Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19990524APPROVED 8117199 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MAY 24, 1999 MINUTES The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on Monday, May 24, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for the purpose of holding a joint public hearing. BOARD OF 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 Leo Allison, Nell Andrews, Barry Katz, Howard McAdams, Jr., Robert Strayhorn and Runyon Woods ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: S.A.M. Brooks, James Selkirk, and Elizabeth Walters COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Planning Director Craig Benedict, Planners Robert Davis and Karen Lincoln and Deputy Clerk to the Board Kathy Baker. Other staff members present will be identified in the minutes as appropriate. NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING WILL BE KEPT FOR FIVE YEARS. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Gordon convened the meeting. She indicated that both of the items on the agenda would be chaired by Planning Board Chair Karen Barrows. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Gordon dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge. Barrows indicated that a letter of support for both the proposed Subdivision Regulation Text Amendments and the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments was received from Dan VanderMeer, Chair of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors. Mr. VanderMeer stated that "Orange Water and Sewer Authority recognizes that the County's Flexible Development provisions are an important component of the Creative Open Space Design - or Clustering - approach that we have recommended as a development option in the Cane Creek Watershed. Orange Water and Sewer Authority believes that the proposed amendments would appropriately strengthen some of the current open space requirements for cluster developments in ways that will more adequately protect the Cane Creek water supply. Although our Board of Directors has not had sufficient opportunity to review the proposed amendments in detail, we generally support their adoption and look forward to providing additional written comments before the hearing record is closed." A copy of this letter, in its entirety, is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office. Barrows introduced Planning Director Craig Benedict and asked him to present Items C1 and C2. Benedict introduced the newest member of the Planning Department staff, Robert Davis of Kernersville, North Carolina. Mr. Davis has ten years of experience in municipal engineering. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS (a) SECTION IV-B-10 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT (1) Section C.3 Ownership of Open Space (2) Section D.1 Estate Lot Option (3) Section D.2 Conservation Option (4) Section D.3 Cluster Option 2. ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS (1) Flexible Development (2) Open Space Benedict indicated that the Flexible Development Standard regulations are in two sections of the code. One has to do with subdivision regulations and the other has to do with zoning regulations. The Flexible Development Standards have been reviewed since December of 1998 and the Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) of the Planning Board has discussed the pros and cons of these regulations in depth. For example, the intent of the Flexible Development Standards is to preserve open space and to orient open space in certain locations. However, when the developers use the regulations they sometimes use them in a way that does not align itself with that vision. The objective over the next year is to look at the regulations and make sure that they are used as guidelines for implementation in a way that does align with the vision of the Board of Commissioners. He said that he intends to present the regulations as they currently exist and then explain the suggested changes. There are four issues that are being reviewed. The first issue is the four different approaches for flexible development. They are 1) conventional, 2) conservation, 3) cluster and 4) estate. Beginning with the estate approach Benedict stated that this is a four-acre lot minimum, which would cause a subdivision to be, divided into lots four acres in size. For example, a 100-acre subdivision would be divided into twenty-five 4-acre lots. There have been no estate requests in the time that Flexible Development Standards have been in existence. A modification is being suggested to this option. However, it is obviously not the most critical area to address due to lack of interest in this type of development. He stated that, at this meeting, the conservation and cluster approaches would be focused upon. The problematic point concerning the conservation approach is that the area being designated for the conservation area was included on the buyer's deed in fee simple. Property owners then felt that they could build as they wished on the entire lot, when in fact, part of that land was in a conservation area. That is the biggest undesirable effect of the conservation approach. In order to monitor the use of the conservation areas it would require an extraordinary amount of independent work on the part of County staff. Because of this concern the Planning Board and Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) have recommended that the provision be removed. Homeowners would no longer have on-site conservation land included on their deed in fee simple. A new approach, called the conservation cluster approach, would replace the current conservation designation. He presented a visual example of the conservation cluster option, which has smaller lots with the land to be preserved being clustered in one area. This approach leaves significant amounts of land undeveloped and available for the community to enjoy for recreation and for its visual affect. The conservation land would be controlled by a homeowners association, a conservancy or by the County, if the county had a corridor planned in the general area. He indicated that perimeter buffers is a new requirement being suggested in the Flexible Development Standards. This refers to perimeter buffers, which would allow more buffer for the adjacent properties. Part of the Flexible Development Standards was an offshoot of the Rural Preservation goals that were completed in 199411995. Roughly one-half of the property would be in the conservation areas. The committee also considered where the conservation areas should be located and agreed that it made sense to locate them along stream buffers, wooded areas and/or meadows, which would preserve the general character of the area. The conservation areas need to be contiguous so that they can be enjoyed by the majority of the people. He mentioned that they are now beginning to research the landscape section of the code and will be presenting new landscape requirements to the Board of County Commissioners to help augment the roadside buffers. That section of the code is scheduled to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners sometime in the fall. Although the estate option has never been used, it states that two acres of each estate could be placed in a conservation area and two acres of that area could be used for septic fields. That meant that one-acre of the two acre conservation area could be encroached upon for septic fields. It does not seem necessary to encroach upon a conservation area for this additional 40,000 square feet given that there are already 80,000 square feet on the unencumbered part of the lot. The Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) is suggesting that the encroachment of septic fields on conservation areas be decreased to 25% of what would normally be allowed in the lot. That is being suggested in both the estate option and the conservation cluster option. Currently the code allows a 50% encroachment upon all of the conservation easements. The Planning Staff will continue to research the question of how much encroachment, if any, is actually necessary within the conservation area. Depending on what size lot is being considered, it may be possible to scale the encroachment back even further. The conservation cluster option would most likely be used in areas where public water and sewer were already available. The lots would be approximately 1I2 acre in size and would not be expected to serve a septic field. QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Commissioner Brown asked if the village cluster approach was going to be discussed. Benedict stated that they were not suggesting changes to the village cluster approach. This is another approach, which would require public water and sewer, and there have been no applications requesting this approach. Commissioner Carey asked what types of uses were being considered for the open space in its new form under the ownership of quasi-public organizations. Benedict stated that if it were controlled by the homeowners association the regulations would be in the covenants which would establish and describe allowable uses, for example, jogging/hiking trails, open playground use, private recreation uses, etc. The enforceability provision between homeowners associations and the county is much stronger than dealing one on one with a private property owner. If the land were transferred to another organization, such as the Triangle Land Conservancy, homeowners would be aware of the fact that those portions of the land were not owned by them and their options for using that portion of the land restricted. Those restrictions could include that the trees could not be cut down and that public use would, or would not, be allowed. The Triangle Land Conservancy is looking at standardizing agreements. The most important issue is that by having the conservation area as a separate tract the homeowners would be more clear that it is not theirs in fee simple. Commissioner Jacobs asked if any consideration was given to reviewing the 33% open space that is required in the conservation cluster options to determine if that amount of open space is sufficient. Benedict stated that they did look at that issue. Staff is in the process of developing a model, which would show how much open space is necessary for a buildable lot. He commented that he felt we should wait until the soil suitability analysis is completed prior to changing this number. He stated that if the lots were smaller there would be a tighter open space constraint. Staff will be looking at this over the summer and present their findings in the fall. Chair Gordon asked Benedict to compare the cluster option and the conservation cluster option in terms of the number of lots allowed. Benedict indicated that in both the original cluster option and the new conservation cluster option the number of lots allowed is the same. The only change is that the ownership of the conservation area would not rest with the landowner. However, it is possible that the conservation cluster option would result in a slightly smaller number of lots. He mentioned that the Planning staff will be looking at the minimum lot size standards. Over the course of the summer many standards will be reviewed. These include the Protected Watershed Standards, Critical Area Watershed Standards, and the Cane Creek Reservoir Regulations. They want to make sure that those regulations being implemented on top of the minimum lot size work in the manner in which they are intended. They will present various scenarios to see how the different standards actually impact the different options. In response to a question, Benedict stated that the 5,000 square foot lot option was deleted because in any scenario they came up with, it would not be possible to use. Planner Karen Lincoln stated that for the majority of the county where the subdivisions would be located the zoning is either A-R or R-1 and the minimum lot size in both of those districts is 40,000 square feet. The minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet would be allowed only in R-8 zoning which is unlikely in the County. Also, within the protected watersheds, the septic facilities must be on the lot where the residence is located. That requires approximately 40,000 square feet for the residence, septic system and repair area. The land would have to be in a transition area or an area that already has water and sewer if the lot size was reduced to 5,000 square feet. Off-site septic easements are permitted for developments that are not in a protected watershed, The amendment proposes to reduce the amount of open space, which can be used for an off-site septic system. Currently, 50% of the required open space may be used for off-site septic easements, and the amendment proposes that the amount of open space allowed for septic easements be reduced to 25%. COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD None. Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 7, #3 and asked if a carport would be considered open space. After some discussion it was determined that it could be interpreted to mean that a carport could be considered open space. There was a consensus that the Board of Commissioners did not intend for carports to be considered open space. Planning staff explained that the Zoning Ordinance defines open space with respect to calculating land use intensity. The amendment adds a definition with respect to open space in flexible development subdivisions. Attorney Gledhill suggested that rather than changing the definition, it would work to have a separate definition of Open Space for Flexible Development purposes. This would protect the land use intensity system by making sure that the overall definition of open space, which does not pertain to Flexible Development issues, is not changed inadvertently. Commissioner Gordon suggested that the Board of County Commissioners look at the overall definition of open space as it is used throughout the ordinance. Some of the original language came from regulations being used in more urban areas and this might be a good time to review that language. Benedict indicated that they will be sure that the definition of open space refers only to Flexible Development Subdivision Open Space. He indicated that they would also review the definition of open space throughout the ordinance. Barrows referred to page 3, bullet 3 and asked if the 100-foot buffer referred only to Flexible Development. Benedict indicated that the 100-foot buffer referred only to Flexible Development, however, in the future the possibility of including this buffer for other areas will be considered. This needs to be approached carefully so that an unexpected burden is not created on conventional developments. Also, in the future, the Planning Staff will review roadside buffer requirements. Commissioner Carey referred to page 3, Article 22, Definitions (a) and asked if there had been cases where developers attempted to use front and side yard setbacks as open space. Benedict stated that developers have, in fact, attempted to use those setbacks as open space. He indicated that open space is supposed to be located in contiguous open stretches, however, developers have attempted to use areas not intended to be considered open space. Hopefully, some of those loopholes have been closed. Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 16, 3`d bullet "...house lots should abut undivided open space..." and suggested that the phrase "where possible" be included. A significant natural area could exist which would be situated in such a way that it would not be possible to design the subdivision with the majority of the lots abutting it. He also asked if there is a requirement that utility lines be buried. Benedict indicated that they could reword this section to include Commissioner Jacobs comments. With regard to the utilities, he thought that they are all required to be underground. He indicated that they would double check this and report back to the Board of County Commissioners. Chair Gordon referred to page 11, bullet #4 and asked how developers could make sure that their open space is contiguous to that located on adjacent lots. Benedict stated that this can be accomplished during the lot layout design by making sure that resources are not isolated. He mentioned that they expect the developer to come up with several different options so that they can see which works best for the circumstances. This will not be a mandate. It will be worded so that it is clear that this will be accomplished wherever possible. bullet. Chair Gordon agreed that the phrase "where possible" should be included in this QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS Steve Yuhasz spoke in opposition to these amendments. He commented that there was no incentive for a developer to build a Flexible Development. The goals of flexible development are reasonable, however, these amendments are designed to discourage using these standards. He stated that the estate option which requires 50% open space, none of which can be used as side or rear setbacks, actually requires 73% of the lot be open space. He stated that there was no incentive to use this option. He referred to Section C.3 and commented that it was not clear if the intent was to make all restrictive covenants irrevocable or just those parts that refer to the ownership of the common areas. Attorney Gledhill stated that this refers only to the area that the County actually regulates. Yuhasz referred to the conservation cluster option, which addresses the length to width ratio of four-to-one. He asked who determines if a specific area is to be designated a wildlife corridor or a neighborhood common. There needs to be guidelines, which make this, more clear. He mentioned that the issue of using setbacks as open space could be resolved by prohibiting the use of fences. If the land was not subdivided by fences it would then be contiguous open space area. Chair Barrows asked Attorney Gledhill if another public hearing would need to be held if the wording in the proposed amendments was changed prior to being returned to the Board of County Commissioners. Attorney Gledhill felt that would not be necessary, however, he indicated that he would look at that question more specifically prior to the Planning Board's recommendations being returned to the Board of County Commissioners. If, at that time, he determined that another public hearing is necessary, he will advise the Board of County Commissioners. Planning Board member Katz stated that the conservation option as it currently exists has been a failure. Side yards were used by almost all of the developers as open space. The proposal being presented does present clear conservation areas. Developers using this new option would be creating beautiful open space for recreation. Under the plan in place now it was hit or miss as to whether that would happen. Commissioner Jacobs commented that a logical solution to this situation is to decide if Flexible Development should be mandatory. He asked staff and the Planning Board to consider this as an option. Benedict agreed that the new standards are not going to have developers lining up to use the conservation cluster options, however, it does delete an option that was dysfunctional. He hopes to come forward with a Flexible Development option later in the year after full consideration of the issue. This proposal will be both feasible, from the development standpoint, and attractive with regard to the preservation goals. Commissioner Jacobs said that if the proposal being suggested this evening does not generate, even in the short term, more flexible open space application, he would argue that we have gone in the wrong direction. Possibly requiring flexible development in the short term, while the issue is being further researched and improved, might result in some flexible development. Commissioner Brown commented on Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion that the Planning Department staff return with more recommendations on flexible development, including making flexible development mandatory. She asked if Benedict would return with those suggestions in the fall. Benedict indicated that he would return in the fall with those recommendations. He will research this issue and solicit input from the public and developers. Also, they will take various properties and put them through the processes that they will be suggesting prior to presenting them to the Board of County Commissioners. The soil suitability analysis and minimum lot size will be carefully reviewed. They will hopefully return with standards that would be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in such a way that developers would actually use them. Commissioner Brown stated that if flexible Development is implemented in such a way that it achieves the goal of rural character and preservation of open space, she would want to see it become the development option for the county. Chair Gordon referred to Section F, Evaluation Criteria and asked how it would be decided which goal would be pursued. For example, under forestland in Natural Areas, the goal is to preserve forestland and within farmland conservation the goal is to preserve farmland. She pointed out that with forestland preservation the development would be in the open space. However, in farmland preservation, the development would be in the forest area. The question is, does the staff complete an analysis and then steer the developer? Benedict stated that Dave Stancil's area is developing maps will be used by the planning staff to identify conservation areas. For example, developers will be made aware of where wildlife conservation corridors, etc., are located. When developers initially approach the Planning Department, they will be made aware of all areas of importance, which will need to be given consideration. To date, a prioritization for environmentally sensitive areas has been developed. What they have not yet developed is a comparison between the areas and a ranking of what is more important. That comparison will guide the decision when there are conflicting areas to be preserved. That ranking system will include items such as "how rare is the resource in the county, is it in the path of development, and what is the integrity of the resource." A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brown, to refer the proposed amendments to Article 22, Definitions, of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and to Section IV-B-14, Flexible Development, of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than August 17, 1999. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to adjourn the meeting. The next regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners will be held on May 27,1999 in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, Old CourtHouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Alice M. Gordon, Chair Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk