Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19900516 56 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND - ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JOINT PUBLIC HEARING MAY 16, 1990 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session with the Orange County Planning Board on May 16, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. The purpose of the meeting was to receive comments on the proposed Orange County Thoroughfare Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, and Private Road Standards for Orange County, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. , and Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis, John Hartwell and Shirley E. Marshall. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Commissioner Don Willhoit PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Betty Eidenier, Chris Best, Barry. Jacobs, William J. Waddell, Dan C. Eddleman, Mike Lewis, Jean Hamilton, Virginia Boland, Carol Cantrell, and Larry Reid. COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr. , Planner Gene Bell, and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe. NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. THESE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: Report #3 - Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area 1985-2010 Transportation Study Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan dated September, 1989 Orange County Thoroughfare Plan dated May, 1990 Kimley-Horn & Associates - Final Report, Phase I Comprehensive Transportation Plan PUBLIC CHARGE Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. read the public charge. PLANNER GENE' BELL MADE ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS. CITIZEN COMMENTS ARE LISTED FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATIONS. BEFORE EACH PRESENTATION PLANNING BOARD CHAIR BETTY EIDENIER BRIEFLY DESCRIBED EACH ITEM. 1. ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A. SECTION 2 .6 TRANSPORTATION This is a proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan which defines County-specific road classifications and collector\subcollector road systems. There were no comments or questions. • 57 Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be presented to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 6, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS • B. ORANGE COUNTY THOROUGHFARE PLAN The existing Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan and applicable portions of the proposed thoroughfare plans for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro urban area and Alamance County urban Area have been merged with a County-specific road classification system for the rural areas of the County. The Transportation Advisory subcommittee (TAS) expressed a concern about the plan as it relates to the Hillsborough plan. To alleviate the traffic congestion on Churton Road, it is proposed that Elizabeth Brady Road Extension connect with St. Mary's Road. The TAS identified several concerns with this proposal. The Eno River and its floodplains cross this proposed road and a bridge would need to be built. Also, the proposed road would come very close to some historic properties as well as several established homes in that area. The western bypass that extends from Coleman Loop Road to U.S. 70 was another concern expressed by the TAS. The primary consideration was potential water quality impacts on the upper Eno Watershed. The work done by Kimley Horn and Associates, the State and the Town do not match up. The TAS requested that the classification be consistent from one jurisdictional line to the next. Two concerns were expressed about the Efland Interchange and 1-85 widening on which the Commissioners passed a resolution in March. Gene Bell mentioned that there is some inconsistency in the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan as it relates to Davis Road. Mr. Norwood from DOT stated that the section from Orange Grove Road to Old 86 would be two lanes within a 100-foot right-of-way. The section from Old 86 to New 86 would eventually be three lanes. With reference to the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) plan, Gene Bell explained that the plan is based on existing land use patterns and existing and future traffic flow. On this item the Planning Staff recommended: 1) The adoption of the Orange County functional road classification; 2) The adoption of the DCHC Plan following Chapel Hill adoption, provided that the Outer Loop is removed in its entirety and there is a consistent classification applied to Dairyland Road; 3) The adoption of the Hillsborough Plan, provided that, there is a re-assessment of the need for the Western By- Pass. that there is a consistent classification applied to High Rock Road, and a recognition of the County Commissioners resolution of March 5, 1990 concerning best management practices and continued access under 1-85 as part of the programed improvements for I-85; and 4) The adoption of the Alamance County Urban Area Plan 58 contingent upon a reassessment of the need for the Mattress Factory Road interchange as expressed by the Planning Board at their meeting of March 19, 1990. - Commissioner Marshall suggested including in the recommendation for the adoption of the Hillsborough Plan, the parameters that Mr. Norwood has indicated are intended for Davis Road. Commissioner Hartwell expressed a concern about the inconsistencies between the two maps. Since the map is the plan, he would like to see the map corrected. Mr. Norwood assured the Commissioners that the inconsistencies would be corrected on the map. With regard to Davis Road, Commissioner Hartwell stated that there was a map of the western bypass drawn by Edison Johnston which showed that the road went around that area so it did not penetrate that watershed. He feels that some descriptive language would be helpful to clarify this route. The Elizabeth Brady Road crossing of the Eno would require a bridge and depending on the way the bridge is built could have little impact on the river. In response to a question from a citizen, Mr. Rogers stated that the selection of the Brady Road Extension as the western bypass is still the Town's choice. CITIZEN COMMENTS ELIZABETH FOX of Foxhill Farms spoke in favor of excluding the proposed Northside Drive from the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan. She stated that neither she nor her husband want the associated property restrictions on a large portion of their acreage for a proposed road that may never by necessary, particularly in light of additional lanes and other improvements proposed for St. Mary's Road.. KIRK PELLAND spoke about the inconsistencies between the Hillsborough Plan and the DOT Plan. He questioned the inconsistency of a two lane road with a 100-foot right-of-way. He asked that the whole idea of a Davis Road beltline be reconsidered. The development south and west of Hillsborough is primarily residential. The roads in that area serve very well and I-40 is a beltline that goes across Hillsborough. He asked who this road will serve. Mr. Norwood responded that the looped facility would carry the traffic around town. It is envisioned to serve the development already there and additional development. This will upgrade those roads to service those people that live in that area. It is not envisioned to carry a large volume of traffic. Kirk Pelland reemphasized that he does not want this beltline and does not think it is necessary. JAY ZARAGOZA referred to the outer loop and the fact that there are a lot of people who do not want it. He recommended that the Commissioners fully understand the. implications of approving the Thoroughfare Plan and develop policies and procedures such as compensation for landowners before approving the proposed highway and decide how the exact alignment will be determined. He asked that the Board thoroughly analyze which highways they want built it is easy to add to a thoroughfare plan but hard to delete something from an approved plan. 59 ROLLAND WRENN who lives on Davis Road spoke about the rural character • of Davis Road. She read a prepared statement. She objects to DOT T\ taking 20 feet of her land for the road right-of-way. She asked that the Board and DOT leave Davis Road the way it is and that the portion of the plan dealing with Davis Road be deleted. • KEN FAUCETTE spoke against the Davis Road proposal. C. D. JACK KNIGHT_ JR. lives on the proposed extension of Elizabeth Brady Road. He spoke in opposition of the extension of this road through Highland Loop Road to Highway 70. He asked that the individual members of the County Planning Board and the County Commissioners drive through this community before they vote on this extension. This private road which is 30 feet wide is isolated and very peaceful. He feels that the value of the homes and property on this road Will be affected by a road that will destroy the privacy of the community. The proposed 100- foot right-of-way would include a two lane bridge crossing the Eno River. He questioned the existing right-of-way for the Elizabeth Brady Road on the South side of the Eno River. If that is less than 100-feet, he does not understand the need to take individual homes and property and the need for a 100-foot right-of-way on their side of the road. He expressed concern about the alignment of the extension of the Elizabeth Brady Road and asked that it be given special consideration so they may retain some degree of privacy for the existing homes in the area. He referred to a map which shows that the location of the road does not adequately address the issue of least disturbance to existing homes. Mr. Rogers from DOT indicated that none of the homes in that area woul be destroyed or damaged if at all possible. Mr. Knight does not feel that the proposal has addressed this adequately. The existing map shows the road going through some of the yards and in his case through his house. He distributed a map and made additional comments about the location of the proposed extension of Elizabeth Brady Road in relation to the existing homes. He asked that special attention be given to this alignment. In conclusion, he stated that neither he nor any of his neighbors want the road through their secluded area. However, if the road is to be built he asked that special attention be given to the alignment and the importance it has on their private lives. WILLIAM CROWTHER stated that the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan dated September, 1989 is not the one adopted by the Town of Hillsborough in 1987. The one dated 1987 is the only official thoroughfare plan in existence and has not been changed by any vote since that time. He noted that the plan dated 1989 should be titled Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan Study Report. He noted that an explanation of purpose needs to be included in the 1989 document. He asked that the original document be reviewed before consideration of adoption by the County. MARY BALLARD stated that as a resident of Elizabeth Brady Road she opposes the alignment of the road and asked that it go across vacant land which would not disturb anyone. ED BAILEY who lives on Davis Road spoke in opposition of the road going through that area. 60 DIANE FAUCETTE who lives on Davis Road spoke about her concern of the State wanting so much right-of-way on both sides of the road. It would take her pond on one side and part of her house on the other. ANN NICHOLSON who lives on Davis Road is totally against the proposal for that road. She would like for her neighborhood to stay rural. • TOM NICHOLSON spoke in opposition of the proposal for Davis Road. He expressed concern about the State wanting a 100-foot right-of-way. JOE & LOIS TAYLOR live on Ode Turner Road and spoke in opposition of a freeway going through that area. WAYNE PATTERSON lives on Highland Loop Road and spoke in opposition of a road going through that area. TONY RALL spoke in opposition of the northern loop. He is concerned about the cost of the proposal. There is a pattern in southern cities that the growth is in the southern part of the city. He asked that the Commissioners say no to the transportation plan until the northern loop is deleted. DOT is not listening and by saying NO an impact may be made. NANCY SMITH lives on Highland Loop Road and is opposed to the proposal. She agreed with everything that Jack Knight said. She asked why they chose a road that would need a bridge since Lawrence Road already has an existing bridge. Mr. Norwood stated that the cost -:-- ` effectiveness of using the Bridge on Lawrence versus Brady Road is that they are trying to have both roads carry some of the traffic that would occur in that corridor. He feels that traffic will come in from the northeast along St. Mary's Road. One of the drawbacks on Lawrence Road is that the south end does not tie directly back into NC 86. Brady Road does tie into 86. They are considering the traffic that would be served and feel that the extra cost for the bridge can be justified. BETTY SMITH stated she agreed with the comments made by Jack Knight. She invited the Commissioners to drive this road. The homes on this road mean everything to them and she requested that the road not be put through that area. T. C. WILLIAMS owns land on Davis Road and hopes to build his retirement home there. He does not see the necessity of having a 100-foot right-of-way. He sees no need for a thoroughfare on that side of town. There are four lanes on 1-40 and there will be six lanes on I-85. PAT DAVIS spoke as a representative of the Economic Development Commission. In summary he stated that the proposal is sufficient to support the types of economic development that are envisioned by the Economic Development Strategic Plan. With reference to the road classification system, he supports the effort to develop a road classification system for the county and the effort to inventory all the public roadways within the County's jurisdiction. This will help develop an adequate transportation system over the long term. He made 61 reference to the Buckhorn Road bridge which is adjacent to the Efland Cheeks economic development node. A road network would be needed in •T,. that area if it were ultimately developed for economic development activities. EDC concurs with the Board's request that DOT consider the need for incorporating some Best Management Practices in that potential design. JANE JONES spoke in opposition of the St. Mary's Road extension. She lives on Rt. 70 near Highland Loop Road. She feels the Eno River should not be disturbed further. She asked for the cost of building this thoroughfare stating that when Churton is congested, it is only for a short time and does not warrant people being uprooted. She asked that the Commissioners visit Highland Loop Road. She suggested that the money it would take to build this thoroughfare be used for education. Barry Jacobs asked how Elizabeth Brady Road was selected as the preferred bypass route when Hillsborough has not officially adopted the plan. He would like for DOT to meet with the Planning Board and list the alternatives for this bypass. He questioned Hillsborough's efforts at solving the traffic congestion on Churton Street. Mr. Norwood stated that the extension of Elizabeth Brady Road is a proposal on the thoroughfare plan which says that at some point in time, which may be tomorrow or twenty years from now, there will be a need for a facility on the east side of town to alleviate the traffic on Churton. There are currently no funds set aside by the Department of Transportation to improve Elizabeth Brady Road. The Town of Hillsborough has asked the Board of Transportation to consider funding this project as a priority.' The Board will take this under advisement and it may, depending on many . _ factors, be placed on the transportation improvement program. As of today, there are no plans to construct a foot on that road. DOT would like to work with these people to miss as many houses as possible. They are concerned about the people who live on this road. If it is programed for construction, there will be a very detailed environmental impact statement done that will look at all the impacts which will include social, environmental and the amount of traffic to insure that the road is needed and exactly what alignment they should take to minimize the cost of the project. They will ask for input from the Town and the County Commissioners at the time an Environmental Impact Study is done. On Davis Drive, it is not their desire to make this a 4-lane road nor does he feel they will buy 20 feet of right-of-way on both sides of the road. The proposed 100-foot of right-of-way is in a planner's mind in looking to the future. Commissioner Halkiotis asked what DOT envisions for the Town of Hillsborough and suggested that a meeting be held with the Town to talk about solutions to the traffic congestion on Churton. There may be a solution that would not involve running roads through the countryside. Mr. Norwood indicated they would rather solve problems with management of the existing system of roads. The capacity for Churton now is about 9600. In twenty years they expect that traffic to be about 20,000. Commissioner Halkiotis suggested that the Town and County look at the parking problems downtown and talk about solutions. JAY ZARAGOZA understands that the right-of-way for St. Mary's Road is 62 150 feet which means four lanes and this would be an alternate bypass to get from 70 to north Durham. Mr. Norwood referred to the staff recommendation for deleting the outer loop. The roads that would ultimately face the greatest consequence from that recommendation is Elizabeth Brady Road, its extension, and Lawrence Road. He asked that this be considered when making a decision on this outer loop.. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation no sooner than August 6, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY a. Article 13 Orange County Zoning Ordinance b. Section IV Orange County Subdivision Regulations These proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and the Orange County Subdivision Regulations include the requirements for a Traffic Impact Study. The proposed amendments would require that a Traffic Impact Study be performed for zoning changes, special use permits, and site plans that would generate traffic in excess of 800 trips per day. Amendments proposed to the TIS requirements deal primarily with clarification. However, there are some changes of a substantive nature, most notably: 1) The inclusion of 100 trips during the AM or PM peak-hour of highway traffic as a threshold for requiring a TIS; 2) using level of service D as the measure of deficiency in urban or developed areas; and 3) adding Table 13. 1, Typical Thresholds for Required Preparation of a Traffic Impact Study, to the Zoning ordinance. CITIZEN COMMENTS PAT DAVIS stated that the EDC has some concerns about the existing ordinance and the proposed amendments. They agree with the concept that the impacts of land development activities upon all transportation systems be considered. They agree that developers should be required to pay their fair share of the improvements that are needed to support growth in accordance with the County's Land Use Plan. One concern is that the ordinance is written in such a way that it appears that a developer could potentially be required to make substantial off-site improvements of their particular development parcel. The concern is that these improvements might benefit adjacent property owners and could also benefit existing residents as well which creates an equity issue that needs to be addressed. The ordinance does not clearly define how the improvement area will be determined. It appears that it is somewhat open ended as to how far away from the project site a developer must evaluate existing and future traffic patterns. The limits of these areas need to be established. The Ordinance appears to utilize some high vehicle trip generation rates establishing a threshold for development and thus require a traffic impact study. Some of these levels used for the various land uses are considerably lower than the 63 threshold used for other areas. EDC will look at these and submit some specific recommendations for the different land uses. The ordinance ha- -, an open ended approach for projecting traffic impact of future development in a study area during the period under which a development is under construction. EDC would like for this approach to be standardized to reduce the potential for misunderstanding during the . entire review process. The existing ordinance under 13.3 provides a " general exemption which is to be deleted. EDC feels there may be certain instances in which this provision may be needed. EDC is presently in the process of making a recommendation for prezoning of certain areas in the County that would be suitable for economic development. The extent to which the traffic impact study ordinance provisions are going to be required for the areas they have under consideration is an important concern. Money will need to be included in the budget to pay for the traffic impact study on these areas under consideration. He stated that a written statement from EDC will be sent to the Planning Board before they consider this item and make a recommendation to the Board. Barry Jacobs made reference to an area in Durham County which was prezoned without taking into consideration the impact of the traffic and how this adversely impacted the neighborhood. The only way he would feel comfortable with prezoning would be to consider the impact of the development in the area and a way to include that in the approval. Larry Meisner from Kimley Horn stated that the thresholds were put in . as a guideline. Rather than have a developer come in and take a look a the trip generation of 800 trips a day or 100 trips in a peak hour and determine if his development meets that and then wonder if he has to go through an impact study to find out if he needs to do one, the TAS suggested putting in these typical thresholds. These are not necessarily the final guidelines. They are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation report which is a standard for the number of trips generated per one thousand square feet of office, per thousand square feet of retail, per unit of single family or multi- family units, etc. Chairman Carey questioned the necessity of having the transportation plan certified, stating that this increases the cost of doing the study. Meisner indicated they want the study to be done by someone who is a registered engineer or certified planner. It is a way to protect the applicant and the public. The cost of a traffic impact study will depend on the location, the intersections involved, the complexity of the project, etc. Usually the minimum cost would be $2,500 to $3, 000 for a small project. For a medium size project it could cost from $3,000 to $5,000. JAY ZARAGOZA stated that what Chapel Hill or Durham does should be irrelevant to what Orange County does. Wake County seems to function very well without a traffic impact analysis. He feels that hiring a certified engineer to come up with figures that can't be all that accurate is unnecessary. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner 64 Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to come back to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 6, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS - 3 . PRIVATE ROADS - - a. Section IV and V Orange County Subdivision Regulations b. Orange county Private Road Standards These proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations and the Orange County Private Road Standards relate to the private roads policy and standards. Major features of the proposed revisions to the Subdivision Regulations and Private Road Standards include: 1) coordination of private roads with the public road system; 2) clarification as to where public roads will be required; 3) clarification as to where private roads are appropriate; 4) additional certification on final plats regarding access, future development, and disclosure to prospective purchasers; 5) a cap on the number of lots/dwellings that can be served by a Class A private road; 6) transfer of inspection and certification responsibility from the County to professional engineers and/or registered land surveyors; and 7) a reduction in the maximum grade allowed on a private road. ALICE GORDON referred to the implication of "existing road" in the ordinance and in particular as this would apply to a person who has a two acre lot and wants to divide it into two one acre lots. She feels this would be a burden on that landowner to upgrade the road. JAY ZARAGOZA referred to the 12% grade and sees this as excessively restrictive. He referred to the road maintenance agreement and stated that while it is possible to get twenty-five people to agree to something it is another thing to get them to do what they have agreed to do. Mr. Meisner stated that the purpose was to look at the new private roads as well as the existing ones to be sure there is not a small private road that is twelve feet wide where additional development could create more traffic. The assumption would be that the road would be improved to at least the minimum standard that would be required by that number of units. William Waddell asked about the existing roads that do not meet this criteria and asked if another road would need to be built if additional development takes place. Mr. Meisner stated this will be taken into account when considering the final recommendation. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 6, 1990. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 65 ADJOURNMENT With no further items to consider, Chairman Carey adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board will be held on May 29, 1990 in Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr. , Chairman Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk