Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19860401 95 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JOINT SESSION APRIL 1, 1986 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in joint session with the Orange County Planning Board on April 1, 1986, 7: 30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Chair Don Willhoit and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mike Lewis, David Shanklin, Barry Jacobs (Chair) , Betty Margison, Sharlene Pilkey, Chris Best, and Carl Walters. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Ken Thompson, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Susan Smith and Eddie Kirk, and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe. SCOTSWOOD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/REZONING Commissioner Marshall asked that the March 25, 1986 minutes be entered into the record of this public hearing. Marvin Collins, Planning Director, entered two items into the record: 1) the revised water usage projections for the Hillsborough service area and 2) the traffic accidents report for US 70. Both were distributed at the March 25, 1986 public hearing. Collins reviewed both documents noting that the Town of Hillsborough concurs with the revised water usage estimates. SWORN IN: Grainger Barrett, John Watkins, Dalton Loftin, Tom Metzguer, Joyce Brown, John Hartwell, and Bill Ray. John Watkins, NCDOT, addressed the project in terms of its general transportation aspects. He reviewed previous comments regarding improvements to existing roads. He noted that NCDOT supported deleting the westernmost entrance to Carolina Loop as it creates a five-points situation that is difficult to control. He added that NCDOT would ultimately prefer right turn only arrangements in and out of the shopping center. He indicated that a traffic signal was likely at the intersection of St. Mary's road and US 70. He added that a second traffic lane may eventually be added at the westernmost entrance to the development along US 70, noting that the spacing would be adequate between the signals. Planning Board member Peter Kramer made reference to the Town of Hillsborough's comments regarding traffic along St. Mary's Road and specifically cited the recommendation regarding the widening of US 70 and the construction of the eastern bypass. He asked Watkins to comment on these recommendations and on the broader traffic issues. He suggested that NCDOT was simply tinkering the issues in their 96 recommendations for turning lanes. He inquired who will pay for the Hillsborough bypass and the widening of US 70. He inquired how traffic would be handled around Cameron Park School. Watkins responded that given the 17-18 . 000 ADT (average daily trips) safe capacity on US 70, NCDOT would have to address critical points only and later consider multilaning US 70. He noted that the safe capacity for St. Mary's Road is 11, 000 to 12, 000 ADT. Kramer expressed concern that planning for these improvements was shortsighted given the problems and concerns cited by the Town of Hillsborough. Watkins responded that St. Mary's Road is part of the approved thoroughfare plan for Hillsborough. He continued that it is a function of NCDOT to construct roads included on a thoroughfare plan. He noted that improvements to US 70 needed to get on the TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) for Orange County and be approved by the Board of Transportation. Planning Board member Chris Best asked what the service level would be for US 70 at full capacity. Watkins responded level C which would mean minor traffic delays. Best inquired about St. Mary' s Road. Watkins responded that intersections are the critical points. He noted that a two lane road with a turn lane carries as much traffic as a four lane road with out much additional capacity. He added that a five lane road was preferable to a four lane road given the minimum additional capacity of a four lane road. Best inquired if NCDOT had investigated the need for a traffic light at the intersection of US 70 and St. Mary's Road. Watkins responded that an investigation had been conducted and it was determined that a traffic light was not warranted. Best noted that NCDOT had labeled US 70 as a thoroughfare and emphasized the need to maintain the continuity of the road as a travelway and suggested the need to install two traffic lights along this road. Watkins responded that when Scotswood is fully developed two traffic lights will likely be needed. He noted that with the installation of a traffic light at an intersection the incidence of angle accidents decreases the incidence of rear end collisions increase S. He added that a turn lane reduces the likelihood of rear end collisions by establishing a protected area for turning traffic. Pilkey inquired about the desirable spacing between traffic lights on a main highway. Watkins responded 700-750 feet to allow for storage and coordination of the signals. Pilkey inquired if NCDOT considered anything besides the number of cars, i.e. , hills, narrowness of the road etc. in classifying roads. Watkins responded that road characteristics are considered citing the example that narrow roads handle less capacity. Planning Board Chair Barry Jacobs inquired about the cost and source of a traffic signal. Watkins responded a signal costs from $5 6000 to $30, 000, depending on the complexity of the signal and is 7 funded from channelization and safety funds. Jacobs noted that NCDOT has indicated they will not accept funds from a developer for a signal for a particular intersection to be installed at the time indicated by NCDOT. Watkins confirmed that that was NCDOT policy and cited the liabilities involved. Watkins indicated that NCDOT desires full control of a given intersection, and that NCDOT has been able to fund these improvements in a reasonable period of time when warrants have been satisfied. Jacobs expressed concern about the public bearing the costs warranted by the actions of the private sector. Watkins noted that funding is based on user fees. Jacobs noted that the Town of Hillsborough recommended the widening of US 70 and that the County had recommended that the project be phased to provide 200 units within a 2 .5-5 year period and asked where improvements to US 70 are on the highway improvements program. Watkins responded that US 70 was not listed on the highway improvements program at this time adding that he did not know when the Board of Transportation would add it to the TIP. He noted the TIP is updated every year. Each community presents its requests based on the needs of the community and prioritized and presented in a unified manner. Commissioner Walker inquired if the Board of Transportation set certain use levels before roads are improved through the program. Watkins responded that the highway program is based on the competition between projects throughout the state and that projects are considered on a state wide basis. He added there is no magic date. Commissioner Marshall emphasized that this situation poses difficulty for local decision makers in making public health, safety and welfare decisions and anticipating needs. She added that NCDOT waits until there is a need or a problem created, while the local governing board is trying to avoid the problem. Watkins indicated that NCDOT needs to stay within the physical constraints of recognized needs. Commissioner Willhoit addressed the process, needs, the TIP and funding. He noted that service levels are deteriorating while funding is years off adding that there is a shortfall in the status of the highway fund. He added that there is a need to increase the gasoline tax to meet the needs. He continued that local government needs to do more to assist in getting roads constructed including the possibility of participation in funding improvements and in right-of-way acquisition. He asked what is needed in terms of Scotswood to provide for the highest level of service needed balanced with the equity question. He inquired what the ultimate cross-section of US 70 should be. Watkins responded that the ultimate cross-section for US 70 is five lanes including a center turn lane and curb and gutter or, if the right-of way is provided, without curb and gutter. He added that NCDOT would concentrate on the left turn lane only at critical intersections. He noted that it would cost approximately $750, 000 per mile to five lane US 70. Commissioner Carey noted that NCDOT cannot then assure satisfaction with Hillsborough's recommendation regarding the widening of US 70. Commissioner Willhoit noted that the situation regarding the need for funding will worsen. Watkins commented that there is a serious shortfall and that he hopes the legislature will address the funding needs. He added that Orange County has for many years required that additional right-of-way adjacent to major roads be provided through the development process, a requirement not found elsewhere. Tom Metzguer cited a discrepancy in the abstract on page two which cited a service level "C" and indicated 7500 trips per day versus the 17000 trips per day noted by Watkins. Planning Director Marvin Collins indicated that the figure used in the abstract was obtained from Dwight Kelly, NCDOT. Watkins responded that he was not sure of the figures, but that Dr. Goode of the Transportation Planning Department concurred with his estimates. He added that in urban areas roads may carry more traffic than anticipated and improvements are made only at the critical points. Commissioner Lloyd inquired how the project compares in the context of phasing with other areas of the state in the ability of the road system to handle the traffic generated. He asked if NCDOT speaks to needs within a reasonable period of time. Watkins responded that each situation is unique and that local governing boards need to keep in touch with the Board of Transportation and present their needs. Commissioner Lloyd referred to the comment regarding traffic around Cameron Park School and indicated that most of the traffic will be on US 70. Watkins responded that the traffic consultant for the project had better data than NCDOT. He added that most of the traffic will travel east on US 70 and that there would be an increase in traffic traveling south on St. Mary's Road. Pilkey noted that she lives on US 70 and asked what percentage of the ultimate traffic generated by the development would travel east on US 70. Watkins again suggested that the traffic consultant answer the question given his better data base. Grainger Barrett, representing the applicants, presented a statement on the project. He noted that the planned development process provides advantages, not shortcomings, in the provision of improvements, expectations and a unified development approach to the development of the property. Barrett commented on the water usage issue noting that a moratorium was not necessary. He continued that the sense of urgency was clear and that the Board needs to set policy, make choices and implement these choices. He noted the Burlington option is subject to definitive contracts and technical details; the Seven Mile Creek option is subject to planning and site acquisition; and that other options are 9 available including other reservoir sites, water from Durham or the Jordan reservoir. He suggested that the water concerns can be met and solved emphasizing that Scotswood is not the problem. Barrett commented on the traffic issue. He reviewed data presented by the staff, NCDOT and the consultant. He noted that all of the experts cited indicated that the service level of the road system will be maintained with adequate improvements and safe traffic capacity and intersection movements. Noting that the Hillsborough thoroughfare plan is somewhat stale, he emphasized that Scotswood is located at the intersection of three major thoroughfares on the current plan: Miller Road, St. Mary's Road and US 70. Barrett suggested that the consultant, NCDOT, the Town and the County work together to review the options available for road improvements and to assess the impacts of the Scotswood development on the road system. He emphasized that no single developer or even a group of developers can provide all the infrastructure in a community, they can only contribute to it. He noted that the historical role of local government is to finance infrastructure and provide for it. He continued that the Town of Hillsborough is responsible for updating its thoroughfare plan, which it is in the process of doing, and which activity is essential to handle growth whether or not it is associated with Scotswood. The applicants are willing to participate in the update of the thoroughfare plan. Barrett continued that most of the traffic will not go to downtown Hillsborough. The applicants are equally concerned with maintaining the scale and charm of downtown Hillsborough and do not wish to contribute to the ruination of the Town. He noted that a functional bypass exists, Lawrence Road, with improvements as evidenced by the comments of Mayor Sheffield and the traffic consultant. The unpaved portion of Lawrence Road needs to be paved. He noted that the bridge that presently exists over the Eno would need to be repaired which would result in environmental costs of recrossing the Eno and destroying historical homes. Barrett informed the Board that the applicant had had the routes to the project timed and that it was quicker to travel Lawrence Road than to go through downtown Hillsborough, making provisions for the stoplights and stopsigns. He cited the declining trend in the accident statistics at the intersection of US 70 and St. Mary's Road adding that the turn lanes will improve the accident statistics. All major road improvements will be in place in the first phase. He concluded that the consultant and NCDOT projected that the proposed improvements would be adequate. Commissioner Willhoit asked the priority number for Lawrence Road. Watkins did not know the answer. Larry Meisner of Kimley-Horn referred to an earlier question regarding US 70 and noted that 35% of the traffic would be eastbound on US 70, or approximately 4000 vehicles per day. The 7-9 am peak hour traffic would account for 60% of the total traffic impact with 1/2 of the impact based on the shopping center. He continued that there would be less traffic in the p.m. peak hours because the school traffic peak IOU hours are not the same as those of the shopping center. In regards to the accident report the incidence of accidents was lower that the statewide average in more recent years. Shanklin inquired if there was greater incidence of an accident at an acute angle intersection than at a square intersection. Meisner responded that a square intersection was more desirable, but that the greater problem at the US 70 and St. Mary' s Road intersection was the lack of a signal. Pilkey inquired the number of cars per day on Lawrence Road. Meisner responded 1/3 of 3400 trips. John R. McAdams, representing the engineering firm, presented his statement. He briefly described the road improvements: (1) add a third lane from Miller Road to St. Marys Road to accommodate left turns into St. Marys and Scotswood Blvd, (2) close Carolina Avenue and create a cul de-sac, and (3) left and right turn lanes on St. Marys Road. Jacobs inquired about the shopping center type and location. Barrett responded that it is a neighborhood facility. McAdams responded that 65, 000 square feet of floor area is proposed as compared to 5-600, 000 square feet of floor area for a mall complex. Jacobs asked the applicant to address the siting of the facility as opposed to a less impact location. McAdams responded that the facility was well suited to the location at the intersection of major thoroughfares. Jacobs questioned the location if the facility is intended to serve the internal service population. McAdams answered that the facility keeps residents from going off-site for such services and reduces the traffic load on the road system. Barrett noted that in Chapel Hill the shopping centers are located within one mile of each other. Commissioner Willhoit inquired if NCDOT would condemn property for right-of-way if it was designated on a throughfare plan. Watkins responded that if the thoroughfare was located outside of the municipal limits then the right-of-way would have to be acquired as part of the secondary road improvements program. Willhoit inquired if this would change if the road was part of the County thoroughfare plan. Watkins responded not necessarily. Willhoit asked at what point does NCDOT become involved in active acquisition. Watkins responded that NCDOT has the capability for active acquisition even on secondary roads. Bill Ray indicated that he was neither pro nor con Scotswood. He informed the Board that he was representing Lake Orange Inc. which operates the recreation facility and which owns five feet above the contour controlled by the County around Lake Orange. He informed the Board that Lake Orange Inc. has agreed to give the County an additional foot which would allow the dam to be raised two feet. Dalton Loftin, attorney, presented a statement regarding deeds which were prepared and recorded that raised the question of ownership of the land around the lake. He explained that the deeds which he drew up for four of the property owners were erroneous as they left out the 101 notation that the County controlled a specified portion of lands immediately surrounding the lake. He noted that the original survey of the lake property contained the referenced notation regarding the reservation of the land under county control. However, he had prepared the deeds in question from a subsequent survey which did not contain the notation regarding county control of adjoining property. Loftin concluded stating that the landowners around the lake cannot deed title to land owned by Lake Orange Incorporated. Commissioner Marshall indicated she understood that these mistakes do happen and inquired if any structures had been erected within the disputed area. Loftin responded that he was not aware of any structures. Commissioner Marshall noted that some owners had claimed that their houses would be flooded. Commissioner Lloyd clarified that the lake level is contour 614 and that Lake Orange Corporation owns from contour 615-620. Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney, inquired if any of the erroneous deeds are more than seven years old. Loftin responded that no visible boundaries had been established nor the area occupied. Ray commented that the dam was designed to handle an additional two feet which, if constructed, would provide enough time for the construction of another reservoir. Bobby Nichols, member of the Lake Orange Corporation, commented that given a shortage of storage capacity that raising the dam two feet would provide a 25% increase in storage capacity. He noted that pier owners needed permission from the Lake Orange Corporation to construct these facilities. Commissioner Willhoit questioned a safe yield of 25%. Ken Thompson, County Manager, responded that the 25% referred to acre volume. Commissioner Willhoit referred the matter to the staff for recommendation. Joyce Brown presented a statement on the Scotswood project. She noted that there is a diversity in Hillsborough evidenced by those of varying economic status living side-by-side. She felt that a planned development would not provide for this type of diversity. She expressed concerns with traffic problems and expressed a desire for heavier control over the project. She expressed a concern with potential air quality problems as experienced by Durham and Raleigh. She felt that a new development was unfairly taking precedence. Tom Metzguer expressed concern about additional traffic on Miller Road without any improvements suggested thereby creating a hazardous situation. He noted that Lawrence Road is presently unpaved and cited design problems with Old #10. He indicated that he had learned by word of mouth of an additional 100 homes north of Scotswood. John Hartwell addressed the use of Lawrence Road as a bypass. He 102 indicated that no comment on the use of Lawrence Road as a bypass had been made at earlier meetings. He commented on three points: 1) the maximum width of the bridge is 18 ' which does adequately provide for passing vehicles; 2) there is 6/10ths of a mile of unpaved road with both sharp curves and a right-of-way problem; and 3) there is a sight distance problem with the intersection with St. Mary' s Road. Eddie Kirk, Planner, indicated that Lawrence Road carried 230 ADT. Watkins indicated that there were no provisions in the current program to upgrade the bridge. Commissioner Marshall and Barry Jacobs were sworn in. Commissioner Marshall commented that Scotswood alerted all of us and brought the problems to the forefront of the discussion. She expressed qualms with the ten year build-out period and identified the need for phased implementation. She continued that otherwise there would be a need to reserve resources for a long period of time for the development of the infrastructure. She cited a substantial difference in Mayor Sheffield's testimony in that the first time he commented he had reservations and the second time he addressed the enlargement of facilities serving the area. She added that she wanted the staff to keep track of cumulative development impacts and wanted both the start up and completion timeframes for projects to be specified. Barry Jacobs, Planning Board Chair, raised the question of high public costs. He noted that two units per acre was minimally acceptable. He emphasized that minimums were used in the concept of Scotswood. Commissioner Carey inquired about the approval process for the project. Collins reviewed the process for the Board noting that the site plan for the planned development constituted the preliminary plat for the subdivision of the single-family area. A final plat for this portion of the development would have to be reviewed, approved and recorded. The multi-family section would be subject to staff review and approval of the construction plans. Commissioner Carey inquired when the commercial area would be developed. Barrett responded during the second phase. Carey inquired how many residential units would be in place at that time. Barrett responded 60 units. Commissioner Willhoit inquired about screening and landscaping of the site. Collins responded that detailed planting plans are required in order to secure building permits. These plans would be reviewed by staff for compliance with the ordinance. He clarified that the applica nt had presented landscaping details on the site plan which showed general compliance with the requirements of the ordinance. Commissioner Willhoit inquired about the design of the commercial area and the possibility of reversing the location of the parking area. McAdams responded that customers need to get into the front side of the store and that a reversed parking area would be undesirable to merchants. To reverse the location of the parking area would place the delivery docks and dumpsters next to the road. Willhoit questioned the 103 50' buffer in the front which the residential areas view the back of the commercial facility. McAdams responded that there was a 100 ' buffer to the rear of the commercial facility. The public hearing on Scotswood was closed at 9:50 p.m. The Board of Commissioners referred the matter to the Planning Board for recommendation. Commissioner Willhoit moved that the public hearing on Scotswood be continued until May 5, 1986 to receive the recommendation of the Planning Board. Commissioner Carey seconded the motion. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Commissioner Willhoit commented that phasing seemed the most equitable way to allocate the water resources and reserve the resources. Commissioner Marshall emphasized the need to keep a running balance. Willhoit added that the County does not need to make a commitment for the full number of units. Commissioner Marshall identified two concepts to consider: 1) over commitment and 2) phasing of the project. She cited the Chapel Hill example that if a project does not build-out a certain phase within the stated timeframe then it drops to the bottom of the list. Jacobs supported the phasing concept and its use to regulate growth. He also supported the development of impact fees. Commissioner Walker felt the latter represented double taxation just to discourage growth. Commissioner Willhoit countered that impact fees serve as a way to finance infrastructure. With no further business to come before the Board, Chair Willhoit adjourned the meeting at 10: 00 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Board will be held April 7, 1986, 7 :30 P.M. in the Commissioners' Room in the Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk