Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19850611~34~~ti3 MTMUTES ORANGE COUNTY ~ ~' CCN'Il~IISSTONERS JOTMT PIANNTNG AREA HEARING JUNE 11, 1985 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met foz a Joint Planning Area Hearing with the Town Council of Chapel Hi11 and the Orange County Planning Board on June ll, 1985 at 7:3Q p.m. an the Cultural Arts Roar. at Chapel Hill High School. ~j ' ENT: Chair Don Willhait and CatIInissianers Moses Carey. Shirley Marshall and Norman Walker. ~4~ H~.?.'Cf!'~? SOIL PRF~ ~m.~.. Playor Massif, David Godschalk, Beverly Z~awalec, and Reginald Smith. ~~ ~~ ts~ Chair Alice Gordon and members Chris Best, P.uth Burnette, Valerie Greenberg, Peter Kramer, Betty Margison, Frank Pearson, Sharlene Pilkey, Carl Walters, and Steve Xuhasz. ~~-F~- ..~18~.~BSEN~,,. David Shanklin, and Steve Kizer. ~_.~~~sst P1 P~}~1µj.-C Hea~.~g PrCCP.dL*25 This agenda item is to identify the procedures to be followed in conducting joint public hearings ixavolving the Orange County Board of Conmi,ssioners and Planning Board. Z°ne Joint Planni~ Agreement adopted by the Prange .County Board of Coitmiissioners and the Chapel Hill Town Council requires joint public hearings on development proposals. Two governing boards and one advisory body (the OranrJe County Planning Poard) will be present at the hearings to receive testi~ny/hear presentations regarding such proposals. As each jurisdiction has different procedures for conducting public hearings, a standard procedure for the joint hearings is necessary. ~ese procedures (memo included on pages ~3 $ of the minute book) consolidate those employed by each jurisdiction and have been reca~¢nended for use by the Orange County Flannirxl Board. Minor refinements have also been made to reflect Chapel Hill procedures through. discussions betv~een the Planning Directors of each jurisdiction. Use of the procedures will provide a method for conducting joint public hearings. Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney, presented the Orange County procedures for consideration of Special Use Permits for Planned Developments. He explained 'the "findings of fact" that are prepared by the Planning Staff and the supporting evidence given as part of the presentation. He noted that the Planni~ Board completes a similar exercise when they consider these findings and public hearing ccerm~ents far their rece~miendation. The Board of C~-ssioners then use these findings arr7 recoirar~rx7ations in making their decision as to tY:e Issuance of Special Use Permits. Dr. Alice Gordon inquired if there would be a time to review the three general findings and Gledhill indicated there would be and that the burden of proof under the Orange County Ordinance was on those speaking in o pposition and must be presented in tl-ie form of coarpetent material and substantial evidence. AGENDA ~1'Ef~I CI: PD~2-$5 Chand]_er's ,_GrepH (Rezoning Fran Residential-1 to Planned Development Residential-2 with Class A Special Use Permit) . ooo~.ti~ The following were sworn in for testimony: Flarvin Collins, Susan Smith, David Taylor, Roger Walden, Rang Smith, Alice Ingram, Ralph Cochran, and Fritz Brunson. Presentation was made by Planning Director Marvin Collins. The applicant, A7.lenton Realty, has requested a Planned Development Housing CPD-H) and Residential-2 (R-2) rezonir~ designation for 80.2 acres out of a 99.44 acre tract located contiguous to the Town of Chapel Hi11's northeast corporate boundaries and situated between Sunrise Road (SR 1732), T-40 and Weaver Dairy Road (SR 1733). The purpose of the request is to allow development of a planned single-family residential comanunity coanposed of 108 lots. The 19.2 acres located in the Town of Chapel Hill's jurisdiction is zoned R-2 ar~i the applicant is presently pursuing subdivision approval for this parcel far an additional 26 Lots. The property is known as Lot 17 of Map 17 and Lots 7 and 11 on Tax Map 25 in Chapel Hill Township. The properties located within an area designated Ten Year Transition in the Orange County Iand Use Plan. That designation allows the consideration of application far rezonings to any of the residential zoning districts (R-1 through R-13). The present zoning classification of the property is Residential-1. The requested designation is PD-H R-2, Residential 2. Certain develofanent star~ards must be met ark a Special Use Permit must be obtained by the development to proceed. Approval of the request would allow development of the property for single family residences on lots containing a minimum of 20.000 square feet. Collins referenced Article 8.2.2 and noted that if it is found that the project is in compliance with all recuired regulations and standards, the application must be approved unless it is found that it will not promote the public health, safety and general welfare, will not enhance or maintain the value of contiguous property or is not i.n caag~liance with the general plans for the County. He then referenced the findings of fact and pointed out the areas where Staff found that the applicant is not in compliar~e and those areas where the applicant is retiuesting a modification of tY:e ordinance provisions. The first negative finding relates to access to the site, including sight distances on all roads used for access. Access from Weaver Dairy and Sunrise Roads is shown and visibility triangles are provided on the plan, but sight distances are not indicated on the site plan. This funding could be resolved by simply making sight distance notations on the plat. The next negative fir~i.r~ relates to the requirement for a 100-foot open space to be provided along the perimeter of a F'D-Fi district. The applicant has requested waiver of the 100-foot open space requirement as provided in the narrative. Applicant proposes a 100 foot buffer along the T-40 rightrof way and vegetated buffers of 30' and 5D' in accordance with Chapel Hill buffer requirements on Sunrise and Weaver Dairy Roads respectively. The final negative finding concerns the maximum floor area ratio which is exceeded by 3~. Staff reccarmendation on this is to reduce the average dwelling size to 2475 sq. ft. to bring this project into compliance. Mayor Massif inquired as to how the public hearing was being held if the applicant was not in compliance with the Ordinance. Collins stated that the applicant can request a modification. Such a modification can be made by the Board of Coirnnissioners under section 7.3 of the article dealing with Planned Developaents. In t'~is case, the maximum floor ratio and sight distance requirements could be satisfied either by ~++ti+~ ~ nY~~++r+a~ +-n +hc ~, tc n1 an nr nnnrl i t ti nnp a~tarhavi to the ~t7:"trC~ 1 of 'tY:~ ~OQ~25 application. Mayor Nassif again questioned the order in which the County r~riews exemption requests before allowing an application for Planned Develognent to be presented for Public Hearing. F?e indicated we are dealing with a development that does not comply with the Ordinance. Gledhill stated the 100' buffer can be altered by the Board of County Commissioners if it finds as part of its review process that the applicant's proposed buffer nets the public safety and welfare requirements to an equal or greater degree, The County has considered such requests as part of the public hearing process, This applicant has a proposal for buffering in the area where they have not met the 100' requirelner_t, They are going to try to persuade you that they have satisfied the purpose behind the 100' buffer requirement to an equal ar greater degree. The purpose of that 100' buffer requirement is to separate the different intensity uses. The Board's function in this process is to determine if the applicant's proposal satisfies the intent for the 100' buffer requirement to an equal or greater degree. You should do that as part of your deliberating process. The applicant is going to demonstrate that their idea is better for the project. With respect tv the sight distance requirements and ratio requirements, these may not be modified and, therefore, the applicant must comply. Mayor Massif questioned haw the Boards could proceed with a public hearing if a project was not in compliance with the Ordinance? Gledhill respor~ed that they vrould have to ask for a. waiver of the requirements or the Boards can review the proposal awl include compliance or modification as an corx9ition of approval. Tn this case, the applicant's layout may have led the planning staff to make assumptions about each lot in the subdivision that are: not correct, what we are going to determine based on the evidence presented here tonight is whether those two requirements are met by the applicant arr3 to determine if they are not and whether it can be addressed by imposing special cor~7itions. Mayor Nassif asked if he had a project to present to the County if he could subQnit the project a~ not necessarily ccanply with the stipulations or the Ordinances and still come before tY:e Board ark prove that, even though he does not comply, he has a good project. Ts tl^,at the typical way the County vrould consider it? Gledhill stated that usually when the applicant does not fulfill all the requirements, the application is returned to the applicant as incomplete, Fie irx7icated that the sight distances had likely been an oversight. Collins responded that when the applicant addressed the sight dfstance requirements in this particular situation, the applicant had reviewed the proposal with the Department of Transportation and the plan was revised to reflect ~ I]CfP sight distance requirements. Staff realizes the applicant has complied with I~O~` requirements. Collins stated the planning staff felt the buffer modification is justified. Aiscussion followed regarding buffer requirements for the Town of Chapel Hill and their application to future development of adjacent properties. Collins stated he felt a I00' buffer was excessive for this subdivision. Shirley Marshall stated she felt there needs to be a c~nbined Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area where the town. would have the decision- making capability. 000~2G Massif questioned how a deter~r~ination would be reached as far as which property is going to be the highest density -what if the next proposal comes in with acre lots? Would that one have to give up the 100'? Collins answered no. L~evelofar~ent of or_e acre lots would be at R-1 density and would not have to provide the buffer. Iyassif asked who would have to provide the buffer, and whether it was a floating requirement of the County. Collins explained the requirements of the County subdivision regulations noting that if the property adjacent to this was subdivided under the currer_t zoning buffer requiranents could be imposed if needed. Alice Ingram questioned if what the applicant proposes would meet Chapel Hill's standards? Ts the applicant asking for a total waiver? Collins responded that the applicant has asked for a waiver of the 100' buffer in our jurisdiction, Chapel Hill's 30-50' buffer is adjacent to Stuvrise and Weaver Dairy Roads aril operates as well along the perimeter in the Town's jurisdiction. Dis. Kawalec stated her concern about the lots along T-g0. Does each of those lots contain 20,000 square feet in addition to the 100' buffer or is the 100' buffer included in t~`ie 20,000 square feet m;n;minn of the lots? Collins answered that the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffer is ir~luded in each lot size. The lot sizes adjacent to T--40 vary fr~n 112 acre to a7.mast an acre in size including the 100' buffer and the setbacks fro¢n the proposed streets. Nassi.f questioned, with the area that is left given the setback requirement, will houses placid on those lots be closer to the street than on the other lots. Collins responded that if everybody wanted to build on the setback line along this particular road they would all be the same. There is more flexi}aility in the northern part of the subdivision to shift the houses on the lots. Sates Farts of the subdivision are more limited than others, but there can still be some variation in the setbacks. Collins referred to the recam~ended conditions of approval included in the agenda packet, specifically conditions 7 and 8. He added that condition 10 should be expazxled to include an additional sentence that all roads be built to Town. standards. Sweeten Creels Road would be Class A in accordance with Chapel Hill statx7ards. All the stub-outs presently shown on the site plan, plus one additional stub-out, would be constructed to Class B standards and all the cul-de-sacs presently shown on the site plan would be constructed to Class C standards. Regarding condition 14, the Chapel Hill staff pointed out that the recreation area situated south of 5~veeten Creek Road as shown on the site plan i.s a little over two acres in size. Allying the Orange County recreation space ratio and Chap21 Hill requirement, a to`~al of 3.2 acres are required for the entire project. What has been shown i.s less than that amount. The Town of Chapel Hill recc~nends that additional recreation space be provided on the site plan so that the total recreation area is 3.2 acres for Chapel Hi11 and Orange County cagnbined. As for the County's requirement, the developers have satisfied the requirements; :.f i:)aey wish. to provide additional recreation space they could do so within the Chapel ?ill jurisdictior~a7. area. Collins noted condition number 24 relates to Chapel Flill's jurisdiction.. ;. P~assif raised ataestions about the pond design asking if there were lots r.rrwv~car~ r7r~e,mctrean~ {rron ~I-Yw rrlnr~- ooo~ti7 Collins sur¢narized the position of the Orange County staff in that the applicant complies with the general standards and regulations with the exception of the three negative fi.rulings. He continued that staff received no i-ndication that this develoianerit would be hazardous to the general health, safety and welfare. Orange County staff recommends approval subject to the conditions of approval included in the agenda packet. Ms. iiawalec i.r~icated her concern about the power line that cuts through the site adding she did not suite know how to approach it using Orange County's system. 'lt appeared to her that it is going to desecrate the recreation area. She asked if staff had considered that and what their thought on this subject was? Collins responded the developer i_n this case really had an option: he could either design his lots in such a manner that they would back up to the easement or he could provide some type of apen recreational space adjacent to that power line, using that as a buffer ar screen to keep residential 'units away from the ea~er,~er_t itself. The fact that he has kept his facilities on either side addresses the latter. We do not anticipate any ~.rticular problem under the power line. .. Ms. Ingram incuired about lots 62 and 63, in particular, and then 28, 29 and 37. She noted these lots are going to have a view of a vast expanse of vacant land with power lines. Collins addressed each lot sepazately as to suggestions for best passible in~rovement. Commissioner Marshall asked if the acreage of the recreation_ space includes the land in the entire easement? Collins responded yes. Yuhasz stated that lots 62 arr] 63 would nat be counted as recreation space. Commissioner Marshall said not much could be done about the power line easement, but that the 100' buffer and trees would help the view to those lots. Discussion continued on recreation acreage. A council member questioned the requirements if a property owner wanted to build a storage building on a lat. Collins responded a 15' setback would be required. Presentation of Chapel I3i11 Town Manager's Report Dave Taylor, Town Imager, reruested that pages 110-145 of the agenda packet be entered as evidence to the public hearing. Chair ir~icated that entire packet is documented as part of the public hearing. Taylor turned the presentation over to his staff. Roger Walden, Chapel Hill Planning Director, discussed the difference between buffers and setbacks and between gravity sewers and pump stations. Planning Board Cha:~r Dr. r~lice Gordon asked if the Chapel Pi11 staff concurred that tYle sE~tbacks arai buffers as stated would be sufficient. Waldon responded affirmatively that there is sufficient roam to satisfy Town standards. Gordon inr~uired if there i.s a perimeter buffer requirement. Waldon responded that a landscaping p:can which would coanply wits Town standards would be sul=anitteci axxz approved. He noted there was no cc~aarable Z~own standard to the 1~PPC buffer requirement. fie further noted there was na buffer requirement around the perimeter for the proposed subdivision where it adjoins vacant land. 0~~~2B Steve Yuhas2 asked if the Town .has any buffer requirement aloes the interstate in the Town's planning jurisdiction? waldon answered negatively. Commissioner TrTalker asked if the Town honored the County's requirements in their jurisdiction. Cochran asked that the Chapel Hill buffer requirements be provided in place of County requirements. Massif questioned whether his planning department should be makir~ the decision of the necessity of the 100' buffer. Fe indicated the Town has accepted ir± joint planni-x3 that, in those areas outside of our extra- territorial jurisdiction, we will use the County subdivision regulations of any other applicable regu].atians. He asked: are we or are we not in our review to use the 100' buffer? Be asked if subjective decisions are made to allow far this one not to rive it or the next one to have it. Is it fluid at all times? If it is fluid in the Ordinance, wha makes the decision how fluid it is. Is it made by the staff or by the policy making board? Does a developer ga in to our staff and the County staff and say that is fluid arx3 everybody agree and say we do not think you ought to have it and we will go before the Board and say you do not have to have it. Haw does it get evaluated by tr~e etaff c~i~en scanethirsq is so fluid, but yet a.t is in the Ordinance written in a fairly precise manner? Mayor Massif asked the attorney if a subjective decision may be made on the aoplication of the open space requirement within the Ordinance and who would evaluate and make the decision. Gledhill responded td'aat staff makes only a reconanendation. He further noted that there is a standard, but also a provision, zeferenced as Section 7.3, which allows that some requirements need not be met provided that the applicant satisfies the Board that the purpose behind the rE~uirement has been satisfied to an. equal or greater extent. This decision rewires a finding on the part of the Board based on the evidence presented. Mayor Massif asked when is the proper time for the applicant to propose changes to the project. Gledhill indicated there is no fixed answer to the question because, i.n practice, where an applicant proposes scenEth9.ng that varies from the requirements of the ordinance, that proposal co¢~s forward at the application stage and is presented at public heating. In practice the County has dealt with those westions at tY.e time it considers the application. Commissioner Marshall stated that the Board had previously asked that inccniplete applications not be brought before the Board for consideration, however this does not address on t2solve the ability to request a waiver of the 100' buffer under the planned development ordinance. She noted there 3s na waiver of the I00' tMiC buffer requitement. Gledhill confirmed this as well as indicated that floor area ratios and sight distance requirements may not be waived and must be satisfied for approval of the application. These issues have been dealt with by the County at the time of application and reviewed at public hearing. There have been instances recently where applications have beer, so incomplete that the Board has directed the staff to reject the applicatior_. F`on same requirements of the ordinance the Board might consider variations which could be heard at the public hearing. Council member R. D. Smith asked whether the buffer around the individual lots (not the MTC buffer) should be shown on the plans; should we be concerned about this; what does the developer plan to do and at what point aoo~2s will this be discussed. Gledhill answered that the applicant will have the opportunity to make a presentation on that item. But as he understood it, the 100' buffer for the planned development applies to the perimeter of the overall project. fie added the Boards car, negotiate or waive it as long as the substitute buffer, in the opinion of the Boards, is equivalent to that provided by the 100' specified. Commissioner Walker westioned i£ the 100' 1~T.~C buffer applied in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction? Geoffrey Gledhill responded the County does not have zoning jurisdiction in Chapel Bill's planning jurisdiction. Geoffrey Gledhill continued that regulations of the county, including the 1G0' buffer recuirement, do not apply anywhere in Chapel I3i11's jurisdiction. Mayor Massif clarifies for Mr. Walker that even if the Tawas required the P"IC buffer, there were rro undeveloped areas in t.`ze Town's jurisdiction along the interstate to which it would apply. Walker noted as Chapel Hi.11 annexes it may get into that area. Massif said until we annex, it would be in the 3oint Planning Area ark right now we are using your requirements for joint planning. He expressed concern that he dial not knave when requirements are waived and when they are not and when the issue should be considered. Geoffrey Gledhill reminded the Boards that the burden is on the applicant to prove he meets the requirements of the Ordinance. Roger Waldon continued his presentation and reviewed again the open space requirements, traffic patterns, additional rights-of~way and drainage easements. Waldon continued that to satisfy the Town's open space requirement far the subdivision the applicant would have to provide additional open space or a. payment ir_ lieu of the requirEd open space. David Taylor addressed the following primary concerns: traffic impact, drainage and resource conservation district and the sewer service to the area. fie said that his staff recvmnerx3s to the Council approval of the preliminary plat with the stipulations as specified. HLs. I{awalec cuestioned the necessity, reliability and maintenance of pump stations. [Taldan noted it v~ould be impossible to provide service to this subdiv- ision without a pump station. R. D. Bxnith questioned the location of the perennial stream and compliance with the Town's star~iards. Roger Waldon answered that it vrus not a perennial stream. R. D. B;nith questioned i.f the applicant has been asked to show if this was subject to the Resource Conservation District and if he was to redesign his plan accordingly. Discussion on perennal streams followed. A council member asked why it is so difficult to determine what i.s a perennial stream. Waldon responded that maps available are old and that on- site ueterminations have to be made. P,palicant presentation by Ralph Cochran of Allenton Realty. fKr. Cochran stated that this subdivision would provide for single family dwellings with all lot sizes being 1/2 acre or larger. Tt i.s well located to tY:e T-40 interchange and 15-501 Boulevard, making for good accessibility. He continued that this project is cc~rpatible with the lew density residential uses already in the area. The property is "I," shape which makes it more diffa.cu].t to work with. The applicant has worked with Chapel Hi11 and Orange County Planning Staffs and feels re has a good, low density development for the area. He continued, noting the reallocation of densities (1.35 in Orange County jurisdiction and .77 in Chapel Hill jurisdiction). Cochran commented on the sight distance at the eritrancev~ay which was referred to earlier by the staff. ~"he sight distance requirement has been met and will be r_oted on. the plat. E'loor area ratios. will be in ccttnpliance with the Planned Pevelop~~nt section of Orar~e County Ordinance. Tn reference to the Resource Conservation District, the apg~licar!t is prepared to lose a lot if necessary to come into ccanpliance. He noted that the question regarding buffers seemea to be an important one. xhe project is buffered fr~n all streets. honors the I~P1C recuiren'ent and is c~~pa-tide va3.th the existing land use in the area. All lots have large rear yards which also act as buffers. re addressed the question of increased traffic generation at the intersection of 15-501 and Ei~ain Road. Fie noted that the studies made indicated the increase would only be about 1/2~. He then addressed the question of pump stations. He noted the reliability of pump stations because they were r~nitored at all times. David Godschalk, Chapel Hill Town Council, remarked on the shape of the s:.i~e and incuired i.f the applicant had any interest in the adjoining property ax if he knew what might be going to take place an these adjoining properties. Cochran responded that this property is under one ownership. The property inside the "L" is awned by a local family and is held in trtast by PTC[~ Trust Department. The area to the north has already been subdivided into several parcels and the parcel on the corner has been purchased for a church site. Gcdschalk asked about the aFg~licant's n~rke4 study for executive housing and the 1ir.~itations such a study identified regarding the power line runnirx3 throuch the property and the property's location adjacent to the interstate. Cochran responded he had marketed other properties with similar cons]i.tions and recognized that those which were are the least desirable would most ]-ikely have to be discounted for sale. Godschalk asked haw stror~ly the applicant was cccnmitted to this site plan. He fe7.t it was obvious tre~re were same areas that could be redesigned to perhaps enhance the buffer area or make the recreation area n~re desirable. He asked if same of these alternatic-es had been explored or is the apl>J..a.cant willing to explore soxae of these alternatives. Cochran respor~ea that the project had been redesigned for Orange County, for Chapel Hill ark for DOT. The applicant-agree: to meet the open space requirement and will be lookir~ at the area arounr.txe stream possibly to provide this space. Cormissioner Carey inquired what was being proposed ir_ the way of a buffer around the perimeter other than the area that abuts the interstate. Cochran responded he had pat been tall of additional buffer reciuirements by either staff. TN~o of these lots abut each other to the rear and this provides additiona3. buffer. Hopefully, if the adjoining land is rezoned and is incoanoatible with this development, this existing neigr~arhood would be protected. Commissioner 1~~rshall noted tha.s seen~d to be a very curious intexpretati.on of the regulations. The buffer a.s recuired to protect the aua].ity of development ark she felt waivir~ the buffer requirement would be a serious comprc~use to the general plan for trfe iha• ~r.ca]. development of the ~e aoo~~~ County. She continued saying that everyone catranc~ in with a Planned Development would have an equal opportunity whether they were r~oing for R-2 or 1~8 and no one would be penalized more than another. Cochran resporrJ~d he had first propose:, a general 1~-2 rezoning ar,d not a Planned Development, as this is essentially a subdivision am potential purchasers would not want to be involved with a homeowners association, and was told that the Prti-!rd t~-as reluctant to approve general rezonings due to loss of control. Pried on tYsis judgment, tl-,e applicant then pursued a Planned Development, Commissioner Willhoit responded that Staff noted it was possi)a].e to vaaive the 100' buffet if a buffer of equivalent screening or impact were pravic3.ed and he felt a backyard without a buffer was not equivalent to a 100' buffer. Cochran respcr~]ed he ~•aas nets-er ].ec: to believe he needed a perimeter buffer. 1t is really an open space requirement. County Attorney Gledhill told the Toard aria Cr3uncil Members that the provision in question is 7.14.3 a) 4. It is more co~].ex than just a 100` buffer. He noted that the term "buffer" was incorrect. Where ycu hive a PDH district ~~djoining another resider...tial district, the requirementsG of the ac:jni..nina resi.denti.aJ. cistri.ct apply along the boundary; in lieu thereof, you cnu] d 1-,ave a 100' open spare along the P1.?-f€ bour~3ary. That translates to aray lots along the R-1 District k~avinq to be R-1; if they are not R-1, tl-~er, 4here has to be 100' of open space between the PD-F; bourxlary and the R-1 zone. Mayor Nassif asked if the open space requirement were a separate entity and Gledhill resporx]ed i.t could be a setback within the lat. .He continued that if an R-2 District were adjacent to an R-1 District, trere would be no such requirement. Commissioner Carey noted the change from R 1 to R-2 triggers the re ,uiren~ent. Corranissioner Marshall noted that after the more detailed e.°plarx'~ti_on sl;e is even more convinced that this proposal seriou.s]y compromises the ger.•era]. plan for the physical development of the County. Gledhill responded that perhaps the perforniarace standard as used by the Town of Chapel Hill for its buffer requirement might address the concern regarding buffering one district-from another district. Commissioner Carey asked Cochran if he were aware of the performance • requirement under the ~nwn of Chapel Hi1]_'s Qrdinance and Cochran responded no. Roger Waldon described the buffer requirements of the Town Qrdiru~r~e~ noting that under the schedule of uses buffer requirements do not apply to this type of major subdivisior_ application creating lots for single family c~+.+ellings that adjoin vacant land zoned R--1, !~-2 or R-3. Buffers are required hl;e.re tt-,e 'c.,rc•. is adjacent to a street or other more intensive uses. In, this case the adjacent larx3 is ~ 2 and vacant. Larffers are required along Weaver Aairy and Sunrise Road. Chapel Hill staff cad requested that Town buffer starx3aras be applied in anticipation of annexation of the property into the "'rv.:m's corporate lfmits. Gordon asked if a buffer would be required rear the Potted Plant. Waldon_ responded tY,e buffer requirement. apY:lie. to n~re intensive uses but not single family property. Cprhran requested that the Town buffer requirements apply to this project. A Council member questioned the availability of buildable areas or_ lots 3S, ~1 and E•Z F•~hich contain drainage easemer+.ts ~ Cochran responded dv,~i ling units would have to be designed a_*,d located outside these easements. 0003 Council member Sir~ith inquired if the 100' buffer is part of the lor. V?illhoit responder noting can be built i.n this open space area. Collins responded it e~_tereds frcttr: the l.ot lire. Ccsmanissioner PZarshall questioned the safety of the dam located south of the tract. Cochran reslac:~ed that the Sci1 Conservation Service was ;nvclves in i.ts construction. 'b~:e Chapel Hill Planning Hoard reccurmerciati.on~ were introduces into the record by xs.ice Ingram. She indicated that the Planning Board does agree with the t,anager's rece~-endation and their concerns were incorporated ir~tc t~•:e Fiariager's report, but noted that the Board did not know of the probl~ns with the ponds and stzeams and that a cor.~cern regarding utility line voltage was not incorporated in the Niar~ager's report. ~?igh voltage lines may pASe art ac~rez::e impact. S"he continued that the Board raiGe~ questions regarding irZ~•.ct~: c:f stub-outs in the neighbcrhood i.-ttegrity of the develoFanent. No co~m,eaat was received from the F~,earance Commission. Collins introduced the full agenda packet into the record as eviQerce asxi specifically cited the Orange County P,ecreatian Department: rercr,vr~er,aati.on. Council member Smith inquired vrhy only two parkins s~x'rces were provided at the recreaticn area, noted tY:e distance of the facility from some lots, ark requested addit,.ar~.]. s~,cces. Rarx3y Smith. agent for the applicant, commented the facility v,Gr: irterx]ed to be urea by residents of the development only and that the furthest lot w~ L2 mile away. Collins introduced the 3une f, l~'S5 letter frcan Ralph Cochran. No citizen c~anents were received. Mayor Ivassif requested tYaat directian_ be provided tc Tovm staff on the review of proposals and application of standards. E:e ncted tre c:evelopn~ent is likely tc be urban i.n nature and questioned the adequacy of tkae loco]. toad network. I3e continued that the develog,:ent should not be considered a neighborhood un?ess adjacent vacant land was included by nature of the design. F_e innquired how the road network is affected by this developeE=nt, especially improvements to Weaver Aairy Road. He noted it is inctmibent on -the governmental ur~?t:s 'co c=cn~;-c~c-z the ]Deal road network so that deve].oPers of unseveloped land have sane guidar~e on the projected road network. He continued that the survey of the projc~t:tc-ci continuation of Sage Road across Erwin and Weaver Dairy Road should be completed prior tp approval of the project and that the site plan should be revised accordingly. r~frr. i?arssif further ccmanerted on drainage ar¢3 power li.r_e impacts on lot design., maintaining that these easements should not be part of the Lots. He anted that pump stationer may be a legitimate proposal in this case. Planning Board member l~.rgison inquired when ~;~eacer Dairy Road will be improved. N_anager ~`aylor responded it is tc be widened to 5 lanes arxi is a high priority project. Planning Poard member Yuhasz inquired if Chapel Hill has a Roaa~vay Network Plan for undeve]. Ln-~r', ]-ar?d in i.ts jurisairt3ar, in t.lie jcint ~:lanna.ng area or, if r_ot, what ideas stxzti].d be used to gu9.de us in consideration of how these stub-outs are to be developed. h~ayar Massif responded tkere is no plan in place and that staff shou]_d att~npt to address the road network to serve uridevelrped ].and as 4he developers have no auttwrity over the laru7 in r1uestion_. Pwas,rzing Board Chair Gordon auestior~ the status of the 60' right-cf~ay existing to the Potted P].ar_t G.rK? ~-i-•E: e~c~~.vcr requested on age 44. Collins responded that any further develognent would be required to use tYie stub-out provided from Sweeten CzeeN Road and that the existing right af~way weu].d be rl nfix7. d~~~~J Gordon aslcec if tt?E rigYa~~f-way could be considered a buffer. Colli~-~s responded it could b2 considered as cart of the open space requirement. CcmIIrissio;~er 4dillhoit referred the proposal to the ToFm Manager aryl County Plannznq Board. By consensus decision the public hearing was continued until Se~plYember 3, 1984 to receive the recomn~er~cations of the Town Council and Orange County Plannir!q £oard. TY:e meeting adjourr_ed at 1C:30 p.m. Dan Willhoft, Chafr 3oanna Bradshaw, A~ninistrative Secretary Beverly F. Blythe, Clerl: rr. .., ~..r~...~._. ,-~... .__....-.. __ ._._ .. . ]L~.,.. .. .. ..~. .. .. ....~..--...,-.-. _...-. .~..._-~. ~_. _~~_-~--. ~aQi SJ County Manager June 6, 1985 Page 2 ,70INT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES Step I Swearing in of all persons to speak/give testimony at public hearing (Applicable only in case of special use permits) Step 2 Introduction of a lication and resentation of "'oint" staff report a. Presentation by Orange County Planning Staff b. Presentation of Chapel Hill Town Manager`s Report Step 3 Presentation by applicant Step 4 Presentation of Advisory Board recommendations (This would include recommendations of the Chapel Hill Planning Board, Appearance Commission, Recreation and Parks Advisory Commission and/or Transportation Berard as well as the appropriate Orange County Township Advisory Council where applicable, OWASA, NCDOT, etc.) Step 5 Presentation of citizen concerns/comments (Where large groups of people are present to speak regarding a particular issue, a spokesperson for the group may be designated to speak an behalf of the group. Time limits may also be established for speakers and opportunities for rebuttal provided, depending upon the number of people desiring to speak and the issue involved. In any case, speakers must identify themselves by name and address.) Step 6 Close hearing and refer request to Town Manager Cin the case of Ghapel Hill) and the Orange County Planning Board (for recommendation). Announce subsequent meeting/decision dates. Questions by County Commissioners, Town Council members and the Planning Board would be entertained at the end of each step in Steps 2-5. Meetin S ace/Arran ement The meeting space reserved for the joint public hearings is the Cultural Arts Auditorium at the Chapel Hill High School. The facility is quite large and will seaC many more than will be present at most hearings. The auditorium contains a raised stage and an effort will be made to accomodate the County Commissioners, Planning Board and Town Council thereon. If this is not possible, it is recommended that the Commissioners and Town Council be seated on the stage, ~ along with the Planning Board Chairs of both the County and Chapel Hill. Seating for the remaining members of khe County Planning Board will be provided immediately ~ in front of the stage- 1. 00034 ORANGE COLrNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ffiLLSSQROUGIi NOIITS CAROLINA E72'78 a~r.n .i a e` u u MEMORANDUM T0: COUNTY MANAGER FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: JUNE 6, 1985 SUBJECT: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES ORANGE COUNTY - CHAPEL HILL Bach The Joint Planning Agreement adopted by Orange County and Chapel Hill requires joint public hearings on development proposals. The first of these is scheduled for Tune I1, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. at Chapel Hill High School. Two governing boards (the Board of Commissioners aad the Town Council) and one advisory body (the Orange County Planning Board) will be present to hear presentations/receive Cestimony regarding a Planned Development application - Chandler's Green .• With the participation of the Chapel Hill Town Council and the existence of different methods of conducting public hearings in the two jurisdictions, a uniform method for conducting such hearings is necessary. The following recommended procedures have been approved by the Planning Board and discussed with the Chapel Hill Planning Director. Minor revisions have been made to reflect Chapel Hill practices since Planning Board approval. Conduct of Hearings Current Orange County practice is for the Planning Board Chair to conduct hearings reagrding zoning ordinance text and atlas amendments, while the Chair to the Board of Commissioners conducts hearings involving special use permits and land use plan amendments. The Chapel Hi11 Mayor conducts all hearings before the Town Council. To provide consistency at public hearings, it is recommended that the Chair of the Orange County Board of Commissioners conduct all .joint County/Town Public Hearings and that the following procedures be utilized in carrying out such hearings. The procedures represent a consolidation of current Orange County and Chapel Hill procedures. ~aQ~~~ County Manager June 6, 1985 Page 3 Space will also be provided on the stage for a display board and a micro- phone for use by the staff in making presentations. A podium will be provided in front of the stage and near the display board far advisory boards and citizens to speak from. The applicant may speak from the stage in order to be near visual displays of the project. Name tags will be prepared for all governing board members. and far the Orange County Planning Board. These will be distributed at the hearing. Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners, is assuming responsibility for setting up the microphone and recording systems. Joanna Bradshaw, Administrative Secretary for the Planning Department, will be present to record the minutes. Staff will assume responsibility for setting up tables and chairs as well as other equipment prior to the .meeting. A custodian at the High School will also be present to assist. A sketch of the auditorium and the proposed arrangement is provided on the accompanying page. A location map is also pnrovided. ~_ ~~~ ~~ W~ ~--~ Marvin E. Collins Planning Director CC: Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Baard Joanna $radshaw, Administrative Secretary Roger Walden, Chapel Hill Planning Director Susan Smith, Planner III ' Current Gene Bell, Planner III - Comprehensive