Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-23-2011 APPROVED 8/23/2011 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING May 23, 2011 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing meeting on Monday, May 23, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS Building, Hillsborough Commons, in Hillsborough, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff inembers will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford and members Alan Campbell, H. T. "Buddy" Hartley, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Mark Marcoplos, Maxecine Mitchell, Andrea Rohrbacher, Lisa Stuckey, Judith Wegner, and Larry Wright PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Pete Hallenbeck A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. It was announced that the Planning Board Chair Brian Crawford will be arriving late. Planning Board Vice-Chair Larry Wright chaired the entire meeting with Chair Pelissier. It was decided that Items C-1 and C-2 would be in reverse order, starting with agenda item C-2 because it was expected to take a much smaller amount of time than item C-1. Chair Pelissier said that there is no time limit for public comments on the first two items because it is sworn testimony. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2. Class A Special Use Permit(SUP)Application Proposing Development of a Montessori School — To review a developer-initiated project that would allow for development of a Montessori School at the intersection of Lawrence Road and Old NC 10. Larry Wright read the item. Larry Wright: I would like to ask those who have signed up to give testimony for this #2 item to please come to the Clerk and be duly sworn in. Deputy Clerk David Hunt: Do you solemnly swear/affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Michael Harvey: I am Michael Harvey with the Planning Department and I am here this evening to present to you staff's abstract concerning a Class A Special Use Permit application requesting authorization to locate a Montessori School at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Hillsborough at 1710 Old NC 10. You will note from your packet that this parcel of property is 2.8 acres in area, it is zoned Rural Residential, and it is within a 10-year Transition Area as designated on the Land Use Element Map. The applicant has provided you with a formal site plan and photographs of the building. As you will note from the notes section on the submitted site plan as well as our abstract, the Unitarian Universalist Church wishes to allow a Montessori School utilizing the existing church facility where students range in ages of 6-12 years of age, for a maximum capacity of 12 students at the school. All children, according to the narrative as well as the site plan, are to be dropped off by their parents or guardians and there will be no bus service or bus traffic at the property associated with the school operation. For the Board members, you do have the PowerPoint presentation in front of you to follow along. You will note from the abstract as well as the narrative, this project does not involve any new construction and will make use existing building and parking facilities. As also noted on the site plan, there are no outdoor sports fields or other recreational facilities proposed. The school actually plans to make use of the existing playground facility on the property. The entrance to the site will be off of Old NC 10 as denoted on the site plan. We've already talked about the applicant providing pictures of the various elevations of the building. As this Board is already aware, a Class A Special Use Permit is processed through a quasi-judicial review process. The County Commissioners and the Planning Board will hear factual evidence and sworn testimony concerning the project's compliance with the various provisions of the ordinance and your decision on this application will be based on evidence presented at these hearings and testimony offered by the applicant and all of those that have been sworn in to speak. With respect to providing our assessment of this application, you will note beginning on page 250 of your abstract, we have provided the various requirements contained within the ordinance with respect to the development of a school within Orange County. It is our contention that the proposal is generally consistent with the components of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Element Map, and that the application does contain all required elements in order for the formal review to commence. It is our opinion that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with various development standards contained within the ordinance. As the project is limited to 12 students, we do not foresee any negative impacts on adjacent properties resulting from the approval of this application. With respect to conditions, staff will be suggesting conditions as we move through this process and will address those at the July Planning Board meeting when this is due to be taken up - specifically dealing with the occupancy of the structure, access management issues, the cadence of permit review/approval, specifically securing the necessary Building and Health Department permits, as well as the necessary inspections from the Orange County Fire Marshall regarding occupancy. We also are going to be requesting notification from the State concerning the accreditation of the program for being compliant with State guidelines. The applicant will be responding to these recommended conditions at an appropriate time at a future meeting. For this evening, what you are being asked to do, as noted in our Recommendations section, is: 1. Receive the application, 2. Conduct the Public Hearing, 3. Receive any and all comments on the proposal 4. Refer the amendment package to the Planning Board for its recommendation with a request that a recommendation be returned in time for the August 23, 2011 regular BOCC meeting, and 5. Adjourn the public hearing to August 23, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board recommendation. I will be more than happy to answer any questions you have and the applicant is here this evening and will be addressing the Board as well. Larry Wright: The Chair would like to ask anybody that is sworn in to come up and speak from the public. Michael Neal: Good evening, I'm Michael Neal, and I have been sworn. I represent the applicant and I think Mr. Harvey did a thorough job of presenting the project, so I won't belabor it anymore. I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. With that, I'll set aside. Jack Niklas: I've been sworn in. We live at 2215 Running Pine, which is right in the backyard of the church, presently. I speak to some concerns that we have with the addition of the school. Concern #1 is that the school is required to relocate and he is concerned why was this school required to relocate. Were there concerns in the neighborhood that we should be addressing at this hearing? I'm concerned about the septic. It is a residential area and a house built in a residential neighborhood and it falls under different guidelines. That kind of information would be environmentally useful being in an adjacent property. With the daytime school running five days a week, the church already has increased their activities throughout the week from just having Sunday service to having Saturday events, weekday events, and this now will push their activities over and creates a seven-day busy activity schedule for folks at the church and the school. As we have a view of the parking lot, they've had to modify the parking lot to adjust to the traffic increase and they are packed. Those are concerns of ours. Because the school does not have a kitchen, they are going to have lunches provided by the students. That is fine. There will be additional and unusual trash storage and I'm concerned about what provisions will be made for the storage and also the pickup. It was mentioned about recess and outdoor activities for the school and that they do have a fenced-in playground. I'm concerned about the definition of a recess and outdoor activities, specifically outdoor activities. Does that mean when it's a nice day that the kids will be outdoors all day? Those are my concerns at this time. Lori Evarts: Hi, my name is Lori Evarts and I've been sworn. I live at 2215 Wyngate Drive. We own the two properties that are adjacent to the school. I have similar questions as Mr. Niklas, we didn't talk before the meeting. I am also concerned why it is relocating. That is a point that needs to be addressed, as well as the leach field for the sewer. They are on septic and that needs to be addressed. I also brought up the issue with regard to trash requirements and whether or not there will be a dumpster or something of that nature. The parking lot has been upgraded. The church members are very respectful and do a great job of keeping up the landscaping, however, there are numerous occasions where individuals will have cookouts or other kinds of things where I don't believe there's adequate water supply to the site where they are located. There are a couple of things in the application that I'm concerned about. On page 254, item 5, it refers to the inclusion of a park and ride facility for public transportation. I really want to know what this allows for. I did not realize it until tonight that this submission was put together by a developer. That concerns me a bit. The other item is also on page 254, item 6. It says, "site access," part A states there should be a minimum of two access points to the site, and I'm wondering how this will be accomplished when there's only one driveway and it is off NC 10. I realize there is no bus service, however, the application does specify that two entranceways are necessary. Another thing, the lot size varies from 2.8 acres, 2.95, 3. I realize there is some rambling in there, but being a property owner of two adjacent properties, I think it is important that these delineations are respectful and surveying is done appropriately. I'm just wondering whether or not any other kind of safety measures are going to be in place, similar to what Mr. Niklas said about, you know, you just don't want children to get hurt. I'm just trying to understand a little bit more about that. I think it would be great to have a school nearby, but I am concerned about this being proposed by a developing unit and wondering what other kind of expansion of these application items will be allowed, such as maybe increasing enrollment beyond 12. The conditions that the gentleman put up first about occupancy, assessment, and accreditation — I think those are very interesting and I'm curious to know if we will get more information before that Planning Board meeting in July so that way our questions can be answered sooner rather than later. Larry Wright: Does the Planning Board have any questions? Judith Wegner: I wonder if we could hear a response to the first question about why the move since we have someone from the applicant here. Michael Harvey: The answer to the question that I can provide based on my initial meeting with the applicant was that they currently have a shared agreement with an existing Montessori school on Highway 70, through funding issues that the school is terminating that relationship, this school is having to find additional classroom space. Richard Merrit: I can answer some of that. I am from the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Hillsborough, and I'm working on trying to get this Special Use Permit through. One of the things I can respond to is the question of why the school is moving. If you need further discussion of that, the two teachers for the school are here tonight. The Montessori Farm School, which is currently at Abundant Life Church has decided that the students in the K-5 range are not financially worthwhile to them. The end of this year, they are stopping that part of their program. The Montessori Farm School will continue at Abundant Life, but without this particular age group. Because of the connection of some of the people that are involved in the new school in the K-5 program with our congregation, they approached us to use some of our facilities. Is that clear enough? Michael Harvey: The only thing I want to remind the Board, and I alluded to it in my initial presentation, I want to try to answer some of these questions that were posed tonight. I think the applicant is going to have to respond in writing to the Planning Board and County Commissioners as well. If you will begin on page 250 of the abstract, going through approximately page 254, we have taken liberty of trying to provide basic responses to the requirements Orange County has imposed on applicants desiring to develop a school within the County. Some of those conditions, in fact one condition beginning on page 254, concerning the park and ride facility—you will note that the County Planning staff has indicated that it is our opinion that there is no need for such a facility at this site. The applicant hasn't proposed it and we don't deem it necessary that they incorporate a park and ride facility for this particular location. You will also note that the site plan that has been submitted to you does show the required mandated two access points. The applicant has been made aware that they are going to have to obtain the necessary driveway permit from the North Carolina Department of Transportation and install that to address access management traffic issues. I believe that we have provided the basic answers within the abstract on the pages that I've sited that all of the specific standards be included. Within your packet are correspondence from the various County staff people, specifically the Fire Marshall, the Sheriff's Office, Rich Shaw with DEAPR ( Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation) with respect to review of this application. We are confident as we continue to move forward we can address the majority of these questions and concerns with the applicant's assistance. Regarding the septic issue, in consultation with Mr. Neal, the church and the applicant have been working with Environmental Health and they are continuing to have meetings and dialogue as necessary. It is my understanding that one of the recommendations of the Health Department is going to be that the existing system is going to have to be expanded in order to accommodate these 12 students. As we typically do, staff will be recommending formal conditions at the Planning Board level, which will then be reviewed by the County Commissioners. Those conditions historically and typically have always been that all appropriate permits are obtained by the applicant before occupancy. The answer to the question of what happens if they cannot secure those permits is that they don't open. That's just a simple answer to that question. We will continue to work with the applicant to supply the necessary information to address the questions posed here this evening and if you have any additional questions, I'll answer them. Commissioner Jacobs: Page 252 talks about screening. It says that, "landscaping and buffering plan appears to be consistent with the requirements of the ordinance." So, does that mean that additional screening is required or the screening that's there, especially in the parking area is sufficient? Michael Harvey: No sir, we determined existing screening is sufficient to comply with the requirement of the code. Commissioner Jacobs: Is there any kind of requirement for a fenced area for a school? Michael Harvey: No, sir. Commissioner Jacobs: So, presumably, there were some safety concerns expressed by neighbors. That would solely fall under the purview of the teachers and the staff of the facility to make sure that the students were supervised and did not venture off the site. Michael Harvey: Correct, sir. I will, however, point out the existing recreation at the existing playground does have a fence around it to separate it from the church facility. Commissioner Jacobs: I just had a question for our Attorney. Is it germane, in a special use permit, to be asking why a facility is moving from one place to another? John Roberts: If the Board of County Commissioners determines it's germane, then yes it is. You are directed, commended by your ordinance to ask questions to determine the competent material and substantial evidence that support the project's compliance with various regulations. Whether the applicant has met the burden of proof, you have to make that determination. You determine what the relevant questions are. If someone presents testimony that may not be relevant, I may advise you that it's not relevant, but you still make the determination. Chair Pelissier: I'll now need a motion related to the Planning Director's recommendations to receive the application, 1-5, listed on page 255 and adjourn the public hearing to August 23rd. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to receive the application, refer the amendment package to the Planning Board for its recommendation with a request that a recommendation be returned in time for the August 23, 2011 regular BOCC meeting, and adjourn the public hearing to August 23, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C1. Conditional Use District (CUD) Rezoning Application in Conjunction with a Major Subdivision —To review a developer-initiated project that would allow for a 27-lot major subdivision at the northwest intersection of Tinnin Road (SR 1313) and School House Road (SR 1314). The rezoning request is from Rural Residential (R-1) to High Intensity Residential Conditional Use (R-8-CU). Larry Wright read the agenda item. Larry Wright: Anybody that needs to be sworn in that has signed this paper, come up as a group and be sworn in, and remember that any items that you are submitting must be given to the Deputy Clerk for the record. David Hunt: Do you solemnly swear/affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth -so help you God? Michael Harvey: This item is specifically is a public hearing for a Conditional Use (CU) application for a Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit for a Major Subdivision off of Tinnin Road, within Efland. This project has been referred to as Tinnin Woods by the applicant, Orange County Habitat for Humanity. One note of clarification I would offer the Board this evening, Mr. David Brooks is the Attorney for the applicant and he is going to be coming up after I've concluded my presentation and assist the applicant with the introduction into the record of various items. You have all received a packet from the County Planning staff, specifically a revised Attachment 1, which is going to take the place of the application previously forwarded to you. The applicant at will enter that information into the record during their presentation. For purposes of this discussion, I'll refer to the application as Attachment 1 and as that you reference the revised document which we provided to you. As you all will note from the abstract, which begins on page 1, we are here to look at a major subdivision. The major subdivision is located at the intersection of School House Road and Tinnin Road off of Highway 70. The applicant in this case is Habitat for Humanity. The project involves two separate parcels of property with PIN numbers identified in the abstract. The total size of the subject parcels is 8.9 acres. It is currently zoned Rural Residential as already articulated the Chair, Dr. Wright, and is located in the Upper Eno Protected Watershed. Both properties are also located within the 10-year Transition Area as designated on the Land Use Element Map of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The request is to rezone this property from Rural Residential (R-1) to High Intensity (R8) Conditional Use for the purpose of developing a major subdivision. Lot sizes in the subdivision are going to range from 5,500 square feet to 12,500. The overall density for this development will be three units per acre and the project, according to the applicant, is intended to be served by water and sewer lines that are already available in the area. You have in your packet a copy of the site plan. You'll note the general layout the applicant is proposing. As denoted on the site plan, the applicant intends to extend Tinnin Road at the edge of the project and develop two public roads, one cul-de-sac, and a public access path to the open space parcel to the north of the project. Within the narrative, the applicant is requesting modifications of existing development standards, specifically relaxation of required land use buffers, development setbacks, and zoning setbacks. The site plan denotes a variable width buffer width of 25 to 50 feet around the perimeter of the property. The applicant is proposing that they abide by a 5 foot corner and rear yard setback versus the 8 foot required under the requested zoning designation. It should be noted that this will not have an impact on corner lot setback lines, which are mandated by the code to observe the principle setback of the district. As the Board is already aware, this project involves a two-step approval process. You are looking at a rezoning request. It is a legislative review process. There is also a Class A Special Use Permit process, which is quasi-judicial. What this essentially means is that you are going to be asked, upon the conclusion of this case and once the public hearing is closed, to first render a decision on whether or not to rezone the property as requested and then whether or not to issue the Class A Special Use Permit approving the site specific development plan that the applicant has provided. In handling the rezoning, it's going to be the County Commissioners' responsibility to make findings on whether or not the proposal is consistent with the elements of the Comprehensive Plan and whether or not the applicant has provided sufficient documentation justifying the request. With respect to the Class A Special Use Permit, however, the County Commissioners are ultimately making and basing their decision on the sworn testimony and evidence submitted by the applicant, by those in favor, and those in opposition of this project, as well as staff, in terms of their compliance with the various standards established within the regulations. The review of this application does occur simultaneously, so you are not going to look at one component independently from one another. You're going to look at the rezoning and the special use permit simultaneously. As the Board will remember from previous cases, conditions can be imposed on this project, but it must be mutually agreed to by the applicant and the Board of County Commissioners in writing before a decision can be rendered. Our initial comments, and I will begin reviewing the specifics of this application, beginning on page 4. We have found as a staff that the application is generally consistent with the Land Use Element Map and we believe it is consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. We believe that anticipated density for the project is consistent for properties located within the 10-year transition area, as denoted within the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with urban designated areas as noted on the County's urban services boundary map. With respect to roads, the applicant is proposing to build public roads, as noted on the site plan. The development of the proposed roads is consistent with the requirements of the ordinance and with the requirements of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. As I indicated, the applicant is proposing to extend and modify existing water and sewer facilities to not only handle this particular development project, but to allow for future connectivity. We are recommending a larger sewer line to be installed on Tinnin Road. Further, we believe that the applicant's objective in terms of replacing the existing 3" inch water line, which is totally inadequate to provide fire suppression services, addresses a lot of the concerns that staff has about development in that area in general and will address existing public safety concerns that we already had identified. With respect to dealing with stormwater and drainage issues, you will note on the site plan, the applicant is proposing multiple stormwater drainage systems which they indicate will be green facilities including rain gardens or bio-retention areas. They are fully aware that that they are going to have to obtain a stormwater permit from the State in accordance with Neuse River Basin Regulations and they will be held to the Neuse River requirements that are currently being imposed by the State of North Carolina. Brian Crawford arrived at 7:31 PM. With respect to the landscaped area surrounding the perimeter of this property, staff is comfortable with the proposed modification given the arguments contained within the application. We believe that the reduction of the buffer is consistent with surrounding residential development and actually helps foster more of a neighborhood feel rather than treat this project as a separate residential entity. We believe and find that this project is consistent with existing water and sewer boundary map requirements in terms of its location to water and sewer services. Staff believes that the proposed density is consistent and acceptable for the area, given existing development in terms of the size of existing lots, as well as the size of existing residences, and we find the proposed modifications to the zoning setback requirements are reasonable, based on the proposed development of the site. With respect to conditions, I will remind the Board that in the past, staff has provided a preliminary set of conditions in order to begin a dialogue with the applicant prior to a public hearing. We are recommending several conditions in the areas of utility line installation with respect to size of lines, and the cadence for their review and approval. We are recommending some revisions dealing with access management, the installation and maintenance of landscaping, and the scheduled construction of roadways to the individual housing that is being proposed. The applicant will respond formally as recommendations are continued to be made by County Commissioners, Planning Board members, and staff. One note at this juncture, in Attachment 3 in initial conversations with the applicant's engineering firm, there was discussion on extension of water lines to a system within the Ashwick and Richmond Hills subdivisions. And while the applicant has expressed a willingness to review the feasibility of connecting water lines with Richmond Hills, they would like me to point out, that connection to the Ashwick subdivision is not possible given current lot configurations and ownership issues and that such a requirement would more than likely necessitate them seeking public assistance to fund the connection. What staff is recommending this evening is that you receive this application, you conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board sworn testimony on this application, and then refer this matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the September 20, 2011 regular meeting, and that you adjourn this hearing until the September 20, 2011 regular meeting in order to receive the Planning Board recommendation and any additional submitted written comments. Mr. Chair, unless you have any specific questions of ine, I'll step down and let the applicant make a more formal presentation. David Rooks: Mr. Chair and members of the respective boards, I am David Rooks, I am an attorney in Chapel Hill, and I have the privilege of representing Habitat for Humanity. My role here tonight is limited, it is simply to observe the quasi-judicial procedure. I will be introducing two speakers who will present on behalf of the applicant under sworn witnesses. The first will be Ms. Susan Levy, who is Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity and the second is Mr. Tracy Parrott, who is with Summit Engineering and will provide the technical expertise for the application. Once they testify, I will actually come back and enter information into the official record. Susan Levy: Good evening, I'm Susan Levy, I'm Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity and I have been duly sworn. I will start out with our Mission Statement, I think many of you know that Habitat is a non-profit organization that has been providing affordable housing opportunities for over 25 years now in Orange County. We recently celebrated our 25th anniversary and have built more than 200 homes here in Orange County, and positively impacted the lives of over 550 Orange County children. We are an affiliate of a much larger organization, Habitat for Humanity International, which has a presence in over 90 countries and all 50 states. More than 400,000 homes have now been built worldwide since 1976 and Habitat for Humanity is actually the eighth largest homebuilder in the United States. The reason that we're here, the reason that Habitat for Humanity exists is that we provide affordable housing opportunities and we work very closely in partnership with the County to do that. We have been the recipient of funds over the years for the Orange County Housing Bond program, through the Orange County HOME program, through the State CDBG program, and Chapel Hill's Community Development program there in order to further the wishes and desires of the County. I'm just quoting here the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The overall goal of the Housing Element is: "Opportunity for all citizens of Orange County to rent or purchase safe, decent, accessible, and affordable housing." I'll also refer you to the Orange County HOME Consortium Consolidated Plan for 2010-2015, which is the plan that HUD requires that the County put together of all the jurisdictions here in Orange County that distribute HOME funds, which are used to further affordable housing. I'll just read this very briefly for those that are facing forward. As mixed use/mixed income communities continue to add amenities to new home construction, home costs continue to rise in Orange County despite the current housing market slowdown. As the population of Orange County continues to grow, the lack of affordable land has become a major barrier to the development of Affordable Housing, especially when taking into account that the Town of Chapel Hill and the County will not develop infrastructure beyond the Urban Services Boundary. There are a limited number of developers and builders who are capable of building Affordable Housing. The profit potential for middle and upscale housing draws most builders to that range of development leaving few contractors willing to work in the Affordable Housing arena. Habitat serves a very specific population of people. They are those who earn between 30-65% of the median income for a family of four, which is $25,000-42,000. They have housing needs of some type. They could be living in housing that is unsafe, overcrowded, or unaffordable. Many of our homeowners live in housing that might be ok, but they are paying 50- 60% of their income for that housing with nothing left over for basic necessities. The other requirement of our homeowners is that they are willing to partner with Habitat. I think most people know that we have a rather unique program in that all of our homeowners invest 325 hours of labor, which is called sweat equity, helping with other homes of other Habitat families. Every homeowner purchases their home and they have a zero interest mortgage through Habitat. Like a bank, we check their credit history, their employment history, to make sure that they are going to be able to make the monthly mortgage payments. We always like to say that Habitat is not a Hand Out. Like I said, the homeowners purchase their homes and they are taxpaying citizens of the County. In order to qualify, they have to have lived in Orange County for at least 1 year before they apply. They have to be U. S. residents. They have to demonstrate stable income for the past two years, and they have to attend a series of workshops and homebuyer classes to prepare them for home ownership. The steps in becoming a homeowner involve a very careful screening process, first of all, to make sure that they make the basic qualifications. Once that screening is done, we have a Family Selection Committee that actually does home visits and goes to meet with the family and sees their circumstances and talks about whether or not they are really ready for home ownership. That committee makes recommendations to our board, which makes the final approval. The homeowner signs a letter of intent and then there is a 50-hour trial period of sweat equity. As I mentioned before, Habitat sells our homes at no profit and we use a zero interest mortgage, which is one of the reasons that the housing is affordable. Families do participate in appreciation of their homes by a shared equity arrangement and we also receive funds from Orange County and all of the homes have a 99-year affordability requirement that the homeowners have to abide by. Our homeowners, by paying their mortgage payments back to Habitat really help us to continue building homes in the future, and last year we collected over $400,000 from our homeowners. As I said, our homeowners pay property taxes. Last year, they paid over$250,000 in property taxes to Orange County. Because we collect mortgage payments, we were also able to collect Homeowners' Association dues. I know that's an issue in other homeowners' associations, that it is sometimes difficult to collect dues. Because we are collecting their mortgage payments and we make that a condition of foreclosure, I think we have a very high success rate in having adequately funded homeowners' associations. Again, most folks know that Habitat builds homes using volunteer labor from the community. We have churches, businesses, civic organizations, and student groups that come together and help us financially support the causes as well as physically help. This is a home in Richmond Hills, the homeowners have a landscape business and did a really wealthy job of landscaping their home. We are currently building in the Phoenix Place subdivision in Chapel Hill. It is a 50- home subdivision and there are about 20 homes there now. It just gives you an idea of some of the building plans of this style. We really worked hard over the years to make our homes as attractive as we possibly can while also keeping them affordable. We've really identified some things that are low maintenance over time. We've also been building in the Fairview community in Hillsborough for a number of years. We've been able to purchase lots and develop homes there. We now have 38 homes in the Fairview community. We've had, I think, a really significant impact in operating and revitalizing that community. We like to think that we build a very high-quality home. Our construction director is a perfectionist and over the years he has really contributed to the overall improvement of our home and our home construction. Currently, all of our homes are built to bronze level certification under the National Homebuilder's Association Rebuilding Certification Program. We were actually on the Homebuilder's Green Tour this past weekend. As part of the green building, all of our homes are Energy Star certified and we've been doing that since 2002. Our houses are very, very energy efficient, and on average, our homeowners are guaranteed a monthly heating and cooling bill of$30 a month. Some of the other features, I think Mr. Harvey mentioned that we install fire safety sprinklers in all of our homes. That's a partnership of the local fire departments that donate their labor, which makes our homes some of the safest homes in the County. We also use universal design crystals so that homeowners can age in place. We try and make our homes as low maintenance as possible with concrete porches, we use 20-year roof shingles, things like that, so we really minimize the cost. And, finally, I'll just mention that we're starting a new program called A Brush with Kindness that works on existing homes for people that own their own homes that are unable to do exterior maintenance and care, such as landscaping, to fixing a roof, to putting on a ramp. We'll be extending that program to the Efland community and hopefully we can have an impact beyond just building houses. Tracy Parrott: My name is Tracy Parrott with Summit Consulting. I'm here to present the current site plan for the Tinnin Woods planned development in Efland. We thank you for your time. Some of the first slides I have here are a bit repetitive given what was already presented, but again an aerial view of the site and some of the surrounding landmarks such as Efland-Cheeks Elementary School. Our site is located off Schoolhouse Road and Tinnin Road right at the intersection. Through the process tonight, I asked Ms. Levy to pass out one document for entrance into the public record and that is the impact analysis, the property value impact analysis. Also, you've already received the revised application packet. We're asking that these be entered into the public record. The properties that we are proposing to develop, the Habitat property owner, are two individual adjoining parcels that total about nine acres. They're outlined there on the screen. At the western corner of the site, there is a jurisdictional stream at that corner of the property with a small wetland right in the corner of the property. Likewise, on the southeastern portion of the property is the beginning of a stream and small wetlands as well in that location. The typography of the property, the highest point of the property is just off the end of Schoolhouse Road where the property then falls toward the stream and the northwestern corner of the property. To the east, the property falls toward the previously mentioned to the southeastern corner of the property. The property is largely wooded. There are some abandoned structures. There are a couple of abandoned mobile homes in this area and throughout the wooded area there are a couple of abandoned framed dwellings. There are some associated or accumulated debris piles. Pursuant to County ordinance requirements, we did notify the property's surrounding the subject property within 500 feet of the proposal. There are 45 individual property owners there that are within the required notification area. This is our proposed site plan. Mr. Harvey has previously shown that to you and it is in your packet. We are proposing 28 lots in conjunction with the rezoning from R-1 to R-8 as demonstrated there on the screen. We do propose a connection to existing sanitary sewer systems in that area. Orange County operates a sanitary sewer system that basically runs along the corner here, across the property to Schoolhouse Road, around Schoolhouse Road, and the property to the east here. Our proposal is to build internal gravity sewer mains along the proposed streets to connect in to the existing manhole at this location and then again over on Tinnin Road to serve all 28 lots. We are proposing public water, as has been mentioned, as an existing 3" water main operated by Orange-Alamance Water System. It provides domestic service in the community, but it will not supply domestic fire suppression volume pressures. We are proposing to build a new public water main off Tinnin Road to serve the site as well as build public water mains within the site and along the proposed streets. The public streets basically feature two access points for the development. The first being off Schoolhouse Road with the access point entering into the site and then oriented toward the north of the property boundary for future extensions, if necessary. We do have an intersecting cul-de-sac street that extends from that street to the west to a cul-de-sac where we serve approximately 10-12 lots in that section. There is also a plan to improve and extend Tinnin Road at the current end of the intersection of Schoolhouse Road, extend it to the north, dedicate a public right-of-way, which currently doesn't exist there and build a new street north of the property line there with the water and sewer facility included. That will kind of formalize that access to the north to a previously existing 60-foot public access easement. The public water main extension we are anticipating tapping, the existing water main out on US 70 and extending the public water main along Tinnin Road back to the intersection of Schoolhouse Road. From that point, we will extend it further into the site along the road construction. As you have seen in our package, we had anticipated an 8" water main for this extension to be sufficient for both domestic and fire protection services and we understand that, through this process, that there will be continued discussion with the County as far as the size of that water main for future growth as well as connection to the recent built property to the west of our site. This just gives you a general layout of that water line. We don't know exactly which side of Tinnin Road it may be on. There will have to be a formal survey of that area done to confirm where the road lies within the public right-of-way to determine the best location for the water main. This is the site plan that we've rendered with some color to help your review of it. A couple of things that I'd like to point out from this slide —the first are the open spaces that we have planned for the project. There are three in the southwestern corner of the property, where the jut out is of the existing tract. We are proposing open space in this area that will also serve the dual purpose of the stormwater management areas. We are proposing, contiguous with the jurisdictional stream in the northwestern portion of the property, an open space area that will further protect the stream buffers in that area that aren't captured by the proposed land use buffer shown in dark green. The third open space area is kind of in the midsection of the property between the two proposed roads and an access is provided for that by way of a public pedestrian easement in this area between the lots. One other thing I'd like to point out is over on the western side of the property between these two lots, we are proposing a public access point. It's not an easement or a lot, it's actually an access point between two lot lines that provides a mulch trail connecting to both the open space on these two sides of the property, but also this will provide a connection to the Richmond Hills neighborhood and to the Efland-Cheeks school property. We show the mulch trail continuing to the south that links with the open space in the southwest corner. This trail does tie into the stream buffer complex that crosses the northwest corner of the property that provide connection to the natural environment and any future greenway considerations the County may have in that area as well as connections to Richmond Hills and Efland-Cedar Grove. One thing I do want to point out is that the streams in the northwest corner of the property here along with this associated wetland and then over on the southeast side, this stream and the associated wetland here are all captured and contained within either the land use buffer or the open space for the property. We are protecting the stream buffers and the wetlands in the common area open space of the land use buffer. These areas will not be part of the individual lots. They rather will be property conveyed to the Homeowners' Association and protected by it. They won't be in jeopardy of development. The dark green areas shown on this slide is the proposed land use buffer and then the property primarily 50 feet around the buffer property, we are requesting further modification on the land use buffer in this area of 25 feet, as well as along this area of 25 feet. We are also requesting a further reduction here just due to a limited amount of area on the interior of Schoolhouse Road curvature there. One reason we are asking for the reduction along the northern property line, this is all included in your package, but further work needs to be done to clarify the true northern boundary of the property. What we've shown as part of the development plan that's in your package are the verified boundaries of the site where there's clear deed and title to that property. There are some inconsistencies north of our northern property line that may lend itself to some additional properties being available or conveyed to Habitat that would further add to the buffer component of the property line. This is the northern property line that we've worked to with our current site plan and you'll note in your site plan that there's a possible gap right here up to this next property line where further work needs to be done to verify which line is applicable. We know the line that we've worked to we have a fair title to it. Anything beyond that point we simply add to the proposed land use folks. As required, all conditional use applications have to meet certain findings of fact. I'll just touch on the main three here— maintain the public health, safety, and general welfare. The key points here is that the proposed land use associated with this project is consistent with surrounding development. The goal of this project is to help Orange County meet the need for affordable housing in the County. This project does bring with it new infrastructure to benefit the area. It is bringing safe and sustainable development for the reasons that Ms. Levy has already touched on and to a minor degree with eliminate some existing blight out there with the elimination of abandoned homes. The second finding of fact here, the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. Ms. Levy just passed out the second item for entrance into the public record tonight, it's an impact analysis provided by Mr. Everett Knight. We ask that you consider this as part of your evaluation of the property. Mr. Knight did study the project as we currently have it designed as well as evaluate the surrounding properties and existing development in the area. I'll just read to you what he has as part of the impact analysis: `It is my opinion that the proposed Tinnin Woods will be consistent with and enhance other existing uses in the immediate and surrounding area and will have no negative effect on the value of surrounding properties or neighborhoods.' He has all of the supporting information in his package there for your review and consideration. Lastly, in terms of findings of fact, the location and character of the use of the development according to the plans submitted will be in harmony with the area in which it is located and the uses fit with the development of the County..... Our project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, multiple sections of the Comprehensive Plan. We feel that it does meet a need expressed in the Comprehensive Plan in terms of affordable housing. It is a site that's convenient to public utilities—water and sewer, Orange County public schools, major transportation corridors in the form of US, I-85/I-40, and other goods and services in the area. Residents will have the things that they need at their disposal. The development proposed is consistent with existing residential land uses in the area and of course we know that our development will comply with all appropriate County and State regulations. Briefly, the proposed construction schedule that Habitat has in mind, as we go through this process, we hope to gain your approval before the end of the year, with the first part of next year, detailed construction drawings will be compiled, submitted, reviewed, and approved. We'd like to begin infrastructure construction in July 2012 and we anticipate the road and the water and sewer will take basically a year. New home construction will probably start in the fall of 2013. Habitat basically has two home construction cycles with a total of about 12 homes per year. The schedule is in your package about how the home construction would progress. Just to summarize our presentation, we do feel that Tinnin Woods is consistent with the adjoining residential land uses in the area. We feel it is a sustainable development that it is green with the standpoint of how it will be constructed and the infrastructure consideration, but also from a housing standpoint with the green building certification and the Energy Star compliment to the development as well. We feel we have an infrastructure that will benefit the community, primarily the water main site. And we do feel we are assisting the County in meeting the need for affordable housing. We feel that this project, particularly with Habitat bringing it to the County, you have a unique partner here wanting to work with you to meet the need of affordable housing in Orange County. It is something that is a need here. It has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan and in various locations of the Comprehensive Plan, and Habitat is that unique partner that can make this a reality. We ask that as you consider the information before you, the information that has been presented here tonight that you look favorably upon this project. David Rooks: Mr. Chair, at this point, the applicant would move into evidence its application, all supporting documents, and reports of Summit Engineering, the narrative, the staff report including the revised Attachment 1, and the Impact Analysis completed by Mr. Everett Knight. At this point the applicant will be happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Yuhasz: Looking at the plan, the three lots on the far eastern part of the property seem substantially larger than the other lots and I was wondering if any thought was given to reducing the size of those lots and possibly providing some additional open space along that eastern boundary and maybe a little more protection for the stream that begins in that area. Tracy Parrott: You are correct, those lots are larger. Various things were considered on that side of the site, with respect to access management including joint driveways or even a cul-de-sac street, both of which appear unworkable and not to the benefit of Habitat. We tried to be mindful of the economic model that we were trying to satisfy here and keep the project financially feasible, so just building a short cul-de-sac street did not make economic sense for the project. It resulted in those lots being larger, but I think that is something that we can give consideration to. That southeastern point is the second area that we fully anticipate keeping in a natural state. Commissioner McKee: One question I have relates to the extension of the road, which is referred to as Road A off Schoolhouse Road. That's the one with the cul-de-sac. It appears to go to the north and dead end at the property boundary. I may be mistaken, but is that to also allow for future access to the properties to the north for possible future development? Tracy Parrott: Again, it is to provide an access point to those properties that are north of this project. Commissioner McKee: The same with the extension of Tinnin Road? Tracy Parrott: Yes, sir. Commissioner McKee: The question I have, I'm familiar with one other problem that came up with the stubbed out road in that once that future property actually came into the arena for development. The current residents did not want it used. Will there be any documentation that this road is for future access to the north lying properties to prevent that problem? Tracy Parrott: Only in the form that they are to be developed and deemed as public roadways. In the case of Road A, we are extending the public right-of-way to the northern property to eliminate a need in the future to acquire a small portion of right-of-way to complete the road out. We aren't carrying the road improvements all the way to the property line, but we are carrying the right-of-way in both of those to the property line. But it is fully Habitat's intent to build public roadways. Susan Levy: In answering that question, we had an issue in Chapel Hill as well and there was a sign at the end of the road that says that this is subject to future extension so everybody knows that. We can certainly do that here so that as people come in they are familiar with the intention. Commissioner McKee: That is my concern. Michael Harvey: Commissioner McKee, let me just add that our ordinance actually mandates and requires that the road be extended and be left protected. Commissioner Hemminger: Along the same lines, the public access five-foot mulch trail that goes along there had similar complications and would like to have a sign posted that is public access to the school or whatever. Otherwise, people move in and tend to think that they don't have to allow access to that property, they think they might own it. I just worry about all the people with school-aged children along here making it safely to the school, so I guess the intention is to use this trail as a school connector. Tracy Parrott: It is to be provided to give that option. That is expressly why in that western side of the property we did separate the property lines and show that as part of the Homeowner's Association property, so it is not by easement, but it is an open area that will be part of the Homeowner's Association. Commissioner Jacobs: I have some questions, but I'd like to wait until after the public comments. Larry Wright: I'd like to open it up for public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT Robert Reda: Good evening, Commissioners, my name is Robert Reda. We decided that John's presentation makes sense to follow behind mine. I am signed in and sworn in as well. I'm presently on the board of Habitat for Humanity of Orange County. Last year, Habitat celebrated 25 years of assisting 200 deserving families with a hand up in helping them achieve their dreams of home ownership. Habitat and these families appreciate the tremendous support that the Board of County Commissioners has provided to us over the years. Your support has been instrumental in building new neighborhoods like Richmond Hills and revitalizing others such as Fairview. As you well know, land in Orange County that can be developed for affordable housing is very scarce indeed. Our site committee is constantly looking for potential sites for future homebuilding and we were very excited when the opportunity came up to purchase the property in Efland. Our goal as an organization is always to have four years' worth of building lots in our inventory, and Tinnin Woods will provide about two years' worth of building, so we plan to start building that area as was previously mentioned in approximately 2013. We are very excited about another program that Susan Levy mentioned earlier, A Brush with Kindness. This focuses on exterior repairs and landscaping improvements for the elderly and disabled. We will be extending this program to the Efland community when we start building homes in Tinnin Woods. This is something we are very excited about offering to the community in general. Finally, I would ask that you would approve our application for Tinnin Woods and we would like to thank you for your continued support of Habitat and Habitat's mission. John Sehon: Good evening, my name is John Sehon and I've been duly sworn. I'm a current board member of Orange County Habitat, past board Chair, and currently the Chair of the Site Planning Committee. I'm speaking in support of Tinnin Woods, an affordable subdivision with 28 family homes and rezoning of the site from R-1, one lot per acre, to R-8, which would allow Habitat to develop Tinnin Woods in the density of a little over three units per acre. We believe that Tinnin Woods meets the three findings of fact necessary to secure the Class A Special Use Permit as proposed. Tinnin Woods will maintain and promote public health, safety, and general welfare; maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and is in harmony with the area in which it will be located, specifically as it relates to the three findings. Finding #1, general welfare. Increasing affordable housing in Orange County is good for Orange County employers and for the economy. The demand for Habitat homes serving Orange County residents and workers who earn 65% of the adjusted median income continues to be strong and we turn down many qualified applicants. Most recently, we received 60 applications to provide homeowner slots and over 1/3 of those applicants met all of the qualifications. By the end of 2013, we will have completed a 15-unit development in Phoenix Place in southern Orange County. We will continue working at Fairview where we own about a dozen lots. But Tinnin Woods represents the next major source of building lots so that we can continue to provide affordable home ownership. Additionally, increasing density allows Habitat to be good stewards of land in Orange County. As a practical matter, to get more affordable homes on the ground here, our minds will need to be open to increased densities that current zoning may allow. Because underdeveloped sites that are on water and sewer are very scarce, and developing at the current density at the property in R-1 would not be financially feasible for Habitat. Please note we understand that the requested density is within the anticipated density contained in the 10-year Transition Area. Finding #2: Maintain or enhance the value of contiguous properties. The design for Tinnin Woods was worked on and refined over many months, incorporating the ideas and expertise of Habitat staff inembers on the site, which includes planning and design professionals. We devote organizational resources to provide training and mentoring for our homeowners to support them in the transition to homeownership and provide the leadership training to help develop strong homeowners' associations. Homes are built to very high quality standards using volunteers, but overseen by a professional staff. All of our homes are Energy Star green certified, and have fire and safety sprinkler systems. We are also proposing curb and gutter to create and maintain a positive curb appeal over time. We are committed to improving neighborhoods where we build. Fairview is an example of that. We will be cleaning up the existing property, which currently has been a dumping ground for trash and garbage. I've walked that property, I know that. And there are unsafe, dilapidated structures that we will remove. Additionally, upgrading the water line from three to eight inches will increase the water pressure in the area and probably decrease homeowners' insurance for those surrounding properties. Finding #3: Location and harmony in the area in which we are located. The surrounding area is residential and our homes will be similar in size of those currently in the area. The proximity of the elementary school within the community and the fact that the property has access to public water and sewer and will add additional customers to the Efland sewer system, making it more financially sustainable. Thank you for your consideration and I urge your support of our application. David Godschalk: I'm a member of the Habitat Site Committee and a land use planning professor at the University of North Carolina for some 45 years. From a planning perspective, does this project make sense? Well, I think it does because it fills a large need for affordable housing in Orange County. The density is appropriate near the elementary school; you want to put the students and the people closer to the public facilities that serve them. It provides public utilities, water and sewer service, public roads. The buffers seem to be appropriate, since it's not necessary to separate adjacent residential land uses. It's better to connect them. The proposed subdivision attributes to the public welfare in providing access roads and increased size water mains that will benefit the adjacent properties. This is the well design, low to moderate intensity subdivision in an appropriate location, and it's consistent with the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Thank you. Joann Mitchell: I live on Cain Drive in Efland, in Efland Estates. I'm a Habitat homeowner and I also serve on the Habitat board of directors. As a resident of Efland, I have been very active in working with the County, Justice United, and the homeowners of Richmond Hills and Ashwick subdivision to find a way to keep the sewer rates in Efland affordable. I am very glad that the County has worked with us to keep this rate from going higher than first projected. With the economic development growth, the addition of 28 more homes will help make the Efland sewer system more financially sustainable. I lived and work in public housing for over 50 years. As a community organizer, I work with Chapel Hill's housing department self- sufficient program, and I recommend Habitat to many public housing agencies as a home ownership opportunity. After collaborating with all Chapel Hill housing programs, I knew that Habitat was the most affordable home on the program and I sought the same opportunity for my family. At the time I currently could have paid with my rent, I was paying two mortgage payments to Habitat. Owning a home that is affordable means that my family can put our energy into other things like being active in our community, seeking resources such as education for myself and my children. In fact, my daughter Latisha just last weekend graduated from Winston-Salem State College with honors in business management with a minor in finances. We are very proud of her. I will continue to be active in the community. I have good relationships with the residents of Efland Estates, Ashwick subdivision, and am looking forward to all of the new neighbors in Tinnin Woods subdivision. As a board member, I know that Habitat has worked hard over the years to improve the quality of homes being built, making them attractive, more energy efficient, and green. Over 25 years experience in building homes and neighborhoods. Orange County Habitat ranks in the top 10 in the State of North Carolina. Habitat nationally is the largest homebuilder in the world with 400,000 homes and counting. Think about those happy families. I hope that you will support Tinnin Woods as proposed by Habitat for Humanity so that we can continue to provide home ownership for those who want and need it the most. Yolanda Hernandez (used a translator): Good evening, my name is Yolanda Hernandez. I live in Richmond Hills subdivision, which has 43 homes, and I've purchased my home through Habitat. Before living in Habitat I rented an apartment for 12 years. I'm very grateful for Habitat giving me the opportunity to live in Orange County. It is something that I would not have been able to do without their help. I'm speaking in support of the community of Tinnin Woods, the new subdivision that is proposed to be in Efland. I'm happy to know that this is an opportunity that 28 families would be able to take hold of. A safe, affordable home means so much to me and my children. Without Habitat, families like mine would not have been able to live in Orange County where they were. Many families have had to make a decision and decide to move out of the County into surrounding areas in order to find affordable housing. If you vote in favor of Habitat, some of these families will have the opportunity return and this will be a wonderful thing. I'm grateful that I work in Orange County and I love my community. There are many more families like mine who want to live in this County and work in the same county that they live and send their children to Orange County schools, and yes, they would be proud to contribute to the County. The applicants for Habitat homes understand that owning their own home means that they will be paying their property taxes, and I'm sure that they would be happy to do that. Thank you. Alex Bidot, Community Organizer for Habitat for Humanity, was the translator. He was sworn in, as was Yolanda Hernandez. Allison Coleman: I have been sworn in. I'm the President of Richmond Hills Homeowner's Association, which is a Habitat community. I'm house#109. My home was built in 2003. Before owning my home, I rented public housing. The reason why I applied to Habitat was because I was working and I couldn't afford to live in Orange County. My apartment was too small. I realized that Habitat was the only place that I could get a home through. And I am grateful for Habitat giving me that opportunity to own a home in Orange County and I would never have been able to afford one otherwise because of the high cost of housing in the County. I'm speaking in support of Tinnin Woods because it will provide the chance for 26-28 families like mine to have the same opportunity I did —to move into a secure stable home for me and my children. Without Habitat, families like mine would have to continue renting housing that's unaffordable, overcrowded, or in disrepair, or they will have to move out of the County and find housing. I've lived here over 20 years. There are more families like mine who want to live where they work and so their children are in the schools and they pay Orange County property taxes. As the President of the Richmond Hills Homeowners' Association, I can tell you that Habitat provides support to the Homeowners' Association. The Family Service Director, Sharon Reid, provides training and leadership development and encourages us to commit community resources to other organizations who are working to make the County a better place to live for all families. I'm looking forward to having our new neighbors and even families who will make Tinnin Woods their home. I hope you will help make Tinnin Woods a reality and help those families realize their dreams of homeownership. I would like those that support the Tinnin Woods development to please stand. Larry Wright: According to the list that has been given to the Deputy Clerk, I believe we've completed the list of people that were going to testify from the audience. Does staff have any comments? Annie Whitted wanted to speak and was sworn in. Annie Whitted: I wanted to make a comment for the residents of the Tinnin Road community. I wanted to know if they were going to replace this water line, the grant water line coming down Tinnin Road. What will be the cost of having the larger water line running down Tinnin Road to the Habitat community, which we can't tap onto without substantial cost. I also wanted to know to point out the fact that we already have— Habitat is doing a wonderful job in Orange County and provides a wonderful service, but it just dawned on me that we've already got a Habitat community that is in excess of 40 homes across Richmond Road. They're going to be putting in another 28 homes that are going to back up to each other. I understand why they chose that because they want water and sewer, but that's going to make that area have about 80 some Habitat homes. I know you said you did an impact study on the fact that it would not impact the community property owners, but you have to take into consideration that it may have an impact on someone trying to sell their property that would have an objection to that many Habitat homes in that area. I would like to ask if there was anywhere else in Orange County that we have that many Habitat homes in one particular area. The only thing that I saw as a plus for that community was the 8" water line, but if we can't tap on to that 8" water line to increase pressure and it's going to come down Tinnin Road and there has been nothing said about any upgrades to that side of the community. It's considered Efland, it's considered one community. I want to know, where do we go from here, once this is voted on tonight. What's the next step? Will homeowners get another chance to see what the final theme looks like before you actually give your ok? As I said before, I'm not against Habitat, these are just some questions that I would like you all to consider. Sam Gharbo: I live in the Ashwick subdivision in Efland. I didn't hear a timer, so I'm guessing I'm not limited to three minutes. For 20 some odd years, there have been economic development districts in the area, specifically in the Efland area, and a lot of it revolves around sewer and the water lines and growth happens from there. Also, in the last 20 years, all of the surrounding counties have outpaced Orange County, whether by chance or by design, in growth. Orange County has finally come to the understanding that growth is actually a way out of part of the financial problems that we currently live in and exist in. Other counties that didn't have what Orange County has—two roads, a major university, research Triangle—they've outpaced us. We lost out on a lot in that timeframe. We finally come around to the understanding that growth is what we need to do. This fits in many ways into that growth opportunity, not to mention just the sewer issue, you're going to add 12% on the top numbers of customers, so you've already increased that, but you're bringing more people in. You're providing growth for the community; you're allowing people that can't afford in Chapel Hill to live nearby Chapel Hill. This works. This works on a lot of levels for this County. This County needs it. It fits squarely in the mindset of the future, what you're trying to do, what you're trying to develop, and the direction that you're going. I urge you to approve this project. Thank you. Larry Wright: Mr. Harvey, I'd like to ask staff, number one, if they have any comments, but I'd like to ask you if you could please—the lady that testified before this — if you could address some of her concerns please, especially pertaining to the schedule. Michael Harvey: I'll address what concerns I feel I can. Before doing that, though, I wanted to call to the Board's attention what I handed out prior to the meeting. You have two blue pieces of paper at your places pertaining to this project. One is a letter authored by Hewearl Holman, a property owner, addressed to Mr. Craig Benedict, which we received via fax indicating their opposition to this project. The second is a memorandum completed by Mr. David Sykes on the 17th of May. Mr. Sykes is a member of the Orange County Emergency Management Service Division. This is detailing his review of the Tinnin Woods subdivision. I just wanted to call those to your attention. In attempting to address Mrs. Whitted's questions concerning schedule, what will happen this evening is the County Commissioners and the Planning Board will ask questions of the staff and the applicant. After the conclusion of the questions, this meeting will be adjourned to a date and time specific, staff is recommending September, where the County Commissioners will reconvene to accept the Planning Board recommendation. If anyone has any additional questions, Planning Board meetings occur on the first Wednesday of every month. I encourage anyone that has questions to contact staff and they'll be happy to provide you with the documentation that's going to be reviewed at the meeting. After tonight, those decisions being made will be forwarded to the Planning Board. Ultimately, the Planning Board will be asked to make a recommendation in time for the September County Commissioners' meeting. This public hearing will be reconvened when this item is discussed. Commissioner Jacobs: I think it goes without saying that Orange County has been and remains very supportive of Habitat and very appreciative of the fact that Habitat is building housing all over the County. Richmond Hills was a breakthrough in that regard and it's been the start of a number of houses in the central part of the County and we appreciate that. I think that the area would have gotten the name of Habitat houses as the Rogers Road neighborhood. My first question, and I just want to clarify what Mr. Harvey just said about the process to more directly address Mrs. Whitted's concern. Since the public hearing will remain open, other people will have another opportunity to speak before we make any kind of decision. Michael Harvey: Correct. Commissioner Jacobs: Because that was part of my question. Michael Harvey: And the Planning Board will be accepting written comments. Commissioner Jacobs: The issue with the variable buffer, would we do something similar for any developer, or are we making a special case. When is the case to be made? Michael Harvey: The case has been presented by the applicant through the initial use permitting process just like the planning development permitting process. The developer has an opportunity to ask this body to waive, modify, or rescind development regulation requirements to address on-site specific conditions and provide evidence, testimony, or direct rationale for why it's necessary to this project. I think the direct answer to your question is yes, we will do it for any developer in this process. It is ultimately up to the County Commissioners. Commissioner Jacobs: Not making an argument pro or con, but one of the statements that you made earlier was that it would essentially be a continuous fabric of similar density residential development in which this would fit. Why then have anything more than setbacks on the individual lots? We use for the buffer for more open space. Michael Harvey: That is certainly a viable alternative and a viable suggestion. Our priority on this, Commissioner Jacobs, was to ask the applicant to abide with the components of the ordinance as they currently exist and request that the applicant make the necessary arguments as to why a development alternative was appropriate. From my standpoint I have no concern with the requested modifications. Commissioner Jacobs: Another question was raised by Commissioner Hemminger about walking to school. We had a discussion about Ashwick regarding sidewalks, and I don't see that there are any sidewalks. My question is, and I'm sure one reason is there's a cost component. Does a public entity need to have any kind of easement to put in sidewalks, and would it be better to go ahead and reserve that now without requiring any kind of sidewalks to be built? Michael Harvey: I'll let Mr. Benedict talk on this as well, but my two cents is that it wouldn't be a bad idea to begin a dialogue with Habitat that we initiate further discussion on this project. It certainly would behoove the County if they intend to put a sidewalk along School House Road to initiate such a discussion as part of this project this evening. I will note that there have been some preliminary discussions with Mr. Chuck Edwards with NCDOT. Their preference is not to have to maintain sidewalks, which is why they are not shown in the right-of- way. Craig Benedict: Good evening, my name is Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director. In reference to where sidewalks could go at some time in the future, we will have public right-of-way. We are still working with Department of Transportation on urban style standards. We know in the rural parts, DOT has not been amenable to sidewalks in those areas, but we are still continuing our discussion with urban style growth, Efland area, under County DOT road conditions. So we will preserve those 50-foot wide right-of-ways, which accommodate future sidewalks if we can get it approved. Commissioner Jacobs: I would just point out that Hillsborough, which I'm sure was developed with the idea of suburban density, is now retrofitting sidewalks everywhere it can. We had this debate with Chuck Edwards and DOT when Ashwick was coming online and failed then. So I encourage staff to encourage speaking with him, because even though it's hard for us all to believe, at some point in the future Efland is not going to be a low-density community. I also had a question on page 49. There's a section here where there's reference to, excuse me, page 50, number 11, number 10. What does all this mean, `applicant would like to continue to review the fees associated with the project before making any formal comment.' Michael Harvey: In preliminary discussions with Mr. Tracy Parrott on the required fees associated with this project, and in Ms. Levy's defense, I don't think she was properly in the loop of what our discussions of the fees were. They're going to continue to review and will make a formal comment. From our staff standpoint, a fee is a fee and it's got to be paid. Commissioner Jacobs: Mr. Attorney, I assume we can waive fees if we so choose, or no? John Roberts: I don't know that it's a good idea to waive fees. You have your fee schedule there for a reason. Commissioner Jacobs: Thank you; I have some questions for Habitat. Maybe Ms. Levy can answer. Did you use any public funds to purchase this property? Susan Levy: No, we haven't actually purchased it yet. We have it under contract and we will purchase it if and when we get approval. We did request$70,000 in HOME funds this year for some predevelopment and acquisition costs. Commissioner Jacobs: This issue that was raised that doesn't seem to have been answered about the looped line. Where do we stand on the looped line? Susan Levy: The water line connecting to Richmond Hills? Craig Benedict: Presently, Ashwick is to the east of the project and we have a water maintenance stubbed out over this area. Over in this area, we have Richmond Hills, we have a water main stubbed out over here for a future connection. Right now, there is not an off-site access or utility easement to make this connection here. So, we will be suggesting a stub-out at this point and at some future date we'll have to find out how to connect the dots with this property here. Who pays for that cost and how can it be arranged? That's what we're trying to come up with some final determinations. We do know that a system will help this project, Ashwick, and Richmond Hills. So, we're still endeavoring to find out what the cost will be, how to acquire off-site easements, and who will pay for it. Commissioner Jacobs: I will say that we left an issue unresolved for Richmond Hills about a pump station and it has come back to haunt us to some extent. We retrofitted that fix, so whatever it is, I would hope that it comes parallel to the approval process. On page six where it talks about the fees, we have three kinds of fees that would need to be paid. Who's paying them? The first one says that the time when the final subdivision plat is submitted to staff, so I assume that means Habitat's going to pay that. The other two are at the time the building permit is submitted for review. It's the sewer tap-on fee and the Hillsborough capital facilities fee. Susan Levy: We always pay those fees. Commissioner Jacobs: So, that will all be taken care of before someone takes ownership? Susan Levy: Yes. Commissioner Jacobs: This issue of the northern property line, I assume it sounds like you're still trying to work that out, yes? Susan Levy: Yes. There's a question of whether there's cooperation or not to work that out. We haven't abandoned the idea that if we purchase the property we would pursue a resolution to the land dispute. Commissioner Jacobs: How much additional acreage is that? Susan Levy: I'm not sure. Commissioner Jacobs: One reason I was asking was I was listening to Commissioner Yuhasz' discussion of the southeastern corner, and it seemed if you had more room to the north, you could take that lot at the southeastern corner and put it up at the northern end and have a greater area around that natural feature. I don't know if you do that within this approval process, especially if you can't purchase the property, you can't. It would be interesting to see if you can by the time this comes back in September. And then I just wanted to note A Brush with Kindness, which sounds like a very nice thing to do, I hope you're coordinating with Urgent Home Repair. Susan Levy: We have an advisory group. We're referring to them and they're referring to us. Commissioner Jacobs: Great. Thank you. Commissioner McKee: The question I have is on the larger water main being put in, and the question I forgot relates back to Mrs. Whitted's question about the other residents of Tinnin Road being subjected to fees to tap on or having access to this larger line, which definitely would give better fire protection. Craig Benedict: If they are connected to the 3" water main now, there will be no additional connection fees to the Orange-Alamance Water Supply. Do they have to connect up directly to the 8" or 10" water line or by virtue of tying in at the end of that 8" inch line, would you just correct the pressure the whole way? We're working on those final engineering decisions, but they would not have to necessarily reconnect to the 8" line directly if that parallel 3" still has integrity. Frank Clifton: I think it would be appropriate, you know, a lot of these issues have to be worked out with the water company and be subject to the engineering and design and other issues associated with that, so it's kind of hard for us to specifically state a solution until we've got the water company involved and have some agreement situation associated with it. Commissioner McKee: My concern is that by approving this project, which would increase the size of the water line, if we do not subject historic homeowners to additional fees. Frank Clifton: That's understood. Again, we can't answer the question. Commissioner Foushee: My follow-up question would be is there a possibility that this information could be learned and disseminated by the closing of the public hearing. Craig Benedict: Yes, we're working on the final engineering information to find out the pressures that will be created by an 8, 10, or 12-inch line. Frank Clifton: This is a way of an example, if you do increase the size of the line out there, depending on how long you know the line's been there, it may be a situation, and the water company is the best one to address this, is whether or not the pressure is going to increase substantially or not, create some plumbing issues or otherwise connection issues and exaggerate leaks. It's really going to be an issue between the engineers for the developers, Habitat, and the utility company involved out there to look at and condition everything associated with it. We can work through that as much as we can. That's one of those design issues. Chair Pelissier: The memo from Solid Waste on page 234 recommends that the radius in the cul-de-sacs need to be a minimum of 45 feet and some other changes related to being able to have the recycling trucks. What would be the impact on the lots that would be done? I'm not sure how big the radius is right now, so I wasn't sure what the implications were for that. Tracy Parrott: I'm not certain of the impact at present. The lots surrounding the cul-de- sac, some are not as deep as others and I'm concerned about the condition that has been mentioned on a couple of the lots. Commissioner Yuhasz: One follow-up to the follow-up about the water lines. I just want to be clear. If it is determined that existing residents will be required to hook up to the 8" line, who would be expected to pay the cost of reattaching those existing water lines to the new 8" line? Craig Benedict: We had conversations with Community Housing Development, if they are low-income families, there could possibly be grants to assist in that reconnection. We will have to examine what would happen with the other residents that are in the general area. Judith Wegner: I just want to thank everybody who has come out, for the very careful work that clearly went into this. I remember when we talked about this with Efland and heard some of the issues about the water lines and everything else. This is really such an example of the community working together. I appreciate all of the volunteer expert work that went into this, so thank you very much. Mark Marcoplos: Also curious about a little more information on the water issue and the equity issue. Do we know how many homes might be affected whose water pressure could stand to be approved if they were connected to the 8" line? Craig Benedict: We're working with Orange-Alamance Water System now to reexamine the pressures throughout their system. They do not know all of the pressures on some of the side streets. So we hope with this process in improving discussions with Orange- Alamance Water System that we're going to be able to find out what the impacts of these changes are, creating loops through the system. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to receive the CUD rezoning application; refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the September 20, 2011 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing until September 20, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C-3. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment - To review a government-initiated amendment to clarify language as it pertains to economic development and mixed uses currently allowed within the existing Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node land use category. Craig Benedict presented this item. He said that this is the government-initiated aspect of the public hearing. This is regarding a land use text or map or a zoning text or map. OVERVIEW—PLANNING CONSTRUCT Craig Benedict provided an overview. He said that this is the govemment-initiated aspect of the public hearing. This is regarding a land use text or map or a zoning text or map. - Difference between Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element/Map and Zoning - Zoning is primary implementation tool to achieve vision reflected in Land Use Element/Map Overview-Agenda Items - Tonight's public hearings on proposed: o Land Use Element text amendment o Land use Element map amendment(2 items) o Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Zoning text amendment o Zoning map amendment Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, made a PowerPoint presentation. Proposed Action - Amend definition of Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN) as follows: Commercial-Industrial Activity Node is land in designated areas of the County that is appropriate for retail and other commercial uses; manufacturing and other industrial uses; office and limited (not to exceed 25% of any Node) higher density residential uses. What does this text change do? - Adds clarity and consistency between the definition of CITAN and the Land Use/Zoning Matrix - Updates definition consistent with application of CITAN on Land Use Element Map. - No technical or operational change. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node— Item C.3 Recommendation - Receive the proposed amendment - Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment - Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be retumed to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the June 21, 2011 BOCC regular meeting - Adjourn the public hearing until June 21, 2011 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Public Notification - Completed in accordance with Section 2.3.6 of the UDO - Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks Planning Board member Maxine Mitchell left at 9:12 PM. Commissioner Gordon asked about the effect of this change. She made reference to pages 308-309 and noted the definitions of the transition land use categories. She noted that a transition area has land located in areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban densities and that should be provided with public utilities and services. She asked about the ramifications of deleting the 10-and 20-year transition. Tom Altieri said that the text definition was established in 1981 and there was a land use map that went with the definition. The areas mapped for CITAN at that time were very small. Since 1981, CITAN areas have been expanded. It is being recommended that this be deleted from the definition. The City of Mebane used to have 10- and 20-year transition areas when the original land use plan was put into effect. The CITAN nodes were to be located within Mebane's 10-year transition area, so this terminology is no longer part of what is in place today. This is meant to bring the definition into current times and it is consistent with the way in which the land use is mapped now. Commissioner Gordon suggested putting deleted language back in so that the definition of CITAN includes the characteristics of a transition area. The current definition of Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan states that it is " land focused on designated road intersections within either 10-year or 20-year transition area that is appropriate for retail and other commercial uses and/or manufacturing and other industrial sites." Commissioner Yuhasz asked who would decide which areas are appropriate for residential and other commercial uses and it was answered the County Commissioners. Commissioner Jacobs asked for more clarity. Tom Altieri said that staff can add back reference to "located near interstates, public services, and utilities." Commissioner Jacobs said that the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan is based on US 70 and not the interstate. If it were going to be worded consistently, it should say, "major transportation corridors,"and not necessarily interstates. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to receive the proposal to amend the text of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be retumed to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the June 21, 2011 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing until June 21, 2011 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C-4. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map Amendment-To review a government-initiated amendment to change the land use category of approximately 423-acres bounded by Ben Wilson Rd., Bowman Rd., West Ten Rd., and Interstates 85/40 from Agricultural Residential to Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node. Tom Altieri made a PowerPoint presentation. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map Amendment Area"A" Proposed Action Land Use Element Map amendment— Area A, 423 acres From: Agricultural Residential To: Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN) Agricultural Residential - Prevailing land uses are related to the land (agriculture, forestry) and appropriate for continuation of these uses. CITAN — Land appropriate for retail, manufacturing, office, and multi-family. Key Amendment Points - Implements a recommendation in the Efland/Mebane Small Area Plan - Consistent with Economic Development and Land Use goals and objectives of Comprehensive Plan - Appropriate for urban development along I-85/40 corridor and adjacent to Mebane. - Establishes consistency with WASMPBA (Water and Sewer Management Plan Boundary Agreement) - Creates potential for rezoning to non-residential districts (General or Conditional Use Districts) - No developments are proposed in Area A - Zoning to remain Agricultural Residential (AR) - Any non-residential development must go through rezoning and public hearing process - Existing residential and agricultural uses can continue under existing "base"Zoning - Amendment area is within the County's Primary Service Area - Public utilities to support urban development and planned consistent with Agreement Public Notification Formal - Completed in accordance with Section 2.3.6 of the UDO - Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks - Mailed notices to affected property owners - Mailed notices to property owners within 500 feet of affected properties - Posted signs in amendment area Informal - Property Owners meeting March 7, 2011 Proposed Actions Land Use Element Map amendments - Area B, 118 acres From: Agricultural Residential To: Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN) - Area C, 16 acres From: Agricultural Residential To: 10-Year Transition Recommendation - Receive the proposed amendment - Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment - Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be retumed to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the June 21, 2011 BOCC regular meeting - Adjourn the public hearing until June 21, 2011 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Land Use Category Descriptions From: Agricultural Residential—prevailing land uses are related to the land (agriculture, forestry) and appropriate for continuation of these uses. To: CITAN—Land appropriate for retail, manufacturing, office, and multi-family (Area B) And 10-Year Transition—suitable for higher density residential where public water/sewer is planned or exists. (Area C) Public Comment Gloria Martin said that she lives in Area A. She asked how this impacted her and her property in the future. Tom Altieri said that the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Element Map that goes with it is intended to express a vision for future land uses in the County. It is a general map encompassing large areas showing where the commercial and residential areas are to go. This map is being amended now. This land could potentially be amended from an agricultural residential to a CITAN. If that were done then any of the other non-residential zoning districts could be applied for. This only creates potential for a rezoning where otherwise there is none. Gloria Martin asked if they were safe on their property even if it is rezoned and it was answered yes. She does not want to be forced to sell her property if an industry rezones. Dan Wilson asked what this would do to the property tax values. Craig Benedict said that the value of the property will remain the same if the property remains AR. The tax value is based on surrounding property sales. Commissioner Jacobs clarified that if anything goes around residential areas, there will be buffers around the property to mitigate the impact. He said that, realistically, if there is water and sewer in this area, it will put a lot of pressure for people to buy it for economic development purposes, which is the idea. People may offer residents more money for their property and people may build around residential areas, but it will still be up to the property owners what they do to their property. He said that he wants to be clear that water and sewer is a huge investment because it was determined in the Efland/Mebane Small Area Plan that development should occur here. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to people that had concerns below Bowman Road. He said that in the discussions with Mebane, the County Commissioners made clear that the land use plan did not account for the water and sewer being south of that road, and this is the same case. The Comprehensive Plan says that there will be no water and sewer south of Bowman Road. Mebane agreed up front that it does not want to send water and sewer south of Old NC 10. He said that this should be memorialized somehow with a discussion with Mebane. He said that there is a meeting with Mebane on September 15th, and as the legislature is changing the annexation laws and making it more difficult for municipalities to annex as they have in the past, it might be a good time to try and reengage Mebane on planning together for where it is going to grow and not grow. Mark Marcoplos asked if the sales tax referendum was going to pay for the water and sewer infrastructure. Frank Clifton said that the County Commissioners have authorized design work on utilities of about$3.5-4 million in the Efland area. This is under final design. Of that, $2.5 million will be local dollars and the other will be from a grant some years ago. Going forward, the County will be presented with the opportunity to begin construction of the sewer lines. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to receive the proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map; refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the June 21, 2011 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing until June 21, 2011 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C-5. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map Amendment-To review a government-initiated amendment to change the land use category of approximately 118-acres along the general corridor of Interstates 85/40 in the Efland area from Agricultural Residential to Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node and approximately 16-acres at the southem end of Gaines Chapel Rd from Agricultural Residential to 10-year transition. These amendments are a follow-up to the Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area zoning amendments that occurred in June 2010. Tom Altieri made a PowerPoint presentation. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map Amendment AREAS "B"and "C' Public Notification - Completed in accordance with Section 2.3.6 of the UDO - Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks - Mailed notices to affected property owners - Mailed notices to property owners within 500 feet of affected properties - Posted signs in amendment areas Key Amendment Points - Implements recommendations in the Efland/Mebane small Area Plan - Consistent with Economic Development and Land Use goals and objectives of Comprehensive Plan - Consistent with adjacent land uses - Establishes consistency with WASMPBA - Creates potential for rezoning to non-residential districts (Area B) and higher density residential districts (Area C) - No developments are proposed in Area B or C - Existing residential, non-residential, and agricultural uses can continue - A portion of Area B is also proposed for rezoning to Office/Institutional (Agenda Item C.7) - Existing zoning to remain for Area C—any higher density residential development must go through rezoning and public hearing process Recommendation - Receive the proposed amendments - Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment - Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be retumed to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the June 21, 2011 BOCC regular meeting - Adjourn the public hearing until June 21, 2011 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments Public Comment None. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to receive the proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map; refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the June 21, 2011 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing until June 21, 2011 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C-6. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments -To review a govemment- initiated text amendment to the following sections of the Unified Development Ordinance: Section 3.4 - General Commercial Districts (modify the Office/Institutional [O/I] Zoning District including the Purpose, Applicability, Dimensional and Ratio Standards, and Specific Development Standards sections); Section 5.2 -Table of Permitted Uses (modify the Permitted Uses allowed in the OI General Use Zoning District); and Article 10—Definitions (modify definitions of`Open Space Ratio' and `Recreation Space Ratio'). Craig Benedict made the PowerPoint presentation. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments UDO/ZONING 2011-01 Sections Proposed for Amendment - Section 3.4—General Commercial Districts: Office/Institutional (O/I) General Use Zoning District - Section 5.2—Table of Permitted Uses (O/I District only) - Article 10 (Definitions)—`Open Space Ratio' and `Recreation Space Ratio' Proposed Changes to Section 3.4 - Modifications proposed to Office/Industrial (O/I) Zoning District only - New language to clarify `Purpose' and `Applicability' of zoning district - Modifications to Dimensional and Ratio Standards: - Floor Area Ratio (FAR) - Open Space Ratio (OSR) - Pedestrian/Landscape Ratio (PLR) - Changes to O/I District Specific Development Standards Proposed Changes to Section 5.2 - Changes to O/I Zoning District Only - Added uses permitted within O/I Zoning District - Office and Personal Services, Class 2 - Office and Personal Services, Class 3 - Assembly and Packaging Operations (Mail Order Houses) - Postal and Parcel Delivery Services - Removed uses from list of Permitted Uses within O/I Zoning District - Dwelling; Mobile Home - Dwelling; Single-Family - Dwelling; Two-Family Changes to Article 10 - Modifications to Definitions - Recreation Space Ratio (RSR) - Open Space Ratio (OSR) - Revises incorrect language to be consistent with other sections of UDO and actual practice - Applicable to all zoning districts Why O/I? What's Next? - The Office/Institutional (O/I) Zoning District is to be utilized in Land Uses where urban services are or could be available; in areas targeted for economic development - The O/I Zoning District is not currently in use within the County - Additional evaluation of all County zoning districts expected; these proposed amendments may be the first of many Recommendation - Receive the proposed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) - Conduct the public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the proposed amendments - Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be retumed to the BOCC in time for the June 21, 2011 BOCC regular meeting - Adjourn the public hearing until June 21, 2011 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the chart on page 373, the dimensional standard, and asked what the four municipalities do the same circumstances. Craig Benedict said that he would do some research on this. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 368 and Section 3.4, the second paragraph, and read, "As stated in the definitions of these land use categories, these types of land uses are to be located near major transportation routes and are intended for more intense non-residential and mixed-use development. Urban services, such as water and wastewater services, have been or are expected to be provided to these areas." She said that these were important provisions in the definition of the land use categories, and she referenced her comments regarding the definition of CITAN. Also, on page 374, she asked why#10 that has to do with road classification was deleted. She thinks there should be some kind of inention of the direct access to major transportation routes. Craig Benedict said that presently, the County does not have an adopted commercial street classification plan, so they thought that if this provision was included, it would be referencing an unadopted plan. He would like to bring back a functional classification plan. Commissioner Yuhasz said that it is conceivable that a large property could be developed from front to back and he does not want to restrict too tightly the definition of a road that provides adequate access to one of the major transportation corridors. Public Comment None. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to receive the proposed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) as detailed in this abstract and attachments; refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be retumed to the BOCC in time for the June 21, 2011 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing until June 21, 2011 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C-7. Zoning Atlas Amendment-To review a government-initiated amendment to rezone all undeveloped parcels of property north of Interstates 85/40, east of Mt. Willing Road, south of the railroad right-of-way, and west of the US 70 Connector from Rural Residential (R-1) and Agricultural Residential (AR)to Office/Institutional (O/I). Four undeveloped parcels and a portion of a fifth parcel totaling 112.35 acres are proposed to be rezoned. No project is proposed at this time. This rezoning is proposed in order to `pre-zone' the area for potential economic development projects. Craig Benedict made this PowerPoint presentation. Zoning Atlas Amendment Efland Area UDO/ZONING 2011-02 Proposed Action - Rezone 112.35 acres to Office/Institutional Current zoning: - R-1 (Rural Residential) in westem portion - AR (Agricultural Residential) in eastern portion - Eastern portion formerly designated a watershed critical area Current Land Use Categories - Commercial— Industrial Transition Activity Node (northem portion) - Agricultural Residential (formerly part of watershed critical area) Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary (WASMPBA) - Area proposed for rezoning is within the County's Primary Service Area Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan - Consistent with intent of plan which calls for Mixed Use in this overall area and former watershed critical area - A project is not proposed at this time - Pre-zoning the area for potential economic development projects and reduces the overall timeframe of the approval process - Development standards and requirements contained in the Unified Development Ordinance still apply Office/Institutional Permitted Uses Section 5.2 of UDO—Table of Permitted Uses Currently 33 permitted uses 4 additional uses and 3 deletions proposed in separate item heard tonight 10 Special Uses (Class A or B) Examples of Permitted Uses in O/I Child Care Facility Wholesale Trade Library Government Facilities and Office Buildings Dance, Art, & Music Schools Animal Hospital and Veterinarians Universities, Colleges, and Institutes Health services Under 10,000 sq. ft. Offices and Personal Services Hospitals Storage and Warehousing (inside a building) Multiple Family Dwelling Community Center Research Facility Public Notification Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks Mailed notices to affected property owners Mailed notices to property owners within 500-feet of affected properties Posted 10 signs in strategic areas of the affected area Recommendation - Receive the proposal to amend the Zoning atlas - Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the proposed amendment - Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be retumed to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the June 21, 2011 BOCC regular meeting. - Adjourn the public hearing until June 21, 2011 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the line and where it should be in relation to the access road. It was answered that this is a DOT parcel that is very narrow. Commissioner Jacobs asked why the County would want to rezone it if it would strip out the access road. It is a high-speed entrance to the interstate. Craig Benedict said that this parcel did not include the access ramp. If it is being used as DOT right-of-way, then it will be removed from the amendment process. Commissioner Jacobs asked that this be clarified. Commissioner McKee said that if there is some small amount of property that is not within the right-of-way, he would not want to exclude the rezoning of that small piece of property, because it would create an inconsistency. Public Comment Ben Lloyd said that he has been waiting for 30 years to hear what he has been hearing tonight. In 1983, he was a new member of the Board of County Commissioners and one of the first things he found out was that the County did not have any money to pay the bills. The Manager at that time put a freeze on everything but essential and emergency spending. All capital expenditures were frozen too. He said that he called the State Department of Commerce and three people came to visit with him. He said that he was told that Orange County had the most potential to attract good, clean, high-paying, low water using, non-polluting growth. But due to the lack of interest and cooperation from Orange County government over the last 15 years prior to that, no one considers it. He said that Orange County has had a no growth policy for 30 years. He said that this proposal should have been done 25 years ago. He supports this proposal 200%. B. B. Windham said that he put in a mobile home park and he still manages it. He said that the residents are waiting on some economic improvements in the County. He concurred with Ben Lloyd. He is concerned about the talk about transition. He would like some clarification. He does not want to lose his mobile home park. Robin Taylor-Hall of Taylor-Hall properties said that she represents the Susan Efland heirs. They own 79.23 acres. Ann Efland wrote a letter that was given to the County Commissioners. She said that the heirs are supportive of the project. The homeplace has been vacant for 10 years and someone has approached the family to buy just the house. She asked that the three acres that adjoins the 79.23 acres be included in the rezoning. Frank Clifton said that this portion is not in the proposed area. Craig Benedict said that he has to proceed with the advertised section. He can continue to dialogue with the homeplace representatives and amendments can be made in the future. Lindsey Efland said that he has been involved with the planning process in Orange County since the time that it was expanded out into the County. He commended the Planning Board, Planning staff, and County Commissioners for getting the County to this point. He supports this proposal. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to receive the proposal to amend the Zoning Atlas; refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the June 21, 2011 BOCC regular meeting; and adjoum the public hearing until June 21, 2011 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING A motion was made Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to adjourn the meeting at10:43 PM. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Bernadette Pelissier, Chair David Hunt Deputy Clerk to the Board