Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20040823APPROVED 10/05/2004 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JOINT WORK SESSION August 23, 2004 7:30 pm The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session for a Work Session on Monday, August 23, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. in the Government Services Center in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs, Margaret Brown, Moses Carey, and Alice M. Gordan, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Stephen H. Halkiotis COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoff Gledhill, 5. Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Jahn M. Link, Jr., and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt {All other staff members will be identified appropriately below} PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Craufurd Goodwin, Sam Lasris, Ted Triebel, and Noah Ranells PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Hunter Schofield, Vice Chair Jay Bryan, Renee Price, Nicole Graysmith, and Bryan Dobyns NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Jacobs turned the meeting over to Planning Director Craig Benedict. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge C. REPORT ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN-LAND USE ELEMENT TOWNSHIP OUTREACH MEETINGS Craig Benedict spoke about the success of the township outreach meetings. There were about seven meetings and they were advertised through the newspapers and with fliers distributed throughout the County. There were also announcements on television and the Internet. Attendance was approximately 163 people amongst the seven meetings. POWER POINT PRESENTATION BY CRAIG BENEDICT Craig Benedict made a PowerPoint presentation. He made reference to the outreach survey results, which are on page 27 of the abstract. Page 28 lists the issues that the citizens thought were most important: manageable tax rates, a livable built community, air pollution, business developmentlemploymentopportunities, and maintaining rural character. The four least important issues were: equitable distribution of new facilities, storm water management, open spacelwildlife corridor establishment, and historic preservation. (a) 10 QUESTIONS THAT LEAD U5 TO PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 1. Q: What are we doing? A. Trying to address the impacts of growth that affect our livelihood and quality of life. 2. Q: Haw can we fix it? A. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element is an important guidebook that can promote an orderly, and tax-conscious development pattern. 3. Q: What are the big issues? A. Water quality, air quality, traffic, loss of farmland, and loss of open space 4. Q: What is the common denominator that generates these issues? A. Housing and population -housing creates impervious surfaces, populations generate cars and pollution, cars create traffic, development converts and conflicts with farmland, and development converts open space. 5. Q: What regulates the amount of housing? A. Zoning (what type and density} and land use {where and why} ordinances of the County. 6. Q: How much housing in the rural county is here now and how much more is allowed? A. Approximately 20,400 units existing; 131,000+ units allowed by present regulations; {FYI -Urban areas - 28,900 dwelling units existing; 31,000 dwelling units possible} 7. Q: How long would it take to build that many units and could someone actually build that many in rural areas? A. Build out is difficult to estimate, but at present growth rates (which are relatively conservative in comparison with Johnston, Wake, and Durham Counties), it would take over 200 years. When Orange County was formed in 1752, Hillsborough was known as the `capital of the backwoods.' This area formed in 1752 due to `heavy immigration' probably couldn't imagine 125,000 people in the year 2000. So the passible 131,000 units and associated 310,000 people may seem similarly improbable to today's citizens. 8. Q: Does the availability of good sails for septic systems limit the maximum housing lots possible in rural areas? A. Yes, but to a small degree. There are aver 200,000 acres of undeveloped land in the County, and only about 10-15°~ of that may be constrained by stream buffers, etc. Some farmlands have good soils far development and same not. There has been a trend towards maximizing what regulations allow, and Orange County is in the path of development pressures. Tables: Trends in average lot size and number of lots in subdivisions 9. Q: Is the big question, "Haw many units and associated population can the County sustain aver the long run?" A: Yes. To achieve some of the goals of the County: protecting air and water quality, reducing traffic; preserving the farm economy and land value equity; and protecting environmental resources. Limiting growth potential does provide amulti-faceted (i.e., resource and fiscal} sustainability tool. 10. Q: How is growth potential limited? A: Growth can be regulated, managed and limited by: zoning (land use overlays); adequate public facility ordinances; and lowering housing density {i.e., reducing how many units per acre}. (b] Medium Growth (2.6% per year] Unincorporated - 721 people (307 units) per year Incorporated - 1,338 people {570 units) per year Considered conservative growth in comparison to Durham (2.1 %); Wake {4.7°l°}; and Johnston (5%}. Commissioner Brown asked about the responsibility the County has to not contaminate the water and not overcrowd roads, and to provide schools. Craig Benedict said that with a lower amount of units, there would be room to accommodate everything. This is why the staff is proposing lower density. (c] Population Build Out Present regulations 20,000 + 130,000 = 150,000 units Trend 20,000 + 103,000 = 123,000 units Staff proposal 20,000 + 55,000 = 75,000 units Which number is sustainable? (d] Housing Density (Watershed overlay] - expressed in units per acre - minimum lot size (zoning district) expressed in minimum lot area (SF} per unit (e.g. Rural buffer requires 87,120 SF ar two acres per lot (e] Density and minimum lot size are usually different - 1 unit per 3 acres - 2 acres minimum lot size - choose a 3-acre lot or 2-acre lot with one acre shared open space (f] Transfer of Development Riahts (TDR] Sending areas -Farmland and environmental preservation Receiving areas -density increase requests pay for units, urban transition areas (al Density If housing density is reduced in Orange County rural areas, where does new development go? (h} Rural Areas over 5,000 pre-existing lots under two acres over 5,000 mobile home lots over 50,000 lots could still be created under staff proposals Why is a two-acre minimum lot size necessary? 1. A large lot is more sustainable because it offers more flexibility to achieve typical single family structures and activities and reduces the likelihood of encroachment upon environmentally sensitive lands and onsite well and septic systems. 2. The USGS Water Resource report of 1996 suggested atwo-acre minimum lot size sa each developed lot would provide a roughly equivalent groundwater recharge area. 3. The two-acre lot will provide an `in-lot' area for open space under the stewardship of the owner. Other open space may be protected by the HOA and in combination, development will have a less `stripped out' pattern and more rural character by virtue of the preservation. (i) Lowering Density Down-zoning Less lot potential (1) Does it lower the value of land? No. Land sales in per-acre value in lowered density areas such as Cane Creek Watershed went up 200% vs. less restricted areas of Bingham Township, which went up 46% in the same time period. Land value relates to acreage in many cases and not how many lots can be built in rural areas. (2) Does it take away land equity for our retirement? The staff proposal of lowered density in most cases is trying to reflect historical densities, which are based on soil limitations. Lowering densities are based on generalized watershed areas and soil changes can be localized. Property owners may retain their development right equity (for TDR purposes) if they can show mare units than regulations allow. (3) If housing density is reduced in Orange County rural areas, where does new development go? Urban Areas - Additional lots could be created in urban transition areas through rezoning - Municipalities will consider new urban growth under their planning goals - Other counties may want growth {j) Outreach Outcomes 1. Review of minor subdivision process for possible streamlining; 2. Review of Flexible Development Standards for possible amendment{s), more open space with smaller lot size; 3. Revised staff recommendation for targeted densities, mare closely matched to watershed areas. - creation of Orange County/Town of Hillsborough Urban Transition Area Task Force and update of 1991 Efland Area Study - recognition of paradox surrounding property value -most want their own property value to increase but maintain affordability for relatives and others. (k} "A Tale of Two Areas" Rural Lands slide (incorporated by reference) (1 } What property owners (sellers} want: high land value per acre, high land value per acre regardless of lot size, and land equity. (2} What future homeowners (buyers) want: low land value per acre, small lot value with a low total cost; and large lot with a higher total cost (3} What both want: size of lot (either small or large), high value for house and land for building equity; less supply (fewer lots with less negative costly impacts); regulation and market (less supply, coupled with stable or high demand, increased value of land andlor house; community (fewer houses, less traffic, fewer people, conservative taxes, more services; government (efficient and effective government to provide essential services in a cost effective and sustainable manner}. (4} What job market enthusiasts want (companies looking to locatelrelocate to area}: More housing for their workforce. (I} Rural Character and Farmland Protection (RCFP} Task Force Charge: to examine strategies and develop recommendations, if any, regarding approaches for the protection of rural character and farmland in Orange County, taking into account the comments from the public outreach process that is ongoing. RCFP Task Force to review the fallowing tools from the American Farmland Trust's List of Farmland Preservation Tools: - purchase development rights (PDR} - transfer development rights - mitigation - agricultural protection zoning - voluntary agricultural districts - right-to-farm ordinances - cluster zoning - urban growth boundaries - economic strategies DISCUSSION BY THE TWO BOARDS Discussion ensued on how the Agricultural Preservation Board and the Planning Board should be working together. Commissioner Gordon said that it would be important for the Board of Commissioners to understand what this effort is. Craig Benedict said that the Planning Board wanted to take a mare specific role to examine these issues. Chair Jacobs suggested requesting a joint proposal from both boards (Planning and Agricultural Preservation}. The Board agreed to not address political signs at this meeting and to talk about the next steps for the comprehensive plan issue. Craig Benedict said that the County was still in an informal stage and nothing has been formulated yet. The next step is to try and gel information together to get closer to a public hearing. Chair Jacobs said that there is no study of the Upper Eno Watershed and how it might be similar ar different from Cane Creek or University Lake ar Little River. There is also an issue of the Capacity Use Agreement and the new reservoir. He suggested doing a study of the Upper Eno Watershed and revising the Capacity Use Agreement in a reasonable amount of time and ask the staff for a proposal. He would rather decisions be made based on science. It was noted that there is already information available on this watershed. The board agreed that staff should collect the information that is already available and find out what would be involved in doing a study of the Upper Eno Watershed. Commissioner Gordon noted that there are other watersheds that have not been studied and wondered how adding a watershed study would affect the timeline for completing the Comprehensive Plan. Craig Benedict said that there is a technical analysis of the Upper Neuse River Basin underway, which includes the Upper Ena. He will provide a report an how far this is within the next week. Chair Jacobs said that the Board needs to discuss whether the goals are balanced and whether there is more weight given to some goals than others. The Board needs to be comfortable with the balance of the goals and objectives. Commissioner Brown pointed out that there was a small group of people that attended the meetings, and that the views expressed definitely would not reflect the views of the entire community. She also thinks that people do not understand how expensive it is to provide water and sewer. Craig Benedict said that he would have some information to the Board of County Commissioners by next Friday on the technical work that has already been done. Chair Jacobs suggested getting all of the information, trying to schedule a meeting by the end of next month, making a decision on what else should be done for scientific analysis, and starting a discussion about goals. He suggested that the Planning Board continue doing what it is doing. The Board agreed to this by consensus. D. DISCUSSION OF SIGN REGULATIONS DEFERRED E. OTHER F. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m. Barry Jacobs, Chair David Hunt Deputy Clerk to the Board