Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 10-10-2000APPROVED 6/25/2001 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING October 10, 2000 (Continued from October 3, 2000) The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 10, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. This was a continuation of the meeting held on October 3, 2000. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis, and Barry Jacobs COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Harmony Whalen COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Rod Visser and Acting Deputy Clerk to the Board Buck Tredway (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. County Manager John Link asked the Board for dates that they could tour the Meadowmont site. This was added to the end of the agenda. Commissioner Gordon distributed a memo reminding the Board that the Triangle Transit Authority has reached a momentous stage in its procedures on Phase 1 of the regional rail project. Mainly, it has submitted a draft environmental impact statement to the federal government. There will be a summary presentation at a number of different venues. Phase 1 does not go through Orange County. 9. ITEMS FOR DECISION -REGULAR AGENDA For items a-d, see the minutes from October 3, 2000. e. Govinda Hills Minor Subdivision/Pasley Appeal of Private Road Standards The Board considered an appeal by Mr. Scott Pasley regarding a staff decision to deny Govinda Hills, Phase 3 minor subdivision. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that just 10 minutes ago the developer provided the information that had been requested by the planning staff. The private road justification has been provided such as reducing the impervious area, widening the stream buffers, and meeting the criteria in the code. The appeal of the staff decision has been dropped. He has a signed letter from Scott Pasley indicating that he agrees to all of the conditions of the code and the private road justification. There are four lots in Phase 3. f. North Field at Creek Wood -Preliminary Plan The Board considered a preliminary plan for North Field at Creek Wood Subdivision located on the south side of Mt. Sinai Road in Chapel Hill Township. North Field at Creek Wood is a 10-lot subdivision proposed on approximately 32 acres. The minimum lot size is two acres and in this case, the average lot size will be 2.9 acres. Craig Benedict said that the Triangle Land Conservancy owned the land between this subdivision and Creekwood Phase 1. There are no designated streams on this property. The roads will be constructed to NCDOT standards. There will be a community water system that will be run by a private utility. There will be separate septic systems for eight lots. Two lots will have septic systems off site. There is language in the covenants to ensure that these areas for the septic systems that are off site are protected. Off-site septic systems are allowed within this watershed. The staff is suggesting that since no on site recreation lands have been identified that apayment-in-lieu of $4,550 be required. The 2 Planning Board approved this subdivision unanimously and the administration is recommending approval. Commissioner Brown asked if the two large lots could be further subdivided. Craig Benedict said that he could see no reason why they could not be further subdivided. The areas adjacent to the community well would have to be protected. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the community well. He is concerned about leaving a multiple family water supply on private property and leaving it to individuals to protect other people's water supply. He asked about the restrictions that were in place to protect those areas. Craig Benedict said that the community wells would be part of an association and protected by covenants. A backup well site could be used if the first site is not sufficient. Commissioner Jacobs would like to know if there would be any restrictions on gardens and dog pens. Several questions were asked by the Commissioners and answered by Craig Benedict. Commissioner Halkiotis asked how big an area the staff would recommend to protect the primary well site and extended septic fields. Craig Benedict said that anywhere from four to five acres for the northern part of the 16-acre lot would be reasonable. Jack Smyer, from Kimley Horn and Associates, said that both lots referred to earlier were deed restricted against further division. The 10-acre lot at the end of the cul-de-sac has significant recreation amenities that occupy a large portion of the land. The 16-acre field will be the future home site of Tom Hefner. He said that the off site septic easements were more than sufficient for the area. The goal was to have conventional systems everywhere for Creekwood. Commissioner Jacobs asked how the community well sites would be protected. Jack Smyer said that state law spells out the protection measures and also the plats will address the restriction of uses 100 feet around the well by easement, deed restrictions, and homeowners association documents. Commissioner Brown asked about the advantages of a community well over individual wells. Jack Smyer said that the goal in Creekwood has been minimal land disturbance. When septic systems are separated, the location of the houses, septic systems, and wells are further restricted. Also, there is monthly testing of water that probably is not done on individual wells. Commissioner Brown asked about the end of the public road and the easement to connect to the New Hope Triangle Land Conservancy property. Jack Smyer said that there was a trail system planned that comes close to the overhead power lines. This easement was voluntarily given by Mr. Hefner. It was planned as a public access to the Triangle Land Conservancy. Commissioner Gordon pointed out the Planning Board minutes for this subdivision and said that the staff wanted to make it known that it was peculiar to have two lots not in the subdivision and that these two additional properties must become part of the homeowners association. She said that this was not in the resolution. Jack Smyer said that they have privately agreed that each of the two lots must become part of the homeowners association and that these two lots will use the community water source. Craig Benedict said that it was hard to put restrictions on exempt lots. Commissioner Jacobs said that, in the future, when there are other private documents, he would like to have them included in the information for the Commissioners. Commissioner Brown asked about the location of the access to the trail. Jack Smyer said that the trail was not intended to be a public access point. The trail would go along the edge of the woods in the field. The trail is intended only for the 12 lots as part of the homeowners association and an access point to the Triangle Land Conservancy area. The TLC is working on an entry point. Tom Hefner, one of the developers, said that he and his partner were paying for the construction of the two parking lots that the TLC will use. He has no objection to pedestrian traffic, but he does not want people parking on the street. Commissioner Brown said that she is uneasy about the public water supply. She thinks that public water supplies do not reassure, in the long term, the protection of the public interest. She would feel more comfortable if there was another site built into this project. Jack Smyer said that there were already two wells in Creekwood. He said that there was ample opportunity to find other well sites. The primary well site is the one on lot 10. The 100-foot radius of protection applies wherever the well is located. The homeowners association will contract with the 2 utility to operate the system. He said that the purpose of the community well system was not so that more lots could be put into the subdivision. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve the Preliminary Plan for North Field at Creek Wood, in accordance with the Resolution of Approval, which is incorporated herein by reference. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Halkiotis asked that Ron Holdway do another presentation on the shallow trench conventional pumps. ~, Section Two - Beaver Valley - Preliminary Plan The Board considered a preliminary plan for Beaver Valley Subdivision located west of Mace Road and Beaver Valley Section One in Cheeks Township. The subdivision consists of 22 residential lots on a 39.79-acre tract. The property is zoned rural residential, or R1. Craig Benedict said that the original concept plan was approved in June 1996 by the Planning Board. A conventional plan was presented to the staff at that time that had 22.3 percent open space. The average lot size is 1.24 acres. There is a 150-foot open space buffer on both sides of the stream. The staff is recommending payment-in-lieu of $455.00 per lot, which would result in $10,010.00. The administration recommends approval of this preliminary plan. Commissioner Jacobs said that in other subdivisions, access points have been added to the open space area so that people do not have to walk on the road. He suggested putting some access points between lots 47 and 48, between lots 42, 43, and 44, and between lots 59 and 60. Craig Benedict said that an easement would fit between lots 44 and 45. Several questions of the Commissioners were answered satisfactorily by Craig Benedict. Chair Carey verified that there was open space associated with this area from the previous phases. This is the last phase of the subdivision. Commissioner Brown commented that there was less than $50,000 of payment-in-lieu for the entire subdivision. She said that she feels that a subdivision of this size should have a recreation area. She asked if this was the fault of zoning amendments. Craig Benedict said that a mini master plan could be developed for the project to include a neighborhood private park. He has had discussions with the ERC Director David Stancil about the County's recreation site dedication language. There are provisions for public land dedications and there are some ratios that should be included for private recreation in the absence of a land dedication. Information will be brought back to the Commissioners about this issue. Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to Beckets Ridge and noted that there was a toddler's play area included in that subdivision. He said that the County should look at this type of recreation very closely because it does not consume a lot of land. Chair Carey verified that a homeowners association would be required for this type of recreation in a subdivision. There is a large amount of liability with playground equipment. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Preliminary Plan for Beaver Valley Section Two, in accordance with the Resolution of Approval, which is incorporated herein by reference, with an additional condition that requires two access easements to the common area -one between lots 44 and 45 and one south of, but not immediately parallel to, Beaver Valley Drive. VOTE: UNANIMOUS h. Amendments to Orange County Private Road Standards The Board considered proposed amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Ordinance regarding private roads. Craig Benedict said that it had been suggested a year ago that the number of lots on private, unpaved roads exceeded the desirable amount. It was suggested that restricting the number of lots on private roads would be an amendment to the Orange County Private Road Standards. A public hearing was held on February 28, 2000. The Planning Board came up with four issues for amending the private road standards as follows: 4 1. The type of subdivisions that have the ability to ask for a private road. Over the years, the private road justifications have become less specific. 2. The number of lots that~could be on a private road. The present standard is up to 25 lots on a private road. The staff is suggesting that this be reduced to 10 lots. 3. The width of the roadways. The staff is suggesting to only have class A and class B roads and not class C roads. 4. The condition of private roads. The staff is suggesting that the roads be certified by an engineer. Craig Benedict explained the suggested private road standards. If there were flexible development there would have to be a two-acre minimum requirement, plus the 33 percent open space. Building setbacks would be from 20 feet to 40 feet instead of "significantly greater." If there were some historic areas on the site, 50 percent of that resource would be dedicated. Within protected watersheds, stream buffers would be increased by 25 percent above the County's code. Impervious surface areas would be decreased 15 percent. Glass B roads would be for one to five lots and class A would be for six to ten lots. After ten lots, a public road would be required. One of the biggest issues is how to determine which projects have to adhere to these regulations and which do not. These standards do not affect any major subdivisions. There are no projects in the pipeline with 20 lots on private roads. There are a lot of minor subdivisions that have been submitted over the last nine or ten months that are affected to a certain degree by these new regulations. There are roughly 60 minor subdivisions with five lots or less that are in various stages of approval. Of those 60, 33 of them would not be affected by these new regulations. There are 12 minor subdivisions where the applicant would have to start over with the approval process. There are seven subdivisions that could proceed using the old regulations because they were submitted before the public hearing. Craig Benedict said that the Commissioners could also decide not to grandfather in these subdivisions. There are eight subdivisions that would have to change the width of the road on their plans. Private road justification would not be required for subdivisions with three or fewer lots. Commissioner Brown verified that one driveway could service two lots and that there were no standards for the driveways on the private roads. Commissioner Jacobs thinks in some ways this is an improvement to the private road standards. He said that it was important to make it clear that private roads are not by right. He asked if the private roads that were for three or fewer lots had to have a professional engineer certify them. Craig Benedict said yes. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page six and the stream buffers for subdivisions in protected watersheds. He asked how the Rural Buffer was treated in these standards because there was no reference to the Rural Buffer in the document. Craig Benedict said that the density in the Rural Buffer for the subdivision requirements needed to be addressed. This can be addressed with the joint planning area process. Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that there was no provision for averaging lot size. One of his overall criticisms of this is that flexibility is legislated out. He said that it would make more sense to limit the length of the road rather than the number of lots. He said that until we change our standards, if someone has aone-acre lot and is willing to go 50 percent above the required open space in a flexible design, it seems to be an attempt to preserve rural character and some consideration should be given. Commissioner Jacobs suggested having a declarative sentence on page 18 in the second paragraph that says, "There is no right to a private road in any subdivision larger than three lots." He thinks there is a contradiction between this effort where we are saying that private roads help preserve rural character and one of the justificafions is that rural character is not preserved through private roads and that it is going to be the same right-of-way anyway. He thinks that private roads do preserve rural character and it is important to have the flexibility to allow private roads. Commissioner Jacobs thinks there should be more of a distinction between the subdivisions with three and fewer lots and larger subdivisions. He does not think that subdivisions with three or fewer lots should have to have an engineer. He also does not think that there should be a one-year expiration on the approval of minor subdivisions with three or fewer lots. He would argue that the private road should be capped by length and not by number of lots. Craig Benedict said that there should be no more than 15 lots on a private road because of the traffic impact and the maintenance costs. He said that it was up to the Board tonight to determine what part of the package works. Chair Carey agreed that some private roads contribute to rural character. He has always felt that 25 lots on a private road were too many, but he is not convinced that it should be reduced to 10 lots. He thinks 15 lots are more reasonable. He agrees with the declarative statement on page 18. Commissioner Brown thinks the private road standards are a big improvement over what is currently in place. She feels that whatever is adopted should be reviewed periodically. She thinks that 25 lots on a private road is not acceptable and agrees that 10 lots are sufficient. She is more interested in protecting sensitive areas such as wildlife .corridors and creeks than the size of the lots. She would like to move ahead and adopt these amendments. Commissioner Halkiotis said that people move into this area from out of state, and get upset when they find out that school buses cannot go down private roads. He said that 25 lots on a private road are totally unreasonable. He agrees that the Board should move ahead and that the standards could be modified later if needed. Commissioner Jacobs clarified that the Board does want a declarative statement that private roads are not by right. Also, he asked if the Board agreed that three or fewer lots should be treated differently, both in terms of the review period and the review itself. Craig Benedict said that from the discussion above he has identified three major things where is there is general consensus of the County Commissioners: • A declarative statement that private roads are not by right on page 18 • For three-lot subdivisions (those with three or fewer lots) no engineer certification should be necessary, and • For three-lot subdivisions there should be a one-year time limit with cone-year extension by right Commissioner Jacobs suggested that it be written into the standards that there be a review of these standards after one or two years. John Link said that it was important to state that a private road is usually unpaved. Commissioner Halkiotis said that there should be a statement in the amendments that school buses will not be going down private roads. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adopt the proposed amendments to the Orange County Private Road Standards with the following five revisions: 1) a declarative statement on page 18 as follows: "There is no right to a private road in any subdivision larger than three lots."; 2) Three-lot subdivisions (subdivisions with three or fewer lots) would not require an engineer certification for the road; 3) Three-lot subdivisions can ask for aone-year extension by right for minor subdivision approval after the one-year expiration; 4) The amendments will be reviewed in two years or less; and 5) No more than 12 lots will be permitted on a private road. Craig Benedict said that in the declarative statement, there would be a description of a private road. Chair Carey said that if a subdivision is three lots or less, the same rules should apply in that they will receive a notification that they have one year to do something. Commissioner Jacobs asked a question about the third sentence on page 18 which begins "a private road shall be deemed justified..." Following that sentence, there is language about intent and he wondered if that language is necessary anymore, given that the board has now already defined the justification for private roads. He also indicated the language was not clear. Craig Benedict said that this section was in text format and that it provided the same information as the later sections, which were in criteria format, but that it did not hurt to be redundant. The Board suggested that the staff revise the language to make it clear. Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Brown said that there should be some editing to make the document easier to read. It would be good to have a chart that shows the criteria for a private road justification. The staff will bring back revised language for the sections for which the commissioners Commissioner Halkiotis said that it concerns him that it was not brought forward as part of this package tonight. VOTE: Ayes, 4; No, 1(Commissioner Halkiotis) -Commissioner Gordon did not participate in the discussion of this matter and stated that she abstained because she has a relative who has a subdivision before the Planning Department. However, since no action was taken by the Board to excuse Commissioner Gordon from voting, her vote is counted in the affirmative. i. Proposed 2000-2001 Board of County Commissioners' Goals The Board was to discuss and consider adopting goals for fiscal year 2000-2001. However, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 10. REPORTS a. Possible Bond Referendum Schedule The Board discussed a proposed schedule for a potential November 2001 Bond Referendum. John Link said that a more detailed description of the various planning processes has been provided to the Board. These include the County space study, the Master Aging Plan, efforts on Recreation and Parks, the Justice Facility Plan, and the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance for schools. These various functions can be completed in time for discussions of a November 2001 bond referendum for the Board's consideration by the end of January. Chair Carey said that this process implies that the Board needs to make a decision next month on whether or not there will be a bond in November 2001. Also, the Board needs to make a decision no later than June 2001 on what the bond will include. John Link said that the Board could advertise for task force members in December, but would not have to make the appointments until February. Commissioner Brown made reference to, page three and said that all of the outstanding issues needed to be worked on with both school systems to clarify such issues as capacity, and others. Commissioner Brown asked Budget Director Donna Dean for a projection of how building a new school fits into the overall County budget in terms of ongoing costs. Commissioner Jacobs asked if a community college would require a large expenditure by the County. Chair Carey said that it should be factored in because the matching funds may have to come from the County budget or other sources of funds. Commissioner Jacobs said that it was a possibility that the Library Task Force may identify some needs. The next step is to activate the committees and to begin advertising for Capital Needs Advisory Committee members no later than December. John Link suggested that at the first meeting in November, by resolution, the Board should form a work group with the two school boards. Regarding dates for a tour of the Meadowmont site, the Commissioners agreed on October 30th and October 315` Discussion .ensued on the issues that would be addressed at the tour. The Chair will write a letter to the school boards asking about the timing of the construction of schools and the availability of other sites. Also, the letter will include questions that were asked before about the site constraints. b. Additional NCACC Legislative Goals Information The Board was to receive additional information on possible legislative goals to forward to the N.C. Association of County Commissioners for the 2000 General Assembly session. However, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 11. APPOINTMENTS- NONE 12. MINUTES- NONE 6 requested clarification. Commissioner Jacobs would like to see the amendments again before approving them. Commissioner Brown would like to vote on it and then bring it back for editing. Craig Benedict said that the chart could be added to the motion. If there are any minor editorial changes, they can be wrapped into the final ordinance and reviewed by the County Attorney. Commissioner Jacobs asked about criterion 1 a and why we would not want to include in the one-acre zoning where there is 50% open space as opposed to 33% as one of the threshold criteria to be allowed to have a private road. Craig Benedict said that a 40,000 square foot lot with a house and all of the accessory structures is not going to be enough in a rural setting to achieve everything that a rural setting would be. Commissioner Jacobs feels that having more open space does achieve rural character preservation, even in a one-acre zoning district. He is suggesting that if someone provides a minimum lot size required by the zoning district, they should be able to have a private road as long as at least 50% open space is provided. Discussion ensued on this idea of smaller lot size and 50% open space. Commissioner Brown would rather finish amending these standards and then approach 'cluster' from something other than a private road perspective. Craig Benedict said that this issue of open space would be brought back before thetwo-year time period for review of the private road standards. Chair Carey suggested tabling this item until the staff can come back with a recommendation for the size of the lots that will provide flexibility. . Commissioner Brown was not in favor of tabling this item. She wants to increase the lot sizes, particularly in the one-acre areas of the County. Craig Benedict said that the staff could address, with the County's open space criteria, what a subdivision with 50 percent open space accomplishes. Commissioner Halkiotis suggested setting up a small group of Commissioner Brown, Commissioner Jacobs, and Craig Benedict to bring the amendments back within 30 days. Chair Carey asked if there was a substitute motion to bring this back within 30 days with some of the issues addressed by the staff. Commissioner Brown indicated she did not want to bring it back. She will adopt whatever the Board wants. Commissioner Halkiotis withdrew his second. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would second the motion with all the things that have been stated including the 50% open space. (This "second" of the motion on the floor is a substitute motion, which did not receive a second.) Commissioner Halkiotis said that he would like to see this brought back with additional information. Craig Benedict said that he would like to see this adopted even with 50 percent open space on a 40,000 square foot lot rather than waiting. If his analysis shows that this will not work, he will bring it back to the Board for further discussion. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adopt the proposed amendments to the Orange County Private Road Standards as follows: 1) a declarative statement on page 18 as follows: 1) "There is no right to a private road in any subdivision larger than three lots."; 2) Three-lot subdivisions (those with three or fewer lots) would not require an engineer certification for the road; 3) Three-lot subdivisions (those with three or fewer lots) can ask for aone-year extension by right for minor subdivision approval after the one-year expiration; 4) The amendments will be reviewed in two years or less; 5) No more than 12 lots will be permitted on a private road and 6) A sliding scale of lot sizes will be provided for subdivisions with at least 50% open space. This also applies to the minimum two-acre lot size zoning districts (except for the Rural Buffer, which must be addressed through the joint planning process.) Commissioner Jacobs made a commitment to Commissioner Halkiotis that if the Planning Director brings back a presentation that shows that sliding scale of lot sizes is somehow detrimental to the purposes the County is trying to achieve, he will be the first one to make the motion to change it. 6 13. CLOSED SESSION -NONE 14. ADJOURNMENT With no further items for the County Commissioners to consider, a motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adjourn the meeting. The next meeting will be held on October 17, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Beverly A. Blythe, CMC s