Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20031015APPROVED 1211103 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL JPA PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 15, 2003 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Cammissianers met in joint session with the Carrbaro Board of Aldermen and the Chapel Hill Town Council on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina far the purpose of holding a Joint Planning Area Public Hearing. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Margaret Brawn and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordan, Stephen Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill and Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Clerk to the Baard Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Kevin C. Foy and Council Members Pat Evans, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, Mark Kleinschmidt, Ed Harrison (arrived at 7:55), and Flicka Bateman {arrived at 8:00) CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mike Nelson (arrived at 8:30) and Aldermen Alex Zaffron {arrived at 8:30} and Diana McDuffee TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Edith M. Wiggins CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Dorosin, Jacquelyn Gist, and Joal Hall Broun NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE 1N THE CLERK'S OFFICE. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. Mayor Foy said that Chapel Hill has seen these presentations. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. JPA-CH-Z-1-03 requests a rezoning of three properties northeast of the intersection of Rogers Road and Rusch Road comprising approximately 3.03 acres from Residential-1 to Residential-Special Standards-Conditional. This reauest is located in the Chapel Hill Joint Planning Transition Area and reauires the approval of the Chapel Hill Town Council and Orange County Commissioners. Mayor Foy noted that this requires a special use permit from the Town of Chapel Hill. This is a zone that the Town created in order to encourage affordable housing. Orange County Planning Director Craig Benedict said that the preparation of this agenda is a joint effort from the Planning staffs of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro. The two rezonings are part of the Chapel Hill Transition Area, which is only a joint review by the Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County. Chapel Hill Planning Director Roger Waldon gave the presentation. He showed a map of the joint planning area. The area to the northwest of the Chapel Hill city limits is the Chapel Hill Transition Area. This means that Chapel Hill does not exercise unilateral zoning jurisdiction over this; it is shared with Orange County and Carrboro. Any proposed rezoning is a matter that has to be considered by the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners and requires affirmative action by both bodies. Both of the applications tonight are in the transition area, both of the applicants are seeking rezoning, and in both cases the rezoning would have to be approved by the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The first rezoning is Rusch Hollow. The current zoning is Residential 1. The proposed rezoning is to a zoning district called Residential Special Standards. This was put in place by Chapel Hill to help facilitate affordable housing. The area is about three acres. The staff's conclusion is that this rezoning would promote the purposes of the land use plan. The preliminary recommendation is that the two bodies consider approval of this application for rezoning. PUBLIC COMMENT Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity Susan Levy spoke as the applicant. She spoke about the increase in the number of applicants that Habitat has had. They usually get about 30 applications during an application session, and during the last one they received over 60 applications. Many of the applicants currently live in Chapel Hill or Carrboro. Habitat is interested in this site because it is within the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school district. Over 35 of the applicants also work in Chapel Hill or Carrboro (schools, UNC, UNC Hospitals, local restaurants and retail, private health care, light manufacturing, and construction}. If this rezoning request is approved, Rusch Hollow will serve 17 households who earn less than 50% of the area median income. One of the families that will live in this subdivision is the Rogers family, who has been waiting for two years to move into affordable hauling. They started planning this development well over two years ago and they have not heard from anyone opposed to Rusch Hollow from the community meetings. They will bring sewer lines to this area and the sewer will have a positive effect on the future of affordable housing. Habitat has received allocations of public funding from a variety of sources in order to support the construction of this neighborhood. To date, they have a commitment for $497,000 in public funds for the purchase of the land and the construction. Habitat will raise about twice this amount in private sources to fund the rest of the development. There will be 12 single- family homes, a triplex, and a duplex. The triplex and the duplex will be one- bedroom rental apartments for the disabled and/or the elderly. This is in response to the Orange County Affordable Housing Task Force that made this type of housing a top priority for Orange County. Habitat for Humanity is asking the two boards to approve the rezoning request. Chair Brown asked if Susan Levy had worked along with the Green Tract proposal in regards to sewer. Susan Levy said yes and that County Engineer Paul Thames has looked at the sewer route and it was the one that he had originally proposed. Commissioner Halkiotis asked how many homes have received overhead sprinkler systems that are being installed by the Chapel Hill Fire Department. Susan Levy said that the last ten or twelve houses they built have them installed, as well as the ones they are currently building. They are going to continue this program. Commissioner Halkiotis pointed out that the firemen were installing these sprinkler systems as volunteers. He suggested honoring these firemen at a future County Commissioners' meeting. Orange County Vote: A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to refer this proposal to amend the joint planning area zoning atlas to the Town of Chapel Hill for a decision and then to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to the County Commissioners. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Town of Chapel Hill Vote: A motion was made by Bill Strom, seconded by Dorothy Verkark to refer this proposal to amend the joint planning area zoning atlas to the Town of Chapel Hill for a decision and then to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to the County Commissioners. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. JPA-CH-Z-2-03 requests a rezoning of three properties on the south side of Eubanks Road totaling approximately 35 acres from Residential-1, Residential-2, and Mixed-Use Office/Institutional-1 to Residential-5 Conditional. This request is located in the Chapel Hill Joint Planning Transition Area and requires the approval of the Chapel Hill Town Council and Orange County Commissioners. Roger Waldon said that this is also in the transition area. This area is off Eubanks Road, near the intersection of Eubanks Road and Airport Road. The applicant is proposing conditional use rezoning, which means that if the rezoning is approved, no development can occur on this site without approval by the Town Council of a special use permit for this property. They are requesting rezoning through the joint planning process and then the Town Council will review the special use permit for development of the property. He pointed out that the abstract is inaccurate for the dates for this item to come back. This application is not as far along as Rusch Hollow. He suggested that, at the close of public hearing, that the hearing be adjourned and the item referred to the Board of County Commissioners, the Orange County Planning Board, and the Chapel Hill Town Council without a date specific. The preliminary staff recommendation is for denial because the proposed rezoning carries a potential for a higher level of density than the land use plan would call for. Bill Strom asked about the affordable housing component here. Roger Waldon said it has been the practice in Chapel Hill to expect new applicants to make provisions such that 15°~ of their development would be affordable to families of low and moderate income. It is his understanding that it is the applicant's intent that 15°fo of units would be affordable. Bill Strom said that his understanding was that this was going to be a rental property. There has been a challenge recently on the rental properties being affordable. He asked if there had been any discussion with the applicant about how the 15°~ would be made available to rentals and Roger Waldon said not much discussion has taken place. Bill Strom is concerned that 15°l0 of the units would not be available to the people that need them. Flicka Bateman asked Roger Waldon if he shared with the boards the CHCCS interest in this and the mix up that followed. The school system thought they had first dibs on the property. Roger Waldon explained that a concept plan for this property was reviewed by the Town Council previously and the Chapel Hill Land Use Plan, now the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, has an S on this property. The S means that the site has been identified by the CHCCS as a site that would be of interest for a school. There is a current provision in Chapel Hill's Land Use Management Ordinance that is based on special enabling legislation that Chapel Hill received that says that any property designated on the land use plan with an S is subject to some rules. One of the rules is that if an application for a subdivision is submitted, the Town is expected to notify the school district that an application has been submitted. The school district would have the ability to ask that consideration and development of this site for a subdivision be delayed while the school district considers acquisition. The concept plan is a special use permit, so the notification was not triggered. The Town Council asked the legislative delegation to introduce new legislation to allow the Town Council to designate potential school sites that would trigger the same requirement for special use permits. The legislation has been passed. However, the legislation goes on to say that anything that is already in the works would not be subject to the delay provisions. PUBLIC COMMENT: Jack Smyre was representing the developer for Chapel Watch Village. He distributed some letters. He gave a presentation of the subdivision. The tract is 35 acres. Across from this property, on the north side of Eubanks Road, is a collection of properties designated as mixed use. Chapel Hill North is in this area as well as Timberlyne shopping center. There is existing vegetation on the site. There are some manmade constraints on this property - primarily a high voltage distribution line that comes into a substation. There is also the rail corridor cutting through the southwest corner of the site. The topography is desirable for building lOtS. He spoke about the development in Chapel Hill and the millions of square feet of office space, etc., being built. This will create more jobs, which will require more workers that need housing ar public transportation. He said that the need exists to provide homes far the growing workforce. The Town has adopted an Urban Services Boundary and the properties left on the northern edge are the fringe. He said that Chapel Hill's comprehensive plan serves as a guide for what we would like to see the community build out and look like. Zoning is what implements the comprehensive plan. The density designated for this area is 4-8 units per acre. He spoke about the different densities in the adjoining properties. The vision for this site is for a medium density residential site of 4-8 dwelling units per acre. They think that this is the right designation of density for this site. There is full infrastructure in place, I-40 is in close proximity to this site as well as the park and ride lot, there are express buses available, there is a passibility of a future transportation corridor along the railway, water and sewer is readily available to the site, retail goods and services are nearby, and there are two major employment centers in close proximity to this site (Public Works facility in progress and a mixed use office). This site is not adjacent to an existing neighborhood. Based on present infrastructure, they believe that an argument could easily be made that this site is appropriate for high-density residential uses. The property owner has agreed to accept a zoning condition that the maximum density be 7.95 units per acre (278 dwelling units}. They are also willing to accept a condition to the zoning amendment to provide 15% of the dwelling units as affordable units. This would be internally subsidized by the development. Regarding the staff concerns, there was concern expressed that the floor area ratio associated with this is not consistent with a medium density residential development. He said that only 213 of the site is generating usable floor area. The special use permit calls for about 85°~ of the available floor area. The units are roughly 1,100 square feet. He said that anything less would be more studio in nature and an entirely different market than they think should be served here -families and working class people. He asked the boards to favorably consider this development for approval. Suzanne Haff said that she is a resident of the Northwood community on the corner of Airport Road and Eubanks Road. She said that they are not opposed to this development. She wants to know about the parking spaces per unit and how many guest parking spaces there are per unit. She felt that there were not enough parking spaces. She also wants to know if there are any restrictions on apartments to prevent 15 working men to rent an apartment. This is a typical pattern that happened in similar places where she has lived before. She asked if there could be some restrictions to serve families and working class people and not be packed unnaturally. Mayor Foy said that her comments would be referred to the Town Manager and Town Attorney. Board of County Commissioners Vote: A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to refer this item to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to the County Commissioners. VOTE: UNANMIOUS Town of Chapel Hill Vote: A motion was made by Ed Harrison, seconded by Mark Kleinschmidt to receive and refer the comments to the Town Manager and Tawn Attorney. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Public Comment on Unrelated Item: Sharon Cook was representing a citizens' interest group called Students on Sidewalks. She gave a presentation and distributed a handout. She made reference to the urgent public safety issue and said that we must not wait for a tragedy to occur before taking action. She showed some pictures of Homestead Road and High School Road and said that it is not friendly to motorists or pedestrians. There are no turn lanes, no shoulders, no traffic light, no crosswalks, and no sidewalks. This is a stark contrast to the roadways, sidewalks, crosswalks, and traffic signals at East Chapel Hill High School and Cedar Ridge High School This is a very congested intersection. Students are often walking next to traffic on the white lines and darting through traffic. This roadway needs to be safe far all drivers at all times of the day and night. She asked that a traffic control officer be provided at this intersection as soon as possible. She also asked that a joint jurisdictional citizens' committee from the County and both Towns be appointed as soon as possible to begin correcting this hazard. The mission should be to craft a funded solution for getting sidewalks from the neighborhoods north of Homestead Road to Chapel Hill High School with safe crossing areas for the students. The committee should include citizens from the nearby neighborhoods, staff members from the County and Towns with an expertise in traffic planning and funding, and representatives from the school district. The committee should seek advice and input from the Highway Safety Research Center in Chapel Hill. They would like a solution presented by the April 2004 joint planning meeting. Commissioner Gordon asked if there was a solution besides a traffic control officer and a committee that can be implemented. Sharon Cook said they sent a letter from the Chapel Hill High School Student Governance Committee back in April to DOT and they said that because no student had been killed or injured at this intersection, it did not warrant a traffic light. Commissioner Halkiotis said that this is the standard message DOT gives to people in both ends of the County. He endorses this and would like to get it moving. Dorothy Verkerk suggested the model for NC 54 and Hamilton Road. She said that what made this work well was that the engineers from the Town were working with the engineers from DOT. She also asked everyone to vote for the sidewalk bonds. Kevin Foy said that they have $b million of bonds on November 4th for sidewalks Diane McDuffee said that Carrboro also has bonds for sidewalks. She suggested coordinating the priority list for the TIP project list. She said that Homestead Road was high on the priority list atone time and was bumped back down. Chair Brown asked Sharon Cook if she had spoken to the CHCCS board. Sharon Cook said yes. She said that this week the speed limit is supposed to be reduced in this area. Unless this is enforced, it will not help. Chair Brawn said that they would send information to the Sheriff and point it out to him. Commissioner Gordon said that this would be on the TIP list that comes to the County Commissioners. Board of County Commissioners Vote: A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to endorse the joint jurisdictional citizens' committee for the County and Towns as presented by Sharon Coak. Chair Brawn suggested getting the CHCCS school board members involved. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Town of Chapel Hill Vote: A motion was made by Jim Ward, seconded by Dorothy Verkerk to endorse the joint jurisdictional citizens' committee for the County and Towns as presented by Sharon Cook. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Jim Ward asked if there is something that we can do now in the 6-12 month time frame. Flicka Bateman said if maybe the three governmental bodies together approach DOT then there may be a better response. Alex Zaffron said that this is an ideal issue for the MPO to take up. If all three jurisdictions are interested in doing some short-term improvements, this may be an ideal project to fund through the SDPDA program, which is funding that the MPO directly allocates within its control. He has already asked the transportation planner to examine this. He will also speak to the lead staff person at the Metropolitan Planning Organization. He suggested that the citizens' committee be in direct communication with the MPO. He is the Chair of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO. Pat Evans said that it would be good if they could provide a safe shoulder for students to walk on now. This could be done quickly. Commissioner Gordon said that Orange County was going to put this in their TIP projects and the other jurisdictions could also put it in their TIP plans. Mayor Nelson said that they have already done that and Homestead Road is bumped up above where it was last year. Mark Kleinschmidt suggested putting a law enforcement presence there at the peak periods and their staff could move on this as well. Mayor Foy said that the discussion from DDT is that they are proposing to widen the road but not include sidewalks. This is not going to do much for the students. Jim Ward said that he would like to include that the citizens' group would address similar needs on Seawell School Road (for Chapel Hill and Carrboro) and an opportunity for safer routes to schools. D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Update on Joint Planning Presentation of a report on recent activities/actions in the Joint Planning Area. Craig Benedict said that all local governments have approved the annexation provisions extension of the JPA, which means for the next 20 years, the two local governments will not be annexing into the rural buffer. All local governments have approved Chapel Hill's May 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments as of earlier this month. Chapel Hill will be bringing forward in April 2004 the issues or consequences of the retraction of the urban services boundary in the southeastern end of the jurisdiction. This leaves some areas in the joint planning area as transition. The reconciliation of this will be brought up at the April 2004 meeting. 2. Land Use Element -Orange County Comprehensive Plan Presentation of a progress report on the preparation of a new Land Use Element of the Grange County Comprehensive Plan and discussion of possible land use scenarios for the Rural Buffer and JPA timeline for review, if necessary. Craig Benedict gave a PowerPoint presentation as follows: ^ Section 1: Orange County Comprehensive Plan ^ Section 1 a: 1981 Land Use Plan ^ Section 1 b.1: Amendments ^ Section 1 b.2: Other Comprehensive Plan Elements ^ Section 1 c.1: A New Land Use Element Is Needed ^ Section 1d.1: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Committee (CPLUC) established to: ^ Section 1 d.2: CPLUC ^ Section 1d.3: Comprehensive Planning Land Use Element Timeline, 1996-2004 ^ Section 2: Data Collection and Analysis of Existing Conditions ^ Section 2a: Population Trends ^ Section 2b: Pattern of Growth -Major and Minor Subdivisions ^ Section 2c: Existing StudieslReparts ^ Section 3: Projected Conditions ^ Section 4: The Challenges of Growth Management ^ Section 5: Consequences of Nan-Action ^ Section 6: Guiding Principles ^ Section 6a: Sustainability ^ Section 6b: Guiding Principles ^ Section 6c.1: Goals from 1981 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element ^ Section 6c.2: Goals from 1981 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element ^ Section 6c.3: Goals from 1981 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element ^ Section 6d.1: Enhanced Goals ^ Section 6d.1: Enhanced Goals (continued) ^ Section 7: Growth Management Tools for Consideration ^ Section 8: Outreach ^ Questions and Discussion Section 1 d.3: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Timeline, 1996-2004 Section 2a: Data Collection and Analysis of Existing Conditions Population Trends: ^ Township Growth ^ Migration ^ Racial Diversity ^ Age Patterns RACIAL DIVERSITY AGE Section 2b: Pattern of Growth Growth Patterns: ^ Major Subdivisions ^ Minor Subdivisions ^ Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT} ^ Sprawl Orange County Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 1987-2001 Section 2c: Existing StudieslReparts ^ Sustainability ^ Water Resources ^ SOCF (Shaping Orange County's Future} ^ Rural Character ^ Flexible Development ^ Sprawl Projected Conditions ^ Ideal Orange ^ Population ^ Sprawl Map ^ Traffic ^ Buildout CONSTRAINTS TO GROWTH Population is Expected to Continue to Rise in Orange County BUILDOUT DATES 13 Growth Management Challenges 1. Efficient provision of Public Services 2. Protection of Rural Community Character 3. Preserve Farmland and Viable Local Farm Economy 4. Protect Water Resources -Watershed and Groundwater 5. Traffic Reduction 6. Reduction of the Fiscal Impacts of Development 7. Hazard Mitigation -Reduction of Stormwater Runoff and Flooding 8. Protection of Natural Areas/Wildlife Corridors 9. Reduction of Air Pollution 10. Development Location and Type 11. Economic Prosperity and Diversity 12. Affordable Housing 13. Preservation of Community Character -Neighborhoods and Historic/Cultural Features Consequences of Non-Action ^ Inefficient provision of public services ^ Longer response times for EMS and law enforcement officers ^ Higher taxes to fund services and infrastructure ^ Increased traffic congestion, VMT, and length of commutes ^ Degradation of air and water quality ^ Loss of farmland and rural character ^ Increased flooding due to increased land disturbance and imperviousness ^ Conflicts between urban and rural land uses ^ Diminished quality of life Section 6a: Sustainability ^ Sustainable development provides for the needs of current generations without sacrificing the needs of future generations.` ^ Goal is to reproduce and balance local economic, social, and ecological systems.* ^ Ensures that economic development and a high quality of life will be sustained far future generations. Section 6b: Guiding Principles ^ Progressive Government and Long Term Sustainability ^ Customer Service and Good Citizen Communication ^ Land Use and Zoning with Smart Growth Principles ^ Social Justice ^ Environmental Preservation ^ Intergovernmental Cooperation and Regional Planning Section 7: Growth Management Tools ^ A clearly defined Urban Growth Boundary (UGB} and Interim Growth Boundary (I G B) ^ Major subdivisions limited to areas with urban infrastructure potential ^ Reduced residential densities in the rural areas, reduced lot disturbance ^ Sustainable minimum lot size to insure land holding capacity is not compromised Growth Management Tools for Consideration ^ A CLEARLY DEFINED URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (UGB} AND INTERIM GROWTH BOUNDARY {IGB} -Clearly defines where urban growth should and should not occur, and can even designate areas appropriate for development within certain time frames. -Directs development back into urban areas, instead of allowing it to sprawl out into rural areas. -Uses scarce public resources more efficiently. - Protects rural areas and open space from development. - A step toward implementing a Transfer Development Rights {TDR} program whereby "receiving" and "sending" areas are outlined. Map 5: Water & Sewer Boundary MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS LIMITED TO AREAS WITH URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE POTENTIAL - Easier and less costly access and provision of public facilities and services, as well as a lesser need to expand these services outside of urban areas. - Less stress an the rural and environmentally significant areas of the County. - Directs higher impact growth to areas that can better accommodate it. - Rural activity is less disturbed by conflicting residential growth ^ REDUCED RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES IN THE RURAL AREAS - The costs to provide public facilities are reduced since fewer people will live in the rural areas. - Helps protect rural areas, such as prime farmland, sensitive habitat, open space, and critical watershed areas, as well as maintaining the rural character of the area. - Reduces traffic and air pollution in the rural areas. - Promotes sustainable ground water recharge - Encourages higher density and investment in the already urban areas, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Mebane. Map 6: Targeted Densities Chart 10: OC Land Use Scenarios Map 7: Open Space Subdivision Design Townships-to-Sustainable Planning Areas (SPAs) Townships ^ 7 in Orange County ^ Relies on artificial political boundaries ^ Large resolution presents obstacles for planning studies ^ Used historically for planning in Orange County SPAs (Sustainable Planning Areasl ^ 32 in Orange County ^ Relies on natural watershed boundaries ^ Small resolution captures unique water quality and location attributes ^ Used currently for planning in Orange County Growth Management Tools far Consideration ^ SUSTAINABLE MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO ENSURE LAND HOLDING CAPACITY IS NOT COMPROMISED - Reduces water resource stress and environmental hazards from failed septic systems. - Promotes sustainable ground water recharge Map 8: Zoning Minimum Lot Size Land Use Densities Commissioner Gordon said that reducing the residential density in the rural areas does not mean that the County can increase them in the urban parts of the County. The thought is that it would be a partnership. The Towns and the County need to cooperate. Pat Evans said that we need to look at how the decisions in Orange County will affect what happens in other counties around us -Chatham and Alamance. E. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Margaret Brown, Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board