Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19990222APPROVED 514199 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 22, 1999 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on Monday, February 22, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Superior Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina, for the purpose of holding a Joint Public Hearing. ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Alice M. Gordon, and Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Stephen H. Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Karen Barrows, and members S.A.M. Brooks, Barry Katz, Howard McAdams, Jr., Libby Searles, Robert Strayhorn, and Elizabeth Walters. Selkirk and Runvon Woods Leo Allison, Nell Andrews, James COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Interim Planning Director Gene Bell, Planners Don Belk, Eddie Kirk, Karen Lincoln and Slade McCalip, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker. Other staff members will be identified as appropriate. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Gordon convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. She indicated that she would chair Item C.1 and D.1.a. The last three items would be chaired by Planning Board Chair Karen Barrows. She invited those who wished to speak to sign up on the clipboard. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Gordon dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge. C BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - DECISION ITEM 1. To Establish the Public Hearing Date of March 3, 1999 for the Orange County Local Legislative Package Chair Gordon presented this item for discussion by the Board of Commissioners for the purpose of establishing the Public Hearing date of March 3, 1999 for the Orange County local legislative package. She mentioned that a list of suggested items had been presented by the County Attorney. This list is incorporated by reference and all actions refer to this document. Members of the Board of Commissioners were invited to suggest other items they would like to see added to the list. County Attorney Gledhill said that there was one additional item to be considered; this item was included in the Legislative Bulletin he distributed prior to the meeting. If adopted, it would increase the Homestead Exemption. This item was included in last year's legislative package but did not get through the legislative process. It has been introduced again during this session. It would increase both the amount of property that would be exempt and also the income threshold. He recommended that the Board of County Commissioners add this to the list of items they plan to support. Q:119990221d.c Chair Gordon mentioned that Attorney Gledhill went through the list from the last Board of County Commissioners meeting and added his recommendation for each item. She asked about Page 5 Item #5 Local Government Exemption from State sales taxes and Page 6, Item #7 Local Government Exemption from State sales taxes. Attorney Gledhill stated that he was recommending that this not be included in the legislative package at this time. He stated that approval to request enabling legislation be adopted February 16th for the first 3 items listed in his February 19, 1999 letter. He also recommended that items 1 through 4 on page 2 of that same letter be included on this list as well. In response to a question from Commissioner Carey regarding Page 3, Item #2 - Authority to levy a 1 cent sales tax to be allocated to capital projects and to include or not a tax on food items. Attorney Gledhill stated that he is not recommending inclusion of the item which would put a tax on food items. By consensus the Board decided not to include a tax on food items. Commissioner Carey referred to Page 5, Item #7 - Increased Medicare reimbursements for EMS bills. He asked if the state would recommend that action to the federal government. County Manager Link stated that it needed to be a statewide initiative. The legislature would need to take this action. Commissioner Carey referred to Page 4, Item #4 - deferral of accrued taxes when agricultural property changes hands from farmer to farmer. He asked that this item be included on the list of items for the public hearing. There was consensus on the Board that this item would be included on the list of items to go to Public Hearing. He also stated that he would like to see Orange County introduce this item. Commissioner Brown commented that on Page 4, Items #5, #6 and #7, which refer to agricultural districts, needs to be looked at in more detail. In particular, the effect on the property tax rate should be researched. She wanted to be assured that they would not be presented at public hearing at this time. Attorney Gledhill stated that these items were not being recommended at this time. Commissioner Jacobs asked about study commissions. He referred to Page 6, Item #4 and indicated that he would like the Department of Transportation Reform issue to be referred to a study commission. He asked how that could be accomplished. Attorney Gledhill stated that study commission bills must be introduced by April 14th which means that the Legislative Delegation would need to receive the request by April 7th. If there is a consensus on the Board it could be added to the resolution to ask our Legislators to support the Department of Transportation Reform bill by sending it to a Legislative Study Commission. Commissioner Jacobs indicated that he wanted to make some specific comments that would make it clear what is being suggested. He said he would write out his thoughts on this prior to the public hearing. It was the consensus of the Board to follow up on this suggestion. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to establish the public hearing date of March 3, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. for the Orange County Local Legislative Package to be held in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough. Q:119990221d.c VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Zoning Atlas Amendment a) PD-3-98 Lawrence Park Special Use Permit for a Planned Development The following citizens and staff were sworn in by Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker: Suzette Andrews, Bob Bateman, Bill Hendrickson, Eddie Kirk, George Krichbaum, Karen Lincoln, Slade McCalip, June Minton, and Roger Perry. Chair Gordon mentioned that this item was continued from the November 23, 1998 public hearing in order to receive more information. She mentioned that all of the evidence and comments received at the November 23, 1998 meeting were already in the record and need not be repeated at this meeting. This item was presented by Planner Karen Lincoln for the purpose of receiving evidence and citizen comment on a Planned Development, Class A Special Use Permit and rezoning application for the Lawrence Park Subdivision. The property is located in Eno Township on the east side of Lawrence Road (SR 1709) between Interstate 85 and US Highway 70A. The current zoning is Rural residential (R-1) with a portion in the Major Transportation Corridor. Adjacent land uses are residential, including Colonial Park (zoned R-4) and Colonial Hills (zoned R-2) subdivisions. The adjacent zoning to the north and east is R-1. Lawrence Road Baptist Church is located across Lawrence Road. The Rock House, a site listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is at the southwest corner of US 70A and Lawrence Road. The total acreage to be subdivided is 87.27. It is not located in a protected watershed and is designated 20-year transition in the Comprehensive Plan. Currently the western half of the property is cultivated as a hay field. The eastern half and the southern boundary are wooded with a mixture of natural pines and hardwoods. Almost the entire site slopes at gradients less than 7.5%. Near the center of the site is a "saddle" in the topography, i.e., a flat area between two ridges where slopes are near 2% or less. The plan involves two proposals. One proposal involves a rezoning, planned development and Class A Special Use Permit with 237 lots (2.8 units per acre) and 26.01 acres (31 %) open space including 7.07 acres of improved recreation area. This proposal involves a zoning atlas amendment from Rural Residential (R-1) to Planned Development Housing (R3) (PD-H-R3). The second proposal involves rezoning an area from R1 to R2 along the new entrance road off US 70A. This involves 3.275 acres with 7 residential lots proposed. Four lots are proposed on the east side and three on the west side of the entrance road. The second proposal was considered at the November 23, 1998 Public Hearing and has already been referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation. With regard to the Class A Special Use Permit for the 237 lots, additional information was requested on the storm water management issue and how it would affect adjacent and contiguous properties. Information was also requested on the following issues: ? the impact this development would have on EMS services ? the recreation needs for the proposed number of people ? the impact on schools ? accident and traffic reports on Lawrence Road, and any traffic information that staff could generate. The developer was also asked for information on similar homes they have built in North Carolina, the Homeowner's Association responsibility and how responsibility for maintaining the infrastructure would be handled. The planning staff received a reply from the North Carolina Department of Administration Q:119990221d.c regarding the Environmental Impact Assessment for Lawrence Park. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has indicated a Finding of "No Significant Impact" provided four concerns were addressed. Those concerns involved erosion control, stormwater management, minimum 25' riparian buffer along small streams or wetlands and coordinating unavoidable impacts to any wetlands or streams with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Orange County EMS estimates that the county will have to hire one full time position to serve the proposed development. The Orange County board of Education stated that when the proposed subdivision is developed, children in the subdivision would be assigned to Cameron Park Elementary School and C. W. Stanford Middle School. Both of those schools are at, or over capacity, with little room for expansion. Included in the agenda packet was a copy of the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., in February 1998, and a follow-up letter regarding an addendum to the Traffic Impact Study, dated June 23, 1998. On February 5, 1999, staff forwarded to the John R. MCAdams Company the portion of the draft minutes from the November 23, 1998 public hearing outlining the requests for more information. No information was received in the Planning Department in response to those requests. Chair Gordon asked about the legality of holding the hearing open in order to receive certain information from the applicant which has been requested but not yet received. Planner Lincoln indicated that evidence must be presented at the public hearing and the presenter must be available for cross-examination. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: None QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: Planning Board Chair Barrows referred to the letters from DOT District Engineer Tommy Dyer dated August 8, 1998 and November 18, 1998. She asked if he had an opportunity to look at the study that the applicant submitted. Ms. Lincoln indicated that Mr. Dyer had not communicated with the Planning Department since the November 18, 1998 letter. She indicated that Mr. Dyer agreed with most of what the applicant had proposed with several minor exceptions. One of the issues was that DOT does not maintain bus shelters. The developer said that they would provide bus shelters but they would not be responsible for maintaining them. PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT: Roger Perry, a partner with East West Partners Management Company and a co-applicant with the owner of the property, asked that the applications be considered from two perspectives. First, he asked if the Board of County Commissioners believed in the Comprehensive Plan. He commented that this project is a mirror image of what is described for this area in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this as a transition area appropriate for development of smaller, single family homes upon the availability of public sanitary sewer and water. The developers intend to bring sanitary sewer and water to this site. The Zoning Ordinance defines transition land as land located in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban, and are suitable for urban-type densities including the provision of public utilities and services within the second ten year phase of the plan. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1981 so we are 17 112 years into the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. What is being proposed for this development is very consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Secondly, he asked the Commissioners to make a decision about how they believe the County should grow, and whether or not it is better to put more people on less land or less people on more land. He stated that putting less people on more land has been the growth and development pattern in Orange County. There has been a very strong effort by this Board of County Commissioners to establish and protect rural buffers throughout the County. What we have had in Orange County is a patchwork development of Q:119990221d.c medium size lots with homes built on them. In his opinion, this does not protect the rural buffer, but rather creates a patchwork of development throughout the County. It does not provide any quality rural buffer or quality space for use by the citizens of Orange County. With that in mind, he asked the Board of County Commissioners to consider this proposal from those two perspectives. To refresh the Commissioners' memories, he pointed out that Lawrence Park is 851/2 acres and they are proposing 244 dwelling units. The overall density is a medium density of approximately 2.85 homes per acre, with an average lot size of approximately 2/10 of an acre. The average home size will be approximately 1540 feet and the average home price will be $132,000. This is consistent with the average homes in the surrounding area. The total common open space area, as prescribed by R-3 zoning, yields 26 acres of this site with a total active open space area of 7.17 acres. He commented that if the Commissioners liked the R-3 zoning district, this is the kind of development they would be expecting. These are the size lots that result out of R-3 zoning which he feels is a very consistent zoning district within the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Perry then presented the basic facts as he interpreted them. This is a designated transition area which establishes compact development rather than perpetuating sprawl by encouraging large lot development. The recent rezoning and annexation that occurred in Hillsborough several weeks ago will result in a tremendous increase in the amount of jobs and people working nearby. This is an opportunity to provide moderate priced housing which is very scarce in Orange County. He asserted that this is the most expensive county in the State of North Carolina in which to live. This is an opportunity to provide affordable housing that will be inclusive and allow many people who work in Orange County to live here as well. This is a pedestrian oriented neighborhood with sidewalks on both sides of all streets. There are also central parks located throughout the property and a 100 foot buffer area completely surrounding it for passive recreation. It provides significant buffers adjacent to existing houses. There is a mix of different zoning around this property, including R-1, R-2 as well as R-4 which is denser than what they are requesting. Public sanitary sewer would be extended to the area, which would then allow adjacent properties with septic problems to connect. There is an existing mobile home community adjacent to this property which is experiencing a failing septic drain field. They would be allowed the opportunity to tap onto the Hillsborough sewer system, which would solve this problem. They would also bring public water to this area which will result in tap fees of approximately $900,000 to the Town of Hillsborough. That money will assist them in the expansion of their water treatment facilities and water reservoir system. The developers will also provide booster pumps, if necessary. Their traffic study shows, and the Department of Transportation agrees, that both Lawrence Road and Highway 70 (with the current traffic and what will be added by this development) will be at approximately 2/3 to 3/4 of its total carrying capacity. There is abundant carrying capacity on Highway 70 and Lawrence Road to accommodate this neighborhood. The only place where they anticipate a greater impact is at the intersection of Lawrence Road and Highway 70. They intend to provide acceleration lanes, turn lanes and deceleration lanes in that area to keep the traffic moving. Lawrence Park will mitigate many of the development impacts that are normally associated with this type of development. In terms of storm water runoff, this property will have impervious surface at buildout of approximately 24-1/2%. He asserted that by North Carolina law when you are under 25% you do not have to address storm water retention or detention on your property; however, they are constructing a wet pond detention facility to the north of the property and a dry pond detention facility to the south of the property. Chair Gordon asked Mr. Perry to address the questions that had been left unanswered at the November 23, 1998 meeting. Mr. Perry stated that storm water impact and traffic concerns were two of the main questions they were asked to elaborate upon at this meeting. The capacity of both Highway 70 and Lawrence Road are more than sufficient to carry existing traffic and the additional traffic that will be caused by this development. Also, they will make the improvements required by the Department of Transportation. As far as storm water impact is concerned, he noted that this piece of property is not located in a critical watershed. It does not have any significant, environmental impact in any Q:119990221d.c watershed in terms of its runoff. Nonetheless, they are going far beyond any type of watershed protection requirement by the installing detention and retention structures on the properties. The overall runoff situation within a 24-hour period should be the same as currently exists. Finally, he mentioned that they have developed similar housing at Downing Creek on Highway 54 east of Chapel Hill. They have a number of single family homes of this size or smaller. Another development with some similar types of housing to Lawrence Park is Woodcraft. Many of those homes are on lots this size or smaller. Those are two excellent examples of where you would see houses of this type. Commissioner Jacobs asked for clarification regarding who would pay for the maintenance of the ponds. Mr. Perry indicated that the Homeowner's Association would pay for that maintenance. He explained that there would be a monthly charge for each site for maintenance of all the common areas within the community. Commissioner Jacobs asked about standards for impervious surface. Mr. Perry stated that they are limiting the property to 24-'/% impervious surface. At 25% they would be required to build detention and retention ponds, however, they do intend to stay below that maximum. Commissioner Jacobs asked staff to clarify if the transportation estimates include the proposed Scottswood development. Mr. McCalip said that Scottswood was not a part of these calculations. Commissioner Jacobs commented that it was safe to say that Scottswood would significantly affect the traffic service level on US 70 and its capacity. He asked for an estimate of how many trips a day would be generated by Scottswood. traffic. Planner McCalip stated that another significant factor impacting Highway 70 was through- Planner Lincoln stated that Scottswood was approved for 410 single family residential units and 215 multifamily units. COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS: June Minton, a local resident, commented that she was concerned about the impact of the traffic, especially since Scottswood has not been factored into the traffic flow as of yet. She also mentioned that the School Board members have indicated to her that the schools in that area are already at capacity. Bob Bateman, a member of the Orange County School Board, mentioned that the School Board would soon adopt a class reduction policy, which will in and of itself create a need for more space. They are also in the process of redrawing the school lines to accommodate the new school on Highway 57. He stated that this development would put too many people on too little land. He asked the Board of County Commissioners to work with both school boards. There seems to be a trend to do away with the current zoning and move toward creating more compact developments. Developments such as this are going to destroy what we now know as rural character. He asked the Board of County Commissioners to control the growth. He mentioned that the environmental issues also need to be considered. One specific area is the unregulated use of pesticides on residential lawns. This alone would greatly increase the impact of polluting our ground water. Bill Hendrickson indicated that he had submitted his comments in writing to Karen Barrows, Chair of the Planning Board, and also to the Board of Commissioners. His concern is a result of an incident in which several young boys and their dog ran across the road in front of him on Highway 70 Business near the Sportsplex. He was alarmed that those boys as well as others living in the Lawrence Park subdivision will be walking on the roads. He commented that responsibility would Q:119990221d.c rest with the Planning Board if the development is approved and there are no facilities to provide for bicycles, skate boards, in-line skating, and so forth. He was also concerned about the adequacy of the schools to handle this new development. Ms. Barrows requested that he communicate this concern to the school system. He wrote, as result of that request, to Ms. Susan Dovenbarger of the school board asking her several questions about the adequacy of the schools to handle the increased number of children who would be coming from this development. Ms. Dovenbarger gave his letter to Superintendent Randy Bridges so that he could answer his specific questions. Mr. Hendrickson then reviewed each of his questions and the answers. 1) What elementary and middle schools will serve this subdivision? The answer to that question was Cameron Park Elementary and C.W. Stanford Middle School. 2) Assuming that one half of the anticipated number of the children from Lawrence Park will be in elementary school, will the designated schools be able to absorb this number? The answer was that Cameron Park is approximately 25 students under capacity this year. Last year the school was over capacity the entire year. According to Superintendent Bridges, the probable number of additional students who would be generated by Lawrence Park subdivision would bring the capacity to an impossible level. They would have to add mobile units to an already landlocked campus. Superintendent Bridges said that the quality of academic progress would be as big an issue as the space for teachers. The State would provide additional teachers if more students enter the system but there is no place to put them because Cameron Park has no place to put mobile units. He further stated that there are plans for the high school population to grow but there are no plans for a new middle school. A.L. Stanback and C.W. Stanford are at capacity. With the addition of this new subdivision as well as others that are in the planning stages, Orange County would need a new middle school in the next five years. 3) Would the designated middle school and Orange High School adequately serve the older children? Superintendent Bridge's answer was "no." He said that both the middle school and high school are at or above capacity. 4) What will be the actual cost to the school system to provide class instruction, adequate facilities, extracurricular services, transportation and other prescribed services of public education to these children? Superintendent Bridges answered that it was almost impossible to place a dollar amount on these services. Orange County currently allocates teachers at a ratio of 1 per 22 students at the elementary level and 1 per 25 students at the secondary level. These levels are less than the state allocations because this is what Orange County feels is in the best interest of its students. Local dollars are used to provide additional instruction. The state will provide additional teachers using the higher formula. Orange County would have to generate additional dollars to maintain its current level and would need more teachers. Schools cannot be built as quickly as these subdivisions are built. We would then have to lease or purchase mobile units. Leasing them could cost $7,000 per year. It would cost more than $30,000 for purchase and set up these mobile classrooms. The school receives approximately $2,020 per student from the County as local funds for the students. That amount, plus what we get from the state, gives our system approximately $5,000 per student. When you look at supplies, equipment, extracurricular activities and other services, that amount is not nearly enough. Mr. Bridges then spoke of transportation and the fact that Orange County has an efficient transportation system. However, to serve additional students, new buses would be needed and the state is very slow in providing funds to increase school bus service. The Superintendent further stated that even if the developer donates the land for a new school facility, the school system does not have the money to build the school. It costs between $10 and $15 million dollars to build a school and that money needs to be generated on the backs of the taxpayers of Orange County. 5) The last question was would the Board of Education request or demand compensation from the developer to provide for required new services or would they expect normal tax increases from Orange County taxpayers to support new growth. There was no answer from the Superintendent because that question would have to be answered by the School Board. Mr. Hendrickson said that neither Lawrence Park, nor any other planned subdivision, Q:119990221d.c should be approved before the school system has proper plans and funding in place to serve the educational needs of additional students. The Sheriff's Department was properly questioned as to their capabilities and possible expansion due to the new subdivision. He asked why the school system was not similarly questioned. His basic concern has to do with the lack of facilities to serve the children in this subdivision. Also, the secondary issue for him is the lack of sidewalks and bike paths. Mr. George Krichbaum was asked if he wanted to speak and he commented that he did not intend to speak unless he could provide answers to specific questions. Suzette Andrews came forward and was sworn in by Deputy Clerk Kathy Baker. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD S.A.M. Brooks commented that there are some things that are beyond the purview of the Planning Board as well as the County Commissioners. One of these is the ramification of the school issue. If you had 87 individual lots in different areas of Orange County, and if they were single family homes where you would expect them to have children, would you also say those individual homes should be denied? Elizabeth Walters asked staff what size home it takes in Orange County to pay for itself in terms of County services. Planner Lincoln stated that she could not specifically answer the question asked by Ms. Walters. However, in the past, a development model was created which showed the intensity of development, which would require specific public services. That model indicated that if this project is built as proposed and if it started in 1999, that by 2002 the County would be spending more for public services than the development would generate in taxes. Elizabeth Walters asked for this information to be provided to the Planning Board at their next meeting. Suzette Andrews stated that she is a lifelong resident of Orange County and that there have been transportation issues and overcrowding in the schools as long as she can remember. She asked what was the exceptional factor about this subdivision that makes it different from other recently approved subdivisions. It does not create problems with the schools or traffic flow. She has reviewed the development plans and it seems that they have complied with what was expected. The Comprehensive Plan was written by the county and it has been adhered to by this developer. She asked if the Comprehensive Plan and transition areas are going to be changed or are we going to move forward with the development. She stated that she is very involved in real estate sales in the area. Everyday she encounters people who are trying to purchase a home and who are trapped in a rental market. In her opinion, the biggest factor that this developer is dealing with is that he is coming forth with an affordable housing community. She has seen $200,000 housing communities approved and this concerns her. The fabric of our community is made up of teachers, law enforcement officers, and young people and they cannot start in the $150,000+ price range. She asked the Board of Commissioners to consider that there is either a move up or a move down market, or there is no market. When we think about housing and values, we need to realize that if we all live in the same type of houses, eventually we will reach a point where there are no buyers or sellers. Chair Gordon asked if since the answers to the traffic impact questions had not been received from the Department of Transportation, does it make sense to hold the rezoning part of the hearing open or should it be closed. Q:119990221d.c Planner Lincoln stated that the submitted traffic impact analysis was originally one pamphlet with several additional items included later. Orange County staff asked for a revised traffic impact analysis that would have everything in one pamphlet so that it could be distributed. There is nothing outstanding from the State Department of Transportation (DOT). Regarding the last letter received from the District Engineer, the issues that DOT would be concerned about would have to be resolved before DOT would approve any of the improvements for the subdivision. Geof Gledhill asked if all of the data the applicant wants to have entered as evidence has been entered into the record. Karen indicated that it has been entered. Commissioner Halkiotis asked Transportation Planner Slade McCalip to comment on what is meant by "peak hours" for Hwy 70 with regard to the state's definition of the word "capacity." What actually is the capacity? He mentioned that he rides both Hwy 70 Business and Bypass and he has noticed a significant increase in the volume of through traffic in the last several years. Planner McCalip indicated that Level Service "E" is capacity and "F is over capacity. When a road is over capacity, any minor disruption causes slowdowns and backups. In response to a question from Commissioner Halkiotis to further explain what the letter definitions really mean, Mr. McCalip indicated that, in his opinion, this road is currently over capacity at certain times of the day. Commissioner Brown asked the developer for clarification regarding size and price. He repeated that there are examples of houses of similar size and price in both the Woodcroft and Downing Creek subdivisions. Planning Board member Katz asked for clarification regarding the impact that the Scottswood development would have on the traffic patterns. He wanted to know if there is an accurate assessment of what the consequence of this development's impact will be on traffic with the addition of previously approved housing in that area. Planner McCalip referred to Page 157 of the packet which presented projected traffic volumes. He stated that US 70 Bypass is currently experiencing more trips and it is forecast in the regional model to get much more traffic in the next 20 years. Commissioner Halkiotis mentioned that there are signs on Interstate 1-40 which refer to trucks using Hwy 70 Business. He asked why that was happening. He has seen tractor trailers doing U-turns at 7:45 in the morning on Hwy 70. He said that he was alarmed to hear that it was projected to get worse. Planner McCalip indicated that Hillsborough has a prohibition on trucks using Churton Street which explains why these trucks are using Hwy 70 in that way. Also, he mentioned that the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Work Group, of which Orange County is a member, has forecast that US 70 will have a significant increase in traffic. It will be well over capacity by 2025. He explained that the Transportation Improvement Plan includes planned improvements for Hwy 70 but those improvements are not yet programmed. He explained that improvements are not actually expected to be completed until they are included in the State Transportation Program. Only improvements that are programmed are intended to be completed within the next six years. Proposed improvements go into the plan and from there they are selected to be included in the program to be completed within a six-year time period. It could be included sometime after the year 2006. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to Q:119990221d.c close the Public Hearing and refer the application to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than May 4, 1999. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b) Z-01-99 Armin Lieth This item was presented by Planner Karen Lincoln for the purpose of receiving evidence and citizen comment on the proposed rezoning of portions of two lots in the White Cross community, Bingham Township, from R-1, Rural Residential, to LS-1, Local Commercial, and NC-2 Neighborhood Commercial. The applicant is proposing to rezone 4.0 acres of an 11.5 acre lot from R-1 to NC-2; to rezone 2.5 acres of that same lot from R-1 to LC-1 and to rezone 1.5 acres of another 11.5 acre lot from R-1 to LC-1. The subject property is located on the south side of NC Highway 54 West approximately 0.28 miles west of Butler Road and approximately 0.265 miles east of White Cross Road. The property is zoned R-1, Rural Residential. The southern halves of the two lots are zoned HAW-PW, Haw River Protected Watershed Overlay District. Approximately 2.0 acres of the area proposed to be rezoned to LC-1 are within the HAW-PW Overlay District. None of the area proposed to be rezoned to NC-2 is within the HAW-PW Overlay District. Surrounding land uses are residential with commercial uses to the northwest, west and east along N.C. Highway 54. Oak Hollow Subdivision and Westbrook Subdivision are located across N.C. Highway 54 to the north and northeast of the subject property. Sturdivants Tire and Auto is adjacent to the property on the east; Piedmont Feed and Supply, a B.P. Station, and Fabric Showroom Superior Furniture Upholstery are located on the south side of N.C. Highway 54 to the west; White Cross School which houses N.C. Writers Network, the White Cross Community Art Space, IS] & Rhythms II, Cathy Kiffney and Akido, Video Plus, a hardware and paint store, Woodworking Co-op and a seafood restaurant are on the north side of N.C. Highway 54 to the northwest. According to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Sections 4.2.8 b)4. and 4.2.9 b)4. the maximum amount of land zoned LC-1 at any node shall not exceed nine acres, and the maximum amount of land zoned NC-2 at any node shall not exceed nine acres; however, in rural areas where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in the Transition area, the maximum amount of land zoned LC-1 and the maximum amount of land zoned NC-2 shall not exceed 5 acres. Within the White Cross Rural Community Node there are five (5) acres of land zoned for Local Commercial (LC-1) uses and 5.01 acres of land zoned for Neighborhood Commercial (NC-2) uses. There are also existing commercially zoned areas within the White Cross Rural Community Node. In December, 1995, a proposal to rezone a 4.71 acre lot within the White Cross Rural Community Node from an Agricultural Residential Zoning District to an Agricultural Services District triggered opposition from surrounding property owners who opposed increasing commercial uses in the area. The sentiment from the residents was that no changes were wanted that would provide for more non-residential development. Thus, that area was eliminated when proposed economic development districts were recommended QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Commissioner Jacobs asked if the White Cross Small Area Plan was ever programmed? County Manager Link replied that it has been delayed because of lack of staff. It is an item for future work when the Planning Department is fully staffed. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD: None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS: Tom Whisant, a local property owner and a partner in the ownership of the White Cross Q:119990221d.c School, stated that many applications for rezoning in this area have been denied in the past and he expressed surprise at this current request. He feels that additional commercial uses are not in keeping with the Land Use Plan and that additional commercial uses were not, and should not be, permissible under the current zoning. He mentioned that the Bingham TAC was not aware of this application. He questioned whether there was an appropriate length of time for the notification. He also commented that he did not receive a notice of this meeting. He asked the County Attorney to respond to his question regarding length of time required for notification of a Public Hearing. He, and each of the neighbors he spoke to, was strongly against this rezoning request. If the land use plan for Bingham Township is to be changed, it needs to be evaluated and the public needs to be involved in the process. He asked that this hearing be rescheduled or continued because of what he considered to be a short amount of notification time. He was also concerned about the non-conforming nature of this request and the potential impact on adjacent properties. Virginia Leslie, a local homeowner and a member of the White Cross Small Area Work Group, mentioned that she had only heard of this hearing yesterday. She disagreed with the applicant's statement in the application that there was great community support for this request. On the contrary, she mentioned that when she was a member of the White Cross Small Area Work Group she distributed surveys to her neighbors. Their replies stressed their desire for a rural setting. They did suggest cottage industry be allowed in existing commercially zoned areas. They also supported wildlife corridors and park facilities. She feels that this area should be monitored by stringent planning and zoning ordinances. She would like to see an opportunity for input from the community at-large before any rezoning is considered. Donald Wilson voiced his opposition to this rezoning request. Jack Nestor, a homeowner in this area, felt that they were becoming a commercial area against their will. He indicated that he is opposed to this request. Tony Kane, a resident of Leslie Drive, mentioned that he found out about this rezoning request through a flyer in his mailbox which was distributed by a neighbor. He spoke of his gratitude for this community and for the thoughtful work of the County Commissioners. He said that he is opposed to this rezoning request. Mark Botts, a local resident, spoke in opposition to this request. He disagreed that the residents in the White Cross area wants more commercial development. On April 27, 1998 the Small Area Work Group met and expressed their concerns. At that meeting there was a strong sentiment expressed against further commercial development. They understand that Mr. Leith may want to develop his land in a particular way. However, it is currently zoned residential which is a profitable use in Orange County. The White Cross Rural Community Node has reached the maximum of commercial development allowed and should not be exceeded. Robert Little, a local resident, spoke in opposition to this rezoning request. He mentioned that it concerns him that no mention was made in the request of either the development in which he resides or the one adjacent to his. The failure to mentioned the existence of their homes does not speak well for the developer intentions. He urged the Board of Commissioners to deny this request. K.B. Tripp, a local resident, spoke in opposition to this request. He asked that the Board of Commissioners not approve this rezoning request. Anita Solomon mentioned that she owns the property immediately south of Mr. Lieth's property. She mentioned that two creeks meet on her property and then travel through Mr. Lieth's property toward Highway 54. She does not oppose the rezoning of the area labeled NC-2 on the Q:119990221d.c map. However, she did agree with those who spoke previously in that she does not understand why it would be necessary to rezone 4 acres. She feels that it could be beneficial to have additional services in that area. However, she objects to the LC-1 rezoning. Her first objection is that it is too close to her property. Secondly, it would destroy a flood plan which is part of the Haw River watershed as well as a creek that appears on the US Geological Survey Map. Her property is surrounded by the Haw River Watershed where only a small percentage of the land can be used for building which was a major factor in her decision to buy her property. The LC-1 zone, if enacted, will be 350 feet from her property and will be partly within the watershed zone. The northern half of her property and the southern half of Mr. Lieth's property are flooded from September to May, and for a short time after the summer rains. The two creeks on the map constantly flood and change course. At the present time they actually join on Mr. Lieth's property, not on hers. There are many other creeks feeding in, some larger than the ones shown on the map. These creeks constantly dam themselves with leaves and sticks. More water actually enters the ground system then moves through the creek on Hwy 54. This winter has not been typical. The area was unusually dry last Tuesday but after 1/2 inch of rain on Wednesday there was approximately 12 inches of water in most of the flood plain. This flood plain is critical to the aquifers in the area and the wells. Any interference with this flood plain will cause local wells to go dry. Another function of the floodplain is to prevent runoff from entering major watercourses at the same time. Interference with this floodplain and/or the creek could cause major flooding further down stream. She mentioned that the narrower LC-1 area along the creek is a very deep bowl. The area begins to widen at the point that the LC-2 designation begins and there is a large slope down to the creek on three sides. The area which slopes down from the highway on the LC-2 property is also considerable. She cannot imagine a desirable LC-1 use for this property that would also keep the creek in its natural condition. Even if Mr. Lieth has in mind a LC-1 use that would keep the floodplain and creek intact she would still be concerned that this rezoning could allow it to be used for any other LC-1 usage in the future. Gradually it could be degraded by future owners. She also mentioned that there are deep holes on this property that should not be filled in order to maintain the natural state of the floodplain. She asked the Board of Commissioners to consider making the entire area along the creek up to Hwy 54 part of the Haw River Watershed so that a buffer along the creek can be required. Mr. Vernon Davis, a local resident, stated that he was not speaking for or against this proposal, but rather wanted to present several facts for the record. He mentioned that an earlier request to rezone this area Agricultural Services (AS) was withdrawn. He stated that the need for additional commercial zoning in this area exists. The existing businesses in the area are thriving to the extent that you have to wait in line to be served at many times during the day. He is concerned about the application for this rezoning. He requested a rezoning in the past which was denied because there was no acreage available. There have been no amendments to the Land Use Plan which would create more acreage. He feels there is a need for additional commercial development. He also expressed concern about traffic on Highway 54. If additional commercial development is allowed he felt that the traffic problems on Highway 54 need to be addressed. He mentioned that this particular parcel on which rezoning is being requested was deemed unsuitable for a septic system and would need an alternative system. He stated that if additional acreage were made available, he would like to have an opportunity to reapply to have his property rezoned. He is currently losing a tenant because of lack of space for that business to expand. COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT: Mr. Armin Lieth thanked the community members who have spoken both in favor of and in opposition to this rezoning request. He felt that it was good for the community to be involved even when there was disagreement. He stated that he is a member of the Bingham TAC and was a member of the Small Area Work Group. His participation in the Small Area Work Group was the source of his comments regarding the community's desire to have additional commercial Q:119990221d.c development. He acknowledged that others at that meeting had a different interpretation of what was wanted by the community. However, during that meeting participants were asked to identify areas where additional commercial development could be designated. The Comprehensive Plan specifically says that activity nodes can have nine acres of NC-2 and nine acres of LC-1. Currently there are five of each of these designations in this activity node. When the Comprehensive Plan was created 20 years ago the density in this area was significantly less than it is today. There are almost 6,500 residents in Bingham Township with 500 students and no school in that township. This is the third most populous township in the county. They have two activity nodes and it is clear that there is a need for the services being provided. He mentioned that it is a 14 mile round trip to the grocery store. As a member of the Bingham TAC he has talked to many Bingham residents who would like to shop closer to home. This rezoning request is aligned with the Comprehensive Plan. If this activity node does not qualify for the nine acre designation in the Comprehensive Plan he does not know which one would. He felt that the County wanted to develop future areas using the Village Concept and would require commercial areas to provide services. This activity node has been in place since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Residents who purchased property in this area knew they were moving into a commercial area. He asked local residents who are opposed to this rezoning request to speak to him. He feels that this request is aligned with the Comprehensive Plan and that environmental issues have been addressed. Alice Kuznies, a resident of Leslie Drive, spoke in opposition to this rezoning request. She mentioned that there are many roads entering Highway 54 and in the last several years' traffic has become a real problem. Entering the highway often feels like you are taking your life in your hands. request. Hillary Helmich, a resident of Oak Hallow Road, spoke in opposition to this rezoning Cynthia Massey, a resident of Oak Hollow Road, spoke in opposition to this rezoning request. She did not agree that there was a need for additional commercial development in the area. County Attorney Gledhill responded to an earlier question regarding the issue of sufficient notice. He mentioned that Planner Lincoln mailed these notices 12 days prior to the Public Hearing date which does comply with State law. He did not discuss with her which lists were used to contact the neighborhood. With regard to whether the notices were mailed to the correct addresses from the County tax abstract he had no information. Chair Gordon asked what he recommended with regard to this notification process. County Attorney Gledhill stated that if there was a notification problem and the property was rezoned those who are unhappy with the decision would have a legitimate reason to complain. This rezoning request could be sent to the Planning Board for their recommendation at this time. At the same time, County staff could look at whether the notices were mailed using the correct tax records. The Board of Commissioners could receive that information at the next Joint Public Hearing A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than May 4, 1999. Also, the validity of the notification process will be reviewed and reported upon at that same time. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment a) CP-1-99 Apex Northwest Partnership This proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan was Q:119990221d.c presented by Planner Don Belk for the purpose of receiving public comment. Mr. Belk stated that the Land Use Plan is a part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. It guides the County's policies on growth, establishes land use goals and objectives and seeks to influence the location and pattern of development. The Zoning Ordinance provides for changes to the Land Use Element and Land Use categories in the following situations: ¦ because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the county, or ¦ to correct an error or omission in the Land Use Plan, or ¦ in response to a change in polices, objectives, principals or standards governing the physical development of the County. The applicant, Apex Northwest Partnership, submitted an application to amend the Land Use Plan. The property proposed for the amendment lies in Hillsborough Township, north of Hillsborough between NC 86 and NC 57 and north of Rocky Lane (SR 1622). It is also west and north of the Mars Hill Baptist Church property. The property is currently undeveloped and contains two (2) tracts totaling 390 acres. The larger tract is owned by Apex Northwest Partnership and is 313 acres in size. On the southern portion of the property is a tract owned by Eva Brown and Wayne Powell and it contains 78.11 acres. There is a significant portion of this property that lies within the existing Rural Industrial Activity Node which is focused on the intersection of Coleman Loop Road and NC 86. A Plan Amendment was approved in January 1985 which extended the 10-Year transition area into the southwest quadrant of this activity node. Eighty-five (85%) of the Powell and Brown tract lies within this Land Use Plan category and 15% of the Apex Northwest Partnership tract lies within that plan category. The property, for the most part, is zoned for Agricultural-Residential (AR) which permits residential uses at a density of 1 unit per acre or a minimum lot size of .92 acres. This amendment to change this area to a 10-Year Transition Area could possibly result in an extension of urban services which would impact the rural Industrial Activity Node. Ultimately, because of the higher density uses that would be permitted in a 10-Year Transition Area another change to the Land Use Element could be necessitated in order to change the Rural Industrial Activity Node to a higher intensity classification such as a Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node. A 10-Year Transition Area is described in the Land Use Element as land located in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban and are suitable for urban densities and located in an area that should be provided with public utilities and services within the first 10-Year phase of the plan. The amendment proposed by Apex Northwest in their application would expand the 10-Year Transition Plan category to land currently designated as Agricultural Residential and Rural Industrial Activity Node. It would also allow the potential rezoning of property to higher density residential uses in the future. Changes to the land use categories require comparing the proposal with criteria to determine the suitability of certain locations to contain certain land uses. The land use categories help the Commissioners to make decisions about the most appropriate distribution of land throughout the County. Requests to change the location of land use categories require that the proposed change be filtered through the locational criteria in order to evaluate the suitability of the area which contains potentially different land uses. That determination is the most important step in the analysis of an amendment to change the land uses. The locational criteria used to make this determination are land slope, hydrology, flora and fauna, soil conditions, public services and utilities, transportation system, energy use, existing land uses, agricultural and forestry, population density and historic and cultural features. In the analysis conducted for the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners, a table was provided that listed each criterion along with the determination of whether the area being evaluated was compatible for the requested land use category change. The point to be made about the analysis is that although there have been discussions about a school and/or a park site, those discussions have not entered into this analysis. The staff evaluation of the locational criteria is focused on the existing conditions and trends and not on development proposals. The areas of noncompliance are listed below: Q:119990221d.c 1) Existing Land Use: The property is located in an area which remains largely undeveloped or in low-density residential use. There has been very little transitional activity at or near this property. An adjoining, existing Ten Year Transition Area located south of Coleman Loop Road and west of NC 86 has been in place for 14 years and has seen no development activity during this period. 2) Population Density: According to 1990 census data, the population density for the census tract block group which contains the property (Tract 109, Block Group 2) is 67 persons per square mile. By contrast, density for the census tract located south of the property (Tract 110, Block Group 1), which contains most of the town limits of Hillsborough, is 406 persons per square mile. This compares similarly with the overall Township density of 430 persons per square mile. 3) Historic and Cultural: Phelps Farm (Survey #OR0667) is adjacent to the property. This site is on the state's National Register Study List and deemed potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. There are three other sites adjacent to the property that have been identified in the County's historical architecture survey. There are no known archeological sites on the property according to state maps. However, the Orange County Cemetery Survey has identified an old Quaker cemetery near the Mars Hill Baptist Church. The areas staff found to be "questionable" are listed below: 1)Transportation System: The site is located in close proximity to Interstate 85 and US 70 Bypass. Furthermore, it is situated directly between two major thoroughfares, NC 86 and NC 57. Despite these locational advantages, direct access to the property is limited. There are two sections of frontage along NC 86; however, the frontage at the northern end of Parcel 5.13.1A is constrained by Stroud's Creek. There are two sections of frontage along NC 57. For the southernmost section, there is a discrepancy between the deed description of the frontage and measurement of the frontage from the tax map (revised 9/15197) which was submitted with the application. According to the deed description, the frontage is adequate in width at approximately 170', but as scaled from the tax map, the frontage measures only 60' in width. The northernmost section appears to be no more than 77' wide. There is no direct access to rail service, however, this should not be a constraint for development of most small-scale commercial and industrial uses. 2) Agriculture and Forestry: The Brown and Powell tract (4.5.B.1A, 78 acres) is enrolled in the Orange County Farm Use taxation program, qualifying under Agriculture. The adjacent Phelps Farm remains an active agricultural operation. Large scale development of the property could have a detrimental impact on the farm. PRESENTATION BY APPLICANT: Jim Parker, co-applicant for Northwest Partnership, indicated that he represents Callemyn and Parker. He felt that Mr. Belk presented the criteria extremely well. He understood that there were items not included in the proposed amendment because they are in the proposal stage. There has been cooperative effort in developing this project with the Orange County School Board, Transportation Department and local officials in an attempt to coordinate what is expected to happen with this project. There is a potential school site to be located in the southern portion of the large tract. That would be a K-5 elementary school. In order for that to happen, a portion of the western bypass that is on the County's Thoroughfare Plan would have to be constructed. That has been reviewed by the Department of Transportation and they are happy with that alignment. In order to serve the site, there would be access on both sides of the proposed thoroughfare. Chair Gordon stated that she did not remember the proposed western bypass going east as it was shown on the map being used for this discussion. She remembered that it did not go east of Highway 57. She clarified that she was talking about the next part of the plan to be programmed. Anything to the east of Highway 57 would be very far into the future. west. Planner McCalip agreed that the segment next for programming was from Highway 86 Q:119990221d.c Mr. Parker stated that they know there are historical sites located on, or near, this site. They are aware of the need to buffer those sites from future development. The extension of public water and sewer utilities would be necessary for the development of a school and would then be available to serve this site. Tony Whitaker, President of Civil Consultants, stated that he had been hired by the Orange County Board of Education to design and provide construction review services for the off-site water lines and sewer lines to serve the new elementary school which is to be located in the southern portion of the site. He mentioned that one of the points that has been introduced about the 10-Year Transition Area characteristics is that the area has, or will have, access to public water and sewer lines. He stated that this site does meet that criterion by virtue of the proposed extension of water and sewer lines for the school. He mentioned that they have worked with the Town of Hillsborough and they have designed a plan that conforms to the Town's Master Plan and exceeds their minimum requirements. They have received the Town's preliminary approval of the concept plan and have noted in their application to Orange County that the Town of Hillsborough has not approved the water and sewer extension agreement but they have made significant progress in those negotiations. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD: Commissioner Halkiotis stated that the Town of Hillsborough already has a water line that runs to Mars Hill Baptist Church. Mr. Whitaker indicated that there was a water line extended to Mars Hills approximately five years ago. In response to a question, he indicated that the Town did not need the approval of Orange County to run that line because it is a line maintained by the Town. He mentioned that the Town is very pleased with the concept behind this design for this school site because there is a water quality concern for both established residents and the Mars Hill Baptist Church. The water and sewer lines will resolve some of that water quality problem and will provide a public utility service to some properties that have been constrained in their development potential. One of the reasons they have been constrained has been the non-availability of water and sewer lines. Highway 57 currently has a six inch Town of Hillsborough water line extending to the Mars Hill Church site. The Town has water lines to the west and to the south as well, but there are no lines in the project area at this time. The sewer lines are in the Governor Downs Subdivision, the Rencher Street area, and some isolated places in the Faucette Mill Road area to the west. Orange County Schools propose to extend a sanitary sewer gravity line down Strauss Creek from the school site to the north side of Governor Burke Road. A pump station would be installed which would pump southward to the Orange High School area. The water line extension to serve the school would come from the Town's northern water tank and proceed eastward by a combination of public right-of-way and acquired easement to the school site. The benefit of that water line would be to provide fire protection service as well as future water service for the school site and other properties. frontage. Commissioner Brown asked for clarification about the apparent discrepancy in road Mr. Whitaker indicated that in the deed description the southern road frontage on Highway 57 should be 178 wide but when it was scaled from the tax map it was much smaller than that. This discrepancy regarding how wide the road frontage is needs to be resolved. located. Commissioner Halkiotis asked who owned the property on which the Quaker cemetery was Q:119990221d.c Jim Parker indicated that he did not know who owned the property. He believed that it was located just off of the property involved in this proposed amendment. If it turns out to be located on this property it would be preserved. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS: Ted Laws, a local resident, spoke in opposition to this request. He mentioned that as a business person he had mixed feelings about development and growth. He was concerned about the concept of putting more people on less land. He is the Chairman of the Grounds Committee at Mars Hill Baptist Church. They have discussed this and are concerned about increasing the density of this area. He mentioned that the Quaker cemetery is on Betty Harris' property. Dr. Weng, an adjoining property owner, spoke in support of this proposal. He owns property that was zoned 10-year transitional many years ago. He does not have the money to pay for the water and sewer. He felt that this would be a good time for the County Commissioners to think about creating a planned development. He commented that growth is inevitable and he hopes that well planned growth can be encouraged. He asked the County Commissioners to approve this request. Susan Dovenbarger, Orange County School Board member, indicated that this site was selected by the Orange County School Board as the location for the new elementary school. Approximately one and 1/2 years ago the School Board appointed a committee to identify sites for a new elementary school. This group met and identified possible sites. They identified the number of students living in the northern and western portions of the County and determined that there are significant numbers of students coming from north of Highway 70. She mentioned that there are currently students who have two hour bus rides from the farthest reaches of the northern and western quadrants. The committee looked at GIS maps to look at the size of available parcels outside of watersheds and other restricted areas. They used Planning Department information to identify where building permits had been issued. They found that a significant number of the building permits were being issued in the western and northern portion of the County. They looked at sites that would afford optimal opportunity to collocate school and recreational facilities. The property in question is in pristine condition with many hardwoods and even a small creek. These would provide recreational opportunities as well as educational benefits. The biggest limiting factor that the Orange County School Board faces in siting any school is its proximity to water and sewer lines. This site does have a six inch water line adjacent to the property which would need to be upgraded. The owner of the property has been most cooperative. She mentioned that those working on this project agree that there would be severe consequences if this project was thrown off course. She mentioned that one concern in this process was that they were unaware until Friday that the staff recommendation for this request for the land use change would be to deny the request.. She stated that they had been led to believe that the planning staff would recommend approval. She asked that the Board of Commissioners approve this request. Ray DeBruhl, the facilities consultant to the Board of Education, stated that he was responsible for assisting the School Board in managing the delivery of an elementary school by August, 2000. He mentioned that the owner of the property, Michael Edwards, owns a jewelry store in Cary. Prior to developing a school site Mr. DeBruhl looks 25 to 40 years into the future to try to visualize where schools need to be located. One issue they consider is transportation. He mentioned that Hillsborough's water and sewer plans were also considered. He surmised that the residential growth that is going to occur would be east of Highway 86. This site would greatly reduce the cost of transportation for those students in the northern and western areas of the County. He mentioned that this site is located within the network of roads in such a way as to facilitate the transportation of Q:119990221d.c students. There is a right-of-way of over 100 feet on Highway 57. The Town of Hillsborough has the capacity to serve the school site with water and sewer. Piedmont Electric has agreed to serve this site with natural gas if that is required. The geotechnical study has been completed and this site is excellent in terms of its technical characteristics. There are no wetlands or environmental issues which would be impacted by the schools. There is excellent site drainage. The property represents an excellent opportunity for a public-private partnership. Mr. Edwards, representing the Apex Northwest Partnership, has agreed to donate a site for the school and to pay 50% of the road construction cost from Highway 57 to the school. They have also agreed to pay 50% of the water and sewer costs when they actually access those water and sewer services. They have also agreed to donate the right-of-way for public use of the outer loop through the property. County Manager Link asked if there was a binding agreement to donate 18 acres for a school site or was the donation of the site contingent on the approval of the application. Mr. DeBruhl stated that there is a written agreement for 18 acres for a school site. However, this agreement has not been finalized. Mr. Whitaker stated that it is not contingent upon approval. The School Board has agreed to support and assist them in their effort to have this amendment approved. The school's attorney could more accurately answer questions about the legality of the matter. He stated that there is an agreement that has been signed for the 18 acres and they would be happy to produce a copy of that. Chair Gordon asked if it was 30 or 18 acres being considered for this school site? Mr. DeBruhl indicated that 18 acres had been carved out for the school site itself. There is contiguous property that will be open space and could be developed in conjunction with the County for a community park. He mentioned that the acreage is considerably more than the original 12 acres. The outer loop is under the control of DOT and they have approved the original layout that had been submitted to them which includes approximately 40 acres. He pointed out the 18 acres which are under signed contract with the School Board for a new elementary school Commissioner Brown stated that she was curious about this proposal for the school site being presented with the proposed amendment. She remembered that it had been clearly stated at another meeting that the school is not predicated on this rezoning. Sister Maria Bugge, of Holy Family Catholic Church, spoke in support of this proposal. This land cannot be developed because of the lack of water and sewer. Healthy growth will occur in this area if this request is approved. Joe Phelps stated that he and his parents own the adjoining Phelps farm tract. He is not against development but would like to have several issues addressed. He feels that the plan is being presented in a way as to mislead. He wanted to know how many houses are being proposed for this tract. He supports providing schools when they are needed but questions building several hundred homes on this site. He felt that many residents and local farmers would be requesting approval to develop their own land in the near future. He asked that the Board of Commissioners keep in mind that those Orange County residents' right to develop their land in the future needs to be protected. He hopes that the Commissioners keep in mind that others will be coming before them in the future to request approval and their future rights need to be protected. He stated that the Commissioners did not need to approve a 400 acre development to get an 18 acre school site. Mr. George Johnson, a member of Mars Hill Baptist Church, stated that the Church owns the right-of way on the south side near the cemetery. He asked that the County clarify that in this Q:119990221d.c request. Chair Gordon asked staff to clarify who owns the right-of-way in question. She asked for clarification about this proposed school site being separate from this request in terms of process. Mr. DeBruhl stated that the contract had been signed for the school site. He further explained that the entrance to the outer loop would not be at the southern entrance mentioned by Mr. Johnson. That would be the entrance to the north. Chair Gordon said she feels that there are many unanswered questions. She asked Attorney Gledhill for guidance. Attorney Gledhill indicated that staff could resolve the right-of-way ownership questions. They could return with the answers to those questions at the same time that the Planning Board returns with their recommendation. He felt that there was a linkage in this request between the school location and whether or not to change the land use plan. However, they are not linked in any other way. The Board of Commissioners might also request a copy of the contract in order to satisfy themselves about that. The contract of sale to convey the land is signed. If the owner of the property has agreed to give the property to the School Board the property will have to be conveyed by deed. The school would have the ability to enforce that contract and force the sale. He does not have the contract so he is not sure how that linked into the Land Use Plan Amendment request. Chair Gordon asked Mr. Edwards to clarify his intent with regard to the school site. Mr. Edwards indicated that his intent is to donate that site to the School Board and he also believed that the school board's intent is to assist them in the rezoning of his property. He mentioned that there is an advantage in their participation in sharing the cost of both the sewer and the road. In response to a question from Commissioner Brown, Attorney Gledhill stated that the Commissioners did not need answers to those questions in order to make a decision on the Land Use Plan Amendment. The answers could be presented at the next meeting. The only connection is that one of the criterion in making a change in the Land Use Element is apparently being presented as being met because of the location of the school. Staff was asked to answer the questions that have been raised during this discussion when this item is brought back for Board consideration. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than May 4, 1999. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b) Bicycle Transportation Plan Component This item was presented by Planner Slade McCalip for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the update to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. He briefly reviewed some of the advantages of bicycle transportation, such as a reduction in traffic congestion and noise and air pollution. There would also be a reduced need for road maintenance as well as being a significant cost savings to the user. Bicycle transportation is the most efficient, least polluting type of transportation that exists. During the Task Force's analysis of the roads in Orange County they found that the roads are too narrow for cars by themselves. When bicycles are added it becomes a danger to the cyclist and to a lesser degree to the driver. This plan addresses that issue by defining priority routes so that cyclists can get around between the urban Q:119990221d.c areas of Orange County and use their bikes for transportation. The Bicycle Plan Component Task Force created the Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan. The Task Force provided their input as to what the goals of this plan should be and also which cycling routes are the most important to the cyclists of Orange County. Staff was then directed to develop a plan with recommendations for implementing the goals and making improvements to the priority routes. The Task Force endorsed this draft plan at their June meeting. At the Planning Board's August 5, 1998 meeting the Board accepted the draft plan and sent it to the Commissioners with the following recommendations from the Bicycle Plan Component Task Force and modified by the Planning Board: 1) That a permanent and formal Bicycle Advisory Committee be formed; 2) Dedicate part-time (the task force recommended full-time) staff support for the Advisory Committee; 3) Update the 1974 Bikeways Act; and 4) That this task force remain together until after TIP project e-3606 is complete ($ 50,000 that the State has programmed for Orange County to develop a bicycle suitability map). QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: Chair Gordon clarified that the Board of Commissioners are simply being asked to review the plan, make recommendations and then make comments and/or suggestions to the Planning Board for a recommendation. She commented that the Orange County Commission For the Environment has stated that they are interested in this project and they have indicated they could undertake suggestion #1 and #2 which were listed in the agenda abstract. Those items are 1) that a permanent and formal Bicycle Advisory Committee be formed, and 2) that part-time staff be dedicated for the Advisory Committee. The Commission For the Environment could incorporate those tasks into its work. Commissioner Halkiotis asked clarification as to why the Commission for the Environment was interested in taking on this project. Chair Gordon stated that they are interested in this issue as part of their work on air quality and transportation. She also commented that the Bicycle Plan Component of this Task Force will end unless it is made a permanent committee. She felt that it was a philosophical point as to whether it was best for the Commission for the Environment to handle this or to have another Task Force remain in place. Commissioner Halkiotis stated that he was opposed to this suggestion. He feels that the Bicycle Plan Component Task Force should be allowed to continue their work since they have indicated a desire to do so. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD: None. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS: Mark Schulz, a member of the Orange County Bicycle Task Force as well as a commuter cyclist who bicycles to work, spoke in support of the Bicycle Transportation Plan Component of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He strongly supports this plan. He regularly commutes from his home in Hillsborough to his work at UNC-Chapel Hill. He has bicycled over 2500 miles for the last two years and most of those miles were commuting miles. He asked the Board of County Commissioners to give this proposed Plan their endorsement. He gave several recent examples of times he was run off the road by motorists passing him illegally. In both of those instances a combination of lack of courtesy and a lack of shoulders on the road caused him to be forced into the embankment. He asked that the Board approve the plan tonight rather than refer it to the Planning Board. The Bicycle Task Force completed this Plan in August, 1998 and he strongly requested that it Q:119990221d.c be adopted tonight and be referred for regional planning. County Attorney Gledhill indicated that this plan needs to be referred to the Planning Board because this is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the law requires that the Planning Board review the proposal after this Public Hearing. Chris van Hasselt, Chair of the Bicycle Plan Component Task Force, spoke in support of this proposed plan. He stated that many of these improvements are needed immediately. Unfortunately, it will be years before some of these bike lanes and routes are completed. The demand will only continue to increase. He mentioned that many of the concerns expressed on items heard earlier at this meeting were about the negative effects of increased traffic. Bicycles are not "the" answer to that problem, but they are one of the components to an answer. Putting some of these proposals in place as soon as possible is the first step to reducing traffic by offering a safe alternative means of transportation. After being approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the proposal must then be considered for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan. Many of the improvements would not be implemented for some time even if they were approved immediately. The demand will only increase with time. Planner McCalip indicated that the first draft of the Regional Transportation Plan is scheduled for initial review in May of 1999. It would give this plan greater standing if it were presented as an adopted plan. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the notion that the best north/south routes should be based solely on the best commuter routes. He observed more bicycling on Old Hwy 86 which seems to be the main recreational route; however it is a secondary priority in this plan. He asked that verbal descriptions of the routes be included along with the maps and that a designation other than numbers be used for the secondary routes. Planner McCalip commented that if new Hwy 86 were a safer route more of the cyclists would use that route rather that Old Hwy 86. He also mentioned that many of the long-term commuters are now driving because it has become so dangerous. Commissioner Gordon mentioned that one of the items which was discussed earlier in this meeting was a transportation initiative to be introduced to the Legislature on a statewide basis. This initiative includes planning for rail stations in Orange County and funding more bike lanes. Commissioner Brown mentioned that the process may seem slow and frustrating to those citizens who worked on this plan. However, it is a visionary plan they have produced. She congratulated them on their work. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brown to refer the proposed Amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no later than May 4, 1999. VOTE: UNANIMOUS E. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to adjourn the meeting. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of County Commissioners will be held on Wednesday, March 3, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, new County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina Alice M. Gordon, Chair Q:119990221d.c Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk Q:119990221d.c