenants.
Collins noted that the Chapel Hill Town Council recuested a
continuation of this public hearing until September l8 as the Council would
be meeting September 10th and would lilce to make a recommendation.
~ : r-• !t
~.. ~.
Z
tlarshall inquired if the Town Council conments would be
Considered by the Planning Staff and Planning Board and Collins answered yes.
l4alker inquired if Lockwood Road could be used as a secondary
outlet to the com~~leY. Collins responded that because of the standard of not
creating traffic on minor residential streets, it was his opinion that it
could not be used as an outlet.
Collins further noted that on the south side of Lockwood ?toad
there has been 7 lots platted at one time and the possibility of further
development would change the road to a sub-collector street.
T^7alker inquired if it vras already paved. Collins reported no.
T•iarshall noted that the developer had indicated he would pave the
road or at least part of it would be paved.
Kizer inquired~if Collins disagreed with any part of the traffic
analysis. Collins respanded that he had only received the report today
(8/27). Ne had gone over the report, but would like to spend some more time
on it. He did have some concerns with the total traffic projections and
assignment of that traffic to the various streets. Kizer asked if Collins
disagreed with the number of trips per unit. Collins responded that the
total number of trips projected by the developer was higher than that of the
staff by about 200 trips.
Griffin Graves, at~orney in Chapel Hill, spoke as representative
of property awned by Goforth Properties. He briefly reviewed the history of
the property. This property was originally set up as a subdivision with
single family dwellings on one-acre or more lots. Sedgefield Subdivision was
-- then severed by the taking of the I-40 corridor by DOT. To make the best
possible use of the property, the developer is presenting a planned
development request and feels that the project meets the objectives of a
planned development project. He also noted that the developer/ovrner had an
agreement with Charles t?. Johnston for a 60' right-of-way easement provided
the developer brings the road right-of-way up to state standards (letter and
agreement provided in the permanent file in the Clerk's office) He also read
a letter of support from Carol T4oods.
T•~arshall inquired about the width of the road. Dan Sears
respanded it would be a 20' paved road plus shoulders constructed to state
standards with.a 60' right-of-way.
Dan Sears presented the site model £or the proposed project. He
encouraged all Board members to view the model and present questions. He
noted that the road of which Tdarshall was inquiring would be a 60'
right-of-way built to T~*C D0~` standards.
The project is to be developed with a 100' buffer of existing
trees to the t-~0 right-of-way. To the south of the project is a power line
buffer with an additional 40' wooded. To the east is a 75' buffer of trees
plus an additional 100' which includes an existing street into the
development. The project is designed so that it can either be ceveloped as
townhouses or condominiums. If it is developed as townhouses, the roads can
be dedicated. This project would alloy for small, isolated neighborhoods
with wooded areas between the clusters to provide more privacy.
The recreation area will be centrally located with tennis courts,
clubhouses and swimming pool.
The units will be 2-story units, cedar siding stained warm grays
and browns. There will be large areas for trees. There vaill be one
dumpster, per 25 units. Sears cited the letter from South Orange Rescue
. 1 "`~ 4
ff..l~~ t C.i
3
Squad, the kIomeowner's Association Bylaws and Articles, of Incorporation, and
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.
Planning Board member I.izer inquired if Sears had seen the Oi9ASA
and Chapel Hill staff comments. Sears responded that he han heard from the
Pl.anninc, Staff that there was a concern regarding the number of pump
stations, b'ut the developer was willing to work with OGdASA to provide
whatever is required. ICizer noted further that the developer was unaware of
these questions until just before the meeting when these letters were
distributed.
Thomas Heffner, appraiser from Chapel Hill, was asked by the
developer to look at this project and present his findings.
P~Ir. Heffner stated that the adjoining property uses were very
similar to the proposed project. k?e cited a letter from Carol t4oods and
stated that in his oninian the land was well suited for this type project and
would have no harmful effects on property values and vrould probably enhance
values, especially in the Lockwood area.
lad Vick, representative of Kimley-Horn and Associates, presented
the traffic impact analysis. He cited a series of maps and gave traffic
projections including the developments around Sedgewood Apartments. Peak
hour traffic analysis was done with and without I-n0. He noted the levels of
service and noted that Level "C" is generally used as a design standard.
Vick had received DOT criteria far signalization and felt that in time the
level of service woulc be higher and a traffic signal would be probable.
Goforth and his staff have agreed to 4-lane NC 86 from Lockwood Drive to
T--85.
Ti?illhoit stated that along with signalization approval he
understood that DOT had already approved 4-laning of 8G. Vick responded that
he was not aware of this. Vick further noted that Goforth would be willing
to work cvith DOT in the four-laning of NC 86.
47hitted inquired vrhat kind of trafr"ic generation was being talked
about in the segment that is to be 4-laned. Vick noted that with all the
developments in this area, the tr~fiic would be over 10,D00 vehicles per day.
4?hitted stated that he was curious as to why PIr. Goforth thought ~-laning
this segment would enhance this project. Vick responded thta it would give
an additional loft turn anc right turn lane. Kizer noted the differences in
the traffic patterns in morning and afternoon. Kizer also asked Vick if, in
his experience with DOT, they responded to an anticipated need or only after
road capacity had been met and Viclc responded only after capacity had been
met.
and hour it would impede traffic on 86. Vick responded that with the widening
of NC86 and the left turn lane into Lockwood there vrould also be a lane for
flow-through traffic.
Marshall noted that the OwASA letter was to be entered into the
record. Graves stateG that he would have liked to comment on the Chapel Hill
letter, but it was not received ir, time. He summarized the comments and
cited the intent of the Planned Development district. C•?illhoit then opened
the floor for comment and questions from the public. I]ave Christianson
(resident of weaver Dairy Road across from the Coventry Development), spolce
of the frustration of the single homeowner in an area of this type
development, yet he acknowledged that he was supportive of ^.r. Goforth's type
of development. He noted concerns with traffic. I3e noted also, that Carol
4?nods was r_ct developed at R-5, but was zoned R-5 because of the dining and
nursinc home facilities. Iie also expressed concern that the zoninc, decision
~~
4
is to be decided before it is known if apartments or owner conc'.o/tovmhouses
would be built. He incuired why the area was not still suited for R-1 as he
felt R-1 was still the best use o:E this land. He expressed concern that
traffic from another development in this area would only make traffic
problems worse.
Lorrain Evenheis expressed concern regarding the entrance to
Gseaver Dairy Road as the primary entrance to the Sedgewood project. She
noted that her townhouse property backs up to this property line and
inquired if there was a setback provision for the road or could the road go
-- straight up to the property line. G~Tould trees be left along the roacway?
Graves responded that from a legal standpoint the road could go to the
property line. This road lias been platted since 1979 when it was approved as
part of the Sedgefiela Subdivision. The developer will be happy to move the
road if he can do so but there must be a variance to the 100' buffer on the
side away from the Coventry Townhouses.
Dr. Gertrude G•Jillis disagreed with the director of Carol G~TOOds
and is very concerned with the increase in traffic and the entrance being so
close to the 2-~40 junction.
Frank Evenheis inquired what was meant by "the road is already
there." Graves responded that it is a platted road with dedicated
right-of-way that has not been constructed.
P9r. Evenheis expressed concern with adjoining development
patterns, feeling that density is too high already.
Vivk responded that G~eaver Dairy Road is a major thoroughfare and
scheduled for ~-lining. F?e also noted the distance between Lockwood and
Z-a0. The distance is a total of 1?.00' or equivalent to three city blacl:s.
Dave Christianson inquired when the traffic estimates wer4 made
and what developments were included in the estimate. Vick responded these
figures came from annual traffic surveys by JQT supplemented by counts made
in late August and late spring at the intersections.
~'illhoit noted that a specific request had been made of DoT to
survey while school was still in session, such as in late spring.
Christianson stated that congestion was worse in the morning.
Vick noted that the higher peak was found in the afternoon anc that all
the information caws taken into consideration during the design of the
intersection. Vick stated that included in the estimate were Timberlyne,
Kemingston Trace, Steeple Chase and Coventry. Graves noted that this project
was of lower density than surrounding projects. Graves also noted that he
has been a resident of the area since 1978 and congestion was a problem even
in 1976. The problem will be somewhat alleviated by a traffic light.
~'ir. Evenheis inquired if Y.ensington Trace caas in Chapel ~Ii11's
jurisdiction. t7illhoit responded that it was.
his. Evenheis further noted she was not opposed to this specific
density, they just did not need any more development at all.
I:izer inquired of Tom Heffner if he had considered the respective
property value impact on surrounding properties with both apartments and
condos. Heffner responded that surrounding property values usually suffer
more from apartment complex>es than from condominiums. The fact that
apartments use less expensive construction has bearing on the related values.
F?effner stated that probably 600 of the surrounding property is rental and
the other Q0~ owner occupied.
?~
5
[•is. Evenheis noted that many properties were rentals only until
the ovmer's retirement. Kizer noted that the applicant should have the
opportunity to responc: to Chapel Hi11's comments.
i•Zotion was made by Commissioner whitted, seconded by Chair
Taiilhoit to continue the Public Hearing on than item until September 18,
lo8d_
Planning Board Chair Gordon felt there would be a problem with a
quorum of the Planning Board at the September 18, 1984 meeting. County
attorney Gledhill noted that the quorum continued from the original public
hearing.
VOTE: Ui1ANII10US.
G2. pD-3-S4 HAMPTON.1?4Y~Ti~~~.x~c-
Scvorn in: Claude Shiver, Anthony & Diane Harris, Larry Goss,
Kathy Justice, I4icky Gonzalez, [•7endy white, idaryellen Gass, Candle Everhart,
riargareite Cooper. Mike Covington, Beth Johnston, Dan C.L. Sears, Claudia G.
Christy, bean T•~hate, Joel Johnston, Marvin Collins
The staff presentation was made by Collins.
This agenda item is to receive public comment on a planned
development request for Hampton Downs far 29.7 acres of land located west of
NC Highway 86 and south of the Southern Railroad. The purpose of the request
is to allow construction of a 237--unit townhouse project.
The property an question is known as part of Lot 4 of Orange
County Tax :?ap 45, 13illsb'orough Township. The present zoning designation of
the property is R-1 ;?esidential while the requested designation is PD (H) R-8.
The property is located in a Ten-year 'Transition Area as
designated in the Orange County band Use Plan. That designation permits•a
range of residential densities from R-1 (one unit/acre) to R--13 (13
units/acre) provided certain zoning and development standards are met, and a
Special Use Permit is obtained before development begins.
The proposed Planned Development would allow medium density
residential development of the site at a density of 7.98 units per acre.
Collins reviewed the application requirements, the specific
standads applicable to all special use permits, the specific standards for
planned developments and the zoning criteria. Collins cited a letter of
opposition.
Willhoit stated that at the time trTaldwood Development was being
reviewed, it was mentioned that higher density development was being planned
far the back side of the property. At that time, T~lillhoit raised the
question cahether that was a good concept because traffic from higher density
development would have to pass through the residential area. He inquired if
this had been discussed with the developer.
Collins responded that the developer was aware, since the
_.. inception of t~7aldwood, that the initial access would be through a single
family residential development; however, later access would be via Oakdale
Drive extension which was being considered for inclusion in the central
Orange Area Study. If looked at in the overall context of the area study,
the layout makes sense; in the more narrow, view it seems tp violate planning
. principles.
Gordon inquired as to the lalcelihood of Oakdale Drive extension
being built. Collins responded that as part of the wildwood approval the
right-of-way for Oakdale drive extension is shown on the preliminary plat and
the developer should construct the Oakdale drive extension, which should
also be a requirement for Hampton Downs. The Nroblem an building the Oalcdale
~~~
6
Drive extension out to NC 8G lies with a piece of property adjoining NC 86
which the owner is reluctant to sell for access.
PilJcey incuried if this was the same piece of property that was
before the fIillsborough Tocan Board in a request for fedezal funding for lour
rent housing. Collins responded this was correct. He noted the Town did not
take any actior. at that time, but the Town later voted not to submit the
application. This project will not be a low/moderate income housing
application.
Halters asked if this property should have an appraiser's revievr
of the impact on the FFildwood community. Collins responded that the hiring
of an appraiser is at the option of the developer, as it is for opposing
property owners. Planning ,Board member Kizer stated that the burden of proof.
lies with the opposition - those property owners opposing the development
must present evidence to that effect. Fie noted that under general standards
the arguments in opposition are legion and difficult for the developer to
address. County Attorney Gledhill stated that unless there were problems
with specific requirements, the burden of proof was on those opposing the
development.
i~iember Pilkey asked for information on the capacity of :9ilmore
pump station. Gledhill zesponded that that information needed to be received
as part of the public hearing.
Don Sears, representing the developer, spoke to the project. He
stated this s:*as not G low-cost housing project. The units were targeted at
the mazket of young professionals. The price ranee is to be X40,000, higher
than G~ildwood I, but comparable to v7ildvrood II units. >e noted the developer
recognized that Oakdale 1]rive Extension is to be constructed during later
development phases. The developer had been turned dovrn earlier because of
inadequate buffer and the applicant had now provided a 100' buffer. He
continued that the clubhouse is to be constructed prior to Phase 3 with
nature trails and tennis courts constructed as units are developed. John
Breckenridge Arive is designed as private, but built to state standards, far
possible later dedication. i?e added that the applicant is willing to make
any necessary improvements to address traffic on PiC 86 with the understanding
that such improvement needs are generated by the project.
[~illhoit stated the project was turned down for not meeting the
standards and that other concerns were not discussed.
Claude Shiver, resident of Y7ildwood expressed concerns about
traffic conditions and poor planning. F?e noted unrepaired damage on G7ildcaoad
roads and asked v;ho maintains the roads. Smith indicated the roads vreze
built to state standards; Department of Transportation approved the roads;
the county released the improvements bond; but, apparently the roads were not
yet dedicated and accepted by the state. Gledhill clarified the bond covers
construction, but not maintenance. Sears clarified the roads were intended
for state acceptance.
James Fay Freeland, developer, was sworn in.
Freeland indicated he would be pursuing state acceptance of the
roads and that all necessary repairs would be made by him. He. noted the
state does patching test to approve roads as constructed to their standards.
Gorc:on clarified that homeovrners were not responsible for maintenance..
Shiver expressed concern about the capacity of Old NC 86 and the
limited visual screening of the sits by the buffer. I3e indicated he had no
knowledge of this project when he bought his home.
7
tnTillhoit clarified that the developer is responsible for
maintenance of tdildvrood roads until they are accepted by the State.
tVhit'~ed questioned the private road serving Hampton Downs.
Sears responded the road is to be built to Department of
Transportation construction standards, but will remain private. He expressed
concern about a public road conflicting with building setbacl: requirements
beyond the right-of-way. He noted the developer was working toward the goal
of state acceptance.
Collins clarified there are no setbacks in a planned development
with the exception of those required by the Board of Commissioners.
:•iarshall indicated she wanted a cumulative figure on traffic
along P1C 86 entered into the record.
y
Carol Everhart, t9ildwood resident, expressed concern about
security, trash and traffic as well as about a decrease in property values
and the limited value of the 100' buffer.
Diane Harrison, resident of iildwood, asked if the rigkit-of-way
of Oakdale Drive had been acquired. Freeland responded he has dedicated what
he owns.
N_arrison questioned using John Breckenridge Drive for access
until Oakdale is built.
Mike Covington G•7ilcwood resident, expressed concern that no
recreation areas have been built in taildwood and a decrease in property
values. He felt a 1G0' buffer was insufficient. Gordon clarified that the
l00' buffer is an ordinance requirement.
Anthony Harris, t~7ildwood resident, expressed concern about the
lack of recreation area in taildwood.
Smith responded tht the recreation area to serve t4ildwaod will be
provided during construction of Section II Phase III of tdildwood.
Dave t9hite, t~7ildwaod resident, asked how townhouses would improve
the area. He expressed concerns about school capacity and property
devaluation.
Beth Johnston, t~7ildwood resident, expressed concern about slopes.
Freeland responded the building area was away from the steep slopes located"
along the front of the property. Tae noted single family houses built there
would cost much more. t•7illhoit suggested a single family cluster
development. Freeland responded that R-5 single family development would mean
150 units as opposed to the 207 multi-family units requested.
Johnston asked about a turning lane. Collins responded it was a
condition of approval on TIC 86 for taildwood.
', ~,arry Goss, taildwood resident, expressed concern that he had no
prior knowledge of the development and the unlikelihood of acquiring land for
Oakdale Drive.
Schiver inquired about the road in the southwest corner of
taildwood. Collins responded it was a stubout to provide access to the
Hampton Downs tract and that such a stubout is a common practice. George
Edwards indicated he concured with previous statements.
Covington asked if the Board would continue the meeting so that
appraisal opinions could be obtained. Schiver asked when Oakdale Drive
e~:tension would be built. Gdillhoit responded that only road right of way
would be dedicated at this point with construction during later phases.
t,otion was made by Commissiener tVhitted, seconded by Commissioner
>`9arshall to continue the public hearing until September 18. 1984 to receive
additional- evidence,
~'~~
8
VOTE: UNANIt•90US
C-3. OCCONEECHEE POINT ('~~ILDT~OOD COgPORATION) PD-4-84
Sworn in: 2 persons (i+Iarvin Collins, Dan Sears ).
Staff presentation was made by Collins.
This item is to receive public comment on a Planned Development
request by L7i].dwood Corporation for 13.41 acres of land located at the
southwest intersection corner of 2-$5 and NC86. The purpose of the request
is to allow the construction of a commercial center comprised of a service
station, a Hotel, general retail stores and offices.
The property in question is known as part of I,ot 4 of Orange
County Tar. t•~iap 4S, Flillsborough Township. The present zoning designation of
the property is R-1 Resider~tizl while the requested designation is Pb(C)-GC-4
General Commercial. The property is located in a Commercial Industrial
Activity Node as designated in the Orange County Land Use Plan. That
designation permits a range of commercial and industrial zoning
classifications including the GC-4 designation. Certain zoning and
development standards must be met, and a Special Use Permit must be obtained
before development begins. The proposed Planned Development would allow
commercial and industrial development of the site.
Collins entered the August 2a, 1984• letter from the Department of
Transportation into the record.
Collins noted the applicant had parking deficiencies on his plan
and that water and sewer plans have been submitted, but are sketchy. fie
noted that hydrants have not been shown on the plan.
Alice Gordon, Planning Hoard Chair, wanted this information
available in addition to information on the capacity o` the t9ilmore pump
station.
Dan Sears, representative for the developer, noted that the
recreation area was shown on the cclored plan entered into the record. He
noted the applicant was favorably disposed to deleting the service road as
recommended by the Department of Transportation.
Pilkey inquired if there is a proposed turning lane for the
project. Sears responded there is one proposed for NC 86.
t•lotion was made by Commissioner ~•7hitted, seconded by Commissioner
tdarshall to continue the public hearing until September 18, 1984 for
additional evidence.
VOTE: UNA1VIAi0L7S
C-4. r T
~- P13-5-84
Sworn in: tiarvin Collins and Sumner T~1ynn.
This item is to receive public comment on a Planned Development
request by OPC Alcoholic Residential Treatment Facilities for 4•.47 acres of
land located on the west side of NC $6 between Weaver Dairy .Road and
Homestead Road. The purpose of the request is to allow the expansion of an
existing halfway house for five (5) men to accomomdate nine (9) men and ten
(10) women. The property in question is known as Lot Number 21 of Orange
County Tax Map 2a - Chapel Hill Township. The present zoning designation of
the property is R-1 Residential while the requested designation is PD (C)-LC-1
Local Commercial.
The property is located in the CHT--2 Commercial Transition Triode
centered on Homestead P.oad and IvTC 86. Halfway houses fall under the
definition of "rehabilitative care facilities" which are permitted by right
~~~
9
in the LC-1 zoning district. Expansion of the facility can only be made
through the rezoning of the property and the approval of a Planned
Development application to allow more than one (1) principal building per
lot.
The proposed Planned Development would allow the expansion of the
existing halfway house.
The project toes not satisfy the LUI system or landscaping
requirements. The side yard setbacks are .also non-conforming. Collins
referred to the meno from the Chapel Hill Development Review Staff
(attached).
There has been a request from Chapel Hill that this item be
continued to give Chapel Hill Town Council the opportunity to comment on the
proposal.
Planning Board member t^7alters inquired about the approximately 4
acres of property that is landlocked behind the proposed building project.
Collins responded tht all the property to the rear remains in the ownership
of the treatment facility. He understood that this was to be used only for
nitrification fields for sewage disposal.
Sumnar T•~ynn stated that letters from the fire department and lacy
enforcement agencies are on the way. He also noted a landscape plan will be
presented with the final plan. The buffer is shown on the plan is in field
and farm use.
Planning Board Chair Gordon inquired of Mr. Wynn about the bac};
four acres. C•7ynn responded that vvas the septic field and there would be no
problem regarding further development of this area. .
P•iotion was made by Commissioner ti•Thitted, seconded by Commissioner
Marshall to continue the public hearing until September 1$. 19$4.
VOTE : ^NAI\ It•90U S
C-5. ~~~f~STEAD_ BOP.D_ L{~jfp~'i•I~2~7T;;_ ~n. V,s_ I~iCC9~_ C_0_.~~_ PD-6--$4.
Sworn in: 7 persons (tiarvin Collins, Phil Post, Steve Upson,
Ne11 Hoyle, Peggy Scott, Ann Madry & V.A. Hoyle).
This agenda item is to receive public comment on a Planned
Development request by H.V. I4cCoy Company for 18.86 acres of land located at
the southwest intersectional corner of Homestead Road and NC $6. The purpose
of the request is to allow the construction of a 24C-unit apartment project.
The property in question is known as Lot ~41A of Orange County Tax PSap 24 -
Chapel Hill Township. The present zoning designation of the property is CC-3
Community Commercial, and the applicant is requesting approval as a Planned
Development in order to build more than one (1) principal building per lot.
The property is located in a Commercial Activity Node as well as a Ten-Year
Transition zone. )Multi-family dwellings are allowed in the CC-3 district in
the Chapel Hill Transition area provided certain development standards are
met, and a Special Use Permit is obtained before development proceeds. The
proposed Planned Development would allow high density residential development
of the site at a density of 12.73 units per acre.
The staff presentation cvas made by Collins
Chapel Hill Town Council has requested that the public hearing be
continued for their comments.
Collins reviewed the list of recommendations from Chapel Hill
Development Review Staff.
Collins noted that a representative far the Ringwald family, who
cwn property primarily to the south of this development, called expressing, a
c~~~irP for ~nnther access onto their ~~rOberty, cerha~s by wav Of a Stub-Gut.
2~~
l0
' Chape]. Hill has su~rest2c that a sub-collector street be ertended.i7to the
site.
8/2/$42
~(~ ,.
C Ci 4
Gorton inquried about public services access impacts. Collins
responded there- would be a creator impact, but there has been no
identification of problem areas by any agency. Pilkey inquired about the
traffic count on Homestead and r\TC86 and expressed concern about the impact o£
one access on Homestead P.oad.
Steve Upson, representing the ?McCoy Company, e.;plained the type
of developments handled by A1cCoy Company. He described the interior and
exterior of the units including amenities and noted that the profile of
residents would be young professionals in the 25-~40 age range. He noted
- these are Class A investment grade properties with rents ranging from
$375-SROO~for a single bedroom and 500-5500 far a two bedroom unit.
The primary entrance waulc be on P1C 86 with the secondary
entrance on Homestead Road projecting an increase in traffic of 10~ on
Homestead and 8~ on NC 8G.
The developer already has an agreement with 064ASA for an
extension oz water and sewer lines with the developer bearing the costs of
extension. The drainace facilities are adequate. A 5tormwater t•2anagement
Plan is proposed. Given uses in the immediate vicinity, the developer feels
this is the best use of this property.
Phil Post reviewed a map of the surrounding area. The wooded
buffer would be retained. There would be approximately 1G0' from a buildinc,
on-site to the nearest neighbor. He noted the tract owned by Homestead Ina.
is served by a 60' strip adjacent to the Homestead Apartments site.
c•Ir. Upson continued that this project does conform to the overall
comprehensive plan. There is no rezoning as the property is zoned CC-3 and
the request is almost a downzoning.
There will be a gravity sewer line constructed to Ot1A5A
standards. The letters from the Rescue Squad and Fire Department (i•?ew Elope)
are to be submitted.
Philip Post reviewed traffic impacts projected at less ti~an a lOv
increase. The developer would be requesting a traffic light at Homestead and
NC 86 as the traffic threshold for a light is already exceeded by 50~.
Turning lanes will be constructed to handle traffic and no bacl;ups are
expected.
taillhoit inquired of Past if he had seen Chapel Hill's
recommendations and he responded he received them just before the meetina.
He could not respond to them at this time. He requested that when the public
hearing is continued to 9/1$/84 that he have an opportunity to respond to
these recommendations. He indicated that annexation discussions would likely
occur with Chapel Hill.
Peggy Scott, resident of Homestead Road expressed concern with
traffic, especially school traffic, and the fact that the four-laning of NC
'--- 86 abruptly ends at Homestead Road. She noted traffic figures from counts
she and her neighbors had made. On August 27, 198a between 7:30 and $:30
a.m. they counted 725 cars, 20 trucF;s (loaded with gravel) and 17 school
buses. T=etcveen 9:00 and 10:00 a.m., they counted 15 trucks and 125 cars.
Between 4:00 and S:DO p.m. they counted 251 cars, 11 truclcs and 3 school
buses.
V.A. Hog1e spoY.e addressing traffic and a concern for residents
and children's safety. FIe also felt that high density development has an
impact on the crime rate.
Anne _adry, resident, e:~pressed concern with an entrance at the
crest of a hill. She cited a recent accident involvinc three trucks.
2~~
z
PTrs. Hoyle, resident. expressed concern with vrildlife protection
and undisciplined children an her property.
Phil Fost commented that most of the traffic vrill be at the lovrer
entrance on Homestead Road amd that the developer does want to keep the
impact near the intersection. 75~ of the traffic is directly off Airport
Road. In response to Air. Hogle's comments, regarding buffers he noted 60' is
owned by someone else and the applicant is providing a setback an the site.
P.rs. SCOtt commented that all the traffic moves out onto NC 86
and that the two lanes made left turns difficult. Past responded the
developer wants a traffic ].fight for left turns. Scott again expressed a
concern regarding school traffic.
Smith inquired, as to the source of truck traffic. Scott
responded that it vras from the American Stone rock quarry with trucks
bringing rocl: to new developments in the area. Shitted inquired if tonnage
limits were posted on Homestead Road. Scott responded there used to be, but
the Department of Transportation had removed the limits. T~hitted noted that
the Department of Transportation would be asked to look at this again.
Commissioner I~Thitted moved, seconded by Commissioner P~larshall to
continue the public hearing to 9/18/8x.
VOTE: UIQANIP40US
C-G, PRhP~GF.T) T.ANT) T1~F PT.AN At•'IENDtRETv~ - _];-40L9_I~ ,~~: ~~ _~~ STUDY
Gordon chaired this item.
The purpose of this item is to receive public comment cn a
_ proposed Land Use Plan A?nendment involving the T-40/OJ.d P7C 86 Area Study.
• The staff presentation was made by Susan Smith.
_ The I-4Q/Old NC 86 Area Study is the third area study to be
presented at public hearing. These area studies are intended to refine and
update the Land Use Plan ox Orange County adopted in 1981. The a-40/Old P,C
SG Area Study is also the first of the I-~0 interchange. studies to be
completed and complements the Central and :Test Orange Area studies already
completed for the area south of the Town of Hillsborough.
The study area includes approximately 1,513 acres located
primarily in kiillsborough Township and extending into Chapel Hill Township.
The study area is focused on the I-40/Old NC 86 interchange approximately 1.5
miles south of I-S5 and the Town of Hillsborough. The study area extends
west to the boundaries of the west.Orange Area Study and extends to the north
into the Central Orange Area Study to include proposed Cornwallis Hills
Development; extends east and south approximately 3/4 of a mile from the
interchange.
Considerable effort has been made to inform and involve as many
residents of the study .area as possible, as well as any other interested
individuals and groups, in the development of the area plan for this study
area. Three public meetings including both the Chapel Hill and Hillsbroough
Township Advisory Councils and a separate Township Advisory Councils' meeting
were held durinc the months of February through May. A presentation of the
area study was also made to the Orange County Economic Development Commission
far their information and comment. Also, all property owners within the
study area were notified individually of this public hearing.
During the early months of 1984 the Planning staff compiled and
analyzed data on soils, topography, hydralogy,~ land use and the
transportation system in the study area. This information was subsequently
used as the base to identify planning issues and concerns in the area, to
~~i~
3
specify development goals and objectives and to formulate alternative
development plans for the area. These alternative develcpment plans vrere
presented for public comment toward the development of the proposed area plan
presented here to public hearing.
The study area is largely undeveloped and characterized by strip
single family residential development along Old ?~C 86 and Davis Road. Two
large tracts, located west of NC 86, I-40 v;hich received use-value taxation
(one agricultural, one forested tract) also are located within the study
area. Access to the area is primarily by Old IJC 86 which traverses the area
in a north-south direction; proposed I-Q0, which will cross the area in a
southeast northwest direction; and Davis Road which provides local access and
is located west of Old t?C 86 ana south of I-40. Within the total study area
there are very fev~ constraints because of soils, topography .and hydrology
with the exception that care needs to be taken with development along Cates
Creek which flows into the Eno, located in the northwest section of the study
area. Drainage patterns in the area are north-central in orientation. A
major pocver line easement crosses the entire length of the study area
approximately even with the township boundary.
The adopted Land Use Plan designated the areas within the study
boundaries as Ten Year Transitior_, Rural Residential and Agricultural
Residential. The Ten Year Transition Area is designated for immediate and
near future residential development at urban densities with urban services.
The area associated with the Cornwallis Hills Subdivison and the area
immediately south of Cates Creel: is so designated. This plan category
corresponds with zoning district from low to high density residential. The
remaining area is designated Rural and Agricultural Residential and is
appropriate for low-density residential and agricultural development. i;o
provision was made in the adopted land use plan for the impact of I-40
construction on local development patterns as the Caunty was in litigation
with DOT on that matter.
During the development of the study area land use plan. a number
of goals and objectives v~ere identified and addressed and local actions
recommended. These items are referenced in the area plan narrative.
Given these goals, objectives and recommended actions and based
on the local development data collected, the following Land Use Plan is
proposed for the area:
1. Extend the Ten Year Transition area south of Cates Creek to
include the area south toward I-~10 to reflect expected
development pressures associated with the presence of I-~0
and the interchange and to reflect viable service areas.
2. Extend the Rural Residentail area to include the property
along the west side of NC 86 south of I--a0 to reflect
increased single-family development pressures and the
absence of farm land in this area.
3. Designate a Commercial/Industrial transition activity node
of approximately 9 acres at the interstate interchange both
to the north and the southwest to. respond to the locational
advantages and the possibility of the future extension of
water ana sewer in this area.
Commissioner ti•?alker was excused at 12:05 a.m.
Commissioner Marshall inquired of Smith what the intent of the
Commercial/Industrial node is. Smith responded by reading the definition
from the LGne Use Plan: "Land focused on designated toad intersections
~~~
4
vaithin either a 10-year or 20-year Transition Area that is appropriate for
retail and other commercial uses and/or manufacturing and other industrial
uses."
t•Yarshall questioned the extension of the "node" into the Fural
Residential area. Smith responded the nods concept. is being refined through
these area plans and that the uses permitted would be appropriate to. this
plan category.
-. t~9r. C.J. .Cavallito suggested that the Board in the future reverse
the order of consideration of these public hearing items.
-- IIe continued inquiring if the praposal limited the type of
development. Smith responded it merely established the range of appropriate
uses and was a general development guide for the future and that specific lot
proposals would.be subject to development review.
Cavallito emphasized a desire to limit industrial uses in the
area.
i•Yr. Phelps cuestioned v~hy the non-residential uses were not
limited to commercial uses only. Smith responded the intent was to provide
loctions for limited rural industrial uses.
t•iel Rashl:is felt that the proposal took advantage of the public
water and sewer services extended to Cornwallis Hills development and that to
propose industrial development represented an imposition on those investing
in the area for residential purposes.
Vernon Davis expressed concerns about the capacity of Old ~7C 86
to carry industrial traffic and the actual future use of tracts in the area.
He also felt the transition area envisioned for iillsborough was already
__ sufficient.
t?rs. James Rippy e~:pressed concern about the long term impact o~
the proposed uses in the neighborhood. She added that the presence of 7-~0
was enough of a problem. She cited citizen comments in the community surveys
conducted by staff during the course of the study. She noted that two
families had left during the course of the public hearing due to the late
hour.
Cavallito inquired how the plan was determined and who vaas
notified of the public meetings.
Smith responded that the plan was developed over time with
considerable citizen input and many revisions. She noted it represented a
compromise between two distinct camps of property ovm ers in the area: those
intereted in residential development and those interested in non-residential
development associated with the construction of I-40 and the presence of the
interchange in the area.
Rashkis ehpressed concern that this item is always last on the
Board's agenda. Smith noted that there had been confusion at a past Planning
Board meeting where the item v:as listed for information prior to the public
hearing and no discussion or public comment was permitted.
Phelps asked what action the Board was going to tale on this
item. Gordon responded that there would be no action at this time and the
item would be submitted to the Planning Board for their review and
recommendation after which time it would be submitted to the Board of
- Commissioners for review and approval.
Pill:ey inquired if the Tovrn of Hillsborough had been informed of
this item. Smith responded the Town had received the information.
Joanna Bradshaw, Admin. Secretary Beverly Blythe, Clerk Don Willhoit, Chair