Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20031124APPROVED 03/16/2004 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERSIPLANNING BOARD JOINT DINNER MEETING Government Services Center November 24, 2003 5:30 pm The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session far a dinner meeting/work session an Monday, November 24, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Services Center in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Margaret Brawn, Chair COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: S. Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray, Vice-Chair Hunter Schofield (arrived at 5:50) and members Crauford Goodwin, Barry Katz (arrived at 6:00), Ted Triebel, Bryan Dobsyn, Noah Ranells, and Jay Bryan PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Sam Lasris, Renee Price, Rachel Preston, and Maria Tadd PLANNING STAFF PRESENT: Perdita Holtz, Tom Altieri, Craig Benedict, Gene Bell, and Robert Davis NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE Welcome Commissioner Gordon, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 5:45 and welcomed everyone. She asked everyone to introduce themselves. 2. Introductions of Board of County Commissioners and Planning Board Members The County Commissioners and Planning Board members introduced each other. Nicole Gooding-Ray announced that her name has changed to Nicole Gray-Smith. She will no longer be the Chair of the Planning Board as of next week. 3. Board of County CommissionerslPlanning Board accomplishments: a. Growth Management System b. Open Space Regulations c. Outdoor Lighting Commissioner Gordon said that we should pat ourselves on the back for these accomplishments. 4. Planning Board Goals-Brief Discussion Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict to give a brief presentation of the following goals: A) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Update -including: 1. Outreach 2. New Density Targets-Comprehensive Growth Management 3. Urban Growth Boundary Craig Benedict said that at the last Planning Board meeting, they discussed how to collect the Board of County Commissioners' ideas. They are planning "community outreach" in the manth~ of December and January for the comprehensive plan land use update. In February, the formal public hearing process begins. The issues are density considerations in the rural areas, sustainable lot sizes, and reaffirming the urban growth boundary. B) Other Comprehensive Plan Elements: 1. Transportation 2. Housing There are other elements such as natural systems and parks and recreation. C) Unified Development Ordinance (UDO} The County Commissioners approved this in the budget this year to start at least half funding for this. This involves taking all of the regulations that have been approved aver the last few years and adding them to the comprehensive plan and having a thorough booklet of subdivision zoning and economic development. This would be an abridged version. D) Program Research (i.e., Affordable Housing, Transfer Development Rights} The Planning Board suggested getting a consultant to talk about transferable development rights in the Buckhorn economic development area. E} Class A Special Use Training 1. Towers 2. Subdivisions A class A Special Use Permit requires a review by the Planning Board and review and approval by the County Commissioners. The new tower regulations have more class A permits as well as the new subdivision regulations. As of the November 5t" vote by the County Commissioners, any subdivision, depending an size and location, will ga through a standard process, special use permit process, or a rezoning special use permit process. They anticipate four new class A towers coming through in the next run of submittals in 2004. Craig Benedict said that there would be a better package of information far the January 2004 retreat. Commissioner Gordon asked if the comprehensive plan was in the shape that the Planning Board would want it to go out. Some people have articulated concerns to her. Nicole Gray-Smith said that the main concern for her is how the outreach is done for the comprehensive plan. The outreach should be done in an accessible manner. Craig Benedict said that the rural character group said that it should not be too "planning heavy". The plan is to have a high interaction/low presentation format with an open house. The majority of the time would be for questions and feedback from the public. Commissioner Gordon asked if the Planning Board would have a role with the staff to see that it is done in an appropriate manner. Nicole Gray-Smith said that they have been getting updates at each meeting. They have not talked as much about haw it is going to be done. Commissioner Gordon said that the Planning Board has to feel comfortable with the way it is going because the County Commissioners rely on the Planning Board for their advice. Commissioner Carey said that all of them are concerned about haw the outreach goes. He would like to talk about some ideas of making it a better process for the public -talked with rather than talked at. Hunter Schofield said that one aspect he sees that is missing is what we want to achieve. He is not a fan of open houses because he finds that they do not work. He would like to set some benchmarks. Ted Triebel said that members of the Planning Board represent certain areas and it is a natural fit to integrate themselves in the education process in the places that they represent. Noah Ranells said that he sees the agricultural community as an integral part of them moving forward in a progressive approach towards agriculture and open space in the County. He is also on the Agricultural Preservation Board, and this board is interested in being involved. Barry Katz agreed with Noah Ranells and said that he should be involved as much as possible. He said that you have to go the extra mile in education. He said that this should not be a short campaign and the idea is to maximize the result. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to have a meeting in each township. The members of the Planning Board that represent the townships could come to the meeting. There could be signs put up, and it could still be done this fiscal year. He suggested hiring a consultant to talk about transferable development rights. He thinks there should be some end paint; otherwise it will go an and on. Crauford Goodwin made reference to a group that he was a part of and the education that was done and hardly anyone showed up. He suggested explaining in language that is understandable so that they know how it affects them. It also should be clear to the citizens that it makes a difference if they shave up. Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to Timberlyne Shopping Center and said that sometimes there is a tight timeline and the message does not get across correctly. He said that we all have to be committed to educating the people and making sure they have an opportunity to understand what is happening. Barry Katz said that the national election would be drawing everyone's attention in 2004, so this needs to be out in the open in January and February. Hunter Schofield said that it is a little paradoxical. He said that it was easy and that if you want to inform people, and then send them a letter. He said that it would not take long to produce a list of landowners that this would affect. He said that what is paradoxical is that we want to inform people, but we may not want to bring out everybody. The County may not be prepared to deal with the types of reactions that may come up. He said that we need to decide what to do -take this incremental step, or inform everyone with a letter. Craig Benedict said that with direction from the boards, he needs to go out in the short term and start the ball rolling. He is willing to go out to each township and meet with people, but he needs to get going on it. Barry Katz said that it is true we should have meetings in the townships. He said that leaders should be developed in each township -people whose opinions really count. He agrees with having simple language, but that it should be very carefully worded. He wants it to be as transparent as possible. Noah Ranells said that he would much prefer going fonrvard and going out with information well prepared and pick up a few example tracts of land and apply the new zoning suggestions to it and show the scenario. He said that he would be uncomfortable with anticipating a groundswell of negative responses. He said that it was important to engage the people in the rural communities. Barry Katz said that he wants this to succeed on its merits. He is concerned that this issue might be taken up by people who have other agendas. He thinks that this is a good possibility. Commissioner Jacobs said that we represent the whole County and we are focusing too much on outreach to rural areas. He said that there are people in urban areas that care about land use. He thinks it is a mistake to not focus on the whole County. Commissioner Halkiotis said that we have to be ready for the negative responses. He thanked Barry Katz for bringing up this point. Commissioner Carey said that we often get ourselves involved in things that become contentious. He thinks it is important to get started with a clear message. He said that he believes that the members of the Board of County Commissioners make decisions based on what they think is in the best interest of the entire County and not just one area. He said that if the Board only made decisions based on what was heard solely at public hearings, there probably would not be zoned townships or Cane Creek. John Link reminded the Board how they went about protecting the watersheds about ten years ago. He said that Mary Willis and others went out and provided a straightforward message. He said that the comprehensive planning process has not been addressed in 20+ years, and during this time air quality has gone down and traffic has gone up. This is the type of straightforward message that should be conveyed. Commissioner Gordon made reference to being an the Chapel Hill Township Advisory Council in 1980 and said that there was atownship-by-township process for the development of the comprehensive plan. She said that an element of success is making sure you get out in the community. She is a little worried about the December timeframe and getting people to be involved in a public process during the holidays. She would like to see the Planning Board as the sounding board to get this together. The County Commissioners need to know what is going on. She would like to see someone at the policy level making sure that the presentation will resonate. It would be ideal far the Planning Board to take this an. Nicole Gray-Smith said that this could be put on the agenda for the Planning Board meeting next week. The Planning Board could make a recommendation about the outreach. Craig Benedict said that he could turn this into a report an December 9th for the BOCC meeting. Hunter Schofield and Commissioner Gordon suggested components of education and outreach that should be included. Nicole Gray-Smith said that since they are going to be presenting the goals at the BOCC retreat, then that might be the better forum to provide more feedback. Hunter Schofield said that he sees this as an incremental land use change and not a huge issue with property rights. His interest is on transferable development rights. Someone has to take the chance and he thinks Orange County is the right trailblazer for it. He would like to see some action by the Board of County Commissioners to approve moving forward with it. Commissioner Jacobs said that he had a meeting today with four members of the development community who have concerns about C&D, open burning, topsoil disposal, lot clearing casts, etc. He suggested that a member of the Planning Board volunteer to come to a meeting as well as staff (Manager, Planning Director, Economic Development Director, Solid Waste) and give people a venue to vent and to express concerns about regulatory changes, etc. Commissioner Carey said that it sounds like we have some energy here that is pent up and frustrated, especially on the transferable development rights issue. He asked what needs to happen. Jay Bryan said that there first needs to be a consensus and there has not been a consensus. Commissioner Carey said that we have been talking about it for a long time. He agrees that Orange County is best fit to test it. He thinks the County should move down the road to begin the process. Barry Katz said that hiring a consultant is probably all the Planning Board can expect right now It is up to the Planning Board to come up with a position and a view on transferable development rights (TDR}. There is no certainty that it will succeed. He said that the Planning Board should just take the lead on it. John Link volunteered to work with Craig Benedict to work out the presentation of this material to the public. He said that we have to be careful with the concept of TDR. If we are not careful, people will think that TDR is the top priority and he does not think this is the case. Commissioner Gordon said that she hopes the boards will work together to make the outreach successful and that the Planning Board will take the lead an looking at the content of the education materials and how the message is delivered. The BOCC should have something on the December 9t" BOCC meeting. She thanked the Planning Board for their work. 5. Board of County Commissioners Comments 6. Other Business Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Alice Gordon, Vice-Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board APPROVED 4!1312004 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 24, 2003 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session for a public hearing on Monday, November 24, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Moses Carey, Vice Chair Alice M. Gordan, Stephen H. Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair Margaret W. Brown, COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: S. Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Jahn M. Link, Jr., and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker {All other staff members will be identified appropriately below} PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Hunter Schafield and members Noah Ranells, Jay Bryan, Crauford Goodwin, Barry Katz, Sam Lasris, Ted Triebel, Bryan Dobyns, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray, Rachel Preston, Maria Tadd, Renee Price NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE A. Opening Remarks from the Chair -Vice-Chair Alice Gordon called the meeting to order. in the absence of Chair Brown. charge. B. Public Charge -Commissioner Alice Gordon dispensed with the reading of the public Commissioner Gordon said that she will open the meeting, call for the motions of the BOCC, and close the meeting. Vice-Chair of the Planning Board Hunter Schofield will chair the public hearing items. C. Public Hearing- Planning Baard Vice-Chair Hunter Schafield 1. Orange County Zoning Atlas Amendment - PD-1-03 State Employees Credit Union a. LNR) district with a Class A Special Use Permit. Hunter Schofield reviewed the procedure for this part of the agenda item: Procedures for Re-Zoning and Special Use Permit- - The Re-zoning will be legislative - The Special Use Permit is quasi-judicial and these are the procedures: 1. Call of Agenda item by Planning Board Vice-Chair Hunter Schafield - There will be three minute time limit for statements 2. Presentation by Staff: Agenda Item Number 1 -Orange County Zoning Atlas Amendment, PD-1-03 -State Employees Credit Union. This is a request for a rezoning of an Economic Development Limited Office First, procedures for a rezoning, this involves procedures for a rezoning and a special use permit. The rezoning will be legislative. The Special Use Permit process is quasi-judicial and there will be, certain procedures which will be followed tonight. First and foremost, there'll be a swearing in by Donna Baker. And we'll do that en masse, and so she'll ask for everyone who intends to testify at this quasi-judicial hearing to stand and be sworn in. Secondly, there'll be a presentation by staff. Thirdly, there'll be statements in support of the proposal by the applicants. Fourthly, there'll be an opportunity for opponents to the proposal to speak, and, then, if necessary, there'll be rebuttals from both sides. With that, let me go ahead and turn this over to Donna Baker for the swearing in. 3. Clerk to the Board Donna Baker asked for anyone who will be providing testimony on this item -Special Use Permit- to please come forward in order to give them an oath. She asked if there was anyone that was going to testify that would object to being sworn in. If so, she will give them a separate oath. {No one did}. - The Clerk asked the 5 individuals who were being sworn in to place left hand on the Bible: and she asked them, "Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" - Robert Davis, Craig Benedict, Jonathan Parsons, Jay Smith and Rynal Stephenson took the oath. The Clerk then asked them to leave any materials that they were using in support or opposition to this amendment with the Clerk and she will retain them in the Clerk's office Hunter Schofield: OK. We're now ready to proceed with the presentation by staff. Planning Director, Craig Benedict. Craig Benedict: Good evening. This item is both a rezoning and a special use permit. As the Vice- Chair said, it is a process that involves two separate issues, one being legislative, one being quasi- judicial. We are nestling those two together tonight because, atone point, there'll be a decision an the rezoning but not at tonight's meeting. But that would be a separate decision at some time in the future, whether it is appropriate to change from its existing zoning district to this new zoning district. After that decision is made at a subsequent meeting to this, if that is found to be acceptable from a legislative standpoint, then you will move into the second process, which is a Class A Special Use Permit. Both of these issues will have eventual recommendations from the Planning Board, again, at a meeting subsequent to this. And then a Special Use Permit is an opportunity to set a list of conditions on how the site plan would eventually unfold. This site development plan, which will be part of the Special Use Permit, is very close to a formal site plan. To go through the actual information to be submitted by staff, Robert Davis, the current Planning Supervisor, will go through that item to explain the different aspects of the proposal. And then, we'll turn it over to the different parts of the process. So I'll introduce Robert Davis and he'll continue with this application. Technical Evaluation: Robert Davis: As he had said, this is a planned development request to rezone property to Planned Development Economic Development Linear Office, which is the district that was designated for this portion of the EDD (in the Hillsborough area EDD}, back when the BOCC redid the Hillsborough EDD about two years ago. This is the State Employees' Credit Union. It is located at the intersection of Oakdale and NC $6. It's in the Hillsborough Township. It is adjacent to the Citgo service station, which is located back over to the east (pointing to map}. You have the Hillsborough EDD to the north. Back to the western side, you have a single family home, but that is also in the Orange County EDD. And on the south side of the property you have asingle-family house that's also in the ED-LO district. The building size that is there now is a 5,000-square foot building. It was built back in '97-`98 time period. And they have run out of space. They have recently acquired the property to the south and are looking to expand this from the 1.88-acre site, which is the current site, by adding another 1.37 acres to that, for a total of 3.25 acres. The building itself has an ATM lane. The ATM machine is actually in the building. That is one lane. And then there are three drive-through lanes far the conducting of business by the people that go through. They have a total of four-lanes including the ATM. The current zoning on the site is ED-LO-1, on the northern portion. And it has a special use permit that the Commissioners approved, that was not removed when this was rezoned to ED-LO-1. So the Special Use Permit, for at least the northern portion, is still in place. The southern tract is for general use zoning, ED-LO-1 for all of the uses that are currently in the table of permitted uses of that district. What they're doing now, through the planned development process, is a map amendment, which is the legislative part, to rezone the whole tract to a planned development ED-LO-1 classification with a Special Use Permit, which is the quasi-judicial part, that includes the site plan review. (pointing to map} The Credit Union is asking to add a little bit on the northern side of the property. [Mr. Davis referred to a map] They want to put some office space there -converting of the canopy area that is the existing drive-through lanes. That would also be converted to office with the pavement around that portion to be taken up and re-sown with grass and landscaping. They would also have a new building that would be built on the southern end of the property, which is about 635 square feet, that would be a remote teller station for the employees to work, handling the new, relocated drive- through lanes. They are requesting a total of five lanes- one ATM, and one of them would be an addition - so it would be a 33-percent expansion of what they have. Also, there would be a 2000- square foot canopy that would be built over thane drive-through lanes. It would be an additional 2334-square foot addition to the site. The water and sewer currently is now provided by the Town of Hillsborough and would continue to be served by Hillsborough. They would work through the Hillsborough requirements to expand the water and sewer within their site. The Planning Department has received agency comments from the Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's office said that they do not have any issues with this. Emergency Management and the Fire Marshal have indicated that they would not have any problems servicing the area. And NC- DOT has provided some comments relating to the access. The Credit Union currently has a full service access on NC $6 and a full service access on Oakdale. What they (Credit Union) had requested on this plan was another full-service access to the south. One of DOT's comments was that access would be too close to the business park access -Millstone Drive- and that they would recommend that that driveway be re-located because the intersection is too close. Staff also is recommending that that one access be eliminated on this plan, and to continue to use the driveway on the northern side on the existing site. Mr. Davis said that there are some performance standards that they have not met yet under our ordinance. If a developer or an applicant cannot meet all of the requirements of the particular district in which they're located, they can ask for minor deviations from the plan. And the Board has the ability to approve those minor deviations if there is a public purpose or a public benefit that could be derived from making those minor deviations. The first one is the maximum floor area in the ED-Limited Office - in the Linear Office District. That district is set up for a minimum 20,000-square foot size lot. We have a maximum floor area ratio of 5,000 square feet for each building of the 20,000. It is roughly 25 percent of the lot that could be covered with the building. This particular zoning lot, once you do the two additions for the two properties, will be 3.25 acres or 141,000 square feet. If you played out the 20,000-square foot lot, that would be the equivalent of about 40,000 square feet that you could actually build on those lots if they were all individually subdivided and then brought back in with their 5,000-square foot maximums each. However, the Credit Union is not proposing to do that. The other thing that could have happened on this site is, had the Credit Union not purchased the property, that adjacent properly could have been subdivided into 20,000-square foot lots and each of those could have come back with 5,000-square foot additions. So, roughly 10,000 square feet could have been built if that adjacent property had been sold, or if someone else had purchased it, and they legally subdivided it and then brought back a requirement. You could have had up to 40,000 square feet on the same size lot, ar, under the second scenario, you could have had an additional 10,000 on that adjacent lot. What they are asking for is 7,334 square feet total for the entire 3.25-acre site. It is up to the Board to decide and the Planning Board to look at as to whether or not this request has sufficient public benefit to allow this request as it is now being proposed. The second deviation that the Credit Union is requesting will be the Hillsborough Area EDD, which was approved by BOCC as not allowing drive-through facilities. The four lanes that are there now are technically grand-fathered in. They are also under a Special Use Permit and they cannot be deemed illegal under the Special Use Permit (SUP} because the SUP was in place when the new zoning was put into effect. Sa the additional lane would be a request to deviate from the standards of no drive-through facilities. The 33 percent expansion would be a request to this Board. The Planning Department researched this to find out what they may or may not be doing. They are promoting their Internet banking. The Credit Union is encouraging people to da more of their business by the Internet. The Credit Union will then be able to reduce the amount of "sit" times for people looking to transact business at the drive-through. They are looking to service their existing clients and possible increase their clientele. There is a limitation as to what can be added to the Credit Union based on their criteria. I don't think just anyone can join the Credit Union. So they are limited as to who would be able to join the Credit Union over the long term. They are looking at this expansion as a way to serve their existing client base, which they feel could also reduce emissions because people are sitting far shorter amounts of time. The third issue or deviation is really not a deviation. The maximum building height in this proposed district is 30 feet. The existing building is, in a couple of places, 35 feet. But what the Credit Union in asking to add on is significantly less than the 30 feet. Any addition that they are looking to add on to this building meets the requirements of the district. But, if it's rezoned to PD-ED-LNR, you will have anon-conforming situation and would need a deviation that is five feet, which would be a little bit too tall. There were conditions placed on this in 1997. We have incorporated all of those back to it, related to sewer and landscaping. NCDOT requirements back then were to dedicate right-of-ways, which they did. For some reason it has not shown up on the Land Records system, but there was right-of- way dedicated along Hwy 86 for 20 feet. And the Credit Union has requested an additional five feet along Oakdale, which we're going to ask for that same amount again, and to verify that it actually has been done. If the Board were to approve the Special Use Permit, it would only last for one year. If the Credit Union has not started any construction within one year, it would expire. And that has to do mainly with our zoning. The actual recommendation by Staff is the Zoning Officer's recommendation. And we have not found anything in our investigation to indicate that this is not a reasonable good use in that particular area. And if the County Commissioners and the Planning Board make any recommendation, and could see that the deviations were reasonable, they could recommend the site plan with a couple of conditions that we felt at the staff level would be an addition for safety purposes. We're staying with the same ones that were on the previous plan. The access that DOT is saying needs to be eliminated, we're staying with that. We agree with the DOT since it is their road. Also, in reference to the northern driveway, Staff is recommending that it be converted to a right-in- right-out at this time. DOT's recommendation was to do it at a later date when the crass-section for Hwy 86 was improved. They are calling for that to be a 100-foot right-of-way, 16- and 14-foot travel lanes with sidewalks, and a 25-foot median, which takes you to a 100-foot cross-section. And the Credit Union is saying, when that happens, and where they're thinking roughly 2010, maybe, then that would become aright-in-right-out. So, we're actually saying maybe it might be best to get used to that now. That's one of the staff conditions. There's also, for interconnectivity purposes, along the front with the undeveloped area, with the house to the south should that property develop, to allow access between these fins tracts, and that potentially, if that next tract develops, you could have the Millstone Driveway line up into this side of the road, which would allow properties up here to come out at potentially a lighted intersection for safety purposes. In no event would we recommend the southern driveway as they propose. We also have a traffic study that was updated. The Credit Union has a presentation on the traffic patterns. We have the 1997 traffic impact study, and then there was aone-page update on that that shows the amount of traffic and how much drive-through traffic that they have at certain times of the year. We will look at the site plan now. The Credit Union is proposing some underground storage of their storm water. As you all know, there is an over ground storage area next to Oakdale Road, that has a chain link fence around it with a brown tarp. That would stay in place to handle the existing drainage an the existing site. For the new addition, they are proposing an underground drainage storage tank that would discharge at a rate that would not provide any storm water problems. That would be located roughly underneath [Mr. Davis refers to map], the parking area, next to teller station. They had looked into doing underground storage a few years back on this but nothing ever came of that. But there were a couple of people that did inquire about the potential of doing that. It would have required that some of the trees be removed up in the front portion of the site so you would have to build it at another location. You could not tear this one up until you got the other one in place. So, you would end up with same trees gone. So they more ar less dropped that. That completes the staff's report. I'd be glad to answer any of your questions now ar later Hunter Schofield: Questions for staff by members of the Commission? Commissioner Jacobs: I'll wait until after we hear the other presentation. Commissioner Gordon: The area of the intersection of Oakdale and Old $6 that is showing {referring to map) that beautiful area with the large trees. Is there any intent at any paint to disturb that? Robert Davis: No, not according to this plan; that is going to stay. For the most part, the existing site will stay the same with the exception of converting some of those spaces on the north end to compact spaces because of the addition. And then the canopy area is going to be enclosed far office space. But, other than that, the majority of the work will be on the new portion to the south. And there will be some enhancement on the landscaping along the frontage there. Commissioner Halkiotis: Could somebody just point out where DOT's 2010 sidewalk would eventually come out to? In the middle of those trees? Robert Davis: No sir. We have the 100-foot right-of-way up to the sidewalk included at the very back portion of the right-of-way. The way the profile looks, is, you would have asix-foot walkway, curb and gutter, a 16-foot travel lane, a 14-foot travel lane. It's a 14 - 16, it's 30 plus the six feet = 36. Same way on the other side -would be 76. And they're calling fora 25-foot median. It would really have to be 24. That's the way it would work. Craig Benedict: One comment, {or `alignment') the Oakdale and Oakdale Drive extension, we have discussions with DOT about haw that would be made a little more perpendicular through here. So the acquisition of additional right-of-way may be on the other side, and looks like it has been accommodated on the Oakdale side. Even with this 100-foot crass section you would not have landscaping right at this intersection but would internally. But farther dawn Old 86 there would be a four-lane divided highway. And that is what was approved in the Economic Development District proper. We've also talked with NCDOT - it probably will have to be Hillsborough -about possible right turn lane improvements here, whether it's through some small urban money, or working with Hillsborough. There has been a need in this intersection for some improvements. The important thing is that you have the right-of-way dedicated to do an expansion. Hunter Schofield: Any other questions before we turn this over to the applicants for presentation? Barry Katz: I have a question about the lanes, the temporary exiting of the bank of the Credit Union. The way it is now, you're proposing that it be right-in and right-out. And what has been proposed for how people who were trying to drive, let's say north after they leave the bank. How are they going to get to go north -for those people who come from the south and driving north -how are they going to get into the bank? Robert Davis: They will have a full service access on Oakdale, which is a lighted intersection. It's safer. Generally, DOT prefers people to use a lighted intersection rather than the movements across busy highways. If you wanted to enter the site from the south, you would go up to the light, take a left, and come in that way. And the same way with when you are leaving. If you wanted to go right, you would take your right out and go towards Interstate 40. If you wanted to come back into town, you'd go out Oakdale and take a left there. Hunter Schofield: Let me just mention to members of the Planning Board, there will also be several opportunities as we ga forward in this hearing to ask questions of different presenters and same concluding questions, if you happen to have any. Robert Davis: One important thing is the zoning amendment - we would recommend approval of that -for the zoning to PD-ED-LNR. And for the site plan and Special Use Permit, Staff would recommend approval of the site plan, provided you make the findings that the deviations would be necessary. Administration recommends referring both items back to the Planning Board for a recommendation back to the BOCC. We would take it to the Planning Board the first week in January, and then get it will back to the County Commissioners in January or early February. That is our recommendation. Hunter Schofield: Very good. Ok, let's move forward. If we could hear from the applicants. Please make sure you've been sworn in and please state your name as you come forward. I have a list of speakers here, but I'm not sure if they overlap with the applicants. I've got a Jonathan Parsans. Is that one of the applicants? Jonathan, please come forward. Welcome. Statements in support of the proposal: Jonathan Parsans: I appreciate your time this evening to go over this project and basically just to sum up what Mr. Davis has already spoken to you about. We are an existing bank site or credit union site. And, we're, quite literally, trying to do this improvement to better serve our current customer base that is slightly expanding, but we're just mainly out to give our clients the best possible facility they can have. As it was stated, we are trying to minimize any impact to the existing site. We're helping to preserve those really large cedars and the hemlocks and the grasses. And, in fact, we're actually incorporating similar materials into all the expansion area to help make it a nice uniform, very visually-pleasing appearance from the intersection, so when you're coming by you see one homogenous appearance. And, if you ga back to the landscape plan, you would see it in the section showing a very similar character. With that, we have talked at length with the Planning Department and have agreed with almost all of the findings. And we've talked with NCDOT and have gotten their input on this. We would like to move forward with the site plan with the exception of - we will accept their condition of removing the second proposed driveway. But, pending a presentation by my traffic engineer, Rynal Stephenson, we would like to keep the existing driveway a full access drive, as we understand in 2010 or so, that drive would be converted to a right-in and right-out. But, with the current facility being as it is, we can't foresee when the adjacent southern parcel would develop and give us that full access intersection with Millstone. And DOT has reviewed our plans and they believe the intersection that is currently there, the existing driveway, is a functional driveway. It's not an optimum, but it is functioning. There is enough queue space for people making alert-hand turn into our site and vice versa on Oakdale, so it seems to work. With that, we are prepared to go forward with the right-of- way dedications. We've actually shaven it on all of our plans that we submitted to the State. We have carried the additional right-of-way on 86, and it is in line with the entire sidewalk we're proposing. We're planning on extending that to the edge of our property line. And the same with Oakdale. I believe that was actually already filed with the previous site plan. If there are any questions of me specifically about the site plan, I'd be happy to cover them now. Otherwise, I'll let our traffic engineer give you a quick analysis of what they found from an actual study of the traffic count we've done in the past week, just to help justify why we think we're making a qualitative improvement, not pushing the quantity up too much. Hunter Schofield: If it's ok with the Board, I think we'll hear from all of the applicants and their consultants, and then, perhaps, we'll turn it over to questions. Is that agreeable? OK. Then I've got J.W. Smith and Rynal Stephenson and it can be in that order, or how you choose. And again, please make sure you've been sworn in and please state your name. Rynal Stephenson: Good evening. My name is Rynal Stephenson and I'm with Raimey Kemp and Associates, a traffic engineering firm out of Raleigh, N.C. We went out on Thursday of last week and conducted traffic counts during the morning from eight o'clock to ten o'clock a.m. and also in the afternoon from four o'clock to six o'clock p.m. This handout that Jonathan is currently passing out -the first page gives you a summary of this brief study that we have conducted and is followed by a couple of tables that show the trip generation of the existing Credit Union and, also, if you add an additional drive-through window, we have a very conservative estimate, which is towards the high end of the traffic that may be generated. And, the second table is a summary of level of service, which is the measure of how the intersections will operate during the morning and afternoon peak periods. And it's followed by some five figures that show the traffic volumes that we counted last Thursday and, also, the existing Credit Union traffic followed by some of the percentages of where the traffic is currently going, and where we anticipate any additional traffic to go. We went out and did traffic counts on Thursday, and came back and looked at those traffic volumes and got an idea of where the traffic was going. We wanted to get an idea of how the intersections would operate if the expansion were to occur and an additional drive-through lane were added, with some expansion of the office space. If I can refer to Table 1 an the second page, there was a traffic study done far this development in 1997, I believe. On the very first line of that table, which shows you the estimated traffic numbers or trips that will be generated by the Credit Union, and if you will look down on the second raw, where it says, "RKA Count," that is the traffic volumes that we counted. I would like to point out that the 1997 traffic study based the trips an the square footage of the development of the site. And it appears that it's a little bit low in the morning, but it's a little bit high in the evenings. So when the Credit Union was built, it accommodated these traffic volumes and in the afternoon the traffic volumes are not quite as high as what the study was predicting. But the very last raw in that table will show you the traffic numbers that we believe could potentially be generated with this expansion. And, like I said earlier, this is a very conservative estimate because you're adding one drive-through window to an existing bank that likely has their clientele base already built up. So these numbers should be pretty conservative. And they would also take into consideration any expansion of the actual buildings to a few of the offices that may be built. We took these numbers and distributed them out across the intersections and performed an analysis of the intersections. If you'll look on Table 2, which is on the following page, it gives you a brief summary of the results of that analysis. The first row is the Old 86/Oakdale signalized intersection. You can see that existing in the morning, it operates at a level of service B, which is quite good. Now, please understand that the side streets are given less green time because they have less traffic on them. Sa they would experience a little bit more delay than the traffic on Old 86, which is given more of the green time. But, as you can see, it operates at a level of service B in the morning and afternoon. And when you add in the expansion of the Credit Union, you can see the levels of service all remain the same. And the numerical values in parentheses are the delay calculations -the average delay experienced by a vehicle in seconds. And you can see there is very little change there. You're taking a relatively small increase in traffic and you're spreading it out aver these two intersections, the two driveways, and as a result, you're not increasing traffic a great deal there. This analysis that we looked at does consider that there is one driveway, the existing driveway, an Old 86 is a full access. So, it remains allowing less in and less out in the future. And, one thing I'd like to point out is if that is made into aright-in and right-out, what you will have is -like the gentleman that asked about earlier, `How would the vehicles get in and out?' The vehicles to exit wanting to go back north on Old 86 are going to have to use the Oakdale driveway. And, you can see, if you look on Figure 1, which is on the following page, that has the existing traffic volumes at the Oakdale/Old 86 intersection. If you'll look specifically at the left turn from Oakdale onto northbound Old $6, there are 140 cars in the morning and 112 in the afternoon. That volume is going to increase. I know that I said earlier that minor street movement is given less green time because the traffic on Old 86 is heavier. And if you farce those cars to turn, to go out the old Oakdale Road driveway, they're going to have to turn left from Oakdale onto Old 86 at the light where they're going to have some delay there, instead of going out onto Old 86. If you're going to increase that traffic, and they're already given less green time there, it's going to increase that delay. And sort of the same is true for the vehicles coming from the south on Old 86 wanting to turn left into the Credit Union. You're going to force them to go up to the signal, make a left there, where they're currently not provided a protected movement, according to what I see on the signal plans. They don't have a green arrow, so they're not going solely as an exclusive movement. They're having to wait for gaps in the southbound traffic to try to make that left turn movement. And that's not ideal for the left turns to do. So it's pretty much the same situation you have down at the southern driveway. But there is storage available in the turn lane, in the middle turn lane there, for those cars to get out of through traffic, which is a plus. So, you wouldn't be forcing those cars to go up to the signal, make a left and then come in off of Oakdale if we allowed the intersection to remain full access. I also should paint out, that when these improvements come in by DOT or the TIP Project is built in the future, you're going to have an improved cross section there that is able to carry the traffic more efficiently. So, it won't be as big a deal for those cars to go out to Oakdale at the intersection. You're going to have more through lanes there far the traffic on Old 86 to clear that intersection quicker. So, it wouldn't be as bad to send those cars out the Oakdale driveway. Hunter Schofield: We've got one mare member representing the applicant, Jay W. Smith Jay Smith: I have nothing to add. Hunter Schofield: Nothing to add. Thank you. We want to go ahead and direct any questions to the applicants at this point before we turn to anyone who might wish to speak in opposition to this application. Jonathan Parsons: Right now it's, on peak days, two to three, and that's what we anticipate for the remote office. Sam Lasris: How many employees work inside the bank? Jonathan Parsons: At the islands inside? That's about seven. six full-time. Hunter Schofield: Other questions from the Planning Board? Barry Katz: When we talking about traffic moving in and out of the Credit Union, but Old 86 is becoming a more heavily trafficked road and I suppose everybody expects and hopes that there will be more commercial development in the area that has been zoned for commercial development there. And the number of cars on that road, one would expect to increase. I know through Hillsborough there is a possibility of something like 96,000 trips a day or something. My point is that if you have cars that are not trying to get into the credit union, you have a higher burden of traffic going past the credit union, then people trying to make left turns are going to find more and more difficulty to make a left turn safely at the entrance that you currently have. And I know you're looking to the traffic improvements that will happen in 2010 or thereabouts to sort of dissolve the flow of traffic past there, but the recommendation was to actually make right turns only on Old 86 in order to avoid the left turn problem. I think that the left turn problem will quickly became a problem before 2010 because of the volume increase in traffic. I would strongly support the idea of the recommendation that the Planning Department has made. Rynal Stephenson: One thing I would like to say about that is that when you have cars turning left in or left out of the southern, existing driveway, the traffic signal up at Oakdale will stop traffic in the southbound direction and northbound direction. And, when that southbound traffic is stopped, that will allow gaps in that traffic for the cars to turn left out, and either get in the center turn lane, and far the traffic coming up from the south, wanting to turn left in, they'll have pretty much a clear shot into the Credit Union. That's not as critical a movement as the left turn out. But, one benefit of having a traffic signal at the location that it is, is that it will stop traffic in the southbound and northbound direction, which will provide some gaps in that traffic stream for those cars to turn in and out. Barry Katz: How many feet is it between your entrance and exit ...at the traffic light? Jonathan Parsons: The existing distance is approximately 200 feet give or take. Barry Katz: Roughly two cars or something? Rynal Stephenson: It's usually about 20 to 25 feet per car. Barry Katz: Ok, haw many cars would that be? Rynal Stephenson: About eight. Barry Katz: If you're in the eighth car sitting at that traffic light, in traffic, and you couldn't make a left turn onto there.... Jonathan Parsons: You would still be able to make a left turn if there are only eight cars there. Rynal Stephenson: Yes you could. And the analysis shows in the print-outs that I have with me The analysis print-outs are showing that the queues are going to backup about, I think it's like a 190 feet or, something like that. Barry Katz: Is that right near the one car making alert-hand turn or two cars making a left when sharing the traffic light when the traffic light is red? Jonathan Parsons: That's assuming there's a full backup on Oakdale. Rynal Stephenson: That number I quoted you, 190 feet, is what they calla 95t" percentile queue, which is the, it's not maybe the max, but it's sort of the worst case scenario during the heaviest 15 minutes of the heaviest hour. Barry Katz: I don't want to belabor it at all, but I anticipate Hillsborough traffic -Old 86 traffic -will increase significantly, and that's my opinion. Rynal Stephenson: Yes, I just wanted to point out about the signal. Ted Triebel: A couple of general questions on the traffic. Yau took a one-day look at this on a Thursday. Is that standard procedure, to take aone-day traffic count and then to generalize that to 365 days? Rynal Stephenson: Yes, sir. Well, it's just typically what the profession does, yes, sir. It's the traffic data collection is very expensive. You know to have someone, you know, sitting out there counting all these intersections, you know, far days at a time, and that's accepted in the profession. Yes. Ted Treibel: I understand why you wouldn't pick a peak day -the 15t" or the 30`" -but is there any reason why you pick a Thursday, and why didn't you pick a Friday, or some other day? Rynal Stephenson: Well in a typical weekday, you can see, too, that the traffic numbers that we counted were higher in the morning than the study had predicted and pretty close in the afternoon, so, we feel that it was a pretty typical weekday. And, it may not be the 15`" or the 30t", but it's a typical weekday. Sam Lasris: What advantage does the Credit Union get out of people using their cars far banking as opposed to going inside. Is there a definite advantage to the Credit Union to have people banking in their cars? Jonathan Parson: There is a definite advantage, I mean, you can only have so many people inside the building at any one time. Whereas, in the cars..... Sam Lasris: You could expand your bank. I think the thing that bothers me is that we're always expanding to accommodate automobile traffic rather than to accommodate people. Jonathan Parsons: The opposite way to look at that, the more people you put inside the building, the larger parking lot you will need, vice versa. The more traffic you have stalling into the parking lot. You'd still have to have parking for those cars, though. You'd have 20 people to handle, or 30 people. Jay Smith: My name is Jay Smith with O'Brien Atkins Associates, and I'm representing the applicant. The thing that I would like to add to that conversation, or that comment you made, is that the clientele of banking -you may be the exception -are wanting to have their transactions acquired quicker. And so that's why the advent of teller lanes and ATM lanes and all these, the car, the vehicle for getting your transactions done is becoming more popular. So, the Credit Union is not alone, and many banks are approaching their business in this manner. Commissioner Jacobs: I'll wait until we get to ask our questions after they're finished. Noah Ranells: Was there any delay on the first day turning left onto 86 due to traffic? Rynal Stephenson: I was not there counting the traffic, but our traffic counters didn't notice any unusual delays or anything out of the ordinary. Noah Ranells: Is that requested information? Rynal Stephenson: Yes they know to look for those things. They're trained to look for those sort of things. We don't have an exact number of vehicles. They're not able to time the delay far the cars, but they do observe traffic patterns while they are out there. Jay Smith: One final point. In your packet is a letter from the North Carolina Department of Transportation. It's a November letter. On page two of that -essentially what the Credit Union is asking is that you consider what the North Carolina Department of Transportation is recommending. It's an acknowledgement that 86 is getting busier. However, it's not until sometime later that the right-in and right-out would be needed. The Credit Union is simply asking for that convenience for their customers, that the existing full service entrance that they have now be maintained during that time. The Credit Union is completely willing to, at some time later in the future, when those numbers have warranted such, that the right-in right-out be imposed upon them. As stated earlier, it's also at that time that the new entrance opposite the Millstone facility may be in place and then further improve access to those groups of properties. Noah Ranells: We are dealing with air quality issues in this County and it's having an impact on everything we do. Opening up another lane with concern for idling vehicles, I'm wondering if of the development sites you have considered air pollution concerns in developing whether there are any opportunities. Jay Smith: Quite honestly, the addition of the ATM lane will reduce that. The same number of cars trying to get through fewer ATM lanes or teller lanes will be idling longer than more throughways where they'll be processing themselves quicker. Noah Ranells: It does. (The clerk swore in Randall Wellman.} Randall Wellburn: My name is Randall Wellburn and (work for the State Employees' Credit Union. Hunter Schofield: Was there a comment that you wanted to respond to. Randall Wellburn: How long would it be until the same wait time with 15 to 20 cars. I just didn't want it to sound like there's 15 to 20 cars there. It's just on peak days such as teacher pay days, or the 15t" and 30t" that were mentioned? Hunter Schofield: Just a note to the Planning Board to keep in mind that this will be returning to us in the period of one to two months for deliberation within the Planning Board as to the merits of this proposal. So this would not, of course, be our only opportunity to weigh in on this application before us tonight. With that being said, we're still open to questions. Yes, Mr. Katz. Barry Katz: Are there any sites around there that are available for commercial base of food stores or anything else of that nature? Robert Davis: The ED-LO is the base district in that area. It has some components. It's mostly limited office. But you do have undeveloped property down in the business park. And down the road there is the potential for the planned development through Hillsborough, the Waterstone Project. Barry Katz: So, if they have an increase in residents, and with the possibility that without a supermarket developed in there in that stretch or something that could dramatically increase the traffic here in this area, you are basically working in a retail vacuum over there. Nothing in there, you know? And with the potential that the customer base is there, you may well have an emergence of retail space there which will dramatically change all your traffic patterns one day. Robert Davis: Right. Plus, you also have the fact that this is not a funded improvement through the NCDOT, so it could go quite a while before it gets improved, and the traffic would increase. Normally when you get to the 125 percent capacity, you get a road maybe five years later. So, we're looking at that too. It could be a long time before you see an improvement. That is why we were recommending the turning movements now but that will be the Board's choice. Commissioner Halkiotis: I just wanted to make a quick observation. I may be the only member of this Board who does his banking at the Credit Union. This Board doesn't include you Hunter Schofield. I'm just talking about Commissioners with all due respect. And, I've got to tell you guys, I have never come in on the Hwy 86 side. I think the safe driving technique tells you to come in from Oakdale. And I exit out Oakdale whenever I can. I think that has been one of the issues all along. I think the DOT's idea about right in and right out is right for right now and forget about ten years from now. Yau guys may not like that, but I ga in and out of there at least once or twice a week. And when all the parking spaces are filled up in there, as they usually are, and those people at the teller windows, they're inside conducting business. You people are doing a big business dawn there. And it's my opinion, you don't have enough parking spaces so people can turn their engines off and go inside. And when you've gat a couple of cars you're selling because people couldn't make their payments, you lase a couple of parking spaces there, because you've got them in a lot with a For Sale sign an them. You have got to look at what you're doing because we need every parking space we can get so people can turn their engines off. But for somebody who uses it day in and day out on this Board of Commissioners, Oakdale, in my opinion, is the way to go for right now. It's the safest way in and the safest way out. Commissioner Jacobs: I have questions for our Staff if we're done with the applicant. Jonathan Parsons: If I could make this one response to Mr. Halkiotis' comments? I just want to quickly address the parking issue directly. With the plan that we are proposing right now with the middle parking bay, moving all the staff parking from the lower lot up into that area, we are trying to add as much parking as is possibly allowed by the existing Ordinance. Albeit limitations by impervious sail, storm water, etc., so we are addressing the parking demands directly by at least getting all the staff and the one or two impounded cars out of that main stay and helping clear up the circulation as well from the entrance on 86. So, right now, there are currently some people that parallel park in that driveway. By doing the plan with the parking we're showing, we're anticipating eliminating all of that driveway congestion, which will also make that existing drive function much safer and cleaner, as well as helping the Oakdale drive. Hunter Schofield: I have one quick question for the applicants. No one's discussed, that I've heard about, incidents of traffic accidents at that 86 access. Can anyone speak to that? Jonathan Parsons: When I spoke with Mr. Tapp, who is the Public Safety Reviewer for Orange County, he did not bring anything to our attention. He felt that the current site plan and the new site plan both functioned, albeit not a perfect situation; there was nothing he brought up specifically telling me that there are issues. And that is why we got their approval straight out. He was happier to see our new traffic pattern with the four-way access bypass lane on the far side as well. Vice-Chair Scofield: What about your own experience? Can you speak at all to that. Jonathan Parsons: 15 odd trips to Hillsborough. Hunter Schofield: I'm also a member of the Credit Union, but I was looking if there was someone who actually works at the Credit Union at this particular location, if they in any way had any anecdotal observations that might give us some insight in terms of the potential hazard ar lack thereof that that access currently creates. Randall Wellburn: No. I don't think we have anything. There have been no accidents out front that we're aware of at all. Hunter Schofield: During what period of time? Randall Wellburn: Since we moved in June 1999. Hunter Schafields: OK. Thank you. That was my question. Rynal Stephenson: The NCDOT also maintains the crash data. We could get a report from them. It would probably take a week or so to get that from them. Hunter Schofield: I just thought that was germane, so I thought I'd ask the question. Any other questions before we let the applicants take their seats? 4. Statements in opposition to the proposal. {Planning Board Chair will ask each them "Have they been sworn in?" and if so, proceed; if not the Clerk will swear them in.] There was no one to speak in opposition to the proposal. 5. Rebuttal statements by supporters. {Planning Board Chair will ask each of them "Have they been sworn in?" and if so, proceed; if not the Clerk will swear them in.] None. 6. Rebuttal statement by the opposition. {Planning Board Chair will ask each of them "Have they been sworn in?" and if so, proceed; if not the Clerk will swear them in.] None. Commissioner Jacobs: First I want to ask questions about something that Commissioner Halkiotis just said. Are there in fact cars for sale that are parked on this property and would that be consistent with the zoning? Robert Davis: No, that would not be consistent with the zoning. We'll have to look at that. Commissioner Halkiotis: I didn't mean to blow the whistle on anybody, you know. I always follow the righteous path. Commissioner Jacobs: I wish you would look into that and talking about having access kind of in the middle where it would be more dangerous, more movements going in bath directions. So could you please just talk about the thinking behind that? Robert Davis: You're speaking of the access back off of Oakdale all the way to the back? Commissioner Jacobs: Correct. Robert Davis: Even if you look at the existing site, you can see that there's a retaining wall there where they have done quite a bit of cut into that area. And they were looking at the prospect of doing more cutting on that site to do that. We preferred, actually, the rear access for the interconnectivity back there. That was not well received, and there was going to be a lot more dirt to be moved, and probably a loss of more trees, although it looks like they have got most of them on the back, at least where the driveway is. They still own some of that properly back up on the top of the map, back over to the west. But ideally, a road back there could serve this tract, the adjacent south tract, and also the western tract. Commissioner Jacobs: To me, this is an example of how we make anecdotal decisions that destroy any comprehensive planning opportunities. Because if, say there was a light at Millhouse, and then somebody wanted to go over to Oakdale by not going on Old 86, it would be so dangerous as to virtually be eliminated as a possibility to have to leave through the middle of properties and through the traffic coming, even if there is a right turn in and a right turn out, as opposed to going along the northern portion of the property -the western portion, excuse me. Robert Davis: Right. We would have encouraged traffic that is already in there to have different options to go out, but not someone to cut through Millstone and weave their way through. You could still take that road across, but it would have to quickly move up to the property line to get around over to service. That whole portion of property back there is owned, I think, by one individual, all the way down to Cornwallis Hills. They would need access to come through from Millstone to tie into that. But, it was basically a grade issue. We originally started out with all the connectivity in the back, but with the queuing up from the folks going through the ATM, they were backing up into yourtwo-way traffic. It did not function like we would have liked to have seen it. You were having people sitting there queued up to go into the ATM and into the drive-throughs backed up into the two-way traffic lane in the back, so they proposed something up front, which has its own drawbacks because you have people leaving, such as not paying attention {sticking their money in their wallets) pulling out, and you have traffic coming across the front. Commissioner Jacobs: I would hope that the Planning Board and the Staff and the Commissioners would consider adding astub-out there, so that if we decided that was mare optimal in the future, we had not precluded that possibility. Now, one thing that was mentioned, is there or is there not aright-of-way dedicated on Oakdale at the intersection with Old 86? Robert Davis: One of the DOT comments was to dedicate a site distance triangle up at the corner there, which tells me that that was done but this did not pick up the 86 right-of-way, but they've dedicated their portion there on their side, at least. Commissioner Jacobs: Sa, we're sure then that you could put a right turn, ar, at least a taper in there at this time. Robert Davis: You may have to go curb and gutter for drainage purposes but the cross section is wide enough --it's generally 12-foot lanes. Twelve, twelve, twelve, and then, turn lane - right lane - 12 -that's 36 feet. And you have a 55 foot right-of-way. Commissioner Jacobs: Because one of the things that having a right turn there would do would be to address some of the concerns that were raised about making a left turn at that light. Because, since there's no option but to sit there until you get to the light to make a right turn, it queues the traffic way more than it has to. I spoke at the 1997 Public Hearing, and Orange County's Transportation Planner at that time said it wasn't necessary. I think it's an example of how, when we don't look ahead, the problems are created. Were there a right turn lane there now, people wouldn't drive through the swell to make it anyway. I would suggest that we talk with DOT about whether there will be - we had mentioned this to them -whether there would be money available under NC Moving Ahead, if in fact we do have adequate right-of-way, to have that paved, without asking the applicant to pave it . I think that ought to be part of this process, that we have that discussion, about haw we're going to require or acquire a right turn lane there, because I think that will address some of those questions about if we're moving the traffic so that it goes out to the traffic light. And I use that intersection a lat. The way I look at that, the existing driveway on Old 86 lines up with the existing driveway on the Citga. Am I correct? There's no control of access there, sa you have people making opposite left turns going across traffic, one of the most highly traveled roads in this part of the County. And just because NCDOT does things in a stupid way doesn't mean that we have to perpetuate it. If that's their recommendation, fine. But drive up Churton Street. There are all sorts of examples of this. The taper for the left turn lane starts almost at that same paint. So you have people who think they're moving left, to get in the left turn lane, people turning left, people turning left, and people coming this way. As Barry said, as it gets more highly trafficked, it just gets worse. To say that it's programmed without funding, is to say that we wish it will be true but there's no guarantee that that's going to happen. And I think, that where it's within our purview - we saw this with the Super Wal-Mart -which was not within our purview -where it's within our purview, and we can see a way to make a traffic improvement, in advance of when DOT might get the funding five or ten or fifteen years from now, we ought to go ahead and do it. There's a 2300 square foot house on the new lot, is that correct? Robert Davis: No, the house, I call it a Cape Cod, as you come out of Millstone an the southern tract, there is a small structure there right now. They had talked about moving, or allowing it to be moved. There was some discussion. I don't know if they are still on that track or not. They had, at least one of the gentlemen with the Credit Union was open to that. It could be. It seems to be in fairly good shape. It could be moved. Commissioner Halkiotis: There are two different structures there. There is a house and a workshop out back. So, which one are you talking about? Robert Davis: The house is the one I'm speaking of. Commissioner Jacobs: I'm just asking what's on there. Robert Davis: Yes, there's an existing structure. Commissioner Halkiotis: There's a good size garage-workshop, freestanding, out back. Commissioner Jacobs: I assume that we would require that it be deconstructed if it wasn't removed. Robert Davis: We haven't addressed that. We can add that as a condition. Commissioner Jacobs: I would certainly want to add that. Just a couple more comments. I was taking notes about the right-in and the right-out, which I also support. Those of you who drive on Old 86, there's alert-turn lane into Cornwallis Hills. DOT did not require that. It didn't think it was necessary when Cornwallis Hills was built. The Orange County Planning Board thought that it was necessary. The County Commissioners agreed. And I think anybody who drives through there, is very glad there's a left turn lane there for Cornwallis Hills. The whole discussion that we had in working on the Economic Development District, regarding the limitation on drive-throughs, was exactly what you said, Sam. We are trying to change the way that people do business. For better or for worse, we're in an air quality non-attainment area, and to me, to build mare drive-through lanes is only to encourage people to stay in their cars, as opposed to, since the standards require a certain amount of parking, to meet the square footage of the building. The idea is, presumably, that you can accommodate business inside. That's why we have parking standards. So I don't see a need to increase drive-through lanes. In fact, I think it's sending a message that we're not very serious about the standards that we set if we're going to actually expand the use. I'd just as soon see banks without the drive-through. I've forced myself to get out of my car at the bank I use so that I don't contribute to the problem. And I certainly wouldn't want to, as an elected official, vote to make the problem worse. Hunter Schofield: Other comments from the Commission? Any comments from members of the Planning Board? Sam Lasris: Were the residents notified of this action? Robert Davis: Yes sir, it's in the packet. And there is a certification letter in there that they were notified. Sam Lasris: Was this their only chance to respond? Robert Davis: No, they get to go to the Planning Board. There was a public ad and also a sign posted on the property. They can still come to the Planning Board, provided all comments are in writing after this meeting. Hunter Schofield: I think we're ready to proceed. Commissioner Gordon. Commissioner Gordon: I'm ready for a motion to accept the Planning Staff's recommendation to refer the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment and proposed Class A Special Use Permit to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Commissioners no sooner than January 26th, 2504. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to accept the Planning Staff's recommendation to refer the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment and proposed Class A Special Use Permit to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no sooner than January 26, 2004. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Concurrent Text Amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and Orange County Subdivision Regulations a. Text amendments to require a subdivision located in more than one zoning district, including a subdivision located in more than one overlay district or a subdivision located in anon-overlay district and an overlay district, to qo through the planned development rezoning process. Craig Benedict said that this item has more specific language to clarify requirements and identify thresholds. The item is on a blue handout. This item came up with the discussions of the new growth management standards, which set thresholds based on location and amount of lots. There was a question when there are subdivisions that may intersect two watersheds, there are some inconsistencies between the land uses that can occur between the iwa overlay districts, impervious area requirements, or density changes. He pointed out a map with all of the watersheds. The hope is to have less inconsistencies among the borders and to have better transitions. This amendment is an attempt to bring forward far subdivisions that are over six lots in the major subdivision process {rezoning or special use permit process). Also, if an applicant that spans the two districts uses the lower density or the more restrictive land use regulations (impervious ar land use} then they would not have to go through a rezoning process. Hunter Schofield clarified that we have now given landowners who happen to reside on a piece of property that share joint zoning jurisdictions the option of selecting a more restrictive zoning jurisdiction and developing under the rules and regulations set forth under that more restrictive zoning district. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to consider a motion to accept the Administration's recommendation to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board far a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no later than January 26, 2004. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Amend Article 22 (Definitions), Article 4.1 (Establishment of Use Reaulations), Article 4.3 (Permitted Use Table), and Article 6.29.4 (Additional Requirements for Certain Subdivisions) of the Zoning Ordinance; and Section II (Definitions) and Section III-D-3 (Preliminary Plat Approval) of the Subdivision Regulations to require subdivisions with more than 20 lots in rural designated areas to follow a planned developmenttspecial use permit/zoning atlas amendment process. Craig Benedict said that this is in regards to the growth management system lot thresholds. At the August public hearing, amendments were brought forward that classified certain areas as rural shown as green on the map and certain areas as urban designated. At that time, the public hearing announcement said that 41 lots + in a rural area would undergo a rezoning. The Planning Board thought that a 20+1ot provision was more in order to represent the impacts that could occur in a rural area. At the November 5th meeting the Board of County Commissioners went with the Administration's recommendation, which was 41+ lots with the rezoning because that is what the legal advertisement said. The Board requested that 21+ lots be considered at this public hearing. There are no changes to thresholds in the urban designated areas. He spoke about impacts of different subdivisions. The assumption for a rural road is that the average high speed is 70 miles per hour. The intent of the enhanced rural preservation and accommodating the agricultural community in these areas is to have a level of service on rural roads that is more accommodating for the agricultural traffic. The level of service B has been used in this analysis, and it shows that a 20-lot subdivision would create a 5°lo increase on the maximum capacity. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to accept the Administration's recommendation to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no later than December 9, 2003. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Text Amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance a. Amend Article 4.3 (Permitted Use Table) and Article 8 (Special Uses) and the standards therein to allow "School, elementary, middle, and high," with the standards detailed in Article 8.8.29 and Article 8.8.30. Craig Benedict said that this is also a follow up to the August public hearing and a discussion concerning the permitted use table and special uses to regulate schools in different sections of the County. Previously, there have been regulations for schools to be located in an economic development district. It was suggested that a class A special use process be brought back for everywhere a school is located (residential or EDD). This item has two parts. One is to make anywhere where schools are allowed now to have a class A special use process. This allows more input by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. In addition, there are other recently adopted special use standards that were very comprehensive. He made reference to the "pyramid" on the handout and explained it. He said that they have imported the regulations for subdivisions and have transferred them over for the use of schools. They have created a new district. Commissioner Gordan said that an page 104, she was asking what the standards of evaluation meant. She said that she asked Craig Benedict what sections it applied to, so it is just a matter of clarification. Craig Benedict said that they can re-word this by saying where a conflict "exists, the most restrictive standards will apply." Cammissioner Gordan asked about page 105, regarding Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Method, and said that she understands that this is for all schools and not just public schools. She thought that public water and sewer were preferred. If it is not public water and sewer, then she thinks there should be a water resources report. She asked about a solid waste convenience center and if this was supposed to be provided. Cammissioner Gordon referred to page 108 and public road access. She said that public road access is required, but this does not state that it is. She thinks this should be stated. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the growth management standards and how they apply to schools and asked about a pedestrian bicycle plan and open space connectivity. She asked if you needed constructed resources. Craig Benedict will investigate these areas and provide a report to the Planning Board. Craufard Goodwin asked about historical resources. Craig Benedict said that they can look at this. No public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to accept the Administration's recommendation to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no sooner than January 26, 2004. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Amend Article 6.18 iTelecommunication Towers and Equipment] and Article 8.8.17a (Telecommunication Towers) to clarify inconsistencies and provide a better understanding of the various aspects of the review process as well as revise the intent, scope, and use of the Master Telecommunications Plan concept. Craig Benedict made reference to the gray handout. There are same minor changes in this. They went through a process of 18 months of moratorium for towers and they have reviewed four class B telecommunication tower permits that went through the Board of Adjustment process. They have learned that there is more information to help them review the applications. The suggestions are in the amendments. He explained the amendments. Some additional information includes having photographs when they come in with the application, requiring a lump sum with the formal application, etc. There has not been consensus on the issue of the Master Telecommunications Plan regarding the public safety system and how it works with the regulations. They have removed the County owned properties from the priority list at this time. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 12 of the handout where it says, "Co-locators shall be refused access for co-location by charging exorbitant lease fees." He suggested adding to this, "as determined by the County's consultant" since this is open to interpretation. Sean Borhanian said that this was indicated in number five. Cammissianer Jacobs made a correction to a typographical error on page 16, that was Hated by staff. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the time of the application and if it was when they apply or in February. Craig Benedict said that it was originally in February but it is now at the Annual Telecommunications Projection Meeting at the end of January. Cammissianer Jacobs said that the best time to have a balloon test is when there are no leaves on the trees. Craig Benedict said that they have not gone as far as saying that they should do all of the balloon tests in the winter months. They can tell of their intent in January but not submit until August. Noah Rannell said that there has been discussion about towers helping farmers by locating sites on farms and it can be a significant source of income for farmers. Craig Benedict said that there is interest in the agricultural community and they will need to develop a task force for this. He painted out on a map the gaps in coverage. He said that any farmer can write to telecommunication providers and let them know that property is available. Commissioner Gordon asked why they are putting the agricultural below the commercial. Craig Benedict said that agricultural was part of a public interest site along with fire stations and these were part of the MTP. Commissioner Gordon asked why they were not doing the MTP at this time. Craig Benedict said that the public hearing notice said that they were using the MTP as a planning tool for information purposes. There needs to be more communication on how the MTP would be used. He suggested that by the February public hearing that they get it all together and understand how an MTP can be used and how it is considered in the class A special use process. Commissioner Jacobs said that if this went to public hearing by February and the application review is February 15t, then they would lose a whole year of applications. Craig Benedict said that they would have to ask the County Attorney's office about whether a permit that has been filed but Hat approved is subject to the new regulations. If that is the case, then they could capture a lot. Sean Barhanian said that there would Hat be vesting until there is a permit. Craig Benedict said that they could capture the 2404 amendments by getting the MTP straightened out in February. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to include in the public record that the Board's intent is to include this if possible. No public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to accept the Administration's recommendation to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no sooner than January 26, 2004. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. Text Amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations a. Amend Section IV-B-3 (Streets) to consider requiring bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and common access points concurrent with development projects that abut or adjoin roadways with approved access management plans. Craig Benedict said that they put together a study with the Orange Grove Raad Access Management System and they created same generic policies that have a universal application. There are ten different concepts that they would like to incorporate into the subdivision regulations and use them as policy considerations. If the County puts together a corridor plan for a specific road in its jurisdiction and it is adopted by the Board, then it would be a mandate. This item gives the opportunity to pursue a Roadway Corridor Master Plan Access Management Plan. In the absence of a Corridor Plan, you have these guidelines to use when the County is reviewing even subdivisions that may be in rural areas. Commissioner Jacobs said that DOT says that it will enforce an Access Management Plan if we adopt one. He asked if this was strictly something that will apply on Orange Grave Road at this point. Craig Benedict said that at this point, it would apply to Orange Grove Road. The specificity now applies to Orange Grove Road because that was an approved plan. The County gives that plan to DOT and DOT and the County both enforce it. Commissioner Jacobs said that the proposed process sounds time and effort intensive. He said that it would be more ideal to develop a set of standards that could be applicable anywhere. He asked how to make this mare applicable Countywide in a more expeditious manner without doing an intensive study of every corridor. Craig Benedict said that it is hard to have general standards in a specific project. He agreed that it is very time intensive. There could be an analysis of same specific corridors in the County {i.e., US 70 Bypass ar 70 Business). He said that the Board can direct Staff to look at some areas that are important to the County. No public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to accept the Administration's recommendation to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board far a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no sooner than January 26, 2004. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Amend Section V-D (Final Plat) to update certifications that are outdated, to add process and procedure and information to be shown on final plat. Craig Benedict said that this is just an update to the final plat sign-offs. This involves such areas as removing registered land surveyor replacing with professional land surveyor, which is the nomenclature that is necessary; requiring additional information about what lots are under common ownership; having some additional disclosure statements about lands that are part of our Biological Inventory; requiring setbacks that are in excess of the minimum requirements to be noted on there so that anybody that purchases the property does not have to do some extensive title search to find out if there was additional conditions put on a subdivision; resolution of approval - it can be noted on the plat; maximum impervious area requirements; environmental health statements; and adding a new certification statement concerning the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. Commissioner Gordon made reference to number 9, "Require that both major and minor subdivisions record final plats within 90 days of final Planning Staff approval. Right now it is minor plats recorded within six months and major plats recorded within one year." She said that it seems a little restrictive. She asked how many of these changes go beyond what is needed to implement the SAPFO. Craig Benedict said that if the Board thinks 90 is too short they can provide alternatives. Commissioner Jacobs asked if they have to be same one. Sean Borhanian said that these certificates are now 90 days in the ordinance. The certificates were not amended properly at the time the ordinance was amended. Craig Benedict said that this was referring to other certificates on the plat page Noah Rannell asked if there was any consideration given to the Lands Legacy. Craig Benedict said that some of the Lands Legacy lands, if they are a natural area, will be shown. If it is not a natural area, it will show Orange County as owner if the County purchased it outright. They are working through the GIS to note all conservation easements that are being accepted. A motion was made by Cammissioner Jacobs, seconded by Cammissioner Halkiatis to accept the Administration's recommendation to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board far a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no later than February 17, 2004. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. D. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiatis, seconded by Cammissioner Carey to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Alice Gordon, Vice-Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board