Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 02-28-2000Approved May 3, 2000 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD February 28, 2000 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met on Monday, February 28, 2000 at 7:30 p. m. in the Judge Gordan F. Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. and Commissioners Margaret W. Brawn, Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis, and Barry Jacobs PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Karen Barrows and members Barry Katz, Howard McAdams, Theresa Nicole Gooding-Ray, Onie Lea, Lynne Holtkamp, Runyan Woods, Rachel Preston, Leo Allison, James Selkirk, and Robert Strayhorn COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Planning Director Craig Benedict and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe (all other staff members will be identified appropriately below) 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 5 YEARS. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Carey welcomed everyone to the meeting. He said that Planning Board Chair Karen Barrows would be introducing each item on the agenda. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Carey dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Orange County Subdivision Regulati~ Planning Director Craig Benedict said tt on Board of County Commissioners' goals and Plan that at every quarterly public hearing additional step comprehensive plan by bringing forth regulations the public hearing would address two general areas s~ comprehensive plan. He said that the staff is in the that all of the information about zoning, subdivisions use items have been proposed by the staff based 3oard discussions over the last six months. He said Id be taken far the preparation of the County's vith the comprehensive plan. He said that tonight's ;ion regulations and transportation issues of the ss of creating a unified land development code so economic development districts will be inane book. a. Section III-B Classification of Subdivisions Presently, there is a 24-month period where an applicant can submit an application for a minor subdivision of four lots, and then after two years, the applicant can submit an application for an additional four lots. In each case, the applicant can submit an application for an additional four lots after two years. What is being proposed tonight is that the two-year time period would be extended ten years. If an applicant submits an application for any additional lots before the ten-year period, the subdivision will be considered as a major subdivision. This regulation change would give the staff a better ability to evaluate a larger scale project. b. Section III-D-1 Concept Plan Approval in all Zoning Districts Except the Rural Buffer Presently, a concept plan can be submitted for a flexible plan and a conventional plan. The Planning Board has the option of approving or denying the flexible and conventional plans. These plans do not go any further until the applicant brings forth a preliminary plan. About t5-80% of the time, the applicant chooses the conventional plan. What is being proposed tonight is that the Planning staff would recommend which plan would fulfill the goals of the County Commissioners and the comprehensive plan. If the applicant does not choose to go with the staff recommendation, he or she can make an appeal to the County Commissioners. c. Section III-D-2 Concept Plan Approval in the Rural Buffer This is the same process as for the non-rural buffer areas. The rural buffer section of the code was amended to reflect the changes as described above. d. (non-Vehicular Access) This item has to do with anon-vehicular access line. This also can be used in residential and non-residential subdivisions so that when the subdivisions are prepared the approved access points can be put on the subdivision plat. e. Section II DEFINITIONS When lots are subdivided, very often the access points are changed to a road that should not have additional traffic. The amendment would not allow someone to shift the access point to burden the roads that are not scheduled for a higher capacity system. Appendix A Orange County Private Road Standards Craig Benedict made reference to private road standards and said that the staff is suggesting a decrease in the amount of lots that are allowed on a private road from a 25-lot maximum to a 1 a-lot maximum. He described the negative things that have occurred as a result of the 25-lot maximum regulation for private roads. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the grange County private road standards and asked what would happen to existing private roads if someone wanted to put a house on an existing lot or split the lot into two lots. Craig Benedict said that each of the subdivisions that have private road standards has something in their homeowner's association documents that address additional lots being subdivided on the road. In some cases, the cost is borne by the subdivision. Geoffrey Gledhill said that the upgrade of the road is required to service the new subdivided lots. Once the upgrade is done, then all of the lots in the subdivision are jointly responsible for maintaining the road to the upgraded standard. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the 18-foot travel way and asked if that included the swells or if it was just the actual road surface. Craig Benedict said that 18 feet was just the actual road surface and that the impermeability that comes forward from both public and private roads still is counted as the entire roadway. After the swell goes up to the 50-foot area, then there is a certain amount of impervious that would be counted in the remaining 5g feet. Commissioner Jacobs asked if it was the same amount of shoulder that must be cleared regardless of whether it is a public or private road Craig Benedict said that typically there is the surface course, afour-foot swell down and afour- foot swell up and then whatever can be preserved after that. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 13 and read the first paragraph which says, "Private roads serving more than 10 lots or dwelling units may be permitted only if constructed to NCD~T public road standards," and said that this contradicts everything which has gone before it. Craig Benedict said that this statement could be deleted. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Class A versus Class B private roads and asked if the staff has looked into the cost of hiring a professional engineer. Craig Benedict said that the staff has checked into the costs for engineers and the determination of one road over the other is negligible in cost because it is the engineer's time to go out and see if the road meets the standards. He said that one of the most important things is if the County is going to continue to have private roadways, the hazards of living on a private road should be reduced as much as possible by having the road certified to the standards. He said that drainage is the key for private roads, and that is where the biggest failing is. Commissioner Jacobs said that DOT had set up a committee to work on subdivision standards and he is concerned that the County is locking themselves in and not allowing any flexibility. He is concerned that there would be no allowance if there were some significant natural resource or rural characteristic of the property that might be enhanced by having a private road as opposed to a public road. He questions eliminating flexibility in the concept plan amendments. He would prefer that the plan be presented for comment to the Planning Board and the County Commissioners before the staff makes a ruling. Craig Benedict said that some of the language could be changed to allow for some flexibility. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to have incentives for people to do things the way the County would want them to, not making it as a right, but a privilege. Commissioner Brown asked if the Planning staff could specify the reasons far modifications of the regulations. Craig Benedict said that a checklist could be implemented and reviewed to be sure the private road standards meet the goals of the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Brown said that she would like the consumer, the one buying the lots, to be protected by the quality of road that is being constructed. She asked for more information on the process of getting an engineer to evaluate the road standards and Craig Benedict described this process. Chair Carey asked if there were some procedural problems if the process for the concept plan is changed and the County Commissioners approve the concept plan. Geoffrey Gledhill said that it is not uncommon in administrative law to do this kind of process. He thinks the objective of the Planning staff is to move non-advisory functions of the Planning Board to the County Commissioners. Chair Carey said that he feels that the Planning Board staff should review the project and not the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the private road justification and asked if there is something along that line for existing roads. She said that this regulation could result in a loss of trees which would not be the best thing for the County. Craig Benedict said that he would work with the Attorney on language to address the issue for existing roads. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he fails to see anything wonderful about roads that are gravel where everything is covered with dust. He asked if there was any County staff that could certify the roads as meeting state standards. Craig Benedict said that for private roads, there is not any qualified staff to certify the roads. He said that DOT is now coming to the Development Review Committee on a biweekly basis to discuss the road standards. Chair Barrows made reference to the subdivision approval and said that it sounds like the Planning Board is being eliminated at the concept stage, but would be brought in at the preliminary stage. Craig Benedict said that the Planning Board would definitely be brought in at the preliminary stage. Chair Barrows said that it seems like the Planning staff is taking charge of the plans and that it is a big change from the current process. Commissioner Gordon said that if the intent is to make the standards so precise that it is a matter of determination only, it could be a good thing. Commissioner Jacobs said that if something is missed in the concept plan stage and the first time that any policy maker sees it is at the preliminary level, it is too late. He would like to see apolicy- minded body review the plan, either the Planning Board or Board of County Commissioners. PUBLIC COMMENTS Scott Radway said that he strongly supports going from two years to ten years for the minor subdivisions. He made reference to the 50-foot right of way and said that right now with any roadway width, if no curbs are used, 42 to 47 feet have already been used when everything is counted. He said that the 50- faot envelope is pushed with the swell system. He made reference to the process of the plan approval and said that the County should be really careful in the language for this process. He explained the buy right process. Geoffrey Gledhill said that he did not know whether this proposal would eliminate the buy right. He said that right now the developer has the option of choosing either the flexible or the conventional plan. Commissioner Brown said that it was her perspective that the hope was to go more and more toward flexible design standards. Bob Strayhorn said that he is concerned about the process of waiting another ten years to subdivide. He asked if there was a list of people who have benefited from minor subdivisions and not abused them. Craig Benedict said that the minor subdivision process would still be available as long as it did not exceed five lots in a ten-year period. He said that about 38% of the lots that are subdivided in Orange County are minor subdivisions. MOTION A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than May 3, 2000. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF ROADS IN ORANGE COUNTY Craig Benedict said that the County is in the process of developing a Comprehensive Plan, and transportation is a very important basis of that plan. a. Amendments to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element 1. Section 2.6 Transportation 2. 3.6 Cedar Grove Township 3. 3.7 Little River Township 4. 3.8 Cheeks Tawnship 5. 3.9 Hillsborough Township 6. 3.10 Eno Township 7. 3.11 Bingham Township 8. 3.12 Chapel Hill Township b. Amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance 1. Section 4.2.10 Community Commercial III {CC-3) District 2. Section 4.2.11 General Commercial-IV {GC-4) District 3. Section 13.3 Applicability {Traffic Impact Study} 4. Article 22 Definitions c. Amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations 1. Section II Definitions Craig Benedict made reference to a map that showed some of the metropolitan and transportation planning areas within the County. He said that over the years it has been difficult to remain consistent in labeling the roads within the different jurisdictions (i.e., major local, major collector, etc.). This inconsistency has made it difficult for Planning. He said that what was being brought forward tonight was the start of the land use and transportation planning element to the comprehensive plan, where a standardized set of roadway classifications would be developed to be used in all of the different jurisdictions. Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict to show the Commissioners the limit for the metropolitan planning area. Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the shrinkage of the Hillsborough area on the map. Planner Gene Bell said that in 1987, when the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan was done with the DOT and Hillsborough, the area that was defined was roughly 90 square miles. He said that the County had some sticking points with this because the area was so large and the County had no input. In 1991- 1992, there were ongoing discussions with the DOT. Ultimately, the Hillsborough Planning area was scaled down to roughly 30 square miles. Craig Benedict said that part of the process tonight is to update the comprehensive plan from 1981 and remove the language that was in that previous plan and replace it with language that speaks to today's conditions and add the road classifications. He described the new road classification system Interstate -major transportation corridor; arterial roadway - US 70, US 54; collector roadway -Orange Grove Road; major local roads -between subdivisions; and minor local roads -subdivision road. He said that another part of the transportation planning would be to develop "super blocks". The super blocks would be large areas of the County where there should be other major local roads to connect the areas. He made reference to the importance of a traffic impact study far any new development. Commissioner Brown asked for clarification on who designates if a road is an arterial or connector road. Craig Benedict said that the County would make that designation. The County does work very closely with DOT to be sure that the definitions and classifications are consistent with DOT's definitions and classifications. Commissioner Brown asked if the trips per day were shown for the roads on the map. Craig Benedict said that DOT makes the determination of the capacity of a roadway based on a design. Commissioner Brown asked if any of the super blocks were part of the County's wildlife corridor studies and Craig Benedict said that the staff would look at the wildlife corridors. Commissioner Brown wants the wildlife corridors to be recognized as interconnected. She asked if the County keeps track of the road systems and the ratings they have now in terms of capacity. Craig Benedict said that the staff has recently received some information from DOT that would be downloaded into the GIS system that would give that kind of information. Commissioner Jacobs mentioned some grammatical mistakes in the text amendments. He would like to be very careful about having super blocks through watersheds and water quality critical areas. He is in favor of road connectivity, but he would like the County to be very careful in environmentally sensitive areas. He asked why traffic impact studies were not proposed for some of the minor local roads. Planner Karen Lincoln said that some major subdivisions may access a major local road and not a minor local road. Commissioner Jacobs would like the staff to look at doing traffic impact studies for minor local roads. He suggested taking out "major" and just saying "local" roads. Commissioner Gordon said that this amendment is a big improvement from the 1981 plan. Lynn Holtcamp said that she appreciates the comments made about the minor local roads needing to have traffic impact statements. She questioned the statement about Cheeks Township being attracted by economic development. Craig Benedict said that instead of talking about a particular township we could talk about the EDDs in general. Lynn Holtcamp asked about miles and if it is road miles or radial miles (straight line miles) and Craig Benedict said that it would be the centerline road miles. Bob Strayhorn said that on some roads there are no new subdivisions, however, the traffic has increased from areas further away. Craig Benedict said that the staff would be getting additional information from DOT and models that will hopefully indicate the background traffic that is not directly related to the subdivisions. Lynn Holtcamp asked about historic roads and if this would be a designation. Craig Benedict said that the historic roads would be part of an overlay of the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Jacobs said that the state of North Carolina has a presumption that every unpaved, rural road in the state will be paved to a width that DOT will accept. There is also a branch of DOT that reviews road impacts on historic properties. It has, from time to time, ruled that the widening of the road to DOT standards would destroy a historic characteristic, and therefore it should not be widened. He said that we should be careful when a certain minimum right-of-way is presumed. Craig Benedict said that the historic issue is a descriptive part that would be handled by overlays, but he does not see any problem with adding the issue of historic right-of-ways and not having the need to widen to the DOT standard. 2.Section IV -Required Minimum Design Standards (a) Section IV-B-3 Roads Craig Benedict said that he had covered everything in his presentation. MOTION A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than May 3, 2000. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. The next meeting will be held on February 29 at 7:30 p. m. at the Southern Human Services Center, Chapel Hill, Narth Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk