Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1986011417 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JOINT PLANNING AREA PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 14, 1986 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session with the Chapel Hill Town Council, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and the Orange County Planning Board at 7:30 p.m. in the Cultural Arts Auditorium at Chapel Hill High School for the purpose of holding a .public hearing on a proposed Land Use Plan for what is termed the ""Joint Planning Area." ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair. Don Willhoit and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD PRESENT: Chair Alice Gordon and members Chris Best, Barry Jacobs, Betty Margison, Margaret Miller, Sharlene Pilkey, David Shanklin, Carl Walters, and Steve Yuhasz. Mayor of Carrboro Jim Porto spoke clarifying Carrboro's role in the Joint Planning Process. He noted that over a year ago Carrboro had met with the Commissioners and expressed their whole-hearted support for the concept of Joint Planning. At that time, it was Carrbora's feeling there were some problems with the administration of the Joint Planning process as presented and choose at that time not to participate in the administrative review procedures. Their position at that time was "if the County wants to administer our ordinances, that's fine; if they want us to administer our own, we'll do that in the joint process". They did not feel it was practical to run developers through the joint review process. Tn no way was that intended to mean that Carrboro was opting out of the Joint Planning process. They felt, then and now, that the most important thing is the map that is drawn in the areas that are being talked about. Carrboro is here to reaffirm its commitment to Joint Planning of about two weeks ago with the Commissioners. There are concerns about where the boundary is being drawn between the Chapel Hill planning area and the Carrboro planning area. The boundaries that are set now are the boundaries that we will be working with from now on. He continued noting that 50% of al.l the developable land in the Carrboro planning area is in the watershed. We are committed to protecting the watershed for the entire county. He asked that everyone recognize what sacrifices Carrboro is having to make to protect water for everybody. He reaffirmed that Carrboro does support Joint Planning mainly because of a policy of representation out in the County. He noted that Carrboro is in the Joint Planning process all the way, but felt the administrative review process was not workable. Marvin Collins, Planning Director for Orange County, began the presentation. He gave a brief outline describing what was to be accomplished at this meeting. He referenced the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan packet that was available for distribution. Collins also encouraged input from advisory boards and the public. Collins began by briefly discussing the 1981 Land Use Plan for the area giving the plan categories for the area, the purpose of 18 each, their application to the area and the rationale employed. He noted the Plan had been updated at the intersection of T-85 and NC 86 and that activity nodes were more specifically defined in the I-85 corridor in Cheeks Township. Callins continued, highlighting the existing land use plan for the Joint Planning Area. He noted that more specific studies would be carried out as part of the Land Use Plan. It is the intent of the County to work with the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro in carrying out the Joint Planning Agreement. He explained that more extensive activity nodes are proposed within the transition areas, but also within certain portions of the rural buffer. He noted that one reason for the rural buffer was to eliminate the necessity of installing pump stations and creating additional costs for OWASA and other service providers. Roger Waldon, Chapel Hill Planning Director, presented the questionnaire results from the Public Information Meeting held at Culbreth Jr. High School November 13, 1985 noting that 76 questionnaires were returned. He indicated that 80~ of those questionnaires returned expressed strong support for the concept of rural buffers around the joint-areas. There was also strong support for restrictions on development that would protect the key areas where environmental situations indicate that development should not occur. There was strung support for using public services as a growth management tool. Waldon continued noting that there was much concern expressed for traffic, transportation,. and existing road problems as well as concerns with the population projections. He noted there was no consensus on the type of development preferred. There was strong support for designating same types of commercial uses. The response was diversified as to some industrial uses in the Joint Planning Area. Recreational areas also were strongly supported. Waldon noted that being presented at this meeting was a "Draft Preliminary Land Use Plan" and no decisions would be made at this time. This was for information, public input and reaction to the proposed plan. Waldon then displayed and explained the conceptual maps noting growth patterns under the different alternatives. It is hoped that this will show the outline of the urban area and several ways in which it might develop. Collins presented the Natural Features Maps explaining the constraints and opportunities as far as natural features are concerned. A matrix of lacational standards was prepared from the existing land use survey and these standards were used to prepare the "Draft Preliminary Land Use Plan". Callins noted that the matrix did pinpoint those sites that staff felt would be suitable for various types of land use. Collins continued explaining the different designations and locations on the map. Collins then discussed the concept of strategy maps and how they were employed in the formulation of the draft plan. Collins stated that strategy maps were the framework for the plan map and contained the following elements: (1) Thoroughfare Improvements from the adopted thoroughfare ~~ plan; (2) Water and Sewer extensions proposed by OWASA; (3) Proposed greenway and park system based upon environmentally constrained wetland and slope areas and existing urban parks; and (4) Major uses identified for the Duke Forest Tracts in the area This was used to come up with the Draft Preliminary Land Use Plan. Collins noted the questionnaires from the November 13, 1985 public information meeting, information in terms of natural features, e.g., slopes, soils, vegetation, etc., the County's current goals and objectives from the Orange County Land Use Plan and those from the Chapel Hill comprehensive plan. The framework for this plan is, again, a comprehensive open space and parks system. The dark green areas on the map correspond to areas of greater than 15°s slope, floodplains, wetlands and areas that we consider to be constraints to development. They would farm a greenway system throughout the whole Joint Planning Area and. along the greenway system would be a system of neighborhood and community parks and perhaps a district park. Associated with that open space system would be the buffer alang I 40 as required by the Major Transportation Corridor provisions of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Finally, the open space system includes Duke Forest and State (UNC) owned lands. Collins then addressed the location of residential areas. High density areas (6 to 13 units per acre) were located near interstate interchanges or the intersections of collector and arterial streets. Other locational criteria employed were areas of less than 7 1/2~ slope and clear of vegetation. Areas of suburban residential development ( 2 to 5 units per acre) were located primarily in forested areas, slopes ranged from 0 to 15%, and urban services were available or projected to be shortly. Low density residential areas (1 unit or less per acre) occupied the remaining portions of the Joint Planning Area outside transition areas and open space and agricultural areas. Collins then addressed the location of non-residential uses. These were to be focused on the following activity nodes: (1) Commercial/Industrial Transition node along proposed Homestead Road extension east of Old NC 86 intersection - This node proposed by the Carrboro Planning Staff should be composed of a sizable industrial core, a medium sized area of commercial and Office/Insti-- tutional to the southeast, and an extensive area of urban residential to the west around Calvander. (2) Limited expansion of the existing Rural Neighborhood .node at Blackwood Station - This node would be expanded to permit more commercial uses, but all development would continue to be on wells and septic tanks. (3) Rural Industrial Node at I-40/New Hope Church Road - would allow light industrial and research uses with on-site water and sewer. ~® (4) Commercial-Industrial Node at T-40/Whitfield Road -- emphasis here would be on light industrial development to the west along the railroad and adjacent to the land fill. Limited urban (high-density) residential would be permitted and would be buffered from the industrial by office/institutional. Commercial development would be focused on the existing Commercial node to the south at Weaver Dairy Road and NC 86. Collins concluded by briefly summarizing the uses proposed for University Lake Watershed as being open space, agricultural and rural residential. The same uses were proposed for the Southern Triangle with the exception of limited commercial and Office/Institutional at the Star Point activity node. Roger Waldon summarized the key issues raised by Collins' presentation. These included the location and size of commercial areas, the desirability and location of industrial uses and the type, amount and location of activities at Interstate interchanges. Chair Willhoit then opened the floor for public comment. DR. ALICE GORDON Orange Caunty Planning Board Chair - (Complete narrative is in the permanent agenda file.) ROBERT REEBER T would just like to make a point. Living in the small triangle to the southeast part here of Orange County, it seems like we are a conduit to get into Chapel Hill and like everything else, you have Joint Planning and that is Chatham County over there and I live an Clearwater Lake Road. Chatham County is right there but that road is the only access directly into Orange from Chatham County and there is just a lot of building in that area and I think we really ought to consider the access, the ..road structure and the old age home that is going to be relatively high density and they are all going to be going into Chapel Hill so some how or other we need to negotiate a little with Chatham County to maybe consider the density increase may be a little faster than people realize it and maybe try to plan some open space and greenways and other things in that corner. Thank you. RODGER DALSTON Spoke on behalf of the Parker Road/Laurel Hills Neighborhood Association. (Complete narrative is i n the permanent agenda f i le. ) EVERETT BILLINGSLEY Executive Director of OWASA - (Complete narrative is .in the permanent agenda file:), PAT CRAWFORD Representative of Economic Development Commission - (Complete narrative is i n the permanent agenda f i le. ) PATTY KREBS Representative of the Chapel Hill Alliance of Neighborhoods. We are very pleased to have this opportunity to take part in the public hearing. We are interested in the number of issues that arise in Joint Planning and plan to submit a full report on them at a later ~~ date. At this time, the Alliance wants to identify just one issue however because we think it is a very important one and that is the issue of infill. It's distressing to read in the Joint Planning public information packet that infill as set forth in the 1977 Land Use Plan (that is the Chapel Hi11 plan) should be encouraged. We know planning agencies have a difficult job in planning for today and for trying to predict what will happen tomorrow. But with all due respect we think that a policy of infill as set forth in the 1977 Land Use Plan was based on an incorrect assumption. That assumption was that population would rise to a certain number and stop and stay there and that we could deal with that number as a given so that the only problem would be one of distribution. The 1977 plan projected a population figure of 60,800 by the year 2000. The plan noted that the planning area could contain this population but at low density it would consume all the vacant land. The recommendation was to increase urban density and thus to prevent urban sprawl. To quote from the plan, "by encouraging more dwelling units per acre within the law and high density residential categories, the town would be increasing the density of use on land that is developed while decreasing the amount of land needed to accommodate a given population," but the trouble is we are not dealing with a given. We're not necessarily dealing with a population of 60,800 by the year 2000. The. more we increase allowable densities as we did in Chapel Hill in the 1981 Ordinance, the more the populatian will increase. The 1977 concept of infill has given us higher densities without preventing urban sprawl. We think that the way to protect undeveloped land is to deal with it directly by setting aside greenways, park land and recreational space. We hope that you will - be devotin a ood art of g g p your effort to that and will examine the base of assumption of infill. BRUCE BALLENTINE Chapel Hill-Carrboro Design Council Our group is made up of twelve planning architectural and engineering .consulting firms that perform design work in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area. First, we support the Joint Planning process for the purposes of developing a regional land use plan and for establishing development standards. At the appropriate time our organization is available to assist the County and Towns in developing these construction standards for the Joint Planning Area. However, we recommend that the extraterritorial area lines must be re-established and.that only one planning jurisdiction review and act on each development project. We do not recommend development review by more than one jurisdiction. Thank you. RON STROM I'm commenting tonight in a couple of different capacities. one as a resident of Northwood Subdivision near 86 and I-40 and wanted to express my support for someday not having to shop at Food Lion or drive fifteen minutes across 15-501. Its exciting to know there will be some sort of mixed use development proposed around the activity node around NC85 and I-~0. Its encouraging to know that one day I won't have to shop at Food Lion or drive to Carrboro or 15-501 and a more important note from me personally as a contract owner of the southeast quadrant of 86 and I-40, an area that has been earmarked for office Institutional development, I simply wanted to ask for some ~~ clarification. We're using some terminology in the Joint Planning package that does not systematically reflect that which is currently applicable in the Chapel Hill Zoning Ordinance. We're dividing Commercial into Office Institutional and to Retail trade, but there are further subdivisions as to what would be allowed in the Office ",, Institutional. There is an OI-1, 2, and 3 designation. I would like to express my conditional support of the O and I designation far the area between I-40 and Weaver Dairy Road with the condition that some related services and uses that complement O & I such as Retail and restaurant that would make for a more attractive, a more comprehensive planned development around that interchange be part of your clarification process as you go on to further identify and specify precisely what you mean by o & I. DEXTER SMITH Co-owner of property in the southwest interchange of the I-4o that is under construction now and in general I would certainly like to support the general direction that I see here. The idea of using alternative S as a general guideline, the idea of the utility extension to complement that particular alternative and the related land uses, particularly the conceptual one here that shows the commercial industrial activity node araund I-40 and NC86. Specifically, when you get to' the very detailed version here, there is a proposal for medium residential on Lynch Road as well as OI and generally I support that. I would like to however support the earlier speakers here who mentioned the fact that there is some question about definition as to what is or is not included in OI and in that particular zone or area or designation I think that some latitude there would be very helpful to help relate it to highway service uses as well as straight forward offices. Thank you. Dr. H. STANLEY BENNETT Vice Chair, Chapel Hill Township Advisory Council; Resident in the Chapel Hill Township and the University Lake protected area. I wish to state that it is my impression that this Joint Planning process and the general plan set forth here has strong support in the Township Advisory Council and in the residents in the area in which I live. I place particular importance on a feature which appears in this map relatively recently. Namely, the provision for greenways and parks in the area forming an arc around the incorporated towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill. This is a very important provision and I strongly urge that the Commissioners and the governing boards of Chapel Hill and Carrboro do whatever is necessary to implement this plan of greenways and parks to protect the land so designated and preserve it for the future generations who will be coming to live in this area. This region is one of the fastest growing areas in the country. We are planning probably for a population two or three times that which now resides. This is the time -NOW - to set aside the park land that will be needed by our children. JEANETTE GAY EDDY (Complete narrative is i n the permanent. agenda f i le.) Chair Willhoit submitted two lette-rs for the record: (Complete narratives are ~n the permanent_agenda~fi_le.) ~~ 1. owners of property at the northwest intersection of Homestead Road and Rogers Road requesting that it be zoned in such a manner as to permit DI development on a portion of the 64 acre tract. 2. Letter from Nello Teer Company requesting that their 200 acres near the .interchange of I-40 and New Hope Church Road be zoned as an industrial activity node: LEONARD VAN NESS Representative of the Chapel Hi11-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce We met with Roger Waldon at our growth management division and reviewed the proposals and the alternatives and would like to express our leaning toward the alternative "C" which we feel would be more in tune with some of the population growth that we would expect for the area. In looking at the estimate of 3~ growth from 1980 to the year 2000, we felt that that might be somewhat under the current growth rate that we have experienced in the last two decades. We feel that a 3.5~ growth rate might be more likely and therefore would mean a population of 96,000 in the township area as opposed to 87,000. In that case, we.think that alternative "B" would not give us enough leeway to, in effect, in the fifteen years or less search out other ways to deal with our planning and infrastructure needs. We want to commend the planners for what they have done by including some of the activity nodes to address the issues that were brought up by the orange County Economic Development Commission. In specific, we think that the office uses at the I-40 nodes will allow local professional firms to expand in the area. We should not lose good corporate citizens and residents or firms like O'Brien/Atkins. In the long run we feel that the loss of those kinds of businesses will only increase our local tax rates. We also want to express our concern of our _'' interest in the rural industrial node proposed north of the I-40/NC86 node. If we had had such land properly Zoned in the last couple of years we would not have lost Anderson Products Company which located on Highway 54 just two miles inside of Alamance County which if you drive by there you would hardly notice its presence. It does employ. a good number of people and does have an investment of about one million dollars. It also has people living in Chapel Hill traveling on Highway 54. Also, by having such land we would also have provided space for local firms such as Datec or McBroam Bicycle to expand in orange County rather than adjoining counties. B. B. OLIVE I would like to make two points: (1) the presence of Duke Forest it seems to me is extremely important to the Town of Chapel Hill and to Orange County. T have for many many years been concerned about the potential loss of Duke Forest. Some of you who have been around here for some time know that about ten years ago there was a serious threat by some people at Duke University to sell off Duke Forest. I think it is extremely important that the officials in the Town of Chapel Hill, orange County, Carrboro and those on Planning make known to Duke University that the presence of Duke Forest is extremely important to our future planning. Let the University know that we have an interest in Duke Forest. (2) The upper New Hope Creek is extremely important as a research area for the University of North Carolina, Duke University and NC State. When we talk about water preservation of Cane Creek and University Lake a.t seems to me also i ~'~ that it is extremely important that we also talk about protecting the watershed up around the upper Eno Creek which is important for research purposes and also important for recreation purposes in Duke Forest. JONATHAN HOWES Member of the Chapel Hill Town Council A11 of us really appreciate the thoughtful comments which have been offered here tonight. I was unable to attend the meeting in November at Culbreth Jr. High School. It seems to me that the comments offered tonight are at least equal to the quality of planning which has been represented on stage tonight which you have heard. It is a very good and solid piece of planning work and the kind of thoughtful comments that you have offered in response to it will get an .appropriate response from those of us who sit on the governing boards as well as the planning boards and the others who are involved so T do want to thank all of you for your deep and considerable involvement in this process and we look forward to continuing that. CAROLE CRUMLEY I am a Professor of Anthropology at UNC and an Orange County resident for nine years and ~I live about three quarters of a mile from where you are sitting. I also serve on the citizens task force for solid waste management. My concerns have to do with some of my interests and expertise in regional analysis and cultural ecology and in geology which I have studied for fifteen years or so. The Land Use Plan has offered us a very interesting rationale for its employment in various directions from Chapel Hill. I'm not very sure we have heard very many of the assumptions which underlie that plan. That's extremely bothersome to me. All of us can offer rationales for our activities and few of us without a great deal of reflection I think can offer up what the underlying assumptions are but we would like to see some of those underlying assumptions be not only the natural environmental questions that you might expect me as an archaeologist and geologist to be interested in which concern very explicitly the natural environment but also a number of cultural aspects which supposedly were reached by the questionnaire that many of you very kindly filled out. We heard about the questionnaire but we did not hear the results from the questionnaire. At least, I did not hear the results of the questionnaire but perhaps you did. I'm concerned that in a rush to accommodate growth in this area that the ranking of priorities which might otherwise have been undertaken has been brushed aside and that they are being brushed aside tonight. We've not heard exactly what the priorities were which determine the manner in which all of those lines and colors got drawn on those maps. We see the maps and they are beautiful indeed and I appreciate the amount of effort they took because I have done much the same things myself. What I'm trying to say, is we still don't know what kind of things that guided the decisions that were made to put those colors and lines where they are. I know that the accommodation of growth is a major concern of the people who are employed by the Town of Chapel Hill and the Town of Carrbora and the County of Orange and I understand as a colleague of yours in many cases the kinds of things you are up against. What 2 want you to do for the public is to expose your assumptions for us. I want to know exactly what is the most important, what is the next mast important and so on. The -.::~'. /r kinds of considerations that you don't want, because then ~~ some position instead of we are ~n just flailing about at the public hearing where some of us have a chance to speak and some of us don't and won't - that we get a chance to actually confront the kind of decisions that you've made. And I want to know exactly what those decisions are and I specifically want to know about them in terms of OWASA - in what manner has OWASA taken up the question of the sub surface geology of this area. How have they gone about that. Have they hired engineers from Raleigh? 2 serve on citizens task forces and I have heard a number of presentations in the last year. I want to know exactly whether or not those people in Raleigh are trained in engineering or whether they are also trained in geology and whether they know anything about runoff and whether they know anything about the kinds of concerns that the citizens who are here tonight quite reasonably have. I assure you that if you lived three quarters of a mile from where we are sitting right now, you too would have these concerns. With that in mind, if we can't know what your comprehensive management plan is, then we are in no reasonable position to ever come to a vote on it and what I'm asking you to do is to came clean with us. I want a list of your priorities in terms of making those kinds of decisions. T want to know what kinds of people have understanding of .questions such as geology, questions which have to do with water quality management. I want a list of the people you consulted that the public can see and be able to make some kind of educated guess and by educated I mean educated in the sense of the manner in which you made these decisions - judgments about the kind of land use plan that you are proposing for us. There being no further comments, Chair Willhoit called the public hearing to a close and referred the matter to the County Manager and Town Managers to develop a strategy to proceed from this point. Don Willhoit, Chair Joanna Bradshaw, Admin. Secretary Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk