Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19860403 5 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JOINT PLANNING AREA PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 3, 1986 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Joint Session with the Chapel Hill Town Council, the Orange County Planning Board, and the Chapel Hill Planning Board on April 3, 1986, 7: 30 p.m. in the auditorium at Chapel Hill High School. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Don Willhoit and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker. CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Howes, Art Werner, Julie Andresen, R.D. Smith, David Pasquini, Bill Thorpe, David Godschalk, and Nancy Preston. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Sharlene Pilkey, Steve Yuhasz, Barry Jacobs (Chair) , Tim Hubbard, Mike Lewis, Carl Walters, and Peter Kramer. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Director of Planning Marvin Collins, Director of Planning for Chapel Hill Roger Walden, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Chapel Hill Assistant Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal, and Planner Susan Smith. SWORN IN: John Loving, Dana Staats, Roger Waldon, Pat Evans, Marvin Collins, Susan Smith, Harry Poole, and Dexter Smith. Orange County Planning Director Marvin Collins presented the project. He reviewed the location of the project and the adjacent zoning and land use as well as the existing Land Use Plan and proposed Joint Planning Area Plan provisions as they relate to the project. He distributed to the Boards and Council photographs of the site which were submitted by the applicant for review. Collins presented the site evaluation on the basis of HUD noise assessment guidelines. He indicated that sites adjacent to proposed I 40 would be rated "normally unacceptable" for residential use. Therefore, the staff was recommending that the Land Use Plan be revised to provide for office-institutional uses at that location. This recommendation is consistent with the revision to the proposed Joint Planning Area Plan to be presented to public hearing in April. Collins presented the material contained in the joint staff statement on the project enclosed in the agenda. He reviewed the proposed extension of water and sewer facilities and traffic patterns in the vicinity of the site. He noted that the staffs had identified Eubanks Road as a minor arterial and had developed a collector road system to serve the area. He reviewed NCDOT's comments regarding sight distance along Eubanks and noted that the applicant is working with NCDOT to resolve this issue. Collins reviewed buffer and setback 106 requirements. Collins concluded his presentation with a review of the recommendations of the staff on pages 8-10 of the agenda and the findings of the staff on pages 11-25 of the agenda. Collins read a statement from Orange County Planning Board member Betty Margison. (A copy of the material is in the permanent -agenda file 1 ocated in the Clerk's Office. ) Councilwoman Preston questioned the correct number of units proposed and Planner Susan Smith stated 137 units. She indicated that the applicant revised the plans subsequent to submittal which resulted in a decrease in the number of units. This change was not reflected in the applicant' s statement nor in agency comments received prior to the revision of the plans and enclosed as evidence in the public hearing agenda. Councilwoman Preston asked staff to review the recommendation on phasing of the development. Collins reviewed the submitted phasing plan and the staff recommendation contained in the conditions of approval. The proposed change is to provide the recreational facilities early in the development and to improve the sequencing of the development of the project along the loop road. Councilwoman Andresen noted a comment on page 33 of the agenda which indicates that the design capacity of NC 86 is insufficient. She inquired about the applicant's response to this observation. Collins directed the question to the applicant and asked that it be addressed during the applicant's presentation. Andresen asked staff to review the notification process. Collins informed the Boards and Council that all property owners within 500 ' of the site are notified by certified mail as required by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and the General Statutes. Andresen inquired why property owners in Northwoods subdivision were not notified. Smith responded that only two properties in Northwoods subdivision were within the 500 ' notification area and that as a courtesy staff also sent notification letters to other property owners within the subdivision living near the intersection of Northwoods Drive and Eubanks Road. Councilman Smith asked how much landscaping is to be retained on the site. Collins reviewed the rendered site plan and noted that all areas colored dark green related to existing vegetation that is to be retained and the light green areas related to plantings. Smith asked how the areas to be retained are to be fenced off noting that on other sites these areas had been destroyed in the construction process. Collins responded that the Board could require the fencing of these areas as a condition of approval. He noted that the current county procedure requires the flagging of the areas of existing vegetation to be retained and the inspection of the site by one or more of the county inspections personnel prior to any construction activity to verify compliance with approved site plans. Councilman Smith asked if a beginning and ending date for construction could be set. Collins responded yes. Smith noted that it is essential that the project be carried out within a specified amount of time. Collins informed the Boards and Council that the Orange County 107 Zoning Ordinance currently requires that construction of the project commence within six months of approval with the opportunity to request a six month extension of the commencement period. He noted that the Board of Commissioners could approve the extension or could initiate the rezoning of the property back to the original zoning district. Councilman Smith questioned the comment by the Sheriff's Department regarding service contingent upon the provision of additional personnel. He asked if the level of service county-wide would decrease without the provision of additional personnel. Collins responded that this project alone does not create the need for additional personnel, but in conjunction with other development in the area may create the need for additional personnel. Without additional staff the level of service may decline. Commissioner Marshall emphasized that the Board is committed to keeping the service level up to need. Chair Willhoit inquired if fire hydrants are to be provided. Collins responded affirmatively. Willhoit inquired if the buildings are to have sprinklers. Collins responded that the architect will address this matter. Chair Willhoit asked the adequacy of the pump station to serve additional area and if OWASA will size the lines accordingly. Planner Susan Smith responded that the project was subject to a year's negotiation with OWASA. Chair Willhoit asked if the pump station was located in the low point of the basin and expressed a desire for additional analysis of the service area. Chair Willhoit inquired about the school age population and Collins indicated he did not have that data. Councilman Werner inquired about the zoning of other properties in the area. Collins reviewed the joint planning area map noting that high density residential and office-institutional is proposed east of the site, light industrial is proposed west of the site, medium density residential, including Northwoods, is proposed south of the site and low density residential is proposed north of the site. Town of Chapel Hill Planning Director Roger Waldon reaffirmed the link between the staff recommendation on use of this site to the draft joint planning area land use plan. He emphasized that this interchange is part of the urban area and that the staff supports the development of medium to high density residential and office type uses, thereby providing a concentration of employment opportunities or dwelling units near the interchange with a gradual gradation of uses as one moves away from the interchange. Councilman Smith cited the comment on page 29 of the agenda which states that the office-institutional district also permits multi-family dwellings. He asked what would keep the area from developing solely for multi-family use and expressed a need to tie-down the development of the interchange. Susan Smith noted that the comment referenced is part of the applicant's statement prepared on the basis of the earliest version of the draft joint planning area plan and that staff had subsequently 108 been directed to reconsider this concept. Waldon reinforced the comments of Collins and the joint staff recommendation on the project. He further reviewed a number of issues including the timing of the development in relation to the still draft joint planning area land use plan; the concern that development of the project in this location is premature; improvements on the public roads, and extension of public water and sewer services. With regard to the concern that the timing is premature he noted that discussions regarding the development of the interchange are continuing, but that the staff views the area around the interchange as a logical place for urban type development as opposed to being a part of the rural buffer. Counting the claim that the request is premature he noted that things will happen very quickly in this area. With reference to road improvements he noted that the applicant had already provided for dedication of additional right-of-way and improvements along Eubanks Road, but that the provision of curb and gutter and a sidewalk was still a point of discussion with the applicant. He continued that given the developing nature of the area it makes sense to require the improvements to meet town standards and curb and gutter and sidewalks are appropriate. Commenting on the water and sewer services Waldon noted that staff had made an exception to the policy regarding the provision of gravity sewer due to the proximity of the site to I-40. He continued that the extension of these services through the use of a pump is appropriate. Councilman Werner asked the date of completion of the I-40 interchange. Waldon stated after June, 1987 . Councilman Howes commented that timing is critical and that it makes sense to consider the proximity of the site to I-40. He continued that rezoning of the site forecloses options for development of the area. He noted the dilemma posed in the desire to preserve the options much longer than the project suggests is "aiding and abetting" versus retarding the process. He noted that there may be a greater community interest in retarding development. He indicated that he would seek to aggregate development proposals in the area versus dealing with them on a piecemeal basis. He noted that his comment bears more on the issues to be discussed at the public hearing on the 17th of April than on this specific project. To maintain low density around the interchange is more favorable. Councilwoman Andresen inquired about a project of comparable density citing Sommerfield Crossing. Waldon responded that the density in that development is 3 .5-4 units per acre. Councilwoman Andresen inquired about the road improvements. Waldon responded the applicant was providing 1/2 of a 47 ' cross-section. Councilwoman Andresen inquired about the status of the property adjacent to the west. Collins responded that the property had been subdivided, but no building permits had been requested. Andresen asked the definition of light industrial uses and Collins replied that the ordinance defines these uses in terms of impacts citing that these would include low density types. Andresen questioned the lack of buffer requirements where residential property adjoins industrial property, noting that given the inter-mixing of uses proposed in the area, these need to be reconsid ered. She questioned whether enough thought had been given to the collector road system proposed inquiring how the overall road system would be established. Waldon responded that the roads would be built as part of the next development. He noted that improvements to NC 86 need to be a high priority for NCDOT. Willhoit noted that they are not on the improvements program. Collins stated that the industrial zoning of the adjoining tract was carried over from the previous zoning ordinance. Commissioner Willhoit clarified that residential developments are not required to provide buffers to industrial sites, but that the ordinance requires the light industrial uses to provide the buffer to residential uses at the time of development of the industrial site. Collins clarified that the ordinance includes requirements for screening industrial sites upon development. Pat Evans, Chapel Hill Planning Board Chair, informed the Boards and Council that the Planning Board had recommended approval of the development on a 5-2 vote. The negative votes reflected a concern regarding the premature development of the area and a concern that the provision of sidewalks is "silly" . John Loving, applicant, reviewed the partnership involved in the request for planned development rezoning. He clarified that the proposal provided for 137 versus 152 units based on response to staff recommendations that the number of units in each building be limited to eight and that buildings be separated by a minimum of 25 feet. Loving commented that based on market research there is a need for housing in the area and that the applicants were taking the opportunity to provide for that need. He continued that the project conforms with both the existing and the draft land use plans. He noted that the location of the development is ideal for this type of residential unit as it is close to convenient shopping and the area is residential in nature. He continued that it is natural for development to move to the north side of the road for low density multi family units of seven units to the acre. He added that the units will be for sale, not rental, and are therefore compatible with the neighborhood. Dana Staats, CHR Associates, presented his firm's statement on the project. He explained the design aspects of the project and the procedures for doing the site analysis. He noted that the objectives established for the design of the project included compliance with the requirements of the ordinance, design related standards, OWASA standards, S&E standards, maintenance of as much natural vegetation on the site as possible and maintenance of the character and quality of the area. He indicated that the site was well designed and sensitive to both the land and the development ordinances as evidenced in the site plan and in the staffs' recommendation. Staats reviewed the retention of vegetation on the site. He noted that existing vegetation would be retained in the buffer, internally in the sections noted and in addition other internal vegetation as could be saved during the construction process. He added that the development of a detailed landscaping plan is both required and a standard for the firm. He emphasized that the building units are laid out with the topography and that all units will be developed with slab on grade 110 foundations with crawl spaces. Units will be stepped down as necessary to lay with the land. The loop road serving the site was designed to provide circulation through the development with all parking spaces located off the road. Two entrances are proposed for safety purposes. In regards to the buffer, 100 feet is provided on three sides of the site as required and the applicant elected to provide a buffer of 50 feet on the western side of the site. Staats distributed a photo of the site illustrating the denseness of the vegetation to be retained in the buffer noting that it is very dense, but where gaps exist, additional plantings will be installed. He noted that the recreation facilities are located away from Eubanks Road. Staats continued with comments directed at the conditions of approval recommended by the staffs. He indicated that the applicants would like the provisions in condition #2 regarding curb and gutter and a sidewalk along Eubanks Road to be deleted as it is inappropriate at this time. He addressed NCDOT's comments regarding sight distance along Eubanks Road noting that one would not feel comfortable traveling at 55 miles per hour along the road. He suggested that a more appropriate speed is 45 mph and sight distance for that speed could be satisfied. Staats noted that the pool will be fenced and that the tot lots are located within shaded areas. He indicated that the applicant would provide additional landscaping where necessary. He noted that NCDOT will improve NC 86 as they complete the interchange. Staats addressed the comment regarding maintenance of the existing landscaping during construction by indicating a willingness to fence these areas if desired by the governing boards and imposed as a condition of approval. He concluded his remarks by indicating that the applicant is not interested in a high density project. The proposed density is seven units per acre and the units will be for sale. Commissioner Carey inquired who would maintain the recreation area and Staats responded the homeowners association. Commissioner Lloyd asked if the staff's proposed phasing plan was impractical and Staats responded that the applicant was satisfied with the revised phasing plan. Councilwoman Andresen asked if the developer is responsible for common lands and facilities until all phases are complete. Loving stated that state laws require that the developer be totally responsible for these facilities until the homeowners association is organized and then to share the responsibility until the development is complete. Councilman Werner asked if the market survey conducted indicated that the unit pricing is compatible with development in the area. Loving stated that units will be priced in the 80 's. The market study conducted did not count on a flood of incoming residents but was based on historical figures. Planning Board member Barry Jacobs asked the applicant to comment on the construction timeframe. Loving responded that there was a difference in a marketing versus a construction question. The market study indicated a 3 5 year timeframe for the development to be built-out and sold. Planning Board member Steve Yuhasz asked if annexation was likely in a short period of time. He asked if maintenance of Eubanks Road would stay with the state until then. Waldon noted that there are no predictions on the annexation timetable. There is no way to know how this area will be developed. This area will be urban at some point. Jacobs asked if staff could obtain the 1984 traffic data available in April for Eubanks Road and NC 86. Collins responded that staff will obtain the information when available and would also provide further information on the build-out period, school age population and OWASA service within the basin. Commissioner Marshall asked if this information was allowable evidence outside the context of the public hearing. Commissioner Willhoit indicated it could be received at the time the Board receives the Planning Board's recommendation. County Attorney Gledhill confirmed that the public hearing may be held open for that purpose. Loving commented that in terms of school age population he could cite examples of two similar projects which resulted in a school age population of 10-15% of the project population. He noted that most families have pre school age children and they tend to move out of such developments prior to the children entering school. Councilman Werner commented on the traffic analysis and asked if, given the report's conclusion regarding the capacity of NC 86, if the left turn lane will take care of the problem. Dexter Smith, who prepared the traffic analysis, indicated that such an improvement would address the problem. Werner inquired if this would take care of additional traffic or if this is simply a piecemeal solution. Smith responded that the capacity problem would be improved somewhat with the I-40 improvements but that the ultimate solution would be to improve NC 86 from the interchange south to Homestead Road. Werner asked the location of the bottleneck and Smith indicated at the end of the I-40 improvements to Homestead Road. Werner inquired about a left turn lane from Eubanks Road onto NC 86. Dexter Smith indicated that based on traffic research and observation of the traffic movements at the interesection that there is no problem today. As long as the actual traffic on NC 86 leaves the kind of gaps currently available there will not be a problem. However, with increased traffic there will be a demand for another lane to I-40. Commissioner Marshall inquired if he expected a gradual or rapid build-up of traffic with I-40. Smith responded that getting to the interchange will be very important. Marshall commented that it raises the importance of the question regarding a traffic light. Smith responded that the traffic engineer makes a recommendation for a traffic signal when certain traffic points are reached upon an amalgamation of development in a given area. Marshall noted that the situation makes it difficult for decision makers. Traffic design solutions evolve after 112 the development is there. There is a "dead wall" regarding the applicant' s and the local government's view of their obligations which raises the concerns associated with rapid development. Chair Willhoit noted that the greatest difficulty is when there is development three years in advance of the roads. The earliest completion date for the improvements to NC 86 from the interchange to Homestead Road is 1991 even though it was the second priority project on the TIP lists given to NCDOT by the jurisdictions as a statement of need. Harry Poole, resident of 210 Northwood Drive, expressed concerns with rezoning properties zoned R-1 for single family use. He noted that the site can be seen from his house and that his quality of life would be affected by development along Eubanks Road. He opposed the development on the basis that the ETA request had not been resolved and therefore a decision on this project is preemptive; the general character of the neighborhood is single family, Residential-1 zoning with the exception of the industrial park. He respected the right of a property owner to use the land but expressed concern about the R-1 district being rezoned, and speculative rezonings which open the door to change in the character of the neighborhood. He concluded stating a concern that this project represents a non conforming use in an existing neighborhood and that it will precipitate further change. He asked that his concerns regarding the extension of public water and sewer be addressed. He supported concerns raised by other speakers regarding traffic on Eubanks Road. He referenced the comments on page 28 of the agenda indicating that the key to the comments is the first sentence of the second paragraph. He noted that Timberlyne is more than one road mile away. He reemphasized that he was concerned about the encroachment of high density residential uses in his neighborhood. SWORN IN: John Kerns and Walt Everett Walt Everett, resident along Eubanks Road, expressed a concern with traffic and the difficulty of getting onto NC 86 in the mornings and afternoons. He commented that he was a member of the volunteer fire company serving the area. Chair Willhoit asked if there are any two story buildings in the district and if the fire company had any problems servicing these buildings with fire protection. Everett indicated that there are two story buildings on Whitfield Road and elsewhere in the district but that no problems had been experienced to date. Willhoit asked if the fire company's equipment was compatible with fire hydrants. Everett respond ed that the equipment was compatible. He commented that there was not enough pressure on the private water lines in Northwoods subdivision to allow use of the hydrants within the development and that drop tanks were still used in the provision of fire protection services in that community. John Kerns, Northwood Homeowners Association, expressed concern that the shortcut to NC 86 is Northwoods Drive as left turns are difficult at Eubanks Road. He cited page 15 item 7.4 . 1 regarding traffic impacts on minor streets requesting that the finding be reconsidered as Northwood Drive would be affected by the proposed development. He cited the provision regarding solid waste disposal on page 28 of the agenda and asked the location of the dumpsters. Staats reviewed the location of the dumpsters on the site plan clarifying that the closest dumpster to 113 Eubanks Road would be 200 feet from the right-of-way and located between a 100 buffer and building units. Councilman Smith asked staff to clarify the difference in the density of R-1 and O-I districts. Collins responded that R-1 allows for development at one unit per acre and O-I provides for development for office purposes. Councilman Smith indicated he was not against development but that development has its time and place. He expressed concern regarding the certainty of improvements along NC 86 to Homestead Road from the I-40 interchange. He indicated a desire to avoid the mistakes regarding road improvements experienced with developments in the past. He emphasized a need to deal with traffic problems which arise and suggested the need for traffic signals. He concluded that he did not like the idea of developers setting the pattern for development, particularly around interchanges and particularly allowing the first development in the area to set the pattern. He questioned the suitability of the land north of I-40 for development and statements made regarding the undesireability of the area for single family residences. Councilman Godschalk asked the applicant to indicate the earliest estimated build-out period. Loving responded that based on the marketing studies no less than three years and assuming a 3-5 year building and marketing effort. Jacobs asked staff to indicate the minimum required distance between traffic signals and exit and entrance ramps at an interchange. Collins responded he did not have this information. Staats commented that the applicants have worked closely with both planning staffs and have followed the requirements of the land use plan and development ordinances as well as the staff recommendations. Councilman Smith emphasized that the joint planning area plan is not yet adopted. He indicated he is critical of the process, not the developer given an uncompleted and unapproved land use plan. He concluded that the time is not right for consideration of a rezoning in the area. Staats responded to an earlier question regarding utilities noting that the facilities proposed were sized to serve a larger area. Chair Willhoit commented that the facilities must be sized in accordance with the land use plan for a given area. Chair Willhoit continued the public hearing until May 5, 1986 to receive the recommendations of the Town Council and the Orange County Planning Board and further information from the Planning Staff on the build- out period, school age population and OWASA service within the basin. With no further items to be presented, Chair Willhoit adjourned the meeting. Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk