HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-05-1996 - IX-B ' 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 5. 1996
Action Agenda
Item #IX-5
SUBJECT: STONEY CREEK BASIN SMALL AREA PLAN
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes_X—No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
• Draft 7-9-96 Planning Board Minutes Gene Bell, Planner III, Ext. 2589
• 7-5-96 Memo on 7-2-96 Planning Group Meeting
• Draft 5-28-96 Public Hearing Minutes
• Final Draft Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
(Refer to 5-28-96 Public Hearing Agenda Packet) Hillsborough- 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To consider the Planning Board's recommendation on the Draft Stoney Creek
Basin Small Area Plan.
BACKGROUND: On December 5, 1994,the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted the
following charge: "To prepare a land use plan, including recommendations for
implementation,for the Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area southeast of the town of
Hillsborough." Since March 16, 1995,a 22 member Planning Group of
neighborhood representatives plus elected and appointed officials and seven
alternates has worked on a Stoney Creek Land Use Plan that achieves two goals:
1. Preserves landowners' rights to get fair value for their property; and
2. Protects the area's"rural character."
The Planning Group identified key resource areas and then identified levels of
land-use intensity that would help protect these resources. Three levels of land-use
intensity are recommended for different parts of the Stoney Creek area:
1. Lower intensity areas lie adjacent to most of the resource areas and best typify
the area's remaining rural character. They are proposed to have the lowest
future development densities and water and sewer extension is not envisioned.
2
2. Intermediate intensity areas are intended to provide a transition between lower
and higher intensity. They are envisioned as being predominantly residential
with density being determined largely by the character of existing
development. Water and sewer extension is li i .
3. Higher intensity areas are adjacent to areas experiencing urban growth and at
some future date will likely be annexed by Hillsborough or Durham. A mix of
eland-uses is possible along with.the eventual_extension of water and sewer.
The Planning Group explored traditional legal tools for plan implementation such
as rezoning to promote consistency. However, a key plan goal is to not take away
any options landowners currently have and no zoning changes are recommended.
The Planning Group relied extensively on the Flexible Development Options in
making their recommendations and suggest the following modifications to
Flexible Development to make it specific to the Stoney Creek area:
1. Flexible Development allows a density bonus of an additional housing unit
for every acre of open space preserved above 33%. For Stoney Creek:
• Up to 50% open space allows half of the bonus to be used in the area; and
• open space in excess of 50% permits use of the bonus units wherever
desired.
2. Where density bonuses can be used:
• The lower intensity area is a sending area for density bonuses;
• the intermediate intensity area is a sending Md receiving area;
• the higher intensity area is a receiving area;and
• density bonuses created in the Stoney Creek area can be utilized as stated
above,]ul density from other areas cannot be transferred into the area.
3. In the lower intensity areas, 50% of active recreation land will not count
toward open space, although such uses will continue to be permitted.
4. Expedited review and approval of projects that preserve large amounts of open
space and enhance rural character should be included as an incentive. Two
areas in which the group has consensus regarding expedited review are for:
• Developments that preserve 70%open space; and
• Rural subdivisions with lot sizes averaging five acres or more that follow
the Flexible Development Rural Design Guidelines and ensure against
further subdivision of lots.
The proposed Stoney Creek Small Area Plan will modify the 1988 plan for the
area by introducing the three land use intensity levels discussed above. However,
3
these will apply only where a landowner/developer chooses to use voluntary
Flexible Development Options. Since no zoning changes are proposed, the zoning
patterns as established by the current plan will remain in effect.
The above was presented at the quarterly public hearing on May 28, 1996. Two
Planning Group members spoke in reference to the draft plan. Lee Rafalow
noted last minute changes in the Flexible Development Options not considered by
by-the,Planning Group thathad direct,implications on.the implementation
recommendations. Curtis Bane raised the issue of affordable housing.
Because of the changes to the FDO, the Planning Group requested another
meeting before Planning Board consideration of the draft plan/recommendations
to submit written comments consistent with article 20.7.1.in the zoning ordinance.
The Planning Group met on July 2 with 13 members in attendance to discuss
issues relative to implementation. Two key issues were:
• Village Option(included in the adopted FDO package, but not covered in the
draft plan and recommendations); and
• Expedited Review(the Planning Group had endorsed this idea for certain
developments based upon their understanding that the FDO Design Manual
would be regulatory rather than advisory in nature).
With the concurrence of the Planning Board and County Commissioners,plus on-
going staff support,the Planning Group suggested additional meetings(hopefully
no more than two)to address the village option and expedited review.
The Planning Board considered the Draft Stoney Creek Small Area Plan and
recommendations for implementation on July 9. The Planning Board concurred
with the Planning Group that additional discussion was needed on the Flexible
Development Village Option since this was included in the adopted Flexible
Development package,but was not part of the Planning Group's discussions on
implementation. The Planning Board also agreed that additional discussion was
needed on the recommendation for expedited review.
The issue of implementation received considerable discussion,particularly
whether another public hearing would be needed to translate implementation
recommendations into ordinance language (assuming the commissioners adopted
the plan and recommendations of the Planning Group), or if the recommendations
of the Planning Group(once adopted)were sufficient on their own to guide
implementation. After considerable discussion,the Planning Board recommended
adoption of the small area plan and all recommendations except those highlighted
in the July 5 memo. It was recommended that the Planning Group reconvene to
address those issues and report back with final recommendations.
c
4
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the Stoney Creek Small Area Plan
and recommendations for implementation consistent with the Planning Board
recommendation. It is further recommended that the Planning Group reconvene
to address the issues (village option and expedited review),highlighted in the July
5 memo along with implementation measures. If it is determined that ordinance
amendments are necessary for implementation,the work of the Planning Group is
to becoordinated-with the Ordinance Review Committee with a report to the
County Commissioners no later than October 1, 1996.
DRAFT 7-9-96 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
5
r
Each lot will be served by individual wells and septic tanks except lot 61 which was
found to be unsuitable for a septic system.
The Planning Board approved the Concept Plan for Grand Oak Estates Phase IV on
April 15, 1996. The road layout is the same as approved on the Concept Plan.The
southern cul-de-sac has been moved closer to the eastern property line for septic
purposes.
The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plan for Grand Oak
Estates Phase IV subject to the conditions contained in the Resolution of Approval
(an attachment to these minutes on pages ).
Barrows asked about lot 61 from the concept plan. Kirk responded that it did not
have suitable soils so it is considered an unbuildable lot.
MOTION: Strayhorn moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by
Rosemond.
VOTE: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM#9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING 5/28/96
a. Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan
Presentation by Gene Bell.
On December 5, 1994,the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted the charge:
"To prepare a land use plan,including recommendations for implementation,for the
Stoney Creek Basin Planning Area southeast of the town of Hillsborough." Since March
16, 1995,a 22 member Planning Group of neighborhood representatives plus elected
and appointed officials and seven alternates has worked on a Stoney Creek Land Use
Plan that achieves two goals:
1. Preserve landowners' rights to get fair value for their property;and
2. Protects the area's"rural character".
The Planning Group identified key resource areas and then identified levels of land-use
intensity that would help protect these resources.Three levels of land-use intensity are
recommended for different parts of the Stoney Creek area:
1. Lower intensity areas lie adjacent to most of the resource areas and best typify the
area's remaining rural character.They are proposed to have the lowest future
development densities and water and sewer extension is not envisioned.
2. Intermediate intensity areas are intended to provide a transition between lower and
higher intensity. They are envisioned as being predominantly residential with
density being determined largely by the character of existing development. Water
and sewer extensions are unlikely.
3. Higher intensity areas are adjacent to areas experiencing urban growth and at some
future date will likely be annexed by Hillsborough or Durham. A mix of land uses is
possible along with the eventual extension of water and sewer.
The Planning Group explored traditional legal tools for plan implementation such as
rezoning to promote consistency. However,a key plan goal is to not take away any
options landowners currently have and no zoning changes are recommended.
6 r
The Planning Group relied extensively on the Flexible Development Options in making
their recommendations and suggest the following modifications to Flexible Development
to make it specific to the Stoney Creek area:
1. Flexible Development allows a density bonus of an additional housing unit for every
acre of open space preserved above 33%. For Stoney Creek:
Up to 50%open space allows half of the bonus to be used in the area;and
open space in excess of 50%permits use of the bonus units wherever desired.
2. Where density bonuses can be used:
The lower intensity area is a sending area for density bonuses;
the intermediate intensity area is a sending and receiving area;
the higher intensity area is a receiving area;and
density bonuses created in the Stoney Creek area can be utilized as stated above,but
density from other areas cannot be transferred into the area.
3. In the lower intensity areas,50%of active recreation land will not count toward
open space,although such uses will continue to be permitted.
4. Expedited review and approval of projects that preserve large amounts of open space
and enhance rural character should be included as an incentive. Two areas in which
the group has consensus regarding expedited review are for:
Developments that preserve 70%open space;and
Rural subdivisions with lot sizes averaging five acres or more that follow the
Flexible Development Rural Design Guidelines and ensure against further
subdivision of lots.
The proposed Stoney Creek Small Area Plan will modify the 1988 plan for the area by
introducing the three land use intensity levels discussed above.However,these will only
apply where a landowner/developer chooses to use voluntary Flexible Development
Options. Since no zoning changes are proposed,the zoning patterns as established by the
current plan will remain in effect.
The above was presented at the quarterly public hearing on May 28, 1996.Two Planning
Group members spoke in reference to the draft plan.Lee Rafalow noted last minute
changes in the Flexible Development Package adopted by the County Commissioners
that were not considered by the Planning Group;these had direct implications on the
implementation recommendations.Curtis Bane raised the issue of affordable housing.
Because of the changes to Flexible Development,the Planning Group requested another
meeting before Planning Board consideration of the draft plan/recommendations to
submit written comments consistent with Article 20.7.1 in the Zoning Ordinance. The
Planning Group met on July 2 with 13 members in attendance to discuss issues relative to
implementation. Two key issues were:
1. Village Option(included in the adopted Flexible Development package,but not
covered in the draft plan and recommendations);and
2. Expedited Review(the Planning Group had endorsed this idea for certain
developments based upon their understanding that the Flexible Development Design
Manual would be regulatory rather than advisory in nature).
7
With the concurrence of the Planning Board and County Commissioners,plus on-going
staff support,the Planning Group suggested additional meetings(hopefully no more than
two)to address the village option and expedited review.
The Planning Staff recommends:
1. Endorsement of the Draft Land Use Plan as presented at public hearing;and
2. Additional meetings as suggested by the Planning Group to address key
implementation issues with recommendations to be received by a specified date.
Bell noted that Planning Board members Renee Price and Bob Strayhom are members of
the Planning Group. Lee Rafalow,another member of the Group,was in attendance and
was recognized to present concerns.
Mr.Rafalow emphasized the concerns that had been included in the information
provided by Bell.
Rosemond emphasized that the flexible development options have been predicated on the
idea of the yield plan and she was very concerned about items such as the village option
which require public water and sewer. She cautioned that the predication of the yield
plan must be remembered and be a part of the language brought forward from future
meetings of the Planning Group. Bell responded that if the Planning Board
recommended that the group proceed with two more meetings as requested,then,staff
would ask for Commissioners endorsement. That decision would be made by the Board
of Commissioners.
Brown asked if the Stoney Creek Planning Group was aware that the Planning Board did
not endorse the village concept. Mr.Rafalow responded that the Group was aware of the
Planning Board's recommendation to delete the village option and that is the reason they
did not spend a lot of time discussing it. They felt that it was an issue that would come
up again. Price noted that the group was very surprised that the Commissioners did not
accept that part of the Planning Board's recommendation,but,chose to include the
village option as part of the Flexible Development Proposal.
Mr.Rafalow emphasized that the Group felt that there were very few areas in the County
where a village option would"fit". However this area is not one of them. He noted
again that the village option and expedited review are the two issues that the Group
wishes to have more discussion on and to make a further recommendation on this issue.
Price noted also that the group wished to more completely study the issues referred to
and make another recommendation on those two concerns.
Strayhom asked for clarification of when the Planning Board would act or make a
recommendation on these two areas of concern. Bell responded such a recommendation
would come after the Planning Group held the two meetings being requested and brought
a recommendation to the Planning Board. Strayhorn expressed concern with endorsing
a portion of the plan and felt that no recommendation should be made or action taken
until such time as the entire plan as proposed for adoption by the Board of
Commissioners could be addressed. He felt that there should be further discussion on
expedited review and larger lot sizes.
Rafalow expressed concern that the guidelines do not provide clear ideas about what is
going to happen in the area and the public is being taken out of the process. He felt the
guidelines are incomplete. Bell responded that some of the issues and concerns have
8
already been addressed through the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. It is
simply a matter of pulling those together into a policy on expedited review.
Barrows asked why this should be considered by the Planning Board at all until all
concerns could be addressed. Bell responded that if the request for the Commissioners
to approve two additional meetings was held until the fast meeting in August, the
process would be even"farther behind".
Rafalow expressed concern that between the time Flexible Development goes into effect,
July 1,and the time the Small Area Plan is adopted,someone could bring forward and do
something that is inconsistent with the work the group has been doing for a year. He
asked that the Planning Board act on the parts that the Planning Group is in agreement on
and bring back in October the conclusions on the village option,expedited review and
density bonuses.
Discussion followed regarding changes to ordinances that would have to be made. Bell
indicated he would have to talk with the County Attorney regarding a possible need for
public hearing on ordinance amendments consistent with Planning Group
recommendations on implementation.
Katz stated that he was becoming more confused about the process for possible changes
to ordinances. Bell emphasized that he felt what the Commissioners' have asked for
in the charge to the Planning Group("recommendation for implementation")should go
back to them prior to asking for directive for implementation.
Strayhom emphasized again that if this is an unfinished product,the Planning Board
should not be discussing or making recommendations.
Rafalow stated that his concern was that the integrity of the area be protected while these
other issues are being considered.
Strayhorn stated that the New Hope Community had been established for many years and
he did not feel anything as destructive as foreseen by Mr.Rafalow would happen in such
a short period of time.
Barrows stated that as long as the Land Use Plan is in place,that is what the Planning
Board is ruled by. Strayhorn responded that it is a voluntary plan;we are not giving up
a thing that we have today. Rafalow responded expressing concern if a plan for a village
is submitted and it would not meet the intent of the Small Area Plan.
Barrows asked for Bell's suggestion. Bell responded that the Planning Board could
forward its endorsement of the Draft Land Use Plan as presented at public hearing and
request additional meetings as suggested by the Planning Group to address the issues of
expedited review and the village option.
MOTION: Brown moved to recommend adoption of the Stoney Creek Plan and all
recommendations except those highlighted in the July 5 memo and that the Planning
Group reconvene to address the issues identified in the memo. Seconded by Hoecke.
Katz expressed concern that the Planning Group needed permission from the
Commissioners to meet. Bell responded that something needs to go back to the
Commissioners on this issue. The process can continue without concurrence of the
Commissioners,in a sense it is a courtesy thing,we have gone this far and we need to go
this much farther to work out all details. Bell continued that he felt the Commissioners
9
need to be informed of where the Planning Board is on this issue and they are expecting
a recommendation from the Planning Board at their first meeting in August.
Howie expressed concern that the Planning Board is being asked to endorse something
that is so vague that the Board would not have anything in writing that would allow for
acceptance or rejection of a project.
Bell pointed out again that flexible development is a voluntary program. A developer is
required to prepare a flexible development plan and a conventional plan. However,the
choice of which type of development is still the developer's option.
VOTE: Unanimous.
ITEM#10: MATTERS PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC HEARING 8/26/96
a. Proposed Ordinance Text Amendments
Presentation by Mary Willis.
(A copy of the proposed amendments is an attachment to these minutes on pages )
The Ordinance Review Committee considered the following Subdivision Regulations,
Zoning Ordinance,and Zoning Atlas amendments on July 3, 1996 and recommended that
they be advertised for public hearing.
Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments
1. Cluster Developments
On May 1, 1996,the Board of Commissioners approved the flexible development
regulations,and the previous ordinance provisions for cluster developments were
eliminated. However,the flexible development regulations do not apply in the Rural
Buffer. The proposed amendment would re-adopt the previous cluster provisions in
the Rural Buffer,allowing cluster developments as an alternative to conventional
subdivision design until other regulations are approved by the governing boards of
Orange County,Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
2. Securing Subdivision Improvements
The proposed amendment is technical in nature to provide clarity and cohesiveness
to subdivision regulations pertaining to road improvements. New text is proposed to
specify requirements for the content of construction estimates and financial
guarantees submitted when improvements are not completed prior to Final Plat
approval.The Planning Staff consulted with the County Attorney and County
engineer in developing the proposed amendment.
3. Lot Layout
The proposed amendment was initiated by the County Attorney to improve the
wording of Section IV-B-5-e by substituting the word"divided"for the word
"separated"in describing non-contiguous lot area.
Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas Text Amendment
10
Orange County Planning Department
MEMORANDUM
TO: Orange County Planning Board
FROM: Gene Bell, Planner III l-3
SUBJ: Summary of July 2 Meeting of the Stoney Creek Planning Group
DATE: July 5 , 1996
At the May 28 public hearing, Stoney Creek Planning Group member, Lee
Rafalow stated that the group's recommendations on implementation were based
on the Flexible Development Options (FDO) as presented in the spring. In the
subsequent adoption of Flexible Development by the County Commissioners,
there were changes that impacted the group's recommendations. Likewise, the
group had requested the opportunity to review the forthcoming Rural Design
Guidelines being prepared as a supplement to the FDO.
Because of the above-referenced changes, the Planning Group requested another
meeting before Planning Board consideration of the draft plan/recommendations
to submit written comments consistent with article 20.7.1 in the zoning ordinance.
The Planning Group met on July 2 with 13 members in attendance (see listing at
end of memo) to discuss the following points relative to implementation.
Village Qption
In their deliberations on FDO modifications to make them specific to the Stoney
Creek area, the Planning Group did not address the village option because the
Planning Board had recommended another public hearing before the County
Commissioners considered adoption of this feature. However, when the
Commissioners discussed the FDO on May 1, they decided to include the village
option in the adopted FDO package. In that the village option was included in the
FDO, but not addressed in the draft small area plan and recommendations, the
Planning Group was concerned that a village might be proposed in the Stoney
Creek area. There was Planning Group consensus on the following statement
relative to the village option:
11
s - The Village Option as currently constituted in the Flexible Development
Options is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Stoney Creek
Small Area Plan, but the Planning Group will take up the issue for possible
future inclusion of a modified version.
Density Bonuses
The Planning Group recommendations on page 4-20 (attached) of the draft small
area plan addresses density bonuses. The Planning Group felt that clarification
was needed relative to the term "off-site" as used in the adopted FDO. There was
group consensus to add the following to the fourth bullet under item 2 in the
recommendations on page 4-20 of the draft plan:
Therefore, as referenced in the Flexible Development Standards Design
Manual (page A-23), references to "off-site" pertains only to (land) within
the Stoney Creek planning area.
Expedited Review
On page 4-21 (attached) of the draft small area plan, the last recommendation
dealt with expedited review for developments preserving 70% open space and/or
developments with lot sizes averaging five acres or more that follow the Flexible
Development Rural Design Guidelines (emphasis added)..... When the Planning
Group was formulating its recommendations in the spring, there was an
expectation that the "Design Guidelines" would contain "mandates" rather than
suggestions as in the Flexible Development Standards Design Manual. In the
absence of stricter language, the Planning Group reached consensus on
recommending that expedited review be withdrawn for further study.
Recommendation
Assuming concurrence on the part of the Planning Board and County
Commissioners, and on-going staff support, the Planning Group expressed the
desire to reconvene (two meetings suggested) to address: 1) the village option; .
and 2) expedited review issues (relative to this they requested a compilation of
current ordinance standards regarding buffers between developments, protection
of scenic views, etc.)
c
12
a
Other Issues
Two other issues discussed by the Planning Group that should be mentioned
briefly include the process of translating recommendations into ordinance
language and the possibility of an on-going advisory role for group members
interested in volunteering their time. If the group re-convenes to discuss the
village option and expedited review, these items could be briefly addressed as part
of that process.
Attendance at July 2 Planning Group Meeting
Planning Group: Curtis Bane, James Bumphus, Clint Burklin, Judd Edeburn,
Bob Hall, Meg McKean, Renee Price, Steve Price, Lee Rafalow, Elio Soldi, Dan
Teichman, David Yelton, and Dean Zehnder.
Facilitator: Verla Insko
Planning Staff: Gene Bell and Emily Cameron
/ D
13
t 1
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
2 AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 MINUTES
4 MAY 28, 1996
5
6 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session with the Orange County Planning
7 Board on May 28, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
8
9 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey,Jr., and Commissioners William
0 L. Crowther, Alice M. Gordon, and Don Wdlhoit
1 COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Commissioner Stephen H. Halkiotis
2 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Joan Jobsis and members Paul Hoecke,
3 Karen Barrows, Elizabeth Walters, S.A.M. Brooks, Cheryl A. Howie, Renee A. Price, Arnie Katz, Cherie
4 Rosemond, Leo Allison, Margaret Brown and Robert Strayhom
5 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
6 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Clerk to the Board Beverly A.
7 Blythe (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
8
9
0 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
1 Chair Carey welcomed everyone to the meeting and outlined the procedure for presenting items anct
2 receiving public comment. He mentioned that Commissioner Halkiotis is not in attendance because he is
3 attending an awards banquet at Orange High School where he is principal.
4
5 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
6 Chair Carey dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
7
8 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
9 1. Public School Impact Fee Ordinance
0 Geoffrey Gledhill presented the information as included in the agenda. In summary the
1 proposed amendment is to increase the impact fee in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School District from
2 $1,500 to no more than $3,000. No increase in the impact fee in the Orange County School District is
3 proposed. The technical report is the basis of establishing the fee. Mr. Gledhill summarized the technical
4 report which indicated that in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School District each new housing unit that comes
5 into the district has an $11,593 impact on school construction. In the Orange County School District this
6 figure is $3,404 per new housing unit.
7
8 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS
9 P. H. CRAIG spoke in opposition of this increase in the impact fee. He feels the impact fee is not fair
0 and is doing severe damage to the economic development in this County. He feels it is progressive with the
1 bank getting their share. He said that the real problem is no economic development. He does not feel that
2 everyone that comes to Chapel Hill has the kind of money it takes to live in this community.
3
4 JUDY MARGOLIS distributed information from Nancy Salmon. She spoke in support of a sliding
5 scale for applying the impact fee. She made reference to the data generated last year by the Planning
6 interns and said that she feels the impact fee should be higher for 4 or more bedrooms and lower for 3 or less
7 bedrooms saying this is more complicated but much fairer. Without a formula for a sliding scale or for
8 number of bedrooms, she supports the proposed $3,000 Impact Fee for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School
9 District.
0
1 COLLEEN CARLUCCI-ADAMS, local builder and realtor, asked that the Board not approve the
2 proposed increase in the impact fee. She suggested that the County Commissioners shorten the time
c
2 14
1 between reevaluations to allow for appropriate increases in property values to be reflected in the increase in
2 the tax base that occurs. She feels this fee is not a fair tax.
3
4 WAYNE PARRISH, Vice-President of Governmental Relations with the Home Builders Assoc. of
5 Durham and Orange Counties, spoke against this proposed increase in the impact fee. He feels the fee is
6 inequitable and divides citizens against each other. He feels the County Commissioners should move to a
7 funding mechanism that will generate substantial revenue with minimal impact on taxpayers. He asked the
8 Board to support an additional sales tax to be dedicated to capital construction costs. An increase of 1/2
9 cents will raise $3,000,000 for the schools.
0
1 Chair Carey noted for everyone that the County Commissioners have no authority to implement a
2 sales tax. This must be authorized by.the General Assembly.
3
4 MARY BUSHNELL, Vice-Chair of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board, said that impact fees
5 are a way to pay for a portion of the school infrastructure needs brought about by growth in the entire
6 community. She noted that Impact Fees will only generate about$850,000 per year at the present rate or
7 $4,300,000 over the next five years. Their capital construction needs during that time period will be
8 $50,474,000. The Impact Fee is a way to raise only a portion of what is needed for school construction. She
9 is in support of the County expanding its refund eligibility for affordable housing. She asked that the Impact
0 Fee be set at a level that can realistically address the infrastructure demands generated by residential
1 growth.
2
3 BEA HUGHES WERNER, member of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board, urged the County
4 Commissioners to vote for an increase in the Impact Fee. She noted that schools need money and they
5 need it from varied sources and she supports the proposed increase.
6
7 HARVEY GOLDSTEIN, member of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board, spoke in support of
8 the proposal to increase the Impact fee. He reminded the Board that hundreds of communities across the
9 country use Impact fees on new residential units to finance infrastructure made necessary by residential
0 growth. Increasing this fee to $3,000 is one way to diversify the capital funding for the schools. He does not
1 feel that the Impact fee should become the major source of funding for new schools. He feels that there are
2' ways to justify a sliding fee based on house size.
3
4 GREG ISENHOUR, home builder, does not support this increase in the Impact fee. He feels that the
5 issue is not Impact fees but how can the community raise the necessary money to fund new schools. He
6 feels that the schools are a benefit and should be paid for by all citizens. Orange County does have a tax
7 base problem which limits revenue sources. He feels that the County needs to generate tax base properties
8 that do not generate school children. He encouraged the County Commissioners to look at the big picture.
9 With reference to affordable housing, the County regulations demand more open space and more stringent
0 guidelines for infrastructure which prevents Orange County from offering affordable housing.
1
2 NICK TENNYSON, Home Builders Association of Durham and Orange Counties, indicated he read
3 the technical report and asked about the calculated cost per student. He feels that some sort of life cycle
4 analysis of amortization of capital cost that is actually in the building would mean a lower cost than what is in
5 the report. He noted that the second highest generated rate for students in the schools is from apartment
6 dwellings.
7
8 MATTHEW BARTON spoke in support of the proposed increase in the Impact fee. He feels that
9 every property owner benefits by an increase in the Impact fee. He supports rebates for low cost housing.
0 The Sewell Elementary PTA passed a resolution asking the County Commissioners to use Impact fees as a
1 part of funding for schools. SOS supports planning and cooperation by all the governing bodies.
2
3 LINDA MEWS, taxpayer, feels this proposed increase in the Impact fee is not fair. She stated that
4 new construction does not impact the schools, children do. She suggested taxing the number of children in
3
3 15
1 the household. This tax would be fair, easy to assess and easy to collect. Another suggestion is to broaden
2 the base to include an Impact Tax at the time the title to property is transferred.
3
4 LEE RAFALOW agreed with comments made about the sliding fee based on bedrooms and other
5 suggestions for alternatives to the Impact fee. He feels that this is a subsidy for the developers who will
6 pass this tax on to the citizen.
7
8 NICK DIDOW, member of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board, said that it seems to him that
9 there is a short-term crisis and a long-term problem. An appropriate level of Impact fee is simply one way to
0 diversify the funding sources given the tools and options available now.
1
2 PETER MARGOLIS noted that overcrowding is currently the most pressing threat to educating the
3 children. Raising the Impact fee will help. He said that it has been proven that smaller class sizes in early
4 grades improve students performance in basic reading and math scores. This report indicated that people
5 are willing to pay more to live where the schools are better.
6
7 GARY SELEEBE, President of the Chapel Hill Board of Realtors, spoke against this method of
8 providing for a high quality school system. He does not feel that it has been proven that purchasers of new
9 homes have brought new children into the school system. There are a lot of cross county moves. He urged
0 that the County Commissioners pursue another alternative to fund a quality school system. He supports
1 local legislation for an additional sales tax for schools.
2
3 KEITH COOK, member of the Orange County Board of Education, spoke in support of the proposed
4 increase for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School District. The need is here right now. Impact fees do take
5 the pressure off of people who live here. He feels that those in Orange County who are first-time home
6 buyers and trying to get ahead should be exempt from paying this fee.
7
8 RON WEBBER, builder and developer in Chapel Hill, said that it is very clear that there is a division
9 between the builders and developers and those who favor this increase. He feels that this is a lot of money.
0 He understands that the options are limited but he feels there must be a better answer. He feels it is not fair.
1 He ask that the County Commissioners find some better answers.
2"
3 Chair Carey closed the public hearing and indicated that action will be taken on this item at
4 their regular meeting scheduled for next Monday, June 3, 1996.
5 Commissioner Willhoit asked that staff look at the issue about whether a higher fee could be
6 justified on the basis of higher than three bedrooms.
7
8
9 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendments
0 (a) CP-2-96 Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan
1 Since March 16, 1995, a 22 member Planning Group of neighborhood representatives plus
2 elected and appointed officials and seven alternates has worked on a Stoney Creek Land Use Plan that
3 achieves two goals: (1) Preserves landowners' rights to get fair value for their property, and (2)protects the
4 area's rural character. Planner Gene Bell presented the information as stated in the agenda.
5 In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Gene Bell said that in the Flexible
6 Development proposal, developments that preserve in excess of 44% open space are entitled to bonus units.
7 The proposal is that for developments that preserve from 33 to 50%, half of the bonus units they would be
8 entitled to could be used in the Stoney Creek area. He showed some of the different densities on the map.
9 Gene Bell clarified that half of the density bonuses could be used in this area and half
0 somewhere else. There are currently no receiving areas in the Stoney Creek Area. However, there are other
1 transition areas in the County where this 25% could be applied.
2 Karen Barrow asked if this would require a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program
3 and Gene Bell said that it could be done based on the Flexible Development proposal.
16
4
1 Sherri Rosemond asked about informational meetings with the developers so they are aware
2 of this Small Area Plan and Gene Bell indicated that plans are in place to hold such meetings. He noted that
3 the Planning Group will also continue to meet to deal with issues that may come up within the neighborhood
4 and also with developers.
5 In answer to a question from Joan Jobsis about receiving areas for density bonuses, Gene Bell
6 said that the Flexible Development proposal defines areas that could accept density bonuses as transition
7 areas as indicated in the County's Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, proposed water and sewer
8 areas, transit corridors, and within 3/4 mile of an interstate corridor.
9
0 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPE14 FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS
1 LEE RAFALOW, member of the Small Area Plan Work Group and several of the subcommittees,
2 thanked Planner Gene Bell and the Planning Staff for their help in this process. He said that the consensus
3 they have is based on their understanding of the Flexible Development options and the Rural Design
4 Guidelines. He noted that there were some last minute changes in the Flexible Development Plan that this
5 Small Area Planning Group have not considered in their recommendations. They tried to create a balance
6 wherein the benefits of density and the destruction of density were contained in the same area.
7
8 CURTIS BANE, member of the Small Area Plan Work Group, made comments about the University
9 Station area and the subdivisions which have been approved for that area. The homes will be priced from
0 $150,000 to$250,000 which is out of the range of most young couples. He favors a water and sewer
1 system for the entire area. He wants the roads in the Stoney Creek basin to remain as they are now with
2 these 600 new homes using a newly designed thoroughfare that will access main roads. He wants to
3 maintain the country flavor of the area.
4
5 MASCAR KAVORI noted he just purchased a house on Stagecoach Road as shown on the map
6 between the two red areas. He asked what industries would be permitted in the red areas and will the
7 adjacent property owners be warned that there may be industry in that area. Gene Bell made reference to
8 the Zoning Ordinance and the table of permitted uses. He noted that safeguards and design guidelines have
9 been built into the process, especially in terms of buffering residential properties from different land uses that
0 will be near them. He will give Mr. Kavori his phone number so they can talk further about his specific
1 situation.
2
3 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Crowther, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer this item
5 to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner
6 than August 5, 1996.
7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
9 (b) CP-3-96 Buckhom Road Economic Development District Expansion
0 (3b) Z-3-96 Buckhom Road Economic Development District Expansion
1 (4d) Economic Development District Design Manual
2 Planner Mary Willis said that one goal of the Board of County Commissioners for 1995-
3 96 was to look at the possibility of expanding the Economic Development District at Buckhom Road. The
4 existing district is on the north side of 1-85 and contains about 300 acres of land for primary development.
5 The area they looked at for proposed expansion is on the south side of 1-85 and bounded by Mt. Willing
6 Road, West Ten Road, Buckhom Road and the Interstate. All property owners within the area and outside
7 of the area were invited to attend meetings to voice their concerns. Two of the concerns were the provision of
8 water and sewer for this area and a desire to maintain the neighborhood existing residential character of the
9 area. Other concerns are listed in the agenda. Mary Willis showed on a map the area being proposed for
0 this Economic Development District. Two developed areas would be excluded from the district and the
1 buffer would be expanded from 100 feet to 150 feet around these areas.
2 Commissioner Gordon asked about the reference to sewer disposal on page 65 of the agenda.
3 Mary Willis explained that Buckhom Road forms the ridgeline as the boundary between the Haw Creek
4 Watershed and the Upper Eno. All of the drainage within the district is suitable to be included in the Efland