Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19860527~~ - MINUTES ;i. JOINT SESSION ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MAY 27, 1986 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Soard met in joint session on May 27, 1986, 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Don Willhoit and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker. ATTORNEY ABSENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Director of Planning Marvin Collins and Planners Susan Smith and Laura Hill. A. BOARD COMMENTS Chair Willhoit requested that the budget meeting calendar be discussed at the end of the meeting. S. AUDIENCE COMMENTS MATTERS ON THE PRINTED AGENDA Chair Willhoit indicated this meeting is a public hearing and those who wish tv speak will be recognized. MATTERS NOT ON THE PRINTED AGENDA None. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PANTRY AREA PLAN (A copy of the Pantry Area Study Land Use Draft Plan is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) PRESENTATION BY STAFF Director of Planning Marvin remarks. He stated that the need far proposed Scotswood development. Adoptio establish development standards for the protection for environmentally sensitive Collins. made this study was n of the Draft t some introductory exemplified by the Land Use Plan would ransition areas and additional areas. Planner Laura Hi11 pointed out on a map the area encompassed by the study. She stated that the first stage in the preparation of this area plan was the collection and analysis of data. Information was collected on the natural environment (topography, soils, vegetation, hydrology, and water resources), infrastructure and public services, and sociological characteristics (census data, land use information). She further outlined the information as contained in the Pantry Area Study and the recommendations from the Hillsborough Township Advisory Council and the Hillsborough Planning Soard. The Town Board will further review the information provided in this study at their June 9 meeting with a view tow-ard making recommendations. -- ---~--- ---- ~L~1i.~iv~ rxc~M '1'rik; BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Carey asked if the retail area included other than those already in existence and the ones proposed for the Scotswood project. ~~~ Laura Hill stated that the retail area only includes those in exisf:ence and Scotswood. Planning Soard Member David Shanklin inquired about the population ~~, increase between 1980 and 1985 and Laura Hill indicated the popula~tian~ increase for that time span averaged out at 6.3~ a year and this was the' figure used in the report. -.~ COMMENTS OR UESTIONS FROM CITIZENS DoN COX , property owner in the Pantry area and one of the County~s soil and water district supervisors and President of the Eno River Assoc. expressed support for considering a preservation/conservation area. He requested that the Planning Board and planners consider several points while the opportunity and time to preserve the habitat for the wild life in this area still exists. The depth of the areas along the river will be the only remaining areas that can provide a sufficient acreage and depth of land to preserve the whole breathe of our wildlife ecology. Limiting that to just the 100 year floodplain with 15•°s slopes may not be adequate space in some places - particularly as it is very steep. Once those lands are lost to development and additional roads wildlife has no other choice. If it loses its habitat it dies. Provision needs to be made now. by exercising responsibility for providing that habitat far our native wildlife. In addition, the Orange County Commissioners have made a policy that was set some years ago regarding the value of preserving lands along the Eno River. It would seem prudent at this time to take a look at that and also to look at some of the incentives that landowners would have far preserving this land - putting it in a conservation easement, putting it in public ownership or private ownership but there are incentives for doing so. He requested that the County take an active role publicizing those incentives and working jointly with the Town and other organizations in coming up with a long range management plan.. On the 5th of August there was a rainfall that has a frequency of one in seven or one in ten years occurrence which apparently reached the 100 year floodplain markers in the lowlands along in this area of the river (pointed to the ma should say to us that the historical flow levels that were used that were gathered from 1929 through 1971 that were used to calculate the 100 year flood plain do not account for the conversion of land up river from forest land and fields to streets and roof tops and other impervious surfaces. What that means is if a ten year frequency rainfall can produce a 100-year flood level, what is a twenty- five or a fifty or a one hundred year rainfall then going to produce. Certainly flood levels are in excess of that. As you look at that, I know there are several-legal requirements imposed upon that definition of 100- year flood plain but I think it would be prudent for the County to point out to people that if they do something on the edges and the borders of that, that they may be putting themselves and their property in jeopardy. Planning Board Chair Barry Jacobs noted for information that a study will be done on the Eno River district next year which will address some of the concerns Mr. Cox expressed. Hervey McIver, Chair of the Hillsborough spoke about the thoroughfare plan as p; Hillsborough. The basic problem was how to Hillsborough from North 86 and Route 57 to 86 that Lawrence. Road or some other road might be to connect east of Hillsborough. Township Advisory Council, roposed far the Town of route traffic coming into South and x-40. It may be forced north of these areas JAMES M. AND MYRA KIRKMAN Z-6-85 -~ r~~ Planner Susan Smith presented for the receipt of public comment a proposed rezoning request submitted by James and Myra Kirkman. The Kirkmans .are requesting a rezoning for 1.18 acres of land located on a state .maintained unpaved access road leading to U.S. 70 at the southwest corner of the intersection of U.S. 70 and Interstate 85 in Eno Township. The property is located within an area designated Twenty Year Transition and Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan. The present zoning classification of the property is Rural Residential. The applicant is requesting the lot be rezoned to General Commercial-IV (GC-4). Approval of the request would allow development of the full range of commercial uses at this location. Rezoning of the property would allow for the expansion of the commercial uses in the area as a single commercial development or, alternatively, through the subdivision of the property into individual lots for commercial development dependent on the provision of public water and sewer services. An impact statement which addresses water and wastewater services, roads/traffic, police, fire and rescue services, relationship between land use plan and zoning ordinance and permitted uses was presented and is included zn the permanent agenda file. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the general rezoning. COMMENTS OR UESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING.BOARD In answer to a question from Chair Willhoit about the annexation policy of the City of Durham, Smith responded that the City has no active annexation plans in the area. The City does not require annexation for the extension of public water and sewer service. An existing well and septic system serves the property. Planning Board member Peter Kramer inquired about annexation proposals in the Durham 2005 Plan. Smith indicated that no firm annexation proposals had been proposed by the City of Durham. Planning Board member Chris Best asked the difference between this request and the North Carolina 751 rezoning case. Smith indicated that this site utilizes an access road which funnels traffic in the area to one point on U. S. 70 rather than resulting in individual drives and points of conflict. Best inquired about the applicant's statements of justification. The_applicant James Kirkman noted he had reviewed as much information as possible in making the statements, including the Hillsborough 70l Plan a The land adjacent to his property has been submitted for commercial rezoning. There is anpuexisting houseeon this property. He stated that the adjoining property has been purchased by an equipment company which currently leases property down the road. In answer to Commissioner Cary's question about the sixty-foot accessway, Kirkman stated that it runs to the adjoining property and is in use. Commissioner Marshall asked if the Kirkman's occupied the residence. and Kirkman affirmed that he does adding that it is an undesirable home site given the changes of the adjoining property. PRESENTATION. OR COMMENTS BY THE APPLICANT He reiterated the comments made above. He emphasized that the property is no longer suitable for residential purposes. He would like to get the property rezoned and sold. ~~~ 2. HEARTWOOD - PD-2-86 Planner Susan Smith presented for public comments a proposed planned development rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit request sur~itted by Spence and Lyn Dickinson. The applicant is requesting°"~-, approval of a planned development rezoning and issuance of a Class A Special Use Permit for 35.21 acres of land located west of Mill House Road (SR 1725) in Chapel Hill Township. The property is located within an area designated Rural Buffer in the Orange County Land use Plan. The present zoning classification is Rural Residential (R-1). The applicants are requesting that the 35.21 acres be rezoned PD-H-R-1.2. Approval of the request would allow development of attached and detached single-family residential structures with an overall density of one unit per 40,000 square feet. The impact statement addresses (l) water and wastewater services, (2) traffic/roads, (3) police, .fire and rescue services, (4) _ facilities facilities, (5) school facilities, (6) relationship between land use plan and zoning ordinance, and (7) permitted uses. (The complete narrative is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerks office). The Planning Staff recommends approval of the planned development rezoning and issuance of a Class A Special use Permit with the attachment of 20 conditions. These are located on pages 39-42 of the per*;~anent agenda file. Because of insufficient response time, the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board did not make any comments. They will discuss this item at their next meeting. COMMENTS OR UESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD Chris Best asked if the proposed Heartwood Drive would be a;--~ paved road and Susan Smith indicated it would be required to be a paved l road. Oral comments were received from DOT. They indicated it would not be reasonable to upgrade Mill House Road and place the burden on the thirty five lots located on that Road. They do not feel comfortable making improvements to roads beyond the property line. In answer to a question from Commissioner Marshall about the elevation of the homes, the applicant Spence Dickinson indicated that the houses will be custom designed and that information on elevation would not be known until the plans are submitted. Commissioner Carey asked about the use of the proposed stables and hiking trails that will be built on the adjacent property and if those who purchase land in that area will have access. Dickinson explained that the stables would not be available. In answer to a question from Betty Margison, Dickinson stated the utility lines will be under ground. The tot lot will be adjacent to the lake and will have access to the lake. None of the property will front on Mill House Road. Future development to the north will depend an the soil analysis in the area. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS Lewis Dworsky asked about the square foot minimum for each house and Dickinson indicated they have talked about a 1200 foot maximum per floor. He asked about the location of the hiking trails and was told they ga mainly around the lake. They will work with Duke Forest to get permission for the trails to be extended into that area. Dickinson indicated he has no plans at the present time for the land south of this proposed development. ~~ Susan Smith clarified that the units would be single family unattached units in accordance with the current R-1 designation. Don Cox expressed concern about the condition of Mill House Road. He stated that two cars cannot pass and .any additional traffic will be a real hazard for local residents. Linda Barnard spoke about the bad traffic situation and the uniqueness and quality of the area and asked that consideration be given to the preservation of the property, particularly in the higher elevations. John Hartley made comments about the condition of Mill House Road. He indicated that the majority of the traffic would be going from the proposed Heartwood Road to Eubanks Road to NC 86. Spence Dickinson gave historical data on his family and his background in land development. In answer to a question from Barry Jacobs, he indicated that the houses that will be built adjacent to the Duke Forest property will be across a ravine and not actually abutting the property. There was a consensus to continue the public hearing to June 17 to receive the Recreation and Parks recommendation and an update from the Health Department on the soil studies. 4. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS (Copies of the proposed amendments are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office). Planner Susan Smith presented for the receipt. of public comment proposed text amendments to the Subdivision regulations. These amendments are in response to concerns identified by the Soard of Commissioners, Planning Board and Planning Staff concerning cluster development provisions, recreation standards and landscaping and buffer provisians. The proposed ordinance amendments, if approved, would clarify and improve the administration of the Subdivision Regulations. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amendments. a. Section IV Sub-section IV-B-5 Lot La out Cluster Develo ments b. Section II Definitions Cluster Develo ment The staff presentation was made by Planner Susan Smith. Commissioner Marshall commented that in IV-B-S-e it states "An approved preliminary subdivision plan shall provide for a total environment better than " and stated she felt the word better to be subjective and quantitative and ask that it be more specific. Also the verbiage in IV-B-5-e-g indicating "small and isolated" tends to be subjective. She questioned IV-B-5-e-c which states "Cluster open space shall include irreplaceable natural features such as, but not limited to, .•.:.," and asked if this was a requirement of the developer or if it is only included when applicable. Smith indicated it is only included when applicable. IV-B-S-f-b states "A detailed description ..." and asked that the ward detailed be changed to precise. Commissioner Carey questioned IV-B-5-d-b and asked to what extent it conforms to the proposals under consideration for reservaticn of open space for recreational purposes. Smith noted that these areas would be required to be dedicated. c. Section IV Sub-Section IV-B-7 - Recreation Standards Marvin Collins outlined the changes in this Section that have ~~~ been made from the first proposal. He pointed out that the proposed Ordinance amendment would only apply to major subdivisions having five lots or more. Section TV-B-7B-1 makes clear the mandatory dedication provisions. The concept of the Ordinance is to secure recreational lane-"; first, and if that is not possible, then secure payment-in-lieu, and tc require that either the dedication or the payment-in-lieu be absolutely mandatory. The distinction of which method will be utilized comes from the Land Use Plan of the County whether park lands are shown on the plan or not. Section IV-B-7B-2 establishes the 1/35th acre per dwelling unit to be provided in the subdivision. .The only exception would be if the developer wishes to dedicate flood plain land or land with slopes more than 15~, then the amount would be 1/20th of an acre p.er dwelling. Section IV-B-7B- 3 allows recreational land on the borders of property, should that be the most efficient area to use for that and adjoining subdivisions. Section IV-B-7B-4 requires that any private recreational facilities that a developer might wish to establish above the amount required by the County have the same quality standards as required by the Ordinance. Regarding the method of dedication, Section IV-B-7B-5 provides for a conveyance to a home owners association for a private recreation facility. Section IV-B- 7B-6, payments-in-lieu of dedication, a formula based on tax assessment and recommended by the Orange County Tax Supervisor would be used. Property received by the County by dedication would be held in trust by the Triangle J Land Conservancy until the County is ready to develop that land. In answer to a question from Commissioner Walker, Collins pointed out that the payment-in-lieu would be required at the time of the final subdivision plan approval or within one year of the approval of the preliminary subdivision plan. The Scotswood project would be exemptec"~~ from the Ordinance since it was already approved. Planning Board Member Steve Kizer stated he was in favor of , recreation but was opposed to the manner in which this Ordinance tried to bring it about. He expressed concern that the County would have a lot of small parcels of land throughout the County that would not be useable. He also noted that the ordinance "took" the property from the developer in an unfair manner. The burden for public use was not being spread over the public. Collins stated that a number of court cases in North Carolina have brought up this issue and the Courts have supported those juris- dictions where this issue has been raised. The North Carolina General AssQmbly has also enacted enabling legislation which permit counties to do what the Ordinance stipulates. Commissioner Walker agreed with the comments. made by Dr. Kizer. He felt it was not necessary to charge an impact fee for recreation. Collins stressed that too much emphasis was being given to the "impact" concept of the ordinance. Municipalities have not been able to keep up in land site acquisition where active development is taking place. The issue of fairness is taken care of by the payment-in-lieu. While large developers can dedicate land, small developers cannot give land but can give money. From eight to ten other municipalities in North Caroling use this method of mandatory dedication. _ zn answer to a question from Chair Willhoit, Collins stated that there was no minimum parcel size because of the greenways. Willhoit pointed out the value of having a minimum lot size indicating if the land space was too small to be useable for recreation purposes, then payment- in-lieu should be required. Commissioner Lloyd questioned how the County would use the small tracts that would be dedicated. Collins showed' some examples of how a greenway pattern could be developed over a number of years. The amount of land and the monies received as payment-in-lieu would be reviewed each year. The monies would be used to develop the donated recreation land. . Commissioner Walker stated that while he was in favor of recreation, it was not in agreement with the method of financing. He questioned whether the developer or the final consumer- was actually paying the recreation fee. Collins pointed out that while a developer might want to pass on the cost, he would be receiving tax benefits for his donation. Walker again restated his concern that the developer would have to pay out up front while the area might not be impacted for a number of years. Chair Don Willhoit suggested that the payment could be made in a number of installments where the development was to be phased in over a long period of time. The delayed payments would be determined by the value of the land at the time of payment. In response to a question from Barry Jacobs, Collins said that he looped the sites on the Sgr—vgy of Natural and Cultural Resources would be incorporated into the Land Use Plan. COMMENTg OR QUESTIQNS FROM THE CITIZENS Richard Ward, member of the Recreation and Parks Council, reported that the Council unanimously endorsed the Subdivision Regulations Amendments. They felt that the changes as outlined by Marvin Collins did address those concerns expressed by the Council. Kirk Pelland, Chapel Hill. Township Advisory Council Member, feels that the effect of this impact fee cannot be visualized at this time. There seems to be confusion as to whether or not this is the sole source of income for recreation land in the County. He asked if there are other municipalities that acquire land for recreational purposes in this way. Marvin Collins• indicated that Chapel Hill does acquire land for their greenways through similar ordinances, as does Raleigh and other municipalities. d. section IV Sub s�ectign IV-B-8 Landscanina and Buffer Standards Marvin Collins indicated this proposed amendment would not only define the types of buffers required for different types of land uses but provides some guidance for design standards for them. In addition to buffer requirements, the amendment would protect existing vegetation by encouraging developers to retain the vegetation wherever possible .in order to meet the landscaping standards in the ordinance. Section IV-B-8-B-1 is a section which designates tree preservation areas. These are areas which have existing trees and defines two types of protection areas. He showed on a map that portion which would be considered a- tree preservation area. The primary tree protection area would be those areas for recreation, open space and set-back areas. Areas that could be cleared would be street right-of-ways, utility rights-of-way and the builtable portion of the lot. The Ordinance Review Committee has suggested that the tree size for determining whether the tree may be cut, damaged or destroyed be changed from one foot in diameter to 4-1/2 feet above ground level. Collins continued to review those sections where exceptions would be permitted. Section ZV-B-8-b-3 identified the protective measures provided to minimize damage to existing trees and other vegetation. The required landscaping as outlined in Section IV-B-8-c-1 specifies that one -,~~ tree be planted for every thirty (30) feet of frontage along both sides of all proposed streets in the subdivision. The Ordinance Review Committee has suggested this be changed to every thirty-five (35) feet and where it specifies one tree for every 225 square feet that it be changed to one tree for every 1,000 square feet. The section. further specifies that ' trees to be planted in required recreation and/or side and rear yard areas shall be spaced thirty (30) feet on center and the Committee recommended this be changed to thirty-five (35) feet. The Committee has recommended that Section IV-B-8-c-2 through IV-B-8-c-2-e be moved to the end of the Ordinance and retitled "Recommended Standards for Installation and Maintenance". This coincides with Article 12.18 of the Zoning Ordinance. Collins referred to a schedule of required buffers as contained in the agenda. The Ordinance Review Committee recommended changing the NA'a under the heading Adjacent Vacant Land Zoning - Commercial and Industrial Zoning Designations to read type "B" screen. On any subdivision plat where a buffer is required, a notation should be placed on the plat indicating that this is in fact a land use buffer. He described the different types of screens A-F. Planning Board Member Carl Walters asked if the developer would be required to plant trees in a pasture area even though the purchasers of the lot may not want the trees after they purchase the lot and Collins indicated yes. Lots larger than ten (10) acres are exempt from this amendment. He feels that this is adding cost to the property making it ~ unaffordable and encouraging mobile homes. He questioned the administration and enforcement of the Ordinance indicating he felt it~;s would take additional manpower to enforce. -~ Collins responded that the amendments are in response to developers asking what is being done about preservation of trees. He explained that trees are necessary when subdividing pasture land because when houses and streets are built, you end up with additional runoff, less impervious surfaces, and other aesthetic objectives. COMMENTS OR vESTIONS FROM CITIZENS Artie Caste who lives in the Lockridge Committee spoke in support of the Ordinance amendment. In the Lockridge Committee, the Homeowners Association has a covenant which controls the landscaping of the area. As a result, no trees are removed without approval from the Association. He recommended that specific reference be made for solar access, and that a prohibition be made against using soil sterilization even within the dripline of a tree. Kirk Pelland feels the Ordinance is cumbersome. He requested that it be simplified to meet the objectives of protecting trees and buffering one area from another. 5. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Planner Susan smith presented for receipt of public comment the proposed text amendments to the Zoning ordinance. Concerns have been identified by the Board of Commissioners, Planning Board and Planning staff concerning cluster development provisions, recreation/landscaping space ratios, mobile home skirting/screening requirements, time periods far initiation of construction of Planned Development projects, application and pre- application review periods, and the consolidation of Special Use and Planned Development provisions. The proposed amendments address these concerns. a. Article 5 Section 6.2 - Cluster Develo ment b. Article 22 Definitions - Cluster Develo ment The staff presentation was made by Susan Smith. There were no comments received on these proposed amendments. c. Article 5 Section 5.1.1 -- Minimum Residential Recreation S ace Standards The staff presentation was made by Marvin Collins. He noted that the objectives of this amendment are to increase recreation space ratios and to establish higher recreation space requirements for densities of R-5 and greater, the difference to be provided in private recreation facilities. There were no comments received on these proposed amendments. d. Article 5 Section 5.1.2 - Minimum Non--Residential Landsca in Standards (Error - No Public Hearing on this item) e. Article 7 Section 7.2.8 - Initiation of Planned Develo ment Rezoning Construction .Activity The staff presentation was made by Susan Smith. There were no comments received on this item. She stated the purpose of this amendment is to extend the timeframe for initiation of construction activity following approval of a planned development rezoning. f. Article 6 Section 6.21.2 - Individual Mobile Home Screeninq/Skirting - Article 22 Definitions - Skirtin The staff presentation was made by Susan Smith. The purpose of ' the amendment is to provide for screening and landscaping as an alternative to skirting requirements for individual mobile homes and to define the term ~~skirting. ~~ COMMENTS OR UESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Carey asked if provisions regarding the crawl space also apply to the unenclosed areas. Smith responded that the cleaning out of natural debris would apply. COMMENTS OR 4UESTIONS FROM CITIZENS Arnie Katz indicated that he resented the enforcement of aesthetic stariclards on mobile homes. Roger Dale Stephens questioned the timing for inspection of mobile homes for compliance with the screening standard, noting that the mobile home needs to settle when placed on a site. It takes sixty to ninety days for a mobile home to settle and underpinning before it settles is useless and may result in damaged underpinning. Marvin Collins noted that a temporary certificate (ninety day option) could be issued. If the screening were not installed, the power could be turned off. Stephens responded that that would solve the problem but would increase the burden on the inspectors. h. Article 8 Section 8.4.2 and 8.4.6 - S ecial Use Permit Application Review Periods The staff presentation was made by Susan Smith. The purpose of the amendment is to provide for additional time for the Planning Staff and ~~ Planning Board to review special use permit applications. COMMENTS OR UESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Marshall inquired why additional time was needed, notin~~~°;, that this added to the overall project time. Smith responded that the additional time was needed to assure adequate time for review of projects by the•Board and staff. She noted that both the Board and staff process projects in a timely manner, but on occasion additional review time is required and needs to be provided for in the ordinance. i. Article 8 Section 8.4 -- Pre'a lication Meetin for S ecial Use Permit Applications The staff presentation was made by Susan Smith. She indicated the provision would require a pre-application conference for special use permit applications. Barry. Jacobs noted that the need for this step was brought to light in the review and ,approval process for Scotswood. ' Article 7 and $ - Consolidation of Provisions Barry Jacobs suggested this item be removed for further review by the Planning Board. A memo has been received from the former Planning Board Chair Alice Gordon which needs to be reviewed. This item will be rescheduled for the next public hearing. By consensus the above items were referred to the Planning Board for their recommendation. BUDGET WORK SESSIONS ~ The following dates were scheduled for budget work sessions: June 5, 1986 -'- _, June 9, 1986 June 16, 1986 June 18, 1986 June 24, 1986 The public hearing will be held on June 19, 1986. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting will be held on June 5, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the Commissioners Room of the Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk