Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19880630~~~ MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JOINT PLANNING AREA PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 30, 1.988 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session with the Ghapel Hill Town Gouncil, Carrboro Board of Aldermen, and Orange County Planning Board for the purpose of holding a quarterly public hearing on June 30, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in Carrboro Elementary School auditorium. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Shirley E. Marshall and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., Dr. Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell and Don Willhoit. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Planning Board Chair Barry Jacobs and members Virginia Boland, Carol Cantrell, Abbie Dickinson, Dan Eddleman, Mike Lewis, Sharlene Pilkey and Steve Yuhasz. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ASSENT: Chris Bast, Brenda Swann, and Prince Taylor. ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Clerk to the Board, Beverly A. Blythe, Administrative Assistant Joanna Bradshaw, Planning Director Marvin Collins, and Planners Gene Bell and Brad Torgan. A. BOARD COMMENTS None $. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 1. Matters on the printed a~end_a All items are public hearing items - audience comments will be heard after presentations. 2. Matters not on the prinked a enda Ms. Laura Lloyd, owner of property in Bingham and Chapel Hill Townships, asked when a meeting would be held regarding the greenways which are included in the Joint Planning Area. She submitted a petition from property owners living on Phil's Creek and Neville Creek. Marvin Gollins, Orange County Planning Director, responded that an Orange County Assembly comprised of members of each of the governing boards - Orange County Board of Commissioners, Chapel Hill Town Council, Carrboro Board of Aldermen and Hillsborough Town Commissioners has been formed for the purpose of making recommendations regarding greenways in the Joint Planning Area. He indicated he did not know the time frame but that as soon as recommendations are prepared from these boards, the issue would be brought to public hearing. Chair Marshall noted that the Assembly has had an organizing meeting and decided to delay recommendations. She indicated a meeting would be held within the next week and that Ms. Lloyd would be notified of the process for such recommendations and possible public hearing procedures and date. C. PUBLIC CHARGE ~~ Chair Shirley E. Marshall read the public charge. D. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Joint P_lan_n_in~ Land Use Plan Marvin Collins presented the following proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. He used slides and maps to show all the areas which he described. a. Description of Transition Areas I and II and the Rural Buffer On May 4, 1987, the Board of Commissioners approved the extension of the Transition Area into the full extent of Bolin Creek basin north of Carrboro except in Duke Forest and for those properties abutting Duke Forest. The Board also established two designations of Transition Area - Transition I and II - in the Carrboro Joint Development Review Area and directed that boundary designations for Transition Area and Rural Suffer borders be described in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan text and delineated on the Land Use Plan map. The portion of the Transition Area located north of Carrboro was divided into Transition Area I and Transition Area II. Within Transition Area II, na tract could be approved for development at a density that exceeded one (1) housing unit per gross acre until at least seventy-five percent (75~) of the gross land area of Transition Area T consisted of any _ combination of the following: 1. Lots containing one (1) acre or less; 2. Residential developments approved for development at a density of at least one (1) unit per acre; 3. Streets, roads, and utility easements lacated outside of lots containing one (1) acre or less; 4. Lots or tracts that are used for commercial, industrial, institutional, or governmental purposes; and, 5. Tracts that are owned by the University of North Carolina or other non-Profit entities and that are not available for development. The Rural Buffer was defined in the Joint Planning Agreement as being a low-density area consisting of single-family homes situated on large lots having a minimum size of two (2) acres. The Rural Suffer was further defined as land which, although adjacent to an Urban or Transition Area, was rural in character and which would remain rural, contain low-density residential uses, and not require urban services (public utilities and other Town services). The Rural Buffer consisted of the following Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan categories: Rural Residential; Agricultural, Extractive/Disposal Use; and the overlay district designated Water Quality Critical Area. Amendments have been prepared which describe the Transition Areas and Rural Buffet in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan text and delineate them on the Land Use Plan map. The amendments have been based on the definitions contained in the Joint Planning Agreement to provide ~~~ consistency between the two documents. At its March 1, 1988 meeting, the Chapel Hill Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the proposed change. At its March 3, 1988 meeting, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen approved a resolution which requested that the Board of Commissioners amend the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan Map to show the location of and to provide a description of Transition Areas I and II for the Carrboro Joint Development Review Area. The amendments would incorporate the description of the Rural Buffer and the Transition Areas on the Land Use Plan map and in the text of the Plan. The Orange Gounty Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan text and map which describe the Transition Areas and Rural Buffer. b. Adjustment of Transition Area I boundary to follow western right-of-way Tine of Old NC Highway 86 and southern tight-of-way line of Dairyland Road This amendment is a request by Calvander resident, Randy Danziger that the Southwestern boundary line of Transition Area I north of Carrboro be shifted from its present location to follow the right-of-way or centerline of Hillsborough Road (Old NC Highway 86). The present boundary of Transition Area I follows the drainage divide between University Lake Watershed and Bolin Creek Basin. The proposed ;.'~ boundary would follow the western right-of-way line of Dairyland Road. The proposed boundary would represent a mare definable boundary on the ground, eliminating a situation where properties are split by Land Use Plan boundaries. At its March 1, 1988 meeting, the Chapel Hill Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the proposed change. At its March 3, 1988 meeting, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen approved a resolution which requested that the Transition Area I boundary of Dairyland Road and Old NC 86 in Calvander be maintained as presently shown on the Orange County Land Use Plan. The location as shown on the Land Use Plan is generally consistent with that currently shown on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The Orange County Planning Staff recommends approval of the adjustment of the Transition Area I boundary from its present location to follow the western right-of-way of Old NC Highway 86 and the southern boundary of Dairyland Road. c. Relocate boundary of Transition Area II northward to set distance of 670 feet from the border of Duke Forest This amendment is a request by E. K. Powe, attorney representing property ~~~ owners Mr. James Verner and Mr. Berl Bernhard, who own property adjoining Duke Forest, to relocate the Transition Area II boundary north of Carrboro to a set distance of 670 feet from the border of Duke Forest. On May 4, 1987, the Board of Commissioners approved the extension of the Transition Area into the full extent of Bolin Creek basin north of Carrboro except in Duke Forest and for those properties abutting Duke Forest. The properties abutting Duke Forest would remain in the Rural Buffer. The Transition Area boundary which resulted was a very irregular line, varying in distance from 200 feet to 1,600 feet from Duke Forest. Subsequent to the extension approval, Mr. Powe petitioned the County to adjust the boundary. His clients property was found unsuitable for septic tanks and development of the tract for residential purposes was not possible without the availability of public sewer. The Verner/Bernhard tract is not the only property affected by the boundary variation. However, it may be the only property affected by the boundary variation that is unsuited far septic tanks. An adjustment of the boundary appears warranted, though, since the full extent of a large lot (1,600 foot depth) may be in the Rural Suffer while another lot may be in the Transition Area by virtue of the fact that it is adjacent to a lot (adjoining Duke Forest) with a depth of only 200 feet. Some possible alternatives to the current boundary dilemma are as follows: 1. Move the Transition Area boundary to coincide with the Duke Forest border and require at least a 100-foot natural buffer to be retained or provided by a development occurring adjacent to the Forest. 2. Move the Transition Area boundary to coincide with the drainage divide separating New Hope Creek and Bolin Creek basins. 3. Move the Transition Area boundary to a set distance of 670 feet from the Duke Forest border. 4. Move the Transition Area boundary to a set distance of 400 feet from the Duke Forest border. An additional provision could be added which would require that a 100-foot buffer adjacent to Duke Forest be incorporated as part of the lot. At its March 1, 1988 meeting, the Chapel Hill Planning Board voted to recommend approval of a provision for a buffer 100 feet back from Duke Forest. At its March 3, 1988 meeting, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen approved a resolution which recommended that the northern Transition Area YT boundary be adjusted to coincide more or less with the southern boundary of the Duke Forest properties. The Orange County Planning Staff recommends that the Transition Area boundary be relocated to a set distance of 400 feet from the Duke Forest :~ d border. The following additional provisions are also recommended: 1. That a 100-foot natural buffer be retained or installed on each new -~ lot adjacent to the Duke Forest border; j 2. That the 100-foot buffer may be disturbed only when necessary to install a septic tank and/or nitrification field, and only to the extent necessary to install such facilities; and 3. That public sewer service be permitted for new lots where it is proven that the property is unsuited for septic tank use. Change designation of Horace Williams Airport and the adjacent UNC property from "Public-Private Open Space" to "Future UNC Development" When the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan was adopted on August 19, 1986, and subsequently amended on October 13, 1986, the University of North Carolina lands extending beyond the Chapel Hill and Carrboro extraterritorial jurisdiction boundaries were designated as "Public-Private Open Space". The status of the UNC holdings was uncertain at that time, and the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan suggested that all or portions of the land be secured for recreational purposes if the use; i.e., Horace Williams Airport, changed. The Chapel Hill Interim Land Use Plan, in preparation at the same time as the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, designated the site as "University" or lands awned by the University of North Carolina. The text indicated that a long-term goal was the relocation of Horace Williams Airport. In the event that should occur, the site was considered desirable for expansion of the UNC campus; i.e., a "second campus" concept. + i E:: The inconsistency in the two Land Use Plans was recognized during the development of zoning plans for the Transition Areas. The University was subsequently contacted to determine its position with respect to the site, and Vice chancellor Farris Womack responded, requesting a Land Use Plan designation more suited for the future use of the property for. institutional purposes. The proposed designation of "Future UNC Development" recognizes the potential of the site for campus expansion and other institutional uses, providing the airport is relocated. The designation is also consistent with the Chapel Hill Land Use Plan. At its March 1, 1988 meeting, the Chapel Hill. Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the proposed change. At its March 3, 1988 meeting, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen approved a resolution which stated concurrence with the UNC request that a mare appropriate land use designation be provided. The Orange County Planning Staff recommends approval of changing the designation of Horace Williams airport and adjacent UNC property from "Public-Private Open Space" to "Future UNC Development". i` .~ ~~ Following conclusion of the public hearing, these matters should be referred to the governing boards of the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro i.~_„ for decision and the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to ~.~. the Board of County Commissioners. _ ... There were no comments or questions from the elected boards. Linda Brockwell Roberts - typed statement an attachment to these minutes on pages'zo~ Regina Nobblitt expressed cancern with the requirement of 1 unit per acre noting that she lives in Transition Area II and has expressed this concern at previous meetings. Lois Herring presented the following statement representing Dick Helwig, Democratic Party Chairman. The platform of the Orange County Democratic Party had its formal beginnings in 1981. Its initial purpose was to be a document listing the many resolutions which were introduced, debated and passed at every county convention. Future conventions could then focus on new issues and only appropriate revisions to the previous platform were necessary. In the seven years of modification and revision, our platform has developed both breadth and depth of view as well as broad consensus. There is direction for the platform's use in its Preamble: (It) "makes the Party's views on issues known to the public, our representatives and candidates...Although we address specific points to local, state, or federal levels of government, we believe all individuals, as well as _., governmental bodies, should work toward the implementation of these principles." Two of the nine major sections of our platform are pertinent to this hearing: 5ecti.on II - Planning, Development and Growth states - The Orange County Democratic Party supports municipal, county, regional, and state planning to meet the challenge of population growth and economic development in the coming years while maintaining the unique quala.ty of life in Orange County. We support balanced and appropriate economic growth to provide jobs and an increased tax base. Under the statements addressed to local officials she emphasized the following: County and municipal governments should adhere strictly to land use plans in approving development projects to assure minimum disruption of existing neighborhoods. County and municipal governments should provide for adequate water supplies and protection of those watersheds. County and municipal governments should work together to produce and implement rational thoroughfare plans that keep pace with area growth. ~~~ By rational, we also mean Transportation Plans which complement local land use planning rather than running over and ruining local plans. Section III - Environment - states - The Orange County Democratic Party supports policies which guarantee clean water, clear air, and other elements of a safe and attractive environment. We expect our elected officials to ensure that industrial, commercial, agricultural, and residential development does not lower the quality of the environment. We support research by public and private institutions into the causes and cures of pollution. Under statements to local officials she emphasized: County and municipal governments should identify and preserve natural, open spaces far scenic, educational, and recreational pleasure. County and municipal governments should set aside natural habitats for the protection of wildlife and plant life. Many citizens want the officials to make the decisions and plans now that will enable everyone to enjoy benefits of open spaces and protected watersheds. They want land use plans that are not constantly changing so they can live in their neighborhoods with some feeling (at least short-term) of stability and protection. e. Bingham Township Land Use Plan Update (Area within University Lake/New Hope Creek Basins) 2. ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - LAND USE ELEMENT a. Bingham Township Land Use Plan Update (Area outside of University Lake/New Hope Creek Basins) The presentation was made by Planner Brad Torgan. The amendment is treated as two separate items in the' agenda because a portion of the Township lies within the Joint Planning Area. For presentation purposes, however, the amendment is treated as a single entity. The Orange County Board of Commissioners adapted the current Land Use Plan, now the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, for the County in September 1981. As part of the ongoing process of refining the Plan, the Commissioners specified a five year plan update schedule upon adoption of the original Plan. The Bingham Township Plan amendments continue a process that began with revisions to the Little River Township Plan in 1981. Considerable effort has been made to inform and involve as many of the Township's residents as possible, as well as other interested parties, in the process of updating the Plan. Since the reactivation of Township Advisory Councils (TACs) on a County-wide basis in March 19$6, fourteen i' ~~ TAC and public information meetings have been held in Bingham Township dealing with the Plan update and other land use issues. The Planning Department has compiled and analyzed data on soils, topography, hydrology, land use, transportation, and public safety in the study area. This information, in part, provides the basis for identifying planning issues and concerns in the area. The overriding concerns are growth and water quality. Torgan explained the major differences between the 1981 and 1987 Bingham Township components of the Land Use Element using maps. He explained the various land designations and activity nodes including the deletion of some nodes. He also noted the watersheds and water quality critical areas. On November 4, 1987, the Bingham TAC endorsed the Bingham Township component as recommended by Staff. One addition, to reclassify a Duke Forest tract as Public Interest District in order to create consistency with other Township components, has been made since that time. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the amended text and map and incorporation into Section 3.11 of the Land Use Element, Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board will prepare a recommendation on the Plan amendment at its .7uly 18, 1988 meeting. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposal on August 16, 1988. Mr. Paul Leung spoke, representing the Habitat for Humanity in Orange County. He noted concern that unless an exception is made for the Habitat, eight houses will not be built due to the recommendation for Habitat properties. Mr. E. K. Powe summarized a prepared statement as follows: My clients, as Orange County property owners, have a philosophical concern about using their property as a buffer to protect their adjoining property owners for the purposes proposed, but if this is found to be in the public interest and is a valid exercise of governmental power, then my clients would concur in the concept of the recommendation of the Orange County Planning Staff. I say concept so as to request that the County Commissioners consider a modification which I believe can be constructed to obtain the same result as the County recommendation and also preclude a result particularly detrimental to my clients' use of their property. (This statement in its entirety is an attachment to these minutes on pages 2v5'"2dfd Dave Ruter, Calvander resident, expressed concern with protection of the Rural Buffer and urged alternative 3 or 4 be adopted which he felt would provide more protection for the Rural Buffer. Randy Danziger expressed words of praise for ,joint Planning and the participants. He noted that one of the most beautiful vistas in the University Lake Watershed area is the area west of Barrington Hills. He felt this was valuable as an aesthetic resource to present and future 1~~ residents and urged its preservation. Sandra Theard expressed concern that her parent's property is located in the Rural Buffer and thus could not be subdivided to allow one-acre lots for family members. She felt this problem. should be considered as well as that of conserving the land. Chair Marshall commented that this item is not on the public hearing agenda but that it does remain a concern. She noted that perhaps solutions for such problems could be one of the results of the Rural Character Study. Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Director, stated that Mr. David Campbell who was unable to attend the public hearing asked that it be entered into the record that he was "against all of it". 3. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS a. Town of Chapel Hill Zoning Plan - Transition Area in Chapel Hill Joint Development Review Area The presentation was made by Roger Waldon, Chapel Hill Planning Director Section l.3 of the Joint Planning Agreement, enacted November 2, 1987, states that the Agreement shall become effective on the effective date of an Orange County ordinance: 1. Adopting the Agreement (after approved by Chapel Hill and Carrboro); 2. Amending the County Zoning Ordinance (including Zoning Atlas) and Subdivision Regulations to include the following: a. A Zoning Map prepared by Chapel Hill for that portion of the Transition Area that lies in the Chapel Hill Joint Development Area (CHJDA) and the Chapel Hill Land Development Ordinance making its provisions applicable to that portion of the Transition Area located within the CHJDA; and b. A Zoning Map prepared by Carrboro for that portion of the Transition Area that lies in the Carrboro Joint Development Area (CJDA), and the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance, making its provis"ions applicable to that portion of the Transition Area located within the CJDA; and 3. Amending the Joint Planning Land Use Plan text and map to reflect the existence and show the location of Transition Area I and II designations. The Orange County Planning Staff has reviewed the proposed Zoning Plan and found it consistent with the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. (A copy of that memorandum attachment to these minutes).Zb~ r ~~2.. At its March 1, 1988 meeting, the Chapel Hill Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Flan for the Transition Areas. The Orange County Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Plan for the Transition Areas in the Chapel Hill Joint Development Review Area and its incorporation into the Orange County Zoning Atlas. Waldon used maps and slides in demonstrating and explaining the proposed zoning plan for the Transition Areas located in the Chapel Hill Joint Development Review Area (CHJDA). Part of the Joint Planning Agreement states that the Transition Areas are to be designated and that Orange County must adopt and incorporate these into its Zoning Atlas and development regulations. Also, the Joint Planning Agreement states that the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro are to make recommendations to the County about how those areas should be zoned in a manner that is consistent with the development regulations of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Waldon continued that there are three main sections of Chapel Hill's Transition Area under the Joint Planning Agreement and described those areas shown on the slides of the maps. The hand Use Plans that have been adopted by Chapel Hill and Orange County for the Joint Planning Area define the Urban Services Area; the area in which the full extent of urban services is ultimately expected to be extended and the area in which the towns ultimately expect to be annexing. It is the recommendation of the Chapel Hill Planning Soard that almost all the surrounding areas be designated for residential use. The only exception is in the vicinity of the I-40 interchange at I-40 and NC 86, Eubanks Road area. The area south of I-40 is a small portion of the urban area that is within Chapel Hill Urban Services District but outside the corporate limits. Tt is surrounded by residential uses bordered by I-40. The recommendation of the Chapel Hill Planning Soard is that most of the area be zoned R-1 (3 units per acre) and the portion cut by I-40 be zoned R-2 (4 units per acre). The next area is more complicated, bordered by I-40 on the north. and mostly by NC 86 on the eastern edge even though there is one section east of NC 86 in this area and it also crosses Homestead Road. The area south of Homestead Road is designated by the Land Use Plan as low and medium density residential development. The Chapel Hill Planning Board is recommending that area to be zoned R-2 (4 units per acre) with the exception of the area designated R-4 which is the location of Brookstone Apartments. North of Homestead Road is a designation of R-lA, a recently created lower density residential zone in which the minimum lot size is 25,000 square feet. This reflects the character of and the larger lot sizes of the existing subdivision located along Sillabong Lane. The balance of that area is recommended to be zoned R-1. Waldon noted that area as being the one most discussed and most disagreed on. On the east side of NC 86, the recommended zoning was R-2 due to the surrounding by NC 86 and commercial areas and higher density residential zones. The existing Northwood Subdivision is zoned R-lA reflecting the way the subdivision is already developed. '~' The recommendation for the area to the west is R-T (Rural Transition) the zone in which Chapel Hill permits landfill operations for which a special use permit has been granted. Waldon continued explaining and demonstrating the Mixed Use Residential-1. (MU-R-1) and Mixed Use-Office-Institutional (MU-OT). It is felt that near the Interstate Interchanges the most desirable form of development would be an integrated set of mixed uses. Tf certain threshold conditions are met, then the area is eligible for a wide range of uses such as office, multi-family dwellings, and general business. Those thresholds are; Minimum lot size of twenty (20) contiguous acres Uses proposed in the combinations of: Office, commercial and residential uses Office and commercial uses Office and residential uses At least 60~ of floor area devoted to business office uses No more than 85~ of floor area devoted to business office uses. The MU-R-1 standards for development are similar to those for the MU-OI district but are more restrictive in terms of permitted uses if required thresholds are not met. Waldon stated that this item would be referred to the Chapel Hill Town Council on July 11, to the Orange County Planning Board on July 18 and, if on schedule, to the Board of Commissioners on August 16. Sill Rohe, president of Northwest Chapel Hill Neighborhood Association, representing residents north of Homestead Road, expressed support for the R-1 zoning designation of property known as the Green Property. The reasons for the support of the R-1 designation are as follows: The Green property is currently being considered as a future landfill, a designation of R-1 would not allow this. The land is in the Transition Area so urban services will be available. It is close to an Interstate Interchange which is a good place for residential development. The development of this land as R-1 will significantly add to the tax base . Given the proposed landfill pending further study designation on the Land Use Plan, there is no legal justification to change the zoning from its current residential classification. The site is totally inappropriate for a landfill and is very i ~7 appropriate for residential development. Mr. Rohe continued that the Neighborhood Association desires to see an effort to find an alternative suitable site for the landfill that is not surrounded by residential development. Understanding that finding a suitable site for a landfill is a difficult task, he encouraged that this issue be resolved as little delay as possible. Julie Andresen responded to Mr. Rohe that the Solid Waste Task Force is looking for a suitable landfill site and hopefully the issue will be resolved by the end of the summer. Mr. Eddie Bland, Real Estate Manager in the Trust Department of North Carolina National Bank in Raleigh, stated that NCNB as trustee holds the title to 112 acres on Weaver Dairy Road and Sunrise Road adjoining the Chandler's Green Subdivision. He expressed concern about future zoning restrictions in that area. As a real estate professional and a former Chair of a Planning Board of a small town, he indicated appreciation for the importance of planned development. However, he also expressed appreciation for the importance of affordable homes and expressed opposition to this property being zoned R-1 entirely noting that this would result in very expensive properties which would be unaffordable to the average medium income citizen in Orange County. Mr. Joe Haken, employed by NCNB to study the 112-acre tract of land on Weaver Dairy Road, spoke noting that there are no homes available in Orange County at a cost of less than $120,000. He suggested that the tract should have diversified planning, creating a density that will help allow people to be able to have homes in Chapel Hill at a cost of ,.: $120,000 or less. b. Town of Carrboro Zoning Plan - Transition Area in Carrboro Joint Development Review Area The presentation was made by Ann Weeks, Senior Planner for the Town of Carrboro. Section 1.3 of the Joint Planning Agreement, enacted November 2, 1987, states that the Agreement shall become effective on the effective date of an Orange County ordinance: 1. Adopting the Agreement (after approved by Chapel Hill and Carrboro); 2. Amending the County Zoning Ordinance (including Zoning Atlas) and Subdivision Regulations to include the following: a. A Zoning Map prepared by Ghapel Hill for that portion of the Transition Area that lies in the Chapel Hill Joint Development Area (CHJDA), and the Chapel Hill Land Development Ordinance, making its provisions applicable to that portion of the Transition Area located within the CHJDA; and ~~~ b. A Zoning Map prepared by Carrboro far that portion of the Transition Area that lies in the Carrboro Joint Development Area (CJDA), and the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance, making its provisions applicable to that portion of the Transition Area located with the CJDA. 3. Amending the Joint Planning Land Use Plan text and map to reflect the existence and show the location of Transition Area I and II designations. The proposed Zoning Plan addresses item 2-b. Ms. Weeks used maps and slides in demonstrating and explaining the proposed zoning plan for the Transition Areas located within the Carrboro Joint Development Review Area (CJDA). Under the terms of the Joint Planning Agreement, Carrboro must zone Transition Area II at a density not to exceed one unit per acre until Transition Area I is developed to more urban densities. To be specific, seventy-five percent (75$) of Transition Area I has to be developed into either lots containing one acre or less, residential developments that are approved but not necessarily developed, at one dwelling unit per acre or greater density, commercial uses and also UNC lands that are not available for development. Carrboro's Joint Planning Area includes approximately 4.0 square miles of land lying within the Bolin Creek drainage basin and bounded on the west by OLD NC 86 and Dairyland and Union Grove Church Roads. Bolin Creek serves as the general boundary between Transition Areas I and II, with Transition Area I located directly north of the town's northern extraterritorial area limits, and Transition Area II generally north of Bolin Creek and south of Duke Forest. In addition to other provisions concerning annexation by the towns and representation from the Joint Planning Area on the towns' Planning Boards and Boards of Adjustment, the Agreement stipulates that each town must prepare a zoning scheme for its Joint Planning Area, to be adopted by the County along with the towns' development 'ordinances, following a joint public hearing to be held by all parties to the Agreement. She continued describing the zonings and indicating those areas on the map slides. (A copy of the zone descriptions and permitted uses is an attachment to these minutes on pages~laj ). The area to the north is the area in question which would be zoned Rural Residential if the Land Use Plan amendment is approved. The Orange County Planning Staff has reviewed the proposed Zoning Plan and found it consistent with the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. (Memo attachment to these minutes pages ~~5 ). At its March 3, 1988 meeting, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen approved a resolution which requested that the Board of Commissioners consider the proposed Zoning Plan for adoption in'the Carrboro Joint Development Review Area. .... .............. r"r ~~ The Orange Count Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed _ _ Zoning Plan for the Transition Areas in the Garrboro Joint Development ~, Review Area and its incorporation into the Orange Gounty Zoning Atlas. The Soard of Aldermen will be considering the results of the public hearing at its July 12 meeting, the Orange County Planning Board on July 18 and the Soard of Gommissioners on August 16. Ken Meardon, resident of Fox Meadow Subdivision, spoke noting that a request had been made requesting that Fox Meadow remain a part of the Rural Buffer. They were told that due to the zoning of one unit per twa acres they would be non-conforming. He recommended that Fox Meadow be rezoned as R-40 which is a Carrboro current designation which would recognize the minimum size lots in Fox Meadow. Phil Post stated that he is part of a group which owns the Highlands Subdivision at Rogers and Homestead Roads. He noted that this subdivision is an R-20 development that he felt fits well with the current Carrboro zoning designation. It is a good example of what will happen in the are that Carrboro is going to rezone. He expressed support for the idea of low density residential zoning in the 1800 acres over which Carrboro will have jurisdiction. He expressed concern for the lack of designation for any activity nodes in this 1800 acres. He felt-there would be a need for neighborhood businesses and the opportunity for local business services. He asked that a study be conducted for the designation of activity nodes. A letter (attached~to these minutes on pages~~~) from Piedmont Atlantic was entered into the record by Chair Marshall. JEF, a resident of Calvander, noted that he felt that basically this Proposed Plan reflects the desires of the people who awn the land. He expressed appreciation for what he felt was a very straight forwaxd and honest plan which is a good compromise. He asked that the greenways be remembered and careful consideration be taken of open space. Eddie Caldwell, Jr. expressed concern that with all the planning going on, he did not see plans for roads, schools and parks. He noted that once designations occur, the lands become so expensive that schools cannot afford to build. He felt that enough thought was not given to the planning of such items as schools and roads before designations of zoning. Marshall responded that some of Mr. Caldwell's concerns could be worked out and some are very difficult to do and plan at exactly the right time. It is a very difficult task to decide when to set areas aside, whether too early or too late or at just the right time. 4. Oranze County Zonine Ordinance a. Article 4.1.1 - Town of Chapel Hill Land Development Standards b. Article 4.1.2 - Town of Carrboro Land Develo ment Standards ..i ~~~ c. Article 5.1.1 - Town of Chapel Hill Land Develo ment Standards d. Article 5.1.2 - Town of Carrboro Land Development 5tandardsT e. Article 20.3.3 - A~ulication for Amendments = Joint Plannins Area The presentation was made by Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Airector. This item is to consider Zoning Ordinance text amendments which would implement the provisions of the Joint Planning Agreement through: 1. Incorporating, by reference, the Town of Chapel Hill Land Development Ordinance as part of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, making its provisions applicable to that portion of the Transition Area located within the Chapel Hill Joint Development Area; 2. Incorporating, by reference, the Town of Carrboro Land Use Ordinance as part of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, making its provisions applicable to that portion of the Transition Area located within the Carrboro Joint De~relopment Area; and „ ._.~ i 3. Incorporating a new Article 20.3.3 into the Orange County Zoning Ordinance which identifies procedures for considering and approving amendments to the Town of Chapel Hill Land Development Ordinance (and Zoning Map) and/or the Town of Carrboro band Use Ordinance (and Zoning Map). Section 1.3 of the Joint Planning Agreement, enacted November 2, 1987, states that the Agreement shall become effective on the effective. date of an Orange County ordinance: 1. Adopting the Agreement (after approved by Chapel Hill and Carrboro); 2. Amending the County Zoning Ordinance (including Zoning Atlas) and Subdivision Regulations to include the fallowing: a. A Zoning Map prepared by Chapel Hill for that portion of the Transition Area that lies in the Chapel Hi11 Joint Development Area (CHJDA), and the Chapel Hill Land, Development Ordinance, making its provisions applicable to that portion of the Transition Area located within the CHJDA; and b. A Zoning Map prepared by Carrboro for that portion of the Transition Area that lies in the Carrboro Joint Development Area (CJDA), and the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance, making its provisions applicable to that portion of the Transition Area located within the CJDA; and 3. Amending the Joint Planning Land Use Plan text and map to reflect the existence and show the location of Transition Area I and II designations. - --- -- ~~~ _, Section 2.6 of the Joint Planning Agreement also sets forth procedures for processing amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (and Atlas), the Chapel Hi11 Land Development Ordinance and the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance. The proposed amendments to Articles 4.1.1 and 5.1.1 address item 2-a above. The proposed amendments to Article 4.1.2 and 5,1.2 address item 2-b above. The proposed new Article 20.3.3 addresses item 3 above. At its February 22, 19$$ meeting, the Chapel Hill Town Council adopted a resolution requesting that the Board of Commissioners adopt by reference the Chapel. Hill Land Development Ordinance and make its provisions applicable to that portion of the Transition Area located within the Chapel Hill Joint Development Review Area. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments and the incorporation,. by reference, of the Chapel Hill Land Development Ordinance and the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance into the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. ' A Planning Board recommendation will be prepared on July 18, 1988. The Board of Commissioners will consider the proposals fox decision on August 16, 1988. Mrs. Ernestine Sink, resident on Mt. Sinai Road in the Rural Buffer, asked what the amount of road frontage would be required with the 2-acre minimum lot size in the Rural. Buffer. Marvin Collins responded that the basic standard within the Rural Buffer is a minimum lot size of 2-acres. The minimum lot width is 130 feet. There is no depth requirement, She expressed concern that her son could not build on an adjoining lot since it did not contain 2-acres, Chair Marshall and Commissioner Willhoit asked that Planning Staff aid Mrs. Sink in determining the status of her lot. John Sherron, owner of a lot on Mt. Sinai Road asked that the distance restriction from .Duke Forest be explained, Marvin Collins explained that the 400-foot provision that Mr. Sherron is concerned about does not affect his property is located, The question at hand is where do you draw the boundary line between the Transition Area and Rural Buffer, MOTION: Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Carey that the public hearing items be referred to the Orange County Planning Board for recommendation. Vote was unanimous. E. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to be considered, Chair Shirley E, Marshall adjourned the meeting. Shirley E, Marshall, Chair ~~~ Joanna Bradshaw, Administrative Assistant Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk '~ i Linda Brockwell Roberts Madame Chair, County Commissioners, Chapel Hill Tawn Council, Carrboro Board of Aldermen and Planning Staff and orange County Planning Staff and Board... My name is Linda Brackwell Roberts. As most of you know, I'm from the Heart of Calvander and I'm a member of the Calvander Community Association. May I take this opportunity to thank each of you for all of the hard wank that has gone into this Joint Planning Land Use Plan. We have all came a long way in the last three ar four years and I for:ane have certainly learned a lot about governing boards. I hope that maybe you'll have learned a little something along the way too -- that mast community residents, especially life-long residents have a pretty good idea about what is best for their neighborhood. Yau see, it's kind of like me coming into your house and rearranging all of your furniture and belongings and trying to tell you I know what goes where better than you do. Naw, by me having never been inside of your house, much less lived there, you must know that you would all probably tell me to get out - that I don't know what I'm doing: Well, you can kind of compare that situation to what county residents are faced with when we have strange people trying to tell us what's good, bad, and often times indifferent for us and our community. But, somehow, thru many, long and sometimes heated meetings, we have all managed to stumble around and work out an arrangement that seems as close to being fair for all as we're going to get - that being the Carrboro Transition Area Zoning Proposal Map for Carrboro's Joint Planning Transition Pseas I & II. However, in recently studying Carrbaro's Permitted Uses under their B-3-T Zone - T have discovered that in their wording they would cause "Chuck's Quick Stop" to became nonconforming. It says "sales and rental of goods at high and low volumes of business, where there is no storaoe or disnlav of ~aoa_s outside a building" I request that the last part of that be deleted. It's almost impossible to operate any kind of stare whether it be a convenience store or gardening supply store without displaying some merchandise outside the building. Huggins Hardware on Airport Raad is a good example. X feel this is the time to get this cleared up. At this time, I would like to thank Carrboro Aldermen, Tam Gurganus, Hilliard Caldwell, Jay Bryan and Frances Shetley for their support of this map. They had three choices and they chose this map because it had the lowest density. Their understanding and compassion for wanting to preserve our rural countryside as much as possible is greatly appreciated by many country folks. I am sa thankful that there are some people on governing boards that really da care about preserving nature for our younger generations to .enjoy in years to come. I truly fEel that if all of the transitior_ area land is developed to its highest alloted density - one Fi `l> --,~ day you will look back and say "Why did we allow this to happen to our beautiful countryside!" - and if we don't live to regret letting that happen, I'm sure our children and grandchildren will, because they are mainly the ones that are going to suffer from overpopulation, overcrowded roads and schools, too much concrete, too few trees and too high taxes to try to service all of these thousands of extra people. Now is the time to control growth and we can do that by keeping our rural land zoned low density. Maybe same of you want to see Chapel xill and Garrboro turn into a big city like Charlotte - where it takes an hour or mare to drive across town. That's what's going to happen if you're not careful. Right now, residents of Calvander and Homestead Road area are very lucky people - we have the best of both worlds - we're country, yet, we're close to schools, churches, banks, grocery stores, gas stations, garages, laundrymats, drugstores, etc., all within a mile or so driving distance from us . There is one more issue I feel very strongly about. That being far our elected County Commissioners to have the absolute, final controlling ward over Carrbara's Transition Areas I & II. I request we have that in writing and signed by all of our Commissioners, the Carrbaro Board of Aldermen and Chapel Hill Town Council. My reason for this is simple - It is a Fact that we do not have a voting voice with Carrbora's political system - however, county residents do have the opportunity and right to vote for our County Commissioners with the county system. We can all work together at meetings and swap ideas at .public hearings, but that's not the same as voting power!!! And morever - we want to remain Orange County Residents, we do not want to be a part of Chapel Hill or Ca~rbora. we can have joint planning, but, we would like to continue to rule our awn roost in cooperation with the County. Let us keep Calvander Country! i C. K. POWC PARTNER piRECT p~wL: 141p1 eel-24~G ~~ MOORE & VAN ALLEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 301 WEST MAIN STREET, SU17E 600 v057 OFFICE BOX 3643 (a {,IR MA M, N.C,. 27702 T0: The Chair and Members Orange County Board of Commissioners Orange County Offices Hillsborough, North Carolina FROM: E. K. Pawe representing Mr. James Verner and Mr. Berl Bernhard DATE: June 30, 1988 RE: Public Hearing, June 30, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. Carrboro Elementary School. 4TNE4 OFF~C ES= C PIA RLOTTE, M.E. COWMe~A, S.C. RA4E~ra -~. N.C. RE9EARCM 7RIAMGLC rARK, N,C. 5l7 yTM ^ARK - CMpR~OTTE, M,C. TELC P.+O MC QURMAM plp-eel-6634 CFIAPEL MILL 4~R-D2D~63E TCLCFAX pip-ee8-7731a PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan to relocate the Transition Area to boundary north of Carrboro. understand that all of that material, including the copy of my letter of June 18, 1987 to Mr. N,arvin Collins, will became a part of the record of this public hearing and will be considered by the Board in its deliberations prior to taking action on this Agenda T_tem. As those documents accurately set forth the factual background and nature of the petition of my clients, I will not undertake to restate them at this time. I have reviewed the material contained in the Orange County Planning Staff Action Agenda Item Abstract for item 1D and I have carefully reviewed the possible alternatives to the current baundary dilemma suggested by the County Planning Staff in Agenda Item 1D. My clients, as Orange County property owners, have a philosophical concern about using their property as a buffer to protect their adjoining property owner for the purposes proposed, but if this is found to be in the public interest and is a valid exercise of governmental power, then my clients would concur in the. concept of the recommendation of the Orange County Planning Staff. I say concept so as to request that the County Commissioners consider a modification which I believe can be constructed to obtain the same result as the County recommendation and also preclude a result particularly detrimental to my clients' use of their property. In the Planning Staff recommendation it was proposed that the Transition Area II baundary be relocated to a set distance of 400 feet from the Duke Forest border and further recommended that a 100 foot natural buffer be retained or installed on each new lot adjacent ~-1_D~~ " to the Duke Forest border. This would result in my clients coming under the jurisdiction of two separate governmental agencies in planning the development and the use of their entire tract. If the Planning Staff recommendation were to be adapted, then the property extending 400 feet from the Duke Forest border into my clients' property would fall within the jurisdiction of the Orange County Planning Board whereas the property of my clients which lies 400 feet south of the Duke Forest would fall within the planning jurisdiction of the Tawn of Carrbaro. One solution to this problem would be to adjust the Northern Transition Area II boundary so as to coincide with the southern boundary of the.Duke Forest properties as suggested by the Carrbaro Board of Aldermen and in addition, in cooperation with the Tawn of Carrboro, to retain a natural buffer of such distance from the Duke Forest properties as to afford those properties, the protection the Commissioners may determine is sufficient to protect the public interest. This would result in all of the property belonging to my clients corning under the single jurisdiction of the Town of Carrboro. It may also result in pushing development further from the Duke Forest. Respectfully submitted, ~c E. K. Powe Attorney for Messrs. Verner and Bernhard 15:EKP VERNERmn -2- i ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT - • 306E REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLI!~A Z7~78 ~•• •' ` ~ ~- ~n.w ~ 7~ r ~• T+i~ N,Di3ANL')L3*i -rp : ORANGE GDUri7';'Y MANAGER pRANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMI55IONERS _ ORANGc COUNTY PLANNIN,3 $OARD FROt~"i: MARVIN CpLLINS, PLANKING DXRECTDR JF,TE: RPF.IL 10, 1968 SUBJECT: CHAFrZ HILL ZONING PLAN FOR TRA-~SxTTON AREAS CC-PIE5: RDG.R WALDEN, CHAPEL Y.ILL PLAN!~ilNr~ LIRECTOR _ •I r`,ave reviewed tt,e Zar,ir,g F'lar, Ft~r• «he ira.rrsi«iar, ArCas l,oaatsd ki:hin the Chapel Hill Jaini ycVelr_~Pme.nt Revie'AreaeF - ar,d faur,d i« ~o ae cc~r,sis«er,« h~ij;l-, the J,~i1-,« r'1ar,r:ir,~ '' t J_F~A ). Lard Lrse P 1 ar,. Gom;nent S red and :. r,^ t h t= ProPc~sa 1 arm as ~L~1 d~Ml7. - F,rF~ $~ ... ~Oli t;",Er7t ~`.^~. e}~'!T7 : Q 1-t!^~? Tr,e area is bounded nenerally by t`,e Chatham Caur,ty :inc. ~t:e Cr,aasl Hall extraterritaria.l jurisdietiGr, line. and Giu L..s~ra Road. Tt-rE area i5 desinr.a:.ed Suburban,°.esiden«:al" or, the Jaa Lane L'se r~lar.. 5in~le-Far.:ily h,c,mes, du;,lexQS; a;,artmen«s, Cor,dominiurn and tu.an"r,ouse proje~-5 are aerrri««ed at der:si:ies rancinn frGrn one (1) to rive f~) units Per aor'e- - F'ir51i^ u«ili«ies~and a«her urban services are ~G be PraviaeC. The Ct,aael Hill Zc.r,ir+~ P_an has desi_nated «t-,e er,«i.`^2 area `r,- I F;esiner,tip.. Tt`,e ~cr,in~ pesiar.at~on is corrsis:er,« r:i Yt', ` adjacer,~ ~cnir.~ r:itr,xr, tr,e ChaPe'_ :ill e::«rGterratarial jurisci~tiar,. The maximurc density Pe:"=n~-«ed ir, ar, rt-1 cistric. is tt:ree CZ) units aer acre in & ~lanrted develaa_ men;,. Trie rr:ir,imurr: re~uirEd wand area xu:^ d •r-e=-de:',: i°' ?o«• i5 17.000 s~_.ft. ='errr,;.ted ~_ses inawudG =_:~-,_;e-`arni'.~• homes. ahu`^Ch?s and s~`rc:~11. The Proaas_d dsnrsi;.y ar:d ~=rtr,;t«ed uses are our,si: «er,t r:] ~h ~^re J~~~s mar:d Lye ~~- =`:. Area ~~ C L,~eaver ;:airy Road/Sunrise Road Rwez Tire 4rea is bounded aer,eralir, ~,y 1-405 ~hG C`a~~rl Hill ex~ra~err~~orial juras4i~~_~~r, __r,~; weaver Uair•y R_.aC, ar,d ~a~ Sunrise Road". The area is designated Suburban Residential on the JPA Land Use plan. Single-family Names, duplexes, apartments, condominium and townhouse projects are permitted at densities ranging from one (1) to five (5) units per acre. public utilities and other urban services are to be provided. The Chapel Hill Zoning Flan has designated the entire area R- 1 Residential except for a tract west Gf Sunrise Raad and south of X-40 designated R-2 Residential. The R-1 zoning desi_anatXan is consistent with zoning in the Chapel Hill extraterritorial jurisdiction adjacent to bJeaver Dairy Road and properties near Y-4G. The maximum density permitted in an R-1 district is three (3) units per acre in a planned development. The mir,imurn required land area for a residential lot is 17,000 sq.ft. permitted uses include single-family homes and duplexes, churches, and schGGls. The proposed density and permitted uses are-consistent with the JF'A Land Use P 1 an. The maximum density permitted in an R-~ district is four (~+> units per acre in a planned development. The minimum required land area for a residential lot is 1G, 000 sq. ft. Permitted uses include single-family homes and duplexes, churches, and schools. The proposed density and permitted uses are consistent with the JPA Land Use plan. Area #3 - Homestead Road/Eubanks Road Area The area is bounded generally by the Chapel Hill extraterritorial jurisdiction line, N. C. Hinhway 6E, Clyde Road, Mill House Road, the northern ar,d western boundary lines of the landfill site, Eubanks RGad, Roners Read, Homestead RGad, the western and southern boundary Imes Gf the Chapel Hill Hinh Schaal, and Sewell RGad. The area has beer, designated as follows Gn the JpA Land Use F'lar.: 1. Public-Private .Doer, SQace - Twa areas have beer, designated far research, educatic+nal, forest management and recreational functions on the JPA Land Use. Plan. The areas include the properties awned by the Ur,iversi-ty Gf North Carolina and properties lactated between the existing and future potential landfill sites. A petition has beer, submitted by the University tG change the designation an its land to "Future UNC Development". ~. Extractive/Disac~sal Uses - Desinnated land areas include the existing and future potential landfill sites. .,, Urban Residential -~ One area has been designated far housing with densities rar,ning Pram six (~) tG thirteen (1.r) units per acre. The area includes the existing BraokstGne Aaartrnent cGmplex or, the cGrner Uf N. C. Hinhway 8a and Harnestead RGad. ~~ 4. Light Industrial - The Chapel Hill wndustrial F'ark (CHIP) located at the intersection of the railroad and Eubanks Road has been designated "Light Industrial". 5. Office-Institutianal - With the exception of the Chapel Hill Industrial Park, the area bounded by I-40, Clyde Road, Mill House Road, and Eubanks Raad has been designated "Office-Institutianal". A small area south of Eubanks Raad and CHIP has also been designated similarly. Areas designated as such are intended for financial, insurance, real estate, legal, medical, and business services. 6. Rural Residential - A small area on the southeast earner of Eubanks Road and Ravers Road has been desinnated "Rural Residential" to serve as a buffer far Duke Forest. Such areas are planned for lc~w-density . residential development consisting of single-family Names an lots two (E) acres in size or larger. Public utilities are vat to be extended to. such areas. 7. Suburban Residential - The remainder of the area has been desi_nated "suburban Residential". 5innle-family homes, duplexes, apartments, condominium and townhouse arojects are permitted at densities ranging firvm one (1) to five (~) units per acre. Public utilities and other urban services are to be provided. Exceat far the Broakstone Apartment complex and the tract immediately south, the Chapel_ Y,ill Zcrr,ir,g Plan has desinnated the area south of Homestead Road for R-E Residential zor,inn. The maximum density permitted in an R-~ district is faur.(4) units per acre in a planned development. The minimum required land area far a residential lt~t is 10, 000 sq. ft. Rermitted uses include single-family homes and dualexes, churches, and schools. The proaased density and aermi~tted uses are consistent with the JPA Land Use Plar,. Lands owned by the University of North Carolina have also been alaced ir, the R-2 district. Colleges and universities are not permitted in an R-~ district, imalyinn that the University will have to apply for rez.c~ning if it wishes to use the property for educational or other purposes. The ~rcfakstane Apartment complex and adjoining property is desinnated as R-4 Residential. The maximum density permitted in an R-4 district is ten tl0) units per acre in a planned develoament. The minimum required land area for a residential lc~t is ~.50C~ se. ft. Perrr,itted uses include single-family Names and dualexes, multi-family dwellinns containing three to seven (~-7) units, churches, and schools. The proposed density and aerrnitted uses are consistent with the JPA Lard Use F' 1 ar,. ~~ _- All of the area between Homestead Road and Eubanks Raad has beer, designated R-l Residential with the exceptions as Hated below. The maximum density permitted in an R-1 district is three (,?,) units per acre in a planned development. The minimum required land area for a residential lot is 17,Gn0 sq.ft. Permitted uses include single-rcmasedhdensitydand duplexes, churches, and schools. The p P permitted uses are consistent with the JPA Land Use Klan. The exceptions to R-1 moaning between Eubanks Rc-ad ar,d Homestead Road include the fallowing: . 1, The existing landfill site extending on both sides of Eubanks Raad has been designated RT--Residential Transition. The RT district is applied to land which is used for agricultural, very low-intensity residential or open space uses but is projected to far ccr,versiGn to more intensive uses as the need arises. The minimum required land area far a residential lGt is 100,004 sa.ft. Permitted uses include single-family homes ar,d duplexes, churches, and schoals. A landfill is permitted following approval of a Special Ilse Permit. The prapc+sed density and permitted uses are consistent with the JPA Land Use Rlar,. 2. Northwac~d Subdivision ar, the southwest career of N. C. Highway BE, and '~ubar,ks Raad, ar,d Sunset Hills Subdivision north of Homestead Road ar,d east of the railroad have been desinrated R-lA on the Chapel Hill Zar,ir,g Flan. The maximum density permitted in ar, R-1R district is two (~) units per acre in a Manned development. The minimum required land area for a residential lc~t is ~5, OC~U sq. ft. Permitted uses include simple--family homes. and duplexes, churches, and schools. Thelpropased density and permitted uses are consistent with the JPA Land Use Plan. ;~. The area ar, the southeast earner of Eubanks load and Ropers Raad has been designated RB - Rural Buffer. The district standards far density and permitted uses are similar to the Rural Buffer caning district standards adopted >,y Drange County. The prapaSed density and permitted uses are consistent with the JPA Land Use Plan. 4. The area adjacent to the railroad and immediately across Eubanks Road from the Chapel Hill Industrial park has been designated MU-LI Mixed 'Jsed-Office-Institutional. The same classification has been extended to er,comnass the Industrial Park as well as all properties fronting cm the north site cif '=ubank.s Raad between the railroad and : -4U. i 1 ~' _,~ ~ ,~ ~ Permitted uses in the MU-OI district include single and . two-family dwellings, and nor-residential uses such as clinics, banks, printing/publishing establishments, etc. If a development in a MU-Ol district meets the following thresholds, then additional uses such as multi-family dwellings, hotels and motels, general business, and wholesale business are also permitted. a. Minimum lot sire of twenty i?O) contiguous acres. b. Uses proposed in one of the fallowing combinations: (1) Office, commercial, and residential uses. t2) Office and commercial uses. t;,) Dffice and residential uses. c. At least 60X of floor area devoted to business office uses. d. No mare than ~5X of floor area devoted to business office uses. The only tract which does not fit the MU-DI district standards is the Chapel Hill Industrial F'ark. The Chanel Hill Planning Director has indicated, however, that if I...' building permits are approved far the lndustrial F'ark j;.;;;,:.~ prior to the Joint Planning Agreement bect~ming ~'~=`-' effective, the Town will honor said permits and allow Orange County to complete all required inspections associated with the permits. The final area designated or, the Chapel Hill Zoning Plan is the area north of the Chanel Hill Industrial Park and other properties front ir,g Eubanks Road. F~rapert ies in the area have beer, desinnated MU-R-1 Mixed Use Residential-1. Standards for develoament are similar to those for the MU-OI district but are more restrictive in terms of permitted uses if required thresholds are not met. Copies of the proposed Zoning Maps are included with the attached Chapel Hii1 Planning Board minutes. h~tarv i n Go l l i ns Planning Director ~. • - - . r._ _~~ "~~ •L r 4 permitted uses would be as cited above and would be consistent with the JPA Land Use Plan. The RR district designation would be extended to those areas near yr adjacent to the Duke Forest border if the northern Transition Area II boundary is moved closer to the Forest. Copies of the proposed Zoning Maps and explanatory information are included with the attached Carrbara Tawn Manager letter. Marvin Collins Planning Director i~ ~~ ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT - __". a:-~ 30bF REVERE ROAD .~.r„ HILL5BOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2727$ ~,. ' e. i n c '~r r ...~~•. MEMORANDUM ~. F' - " TD: ORANGE C.DUNTY MANAGER ORA~i6E COUNTY BOARD OF CDMMISSIDNERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING HOARD FROM: MARiIIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: APRIL 10, 1988 SUIIJECT: CARREORO ZONING PLAN FOR TRANSITION AREAS COPIE5: RDY WILLIFDRD, CARRBORO PLANNING DIRECTOR I I have reviewed the Zoning Plan for the Transition Areas ~:-.; located within the Carrboro Joint Development Review Area and found it to be consistent with the Joint Planning Area tJRA) Land Use Plan. Comments regarding the proposal are as "-~~ follows; Transition Area I The area is bounded generally by Buckhorn Creek, the southern and eastern boundaries of Fox Meadow Subdivision, Rapers Road, Homestead Road, the western boundary of 'the Chapel Hill High Schaal site, the Carrboro extraterritorial jurisdiction line, and Old .N. C. Highway 66 and Dairyland Raad. Except for land owned by the University of North Carolina and commercial properties at the intersection of Dld N. C. Highway 66 and Homestead Raad, the entire area is designated as "suburban - Residential" an the JPA Land Use Plan. Single-family homes, duplexes, apartments, condominium and townhouse projects are permitted at densities ranging from one ti) to five (5) units per acre. Public utilities and other urban services are to be provided. Properties owned by the University of North Carolina have been designated "Public-Private Dpen Space" far research, educational, forest management and recreational functions in the JPA Land Use Plan. A petition has been submitted by the University to change the designation on its land to "Future UNC Development". -E-~cisting commercial develvpmer~t-at:the intersection of Old N. C. Highway B6 and Homestead Raad/Dairyland Road has been ~~ ~~~ i7s .-- .~r~ -~ =~ , TABLE 2. PERNIiTTED USES IN ZONES PROPOSID FOR THE CARRBORO OINT PLAI~TNING TRAN5ITION AREA Zone Permitted Uses R- 3 Q site built single family homes, class A mobile homes at one home per lot; class A mobile homes at more than one home per tat; duplexes and multifamily residences where tree cone's overall permitted density is not exceeded; group homes such as fraternities and sororities, boarding houses; tourist homes; nursing care homes, child care homes; schools; churches; libraries located within a building designed and previously occupied as a residence, or less thaw 3500 square feet in area; private or public outdoor recreational facilities; police, fire, or other emergency service buildings; agricultural operations; utility faalities; day care centers. R-15 same as R-10, with tree exception that tourist homes are not permitted uses in the R-15 zone. R-20 same as R-15, with the exception that commercial greenhouse operations are also permitted uses, where there are no retail sales involved. R-R same as R-15, with the exception that horseback riding stables, veterinarians, kennels, airports, landfills, cemetasies, and all commercial greenhouse operations are also permitted uses. B-3-T site built single family homes, class A mobile homes at one home per lot; class A mobile homes at more than one home per lot; duplexes and multifamily residences; temporary homes and overnight shelters for the homeless; sales and rectal of goods at high and low volumes of business, where there is no storage or display of goods outside a building;. banks with drive-in windows; churches; libraries located within a building designed and previously occupied as a residence, or less than 3500 square feet in area; indoor recreational facilities such as bowling alleys, skating rinks, community centers; gas sales operations; police, fire, and other emergency service buildings; post offices; dry cleaners and laundromats; utility faalities; open air markets and horticultural sales; nursery schools and day care centers; autAmobile service stations and automobile repair shops or body shops. .' ..- ~ .. .. r~~ a ,.-"~~~ - ". _ .... _ .w:_. Wes. '. `- L' . ... .. .. ~%,. r (~~ n .,;~•~-_ q; .~ _ ~~ ~~ ~ t4the ~_p ~~1 ~~_~~ ~w _ ~ -~ r~~K ~ ~.... -. - :.. ~wts~iy:" ~YA4~+9r+tY :~~lrw~,. .... .r .~.. ~ , Y+r. .iS~ , _~~ LJ ~ -. - .. .. .. .. - . . .' wew iii/... ~- _, _ _. -. - .~ - ~1~ PIEDMOI~'T ATLANTIC INC. 123 Blackcherry Lane Chapel Hill NC 27514 919-929-0510 Enclosed please find a revised letter dated June 30, 1988 which is to replace an earlier letter sent to you dated June 1C,1g$8. The first letter was, a rough draft and was erroneusly sent so this letter is the one you should have received originally and is the final copy. We apologize for this inconvienoe but hope this now clarifies the matter.., PIEDMOI~'T ATLANTIC INC. - 123 Blackcherry Lane Chapel Hill NC 27514 919-929-0510 s1EOEa '; Revised: June 3G, 1988 Chair Orange County Commissioners Shirley Marshall 7OT East Franklin 5t. Chape l Hill, N. C. 27514 Re: Highlands Subdivision Homestead Road, Oranne_Caunty Dear Ma. Marshall: I am writing as president of Piedmont Atlantic, Inc.,. owner of the above 65-acre pratiect near Chapel Hill Hinh School at the Garner of Homestead Raad and Boners Raad. In 1986 we obtained Preliminary Plat apQroval from Grange Gounty far 75 single r`amily lots an 50 wooded acres at the above site. To date we have or are in the process of develapinc all these lots. The remaining 15 acres in our tract, which consists mainly of old aasture (na trees), is located at the intersection of Homestead and Rogers Roads. ' because of terrain features, proximity to ma?or thoroughfares, etc. we have never believed that the highest and best use of the 15 acres at the carnet would be as large-lot residential property. In fact, at the time we purchased the property, the Land Use Plan designated the intersection as an activity node for neirZl~borhorad business or office/institutional use. irve are ar~+~are that, subsequently, the activity Wade designation was dropwed from the County Land Use Plan, Drimarily because of stranp cwtizen ap~+cisition from property awner5 in the Caivander area to proQased industrial activity in their nei~hbarhood. All the above is mentioned as background tct the matter at hand. The Town of :_.arrbora ttaard has recommended to the County Cornrr.issioners that this intersection and alI our property be zoned r~-EG. bJe agree with the R-2G designation r'ar aaproariate residential sites, but we take strong exceation to zoninn this entire tract as well as practically every seuare inch in the Carrbaro durisdictian as R-20. We have offered testimony to the Town board in apposition to this recommendation. The 7rrwn is recommendine zoning over an area of approximately 1,800 acrese according tt, the Town's recornrnendation, all of the land would be zoned RR, ~-15, and n-~0, except far a very i invited. amount of business zoning to iecitimize same of the existing businesses at Calvander, We believe this zoning recommendation is wrong and sh art-s i Q;zt eG. ~~ ~ ~ ~_ Hinnland Subdivision June 30~ 19bb page b i'jne day there will chore than SUUU resioer+ts !,eying an the 1. BO4 acres of rt-~C- prooerzy; those residents will nAed ne i a h borl"+vod bus i rtiess services ana w i 1' 1 neea brat ess i one 1 ar+a office space Tt'r banks, accountants. oactors. oentists ono other suao~srt services that every resioentual neighoorhvod relies or+. Grvfessional olannera know and the pawn ioard should know that there will eventually nave to be some limitEa neiohbc+rhaad Qusiness and O ~. 1 zoning witRin the it1~V acres. It is short-sighted not to elan for these naaes ana ac+r+e aroperly now. r'~ctivity nodes musti be established witnan the i+~uu acres. It is chart-sightea to force future residents to travel ac~no distances ~y car do obtain laundry, do erocery shopping, guy fuel and tend to everyday neea5. Neiahbarhooo businesses da not attract crawth and traffic? they subyort the arowti"- in the area as it occurs. i3esides being snort-sighted, it is wrone to mislead residents who new live in the area. We believe that future rezonings will Rave to occur. lsn't at better to pre-plan activity locations and business uses in strategic locations rather than reacting to niecr=meal, and o'Ften devisivez case-by--case reouests far rezonin4? ihzs county nos always pre-planned ats activity naaes ono out all residents on ncatice about tihe need and location 'For neinhbarhvad services. we strongly urge the 4;ommi=5.ioners to . bt~stpvne a decision ar+o remand the zonir+a recommendat ior+ Hack do the Town of Carrboro for Further study ono t=•r the soeci'ric pu;-.pose of ioentifyino activity Hades. if the GomissionQrs wis'r- to arprove the current zonir+c+ elan now, we ask that a simultaneous resolution be passed reouestinn the Town or Carrborcti to thoroughly reexamir+e ti`+e newly desiBnateo k-CV areas and make a reeommenaat ictir+ fly 1 lleC. i Jb6, for instance, cvncernano the oesicnaiion a'F «ct1v1'cV naaes watt-+in the itsVC~ acres„ the present zoning elan without activity nodes wilt. an =+ur view„ leGd to undesirraahle and oevi5ive case-by~-c2.se zoninn decisions wnicR are not in the best interests ar residents, araper:.y owners, aevelGpers or elected offxcia.ls. We will appreciate your attention in this rr~at'ter. ~ir+cerelyT ,~ ~' ~ -~ ;3ale nedfoot F+re s i o er+t