Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-03-2014 - 7cORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 3, 2014 Action Agenda Item No. 7 -c SUBJECT: Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement Amendments — Revisions to Existing Language Ensuring Agricultural Activities are Allowed Throughout the Rural Buffer as well as Density and Minimum Lot Size Clarification(s) DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No ATTACHMENTS: 1. Chart Outlining Proposed Modifications 2. Resolution Approving Amendment Package 3. Excerpt of Draft Minutes from March 27 2014 Joint Public Hearing 4. Excerpt of Approved April 2, 2014 Planning Board Minutes 5. Excerpt of Draft May 7, 2014 Planning Board Minutes INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael D. Harvey, Planner III, (919) 245 -2597 Craig Benedict, Director, (919) 245 -2592 PURPOSE: To consider amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement modifying language to ensure agricultural activities are allowed throughout the Rural Buffer and to clarify required densities and minimum lot sizes within, and outside of, the University Lake Watershed Area. BACKGROUND: In the mid -1980s Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro adopted a Joint Planning Land Use Plan (hereafter `the Plan') that provided land use planning for the area of the county commonly referred to as the Rural Buffer. In 1987 the participating entities adopted the Joint Planning Agreement (hereafter `JPA') establishing parameters for the review and approval of development projects within the area. The full Plan and JPA is available at: http: / /orangecountync.gov /planning /Documents.asp. A Joint Planning Area Public Hearing was held on March 27, 2014 to review proposed modifications to the Plan and JPA to address issues associated with the use of property for agricultural purposes as well as to clarify allowable density and lot sizes, and allow for cluster subdivisions, throughout the area covered by the Plan. The agenda materials for the joint public http:// orangecountync .gov /occlerks /140327JPH.pdf. Draft hearing are contained in Attachment 3. Attachment 1 proposed changes. hearing are excerpt minutes contains a cha rt available at: for the joint public summarizing the 2 Orange County Planning Board Review: This item was previewed at the April 2, 2014 Planning Board meeting to familiarize Planning Board members with the Plan and JPA as well as to begin review this item. At its May 7, 2014 regular meeting, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Plan and JPA amendments as detailed within Attachment 2. Excerpts of meeting minutes for the two Planning Board meetings pertaining to these matters are included in Attachments 4 and 5. Status of Towns' Consideration of Amendments to the Plan and JPA: A schedule for the review of these amendments was put forth at the March 27, 2014 joint public hearing. The Town of Chapel Hill's Planning Board considered this proposed amendments at its May 6, 2014 meeting and recommended approval of the amendment to the Town Council. The Town Council is scheduled to consider the amendments at its June 9, 2014 meeting. The Town of Carrboro's Planning Board, as well as other local advisory boards, reviewed the proposed amendments at its meeting on May 1, 2014 and continued the topic to its May 15, 2014 meeting. Additionally, the Town's Economic Sustainability Commission reviewed the proposal at its May 14, 2014 meeting. The Town of Carrboro Planning Board recommended approval of the amendments without additional comment. The Town's Board of Aldermen is scheduled to consider the amendments at its June 3, 2014 meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Costs for the required legal advertisement were paid from FY2013 -14 Departmental funds budgeted for this purpose. Existing Planning staff included in the Departmental staffing budget has accomplished the work required to process this amendment. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement; and 2. Decide accordingly and /or adopt the Resolution contained in Attachment 2 which approves the amendments to the Plan and JPA. Attachment 1— Chart Detailing Proposed Changes Proposed Change Impact within Joint Impact on Established Impact on Established Impact on Allowable Uses of Planning Area Density Limits Minimum Lot Sizes Property Combine existing Rural None. Proposed None. All amendment None. Minimum lot None. State Law Residential and amendments will ensure will do is ensure sizes are not currently indicates Agricultural Areas land consistency with State Law agricultural land uses impacted/changed as agricultural land use categories, add and County Comprehensive are permitted a result of the uses can go language indicating Plan. throughout the area proposed change. anywhere (i.e. agricultural activities covered by the Joint County cannot are permitted Planning Land Use regulate). This throughout the area Plan. makes Plan and covered by the Plan. Agreement consistent with existing law. Add language None. Staff already has None. The Plan None. Required None. establishing a density interpreted this as the currently does not minimum lot size is limit of: required density for the reference a density still 2 acres. 1 dwelling unit for Rural Residential Land Use limit in this area. This Category. proposal will now add every 2 acres what staff has already for property located NOTE: This will not interpreted as being the within Rural alter established density density limit for the Residential land use in University Lake area. category. Watershed Area, which is 1 dwelling unit for every 5 acres of property. Add language allowing None. Density limits will None. Density limit of None. Minimum lot None. cluster subdivisions restrict overall lot 1 dwelling unit for size under Cluster within the Rural development. Process will every 2 acres will still Subdivision process Residential category. encourage /promote need to be adhered to. is 1 acre. preservation of open space. Established density NOTE: Cluster limits shall be subdivisions are already observed (i.e. 1 unit allowed within the for every 2 acres University Lake of property) Watershed Area in accordance with Lot size reduction established density limits will not result in (i.e. 1 dwelling unit for more lots beyond every 5 acres of established density property). limit. Proposed Change Impact within Joint Planning Area Impact on Established Density Limits Impact on Established Minimum Lot Sizes Impact on Allowable Uses of Property Change language None. Change makes Joint None. Density will None. Minimum lot None. within the Plan Planning Land Use Plan remain 1 dwelling size of 2 acres has denoting required consistent with the Joint unit for every 5 been enforced by minimum lot size for Planning Agreement and acres of property. County Planning parcels in the existing County regulations Staff since 1990. University Lake enforced since Watershed Area is 2 approximately 1990. acres consistent with the adopted JPA and existing County regulations. 5 Resolution #: RES- 2014 -037 Attachment 2 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN AND JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT MODIFYING LANGUAGE TO ENSURE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ARE ALLOWED THROUGHOUT THE RURAL BUFFER; CLARIFY DENSITY AND REQUIRED MINIMUM LOT SIZE(S); AND ALLOW FOR CLUSTER SUBDIVISIONS THROUGHOUT THE RURAL BUFFER WHEREAS, Orange County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and the Town of Carrboro have engaged in a cooperative planning effort for the area known as the Rural Buffer as detailed within a Joint Planning Land Use Plan (hereafter `the Plan), adopted October 13, 1986, and amended from time to time, and WHEREAS, the administration of this Joint Planning Land Use Plan is laid out within the Joint Planning Agreement (hereafter `Agreement'), originally adopted on September 22, 1987, and amended from time to time, and WHEREAS, Orange County initiated amendments to the Plan and Agreement seeking to ensure agricultural activities are allowed throughout the area, clarify density and minimum lot size requirements, and ensure the viability of cluster subdivisions in the area covered by the Plan and Agreement, and WHEREAS, these amendments to the Plan and Agreement are necessary to ensure consistency with the County's existing land use management program, and WHEREAS, a joint public hearing regarding the proposed Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement amendments was held on March 27, 2014, in accordance with the requirements of the Joint Planning Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County hereby resolves that the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement be amended shown on the attached pages. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement shall become effective upon adoption by the governing bodies of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro. Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2014. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on 2014 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of 2014. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners M 7 PAGE 57 — JPA LAND USE PLAN * ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN CATEGORIES *Amended 2/3/92 (effective 2/24/92) Basic Category Land Use Plan Category DEVELOPED Urban Existing Urban Activity Node Proposed Activity Node TRANSITION Ten -Year Transition Twenty -Year Transition Commercial Transition Activity Node Commercial - Industrial Transition Activity Node COMMUNITY Rural Community Activity Node RURAL Rural Buffer Rural Residential Agricultural - Residential Rural Neighborhood Activity Node Rural Industrial Activity Node CONSERVATION Public Interest District Water Supply Watershed Water Quality Critical Area New Hope Creek Corridor Open Space ********************************************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN CATEGORIES *Amended 4/2/90 2/3/92 (effective 2/24/92) Major Class Subclass Land Use Plan Category TRANSITION Transition Resource Protection Transition I Public- Private Open Space Transition II New Hope Creek Corridor Open Space Suburban Residential Urban Residential Officed ndustrial Future UNC Development Retail Trade Light Industrial Disposal Use RURAL Rural Buffer University Lake Watershed CONSERVATION Resource Protection Public- Private Open Space New Hope Creek Corridor Open Space Rural Residential and Agricultural Staff is recommending combining the terms together and creating a new land use category. PAGE 57 -a —JPA LAND USE PLAN 1$ Retail Trade Extractive Use 01 PAGE 60 —JPA LAND USE PLAN *Suburban Residential Areas are designated for housing densities ranging from one (1) to five (5) dwelling units per acre. Such areas are located where land is changing from rural to urban, suitable for urban densities, and to be provided with public utilities and services. Housing types range from single - family to duplexes to multi - family dwellings. *However, densities may be lower than one dwelling unit per acre in Suburban Residential Areas. Chapel Hill as part of its Southern Small Area Plan has identified certain areas in the Southern Triangle as being suitable for densities not exceeding one (1) unit per acre for areas immediately east of U.S. 15 -501 and densities not exceeding one (1) unit per five (5) acres for areas immediately west of Old Lystra Road. *Amended 2/1/93 Urban Residential Areas are similar to Suburban Residential Area in terms of both housing types and public services availability. However, densities are higher, ranging from six (6) to thirteen (13) dwelling units per acre. Office - Institutional Areas is a category consisting of establishments which offer an array of financial, insurance, real estate, legal, medical, and business services. Such areas generally have public utilities and services available and are located adjacent to heavily traveled streets. Future UNC Development is a category established for lands owned by the University of North Carolina, including Horace Williams Airport and adjacent parcels. Such lands are contemplated for expansion of the UNC campus, provided the Airport is relocated. Retail Trade Areas are limited in Transition Areas, including existing establishments at Starpoint and Calvander. Modest room for expansion was projected in Transition Areas. Light Industrial Areas are singular, consisting of the Chapel Hill Industrial Park on Eubanks Road and the proposed site between Eubanks Road and Homestead Road are included in this category. Disposal Use Areas consist of landfill sites, either existing or future. The existing landfill on Eubanks Road and the proposed site between Eubanks Road and Homestead Road are included in this category. *Rural Buffer and Conservation *Amended 4/2/90 2/3/92 (effective 2/24/92) The basic categories of Rural Buffer and Conservation have been combined in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan to form a single land use classification — Rural Buffer. 10 PAGE 60 -a — JPA LAND USE PLAN The Rural Buffer is defined as being a low- density area consisting of single - family homes situated on large lots having a minimum size of two (2) acres. The Rural Buffer is further defined as land which, although adjacent to an Urban or Transition Area, is rural in character and which will remain rural, GGAta resmden +i-.1 uses, and not require urban services (public utilities and other Town services). The Rural Buffer is expected to contain low density residential uses as well as agricultural uses The oural Buffer and consists of the following Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan categories: Rural Residential and Agricultural; AgFiGWItWpali 2 Public- Private Open Space; Resource Conservation; New Hope Creek Corridor Open Space; Extractive Use; and the overlay category designated University Lake Watershed Area. Rural Residential and Agricultural Areas are low- density areas consisting of single - family homes situated on large lots to °Gres ?R s ?z° or (eater with a minimum lot size of two acres except when part of a cluster subdivision and then adhering to a density limit of 1 unit for every 2 acres of property. Cluster subdivisions reducing parcels to at least 1 acre in area are allowed so long as density limits for the entire subdivision are maintained. s In that respect, Rural Residential Areas are identical to the definition of the Rural Buffer. The area includes property supporting farming operations including forestry activities, established in accordance with the provisions of the North Carolina General Statutes. n ualiN fnr n e 1'sted-fnr 11ap tpvim Linn nnrnnc oc Public- Private Open Space Areas include major land areas owned or controlled by public and private interests in the Rural Buffer. Such holdings as Duke Forest, Camp New Hope, U.S. Government lands associated with Jordan Lake, the 100 -foot buffer along 1 -40, and Orange Water and Sewer Authority lands adjacent to University Lake and the quarry site on N.C. Highway 54 provide open space through research, educational, forest management, and recreational functions. Resource Conservation Areas in the Rural Buffer are identical to those in the Transition Areas; i.e., floodplains, wetlands along drainage tributaries, and steep slope areas (15% or greater). The areas form the basis for a parks and open space system (see Strategy Map) which provided the framework within which other land uses are situated. New Hope Creek Corridor Open Space Areas include some of the Resource Protection Areas and a portion of the Public /Private Open Space Areas which were designated as significant and worthy of protection according to the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan completed in April of 1991. (See Master Plan Map following Strategy Maps). The areas are part of a system of open space in Durham and Orange Counties along New Hope Creek and its tributaries between Eno River State Park and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land north and south of Jordan Lake. This category is made up of critical environmental areas such as steam beds, floodplains, steep slopes, and larger tracts of historic, educational, or recreational value. Extractive Use Areas encompass mining and quarry operations. Only one such site exists in the Rural Buffer, the American Stone Company quarry on N.C. Highway 54 west of Carrboro. 2 County governments do not have the authority to restrict the location of agricultural activities while municipalities can regulate farms located within their corporate limits. Agricultural activities, as defined within State law, are allowed in all areas subject to the Plan. Staff is clarifying existing language accordingly and eliminating references to `Agricultural Areas' as being a separate Plan land use category and combining it with the Rural Residential Land Use Category 3 Cluster subdivisions are allowed throughout the County, including the University Lake Watershed Area, with the exception of the Rural Residential area of the Rural Buffer. We are modifying existing language to allow cluster subdivisions in the Rural Buffer, outside of the University Lake Watershed Area, so long as a density limit of 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres is maintained. This proposed amendment does not impact existing density limits in the University Lake Watershed Area, which only allows 1 dwelling unit for every 5 acres of land area. Staff has incorporated comments received by the County Attorney's office as well as Chapel Hill and Carrboro Planning staff. 4 This information has been captured within the renamed `Rural Residential and Agricultural Areas' land use category. 11 Retail Trade Areas in the Rural Buffer include low intensity neighborhood centers which serve the immediate area and generate low traffic volumes. Only one such area is designated in the Rural Buffer — Blackwood station on N.C. Highway 86. PAGE 60 -b — JPA LAND USE PLAN *University Lake Watershed Area *Amended 4/2/90 The University Lake Watershed Area includes all lands which drain into the University Lake reservoir. Density within this area is limited to 1 dwellinq unit for every 5 acres with a required minimum lot size of 2 acres. Based on a preferred watershed protection strategy of land use controls as recommended by Camp, Dresser and McKee in the University Lake Watershed Study, only low- intensity residential uses are permitted. i . IIIII I�imiTrl'1"IVC- orzT°.vr ivc °4O7 'arn co and maximum pG1101[V of o unit a^ aRy deyelopm°^+. 5Cluster subdivisions with lot sizes of not less than one (1) acre are also allowed so long as density limits are adhered to. There is an allowance for as well as the creation of a liFnited RLIM of 5 lots (5) of Me aGFe lets at a density of 1 unit per 2 acres for property legally in existence as of October 2 1989 Additional lots shall be allowed consistent with the 1 unit per 5 acre density as detailed herein 5 The minimum lot size in the Rural Buffer is 2 acres. Density (i.e. how many residences are allowed on a given property) has always been limited to 1 dwelling unit for every 5 acres of property. With this amendment staff is moving density language to the front portion of the description so that it is understood what the limit is. We are also indicating the required minimum lot size for the area is 2 acres to ensure consistency with the Joint Planning Agreement. 6 Staff is adding the specific date a lot has to have existed on to qualify for the 2 acre density allowance. This date is consistent with the existing requirements of Orange County's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) specifically Section 4.2.4. 12 PAGE 61 — JPA LAND USE PLAN LOCATION STANDARDS The principal task in formulating a land use plan is determining where specific land uses will be located. The primary elements feeding into this step include the operating principles outlined previously and a defined set of location standards. The location standards proposed for the preparation of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan are based upon previously enumerated background elements — natural environment and compatibility with existing land use patterns. On the accompanying page, there elements are listed on the horizontal axis of the Location Standards Matrix. Included in the matrix, but not previously defined are various street classifications listed under Transportation Accessibility. These classifications are defined as follows: STREET CLASSIFICATIONS STREET TYPE FUNCTION SPEED ROW DAILY VOLUME TRIP LENGTH ACCESS TRAVEL LANES INTERSTATE Movement 55 mph 200 -300' >40K >3 mi. Limited 4 ARTERIAL Movement 45 mph 120 -150' 10K -25K >1 mi. Unlimited 4 COLLECTOR Movement /A ccess 35 mph 60 -70' 800 -3K <1 mi. Unlimited 2 LOCAL Access 25 mph 50' 75 -200 <1/2 mi. Unlimited 1 2 Listed on the vertical axis are the general land use planning categories. By locating the desired land plan category on the vertical axis, it is possible to read from left to right and identify by the "X" symbol desired locations for each land use type. CONCEPTS AND STRATEGIES Following the November Public Information Meeting, four alternative strategy maps were prepared with illustrated various development scenarios for the Joint Planning Area. The four maps sought to identify those areas which would be classified as urban, transition, and rural buffer without identifying specific 10 and 20 year growth areas. The four maps are reproduced in sketch form on the following pages. The basis premises governing each alternative are listed below. M r- _x H Q 0 Q 0 z CO z 0 H Q U O 1 a� ai Q E o N X aD •c E a U � CZ C o= U:0 N U .a — (0 � C � m Q U � Q � O ,X W'0 o� o N U U .. C C CO O O c (D U O 070 N c U °- N � � c c o (D a) a) -0 _0 cn N 0) U C C w- c � CO o U) c E E U O M 0) p O CO U o CB co ^L` W L U Oho U- 0) U ii O Q (n � X O � o 1f/DOl x x T -F F x >K X EE 2l 01DAll OD x x x x x x x x x c /) `.' w lbWA -LUV x X x X X * X U Q 31b'1S2131N I x x x x x * x Q w lkuls32J03 x x >K x Q z - ivHnllnDiugv X X >K X w a O IVNOIIV32]D3IU x x x X x x l`dlUISnaNl x DllBnd- ISdn'o /Jllsnd X X X X X X LU l I x/13 2j X X X O 3J1330 x x x x NVOUA HJIH x x x x _Q Z Nvoun X x X X X w D N Nvowi8ns X x X X Lij ivunu X X X >K z O GNdl13M x Q 1S3b03 x X X x w CJ 2�b31� x X x X x x x 3213/3 S X m Q 31v/ ]D(lOW x x x x x J p 1HJIlS x x x X x x x X Ln + %ST X x x w a O %ST - %L x x x x x x cn %% L -0 x x x X x x X x z CD z Q O LL �) � LU N U Ln Z U W J L Q J Q J O U f6 — Ln � 0 = Q W U O Z LLJ = M w > (� L .� .� G U 4- +- C) O (/7 U Ln � L � cn O � Z � � w° a� ai Q E o N X aD •c E a U � CZ C o= U:0 N U .a — (0 � C � m Q U � Q � O ,X W'0 o� o N U U .. C C CO O O c (D U O 070 N c U °- N � � c c o (D a) a) -0 _0 cn N 0) U C C w- c � CO o U) c E E U O M 0) p O CO U o CB co ^L` W L U Oho U- 0) U ii O Q (n � X O � o *THE RURAL BUFFER *Amended 4/2/90 2/3/92 (effective 2/24/92) ME PAGE 81 — JPA LAND USE PLAN Qql# Seven categories of Rural Buffer land use have been depicted on the Land Use Plan. These categories include Resource 15 PAGE 82 — JPA LAND USE PLAN Protection Areas, Public- Private Open Space Areas, Rural Residential and Agricultural Areas, Retail Trade Areas, Extractive Uses, and the overlay category designated University Lake Watershed Area. Resource Protection Areas As was the case with Transition Areas, Resource Protection Areas have been designated on the Land Use Plan to include flood plains, and wetlands along drainage tributaries and steep slope areas (15% or greater). These areas form the basis for a comprehensive parks and open space system which provides the framework within which other land use categories are to function. Parks have been generally located throughout the Joint Planning Area using a neighborhood park one -half mile service radius. The parks, as well as portions of Duke Forest, are linked together by a system of greenways extending along drainageways, and pedestrian routes (sidewalks) along thoroughfares. Public /Private Open Space Areas Major land areas owned or controlled by both public and private interests in the Joint Planning Area have been designated on the Land Use Plan. These areas include the following: 1. Duke Forest; 2. University of North Carolina lands (excluding Horace Williams Airport and adjacent properties); 3. U.S. Government lands associated with conservation areas around the Jordan Lake Reservoir; 4. Orange Water and Sewer Authority lands associated with conservation areas around University Lake and raw water storage in the former quarry site on NC Highway 54: and 5. Camp New Hope conference and recreational center. A Public /Private Open Space Area has also been designated along Interstate 40 to recognize the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) district established to provide a 100 -foot buffer along that route. The Plan recommends utilization of portions of the buffer to link proposed park and greenway areas together. While the status of such holdings as Duke Forest, UNC lands and Camp New Hope is uncertain in the future, their continued existence appears likely during the planning period. This is due to the research, educational, forest management and recreational functions related to such areas. If decisions are made to change the use of such large tracts of land, negotiations should be initiated to secure the use of all or portions of the tracts for recreation and /or open space purposes. Such areas contribute greatly to the natural setting of the Joint Planning Area and every effort should be made to retain such features. New Hope Creek Corridor Open Space Areas include some of the Resource Protection Areas and a portion of the Public /Private As previously indicated, County governments do not have the authority to restrict the location of agricultural activities. Agricultural activities, as defined within State law, are allowed in all areas that are subject to this Plan. Staff is clarifying existing language accordingly and eliminating references to 'Agricultural Areas' as being a separate Plan land use category and combining it with the Rural Residential Land Use Category. MCI PAGE 83 — JPA LAND USE PLAN Open Space Areas which are designated as significant and worthy of protection according to the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan completed in April of 1991. (See Master Plan Map following Strategy Maps). The areas are part of a system of open space in Durham and Orange Counties along New Hope Creek and its tributaries between Eno River State Park and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land north of Jordan Lake. This category is made up of critical environmental areas such as stream beds, floodplains, steep slopes, and larger tracts of historic, educational, or recreational value. The New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan describes these areas in detail and makes specific recommendations as to how they should be protected or utilized for environmental, educational, and /or recreational purposes. Arm 2 *University Lake Watershed Area *Amended 4/2/90 The University Lake Watershed Area includes all lands which drain into the University Lake reservoir. Density within this area is limited to 1 dwelling unit for every 5 acres with a required minimum lot size of 2 acres. Based on a preferred watershed protection strategy of land use controls as recommended by Camp, Dresser and McKee in the University Lake Watershed Study, only low- intensity residential uses are permitted. ^ minim m Int size of five (5) acres is FequiFed Fir on„ development. Cluster subdivisions with lot sizes of not less than one (1) acre are also allowed so long as density limits are adhered to. There is an allowance for as well as the creation of of 5 lots at a density of 1 unit per 2 acres for property legally in existence as of October 2 1989.4 Additional lots shall be allowed consistent with the 1 unit per 5 acre density as detailed herein. 2 Some of this information has been relocated to the renamed Rural Residential and Agricultural section of the Plan and is denoted in green underlined bold text on the next page. 3 The minimum lot size in the Rural Buffer is 2 acres. Density (i.e. how many residences allowed on a given property) has always been limited to 1 dwelling unit for every 5 acres of property. With this amendment Staff is moving density language to the front portion of the description so that it is understood what the limit it. We are also indicating the required minimum lot size for the area is 2 acres. 4 Staff is adding the specific date a lot has to have existed on to qualify for the 2 acre density allowance. 5 Staff has ensured the language describing the University Lake Watershed Area is consistent throughout the Plan. 17 *Rural Residential and Agricultural *Amended 4/2/90 The Rural Residential category is a low- density area consisting of single - family homes situated on large lots with a minimum lot size of two acres, except when part of a cluster subdivision and then adhering to a density limit of 1 unit for every 2 acres of property. +`"'°-Fin Qize °F ^F°° Cluster subdivisions, reducing parcels to at least 1 acre in area, are allowed to as long as density limits for the entire subdivision are maintaineds. The Rural Residential designation is identical to the Rural Buffer category contained in the current Orange County Land Use Plan. The Rural Buffer category is described in the Plan as land adjacent to an Urban or Transition area which is rural in character and which should remain rural; contain very low- density residential uses and agricultural uses; and not require urban services (water and sewer) during the Plan period. Agricultural areas existing within Transition Areas are expected to change from rural to urban uses as Chapel Hill and Carrboro continue to grow and as public water and sewer services are expanded. Agricultural areas are located principally in University Lake Watershed but are also prominent along the northern perimeter of the Planning Area boundary. As development occurs in these areas, it will be of very low - density in nature and will generally consist of farm dwelling and outbuildings in support of agricultural operations. To the north of Chapel Hill and Carrboro in the New Hope Creek drainage basin, low - density residential development has taken place along Whitfield Road, Sunrise Road and Erwin Road. Residential developments similar to Sedgefield, Stoneridge, Oak Hills, Birchwood Lake Estates and Falls of the New Hope are expected to continue, relying on wells and septic tanks for water supply and sewer disposal. To the west of Carrboro, Rural Residential development is also expected in University Lake Watershed. However, only low- density residential and agricultural uses are anticipated. FeF this r°°°°^ resi. eRti °4 Development will continue to rely on wells and septic tanks for water supply and sewage disposal. The remaining area designated for Rural Residential and Agricultural development is the Southern Triangle area in the extreme southeastern portion of the County. The area drains to the southeast toward Jordan Lake and is beyond the ridge line of the Morgan Creek basin, an area which can be served by gravity sewer lines. The Southern Triangle is also characterized by environmental constraints such as steep slopes, flood plains and soils with poor stability, so low- density development is projected. There are approximately 9,260 acres of land designated for Rural Residential and Agricultural purposes in the Land Use Plan. If developed at an average density of one dwelling unit per two acres with 15% of the area subtracted out for streets and roads, the holding capacity of the area in terms of dwellings is 3,935. If multiplied by the 1980 Census figure for population per household (2.6), the estimated population would be 10,231. 6 As previously indicated we are modifying existing language to ensure required minimum lot sizes and density limits are observed. As previously indicated staff has incorporated comments from the County Attorney's office and the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill into this section. W September 22, 1987 Amended April 2, 1990 Amended September 30, 1998 Amended February 2, 1999 Amended August 20, 2002 Amended June 24, 2003 JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 2nd day of November, 1987, by and between the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina, the TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, and the TOWN OF CARRBORO, municipal corporations duly created and existing under the laws of North Carolina. WITNESSETH: In consideration of the public benefits expected to flow from the cooperative efforts of the parties in establishing a coordinated and comprehensive system of planning within their respective areas of public concern, the parties to this Agreement hereby mutually agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE, DEFINITIONS, EFFECTIVE DATE, LINKAGE Section 1.1 Purpose of the Agreement The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a method of coordinated and comprehensive planning in the Orange County- Chapel Hill - Carrboro Joint Planning Area, as defined herein. Section 1.2 Definitions A. Joint Planning Area. The area within the Rural Buffer and Transition Areas designated on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map lying outside the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. 19 B. Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The Orange County- Chapel Hill - Carrboro Joint Planning Land Use Plan dated April, 1986, adopted by Orange County August 19, 1986 (revised October 13, 1986), amended May 4, 1987 and as it may be amended from time to time. C. Joint Planning Area Land Use Map. The Orange County- Chapel Hill - Carrboro Joint Planning Area Land Use Map, adopted August 19, 1986 (revised October 13, 1986) and as it may be amended from time to time. D. Carrboro Joint Development Review Area (CJDA). The area lying generally west of a division of the Joint Planning Area and shown as such on the copy of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map attached to this Agreement, labeled Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference. Exhibit A is appended to this Agreement solely for the purpose of indicating the CJDA and the CHJDA boundary. Exhibit A is an accurate copy of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map as of the effective date of this agreement. However, it will only be changed as the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map is amended if the Map amendments change the location of either the CJDA or the CHJDA. E. Chapel Hill Joint Development Review Area (CHJDA). The area lying generally east of a division of the Joint Planning Area and shown as such on the copy of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map attached to this Agreement, labeled Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference. Exhibit A is appended to this Agreement solely for the purpose of indicating the CJDA and the CHJDA boundary. Exhibit A is an accurate copy of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map as of the effective date of this 2 C agreement. However, it will only be changed as the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map is amended if the Map amendments change the location of either the CJDA or the CHJDA. F. Joint Courtesy Review Area. A portion of the northern Rural Buffer Area bounded on the east by I -40 and shown as such on Exhibit A. G. Rural Buffer. That portion of the Joint Planning Area designated on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map as such and designated in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as Rural Residential and Agricultural, .A - 1, Public/Private Open Space, Resource Conservation, Extractive/Disposal Use and the overlay district designated University Lake Watershed Area. This area is further defined as being a low- density area consisting of single- family homes situated on large lots having a minimum size of two (2) acres, unless the cluster subdivision option is used and density limits are maintained.? The Rural Buffer is further defined as land which, although adjacent to an Urban or Transition area, is rural in character and which will remain rural, contain low- density residential uses and agricultural uses and not require urban services (public utilities and other town services). H. Transition Area. That portion of the Joint Planning Area designated on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Map as such. This area is further defined as being in transition from rural to urban or already urban in density. Urban services (public utilities and other town services) are now provided to this area or are projected to be provided to this area. The portion of the Transition Area located in the CJDA shall be ' We are combining the existing `Agricultural' land use category with the `Rural Residential' category as part of amendments to the Plan The agreement is beiong updated accordingly. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Attachment 3 Excerpt of Draft March 27, 2014 Joint Public Hearing Minutes DRAFT ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING March 27, 2014 7:00 P.M. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for a Joint Planning Public Hearing on Thursday, March 27, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill. N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price, and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County Manager Cheryl Young, and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS /STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt, Donna Bell, Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Lee Storrow, Jim Ward, Maria Palmer, George Cianciolo, and Town Manager Roger Stancil CHAPEL HILLTOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Czajkowski CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS PRESENT /STAFF: Mayor Lydia Lavelle, Aldermen Damien Seils, Jacquelyn Gist, Randee Haven O'Donnell, and Sammy Slade CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Johnson CARRBORO STAFF ABSENT: Town Manager David Andrews Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:06 pm. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Text Amendments to the Joint Plannina Land Use Plan and Aareement — Michael Harvey said this is a public hearing to review proposed amendments to existing language to ensure agricultural activities are recognized as being allowed throughout the Rural Buffer, require a minimum 2 acre density, allow for the clustering of subdivision lots in those portions of the Rural Buffer outside of the University Lake Watershed Area, and clarify text associated with the minimum lot size within the University Lake Watershed Area. Michael Harvey presented the following PowerPoint slides: MARCH 27, 2014 AGENDA ITEM: C -1 JOINT PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY, TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, TOWN OF CARRBORO JOINT PLANNING IN ORANGE COUNTY: Began in 1984 with a call for the development of a land use plan. Participants adopted a Joint Planning Land Use Plan October 13, 1986 outlining acceptable levels of development in identified areas outside of existing extraterritorial jurisdictional (ETJ) areas. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 2 • Management of area(s) formalized on September 22, 1987 with adoption of Joint Planning Agreement by all involved parties. • Agreement established: `a method of coordinated and comprehensive planning' in identified areas. JOINT PLANNING IN ORANGE COUNTY: • Plan envisions 2 primary development areas: — Transition Areas: Administered by the Towns under their individual land use and zoning regulations in accordance with the Plan. Areas characterized as transitioning from rural to urban development. • County has review authority for projects, text, and map changes in identified Transition Areas. — Rural Buffer: Areas outside Transition Areas under County regulatory control intended to remain rural in character where annexation is prohibited and urban services (i.e. public water and sanitary sewer) are not a necessary component to support development. • Town(s) has review authority for projects, text, and map changes in Rural Buffer area. • Joint Planning Land Use Plan — Land Use Category Map ISSUES /CONCERNS: • Agricultural Areas land use category is not depicted on maps contained within the Plan. No properties appear to be designated within this category. — NOTE: Current language could be misconstrued as establishing limits with respect to allowable locations for agricultural operations, which is inconsistent with State Law. This needs to be corrected. • Rural Residential land use category does not specify a density limit (minimum lot size only). — NOTE: County staff has interpreted there to be a `defacto' density limit in the areas of the Plan not located within the University Lake Watershed Area of 1 dwelling unit for every 2 acres. • Clustering of lots is not viable within Rural Residential land use category as the Plan is currently written. — NOTE(s): There is a minimum required lot size for properties within this land use category of 2 acres. — Under County regulations, Cluster Subdivisions allows for the reduction of required lot sizes, not below 1 acre in area, so long as 33% of a parcel is preserved in open space and established density limits are observed. — Technique is utilized throughout the county, including the University Lake Watershed Area. — There is no language within the Plan indicating the clustering of subdivision lots, below the 2 acre minimum lot size, is permitted in the Rural Residential land use category. • CLUSTER SUBDIVISION ISSUE: Conventional subdivision layout: • Open space is private and part of individual lots. As a result it can be disturbed, • Subdivision spread out over entire parcel, • More impervious surface area and more land clearing /grading required (i.e. longer roads and driveways), 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 • Greater impact to existing foliage and more acres `developed' under conventional subdivision design. Cluster subdivision layout • Smaller lots with open space being separate and less likely to be disturbed, • Open space is now `shared common area' for local residents, • Subdivision is condensed requiring less land clearing and grading, • Less impervious surface area required, • Greater protection for existing foliage and less overall `development' on property. ISSUES /CONCERNS (continued): • Plan indicates minimum required lot size within the University Lake Watershed Area is 5 acres. • This is inconsistent with language within Joint Planning Agreement and County regulations indicating minimum lot size is 2 acres. — NOTE(s): The Plan indicates there is a density limit for property within this area of 1 dwelling unit for every 5 acres. — County regulations also establish a density limit for property within the University Lake Watershed Area of 1 dwelling unit for every 5 acres of property. Minimum required lot size, however, is 2 acres. As previously indicated this is consistent with language contained within the Joint Planning Agreement. PROPOSAL: County staff is proposing the following: — Combine Rural Residential and Agricultural Areas land use categories into 1 and add language indicating agricultural activities are permitted throughout area covered by the Plan. — Add language establishing density of 1 dwelling unit for every 2 acres for property within Rural Residential land use category. • NOTE(s): This is consistent with County planning staff's interpretation of the allowable density in Rural Residential land use category. Plan is being modified to include this interpretation. • This amendment will not impact established density limits within the University Lake Watershed Area, which will remain at 1 dwelling unit for every 5 acres of property. — Allow cluster subdivisions within the Rural Residential category so long as proposed density requirements (i.e. 1 unit for every 2 acres) are adhered to. Lots could be reduced to 1 acre in area while density limits are maintained. Proposal (continued) Chart Visual What proposed changes will mean in Rural Residential Land Use Category? Proposal (continued) — Change language denoting required minimum lot size for parcels in the University Lake Watershed Area from 5 acres, as detailed within the current Plan, to 2 acres consistent with existing County regulations and the Joint Planning Agreement. • NOTE: This will not impact existing density requirements of 1 dwelling unit for every 5 acres of property for parcels located within the University Lake Watershed Area. • Minimum required lot size will be 2 acres, which is what County staff has enforced since the adoption of the Agreement. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 M • Please note: Cluster Subdivisions are allowed within the University Lake Watershed Area. Lots can be reduced to 1 acre in size so long as established density requirements (i.e. 1 dwelling unit for every 5 acres of property) are observed. Proposal (continued) Chart Visual What proposed changes will mean in University Lake Watershed Area? REVIEW PROCESS: • Step One: Joint Public Hearing with all participants • Step Two: Review of proposal by all parties consistent with schedule outlined in abstract. — NOTE: each entity shall process request consistent with their applicable meeting schedules for advisory boards and elected officials. — Amendment(s) shall not become effective until approved by the parties. • Step Three: Elected bodies take action. • Step Four: If approved, staff will modify the language of the Plan. COUNTY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive the request, 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public and elected official(s) comments, 3. Refer the matter to the various advisory boards for recommendation and elected officials for final decision consistent with local meeting dates. Council Member Palmer asked how a 2 acre lot can be purchased to build a house, but the density is one unit per 5 acres. Michael Harvey referred to the example of a 100 acre parcel that can be split by a developer into a maximum of 20 lots. He said 19 of those lots can be 2 acre parcels, which is the minimum lot size, and one lot will be significantly larger. He said the minimum lot size will be maintained, but only 10 lots will get developed. He said it is up to the developer to decide how large the lot sizes will be, respecting the 2 acre minimum. Council Member Palmer said she understands how this can work if you have a developer, but she questions the situation when there is an individual owner. Michael Harvey said there are 1, 2 and 3 acre lots in this area. He said any of these that were created prior to 1990 are grandfathered in and can be developed; any new lot created after 1990 has to comply with the density standards. Commissioner Dorosin referred to the example on the slide regarding shared open space in the cluster model. He asked if this means the developer has to create a Home Owners Association (HOA) to manage and maintain that shared space. Michael Harvey said there are several ways to get this done. He said one way is to establish an HOA, and another way is to work with developers to have common areas donated and dedicated to local conservancy groups. Commissioner Dorosin questioned how density would be measured if, for example, he owned a 5 acre stand -alone lot and he wanted to sub - divide it and sell part of it. Michael Harvey said it would depend on when the lot was created. He said a subdivision would not be possible if the lot was created in 2000, as the density threshold has been reached for the area in question. Mayor Kleinschmidt arrived at 7:16 PM 24 25 1 Commissioner Dorosin questioned whether subdivided lots from a parcel created earlier 2 would still be grandfathered. 3 Michael Harvey said it would be a lot created under provisions referenced in the plan, as 4 well as in County zoning regulations. He said there is a density bonus that the plan recognizes. 5 He said this allows for up to 5 lots at a 2 acre density; but once this is exhausted, every dwelling 6 would have to meet the one dwelling unit per 5 acre density. 7 Alderman Slade said this looks like a more attractive alternative for developers, and it 8 may allow them to pursue the clustered subdivision as a way to save money. He questioned 9 whether there might be ways to incentivize developers to make any existing nature corridors or 10 County corridors publicly accessible space in exchange for the opportunity to do a cluster 11 subdivision. 12 Michael Harvey said the current County standards do not incentivize the cluster 13 subdivision process. He said this plan merely provides the developer an opportunity to reduce 14 cost and preserve open space. He said the only incentive in their regulations is to potentially 15 allow for additional density, subject to the provision of lots for affordable housing. He said the 16 County has had developers that have dedicated open space and allowed for public access 17 corridors consistent with the Greenway Master Plan, which is monitored by the Department of 18 Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation ( DEAPR). He said DEAPR is involved in the 19 review process and makes recommendations on the reservation of such areas. 20 Commissioner Price asked if staff can provide the statistics for which developers have 21 used conventional plans versus clustering or conservation over the years. 22 Michael Harvey said he can do this, but he would remind the Board that there are 4 23 types of major sub - division regulations in the County, most of which are conservation /clustering 24 style subdivisions. He said the County has only had 2 major subdivisions in the past 3 years. 25 Commissioner Price said there have been some in the past and she would like to have 26 some idea of how this has gone. She said there were efforts in the 1990's to do this type of 27 conservation, and a lot of the developers were choosing the conventional plan. 28 Michael Harvey said he can provide this information. He said there is nothing in this 29 plan other that it encourages and allows clustered subdivisions. He said it is the County's 30 subdivision regulations that spell out the subdivision processes. 31 Council Member Harrison said it was with the Dunhill subdivision off Mount Sinai Road 32 that he first learned about the lack of cluster. He asked if this neighborhood had any other 33 option besides conventional that would have given them more buffer against the Johnston Mill 34 Preserve. 35 Michael Harvey said the developer could have done a cluster sub - division, but this would 36 have limited them to 2 acre lot sizes; therefore the conventional option was chosen. He said 37 this amendment would have given the developer the option to cluster down to one acre with 33 38 percent open space. 39 Council Member Harrison questioned whether this option would have reduced the 40 number of lots. 41 Michael Harvey said this is correct, but it would have been 2 acre minimum lot sizes. 42 Council Member Harrison said it could have increased the amount of open space 43 against neighboring properties. 44 Michael Harvey said this is correct, but the County cannot require that the developer go 45 through this process, because it was a special use permit. 46 Council Member Ward asked if this proposal is going to create any situations where 47 people will lose development opportunities. 48 Michael Harvey said he does not think so, because County planning staff already 49 interprets a de -facto one dwelling unit for every 2 acre density in the rural residential area. He 50 said this will simply allow people to reduce the lot size, cluster, get more open space, and 51 reduce the cost for development. He said the County gets the benefit of more open space. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 0 Council Member Ward asked if there are there boilerplate restrictions related to the open space that is created within these subdivisions. Michael Harvey said yes. He said the Orange County subdivision regulations spell out uses allowed within open space, and this is primarily for local residents, access and some recreational activities. Council Member Ward asked if the space can be timbered. Michael Harvey said no. Council Member Ward asked about the nature of the enforcement. Michael Harvey said he tries his best. Council Member Ward noted that one of the proposals is to overlay what already is by state law agricultural uses throughout the County. Michael Harvey said staff is proposing the combination of existing agricultural land use area with the rural residential category, adding language that stipulates agricultural activities are permitted consistent with state law. Council Member Ward asked if this is going to do anything in the watershed that would be counterproductive to the interest in keeping it healthy. Michael Harvey said not in his professional opinion, because state law says the County cannot stop farms from developing in that area anyway. Council Member Ward asked if there are other ways to deal with agricultural activities to make sure these activities and farming practices are done as wisely as possible. Michael Harvey said even though farms are exempt from the majority of zoning regulations, they are still required to comply with development regulations, specifically erosion control and storm water management. He said the County planning department does enforce impervious surface limits on farms and does work in concert with the Health Department to insure adequate septic. He said there are mechanisms in place to address some potential concerns, but the tools at the County's disposal are limited because of state law. Commissioner McKee said there are regulations associated with the Jordan Lake rules that define record keeping, as well as best farming practices. Commissioner Gordon asked if there is any other way to handle this concern about farming not being allowed. She said it seems that farming cannot be restrained, and she thinks there are already farms in this watershed and other areas of the rural buffer. She questioned whether there is any other way to phrase this that would bring the definition up to date instead of combining these two uses. She said this makes it sound much like the Agricultural Residential land use category, which is much different. She asked if there is a way to add a statement about compliance with state statutes. Michael Harvey said the original proposal was to delete agricultural areas as a land use category altogether, and add the language being proposed on page 8 of the abstract. He said it was determined that the language of the agriculture areas land use category should be maintained. He said since there are no properties placed in the category to begin with it seemed reasonable to combine the two and add the language. He said the problem is that agriculture activities can occur in all land use categories, so it was more prudent to combine the two categories. Commissioner Price said she was referring to flexible development earlier. Michael Harvey said the state requires a minimum stream buffer to be preserved around streams on farm properties, and the County buffers don't apply. He said the erosion control division of Orange County handles this. Michael Harvey said he cannot enforce watershed buffers on a farm. He said he cannot enforce the 100 foot as currently detailed, since the watershed buffers are graduated from a 50 foot minimum to 250 feet, according to slope. He said the state will enforce the minimum stream buffer. 26 7 1 PUBLIC COMMENT: 2 3 Bolton Anthony said he runs a small non - profit called Second Journey, which is 4 interested in new models for community in later life. He said his organization has been 5 partnering with the Department on Aging on workshops regarding aging in the communities. He 6 said there have been discussions on shared housing and clustered neighborhoods. 7 He said his non - profit was considering an elder -co- housing community 7 or 8 years ago, 8 in which the houses are clustered and open onto a green space, and automobiles are kept at a 9 distance. He said the affordability issue in Carrboro and Chapel Hill made this project very 10 difficult, so the agricultural buffer was considered. He said there was a 15 acre tract on Old 11 Hillsborough that would have worked beautifully, and the 2 acre requirement is what frustrated 12 the ability to develop this. He urged the Board to give this a favorable hearing and not frustrate 13 future attempts. 14 Council Member Palmer referred to page 15 of the materials and noted that there are 15 approximately 9,260 acres of land designated rural /residential and agricultural. She said that 16 could mean about 10,231 people according to the plan. She said if the County continues sub - 17 dividing land into big lots, there will end up being mansions for 10,000 people. She does not 18 want to County to look like this, and she does not want this to be the future of the outskirts of the 19 Chapel Hill and Carrboro area. She would like to think of ways that this land can serve the 20 community better than just subdividing it into lots. She suggested development of a soccer 21 complex that would bring in people for recreational purposes and would bring economic 22 development to our area. She said a park and ride lot could be placed next to it so that 23 weekend users could utilize it to preserve parking in the towns. She said some of this land 24 should be preserved for trails and campgrounds. 25 Council Member Palmer asked about use for affordable housing or educational farms for 26 young people to learn about agriculture. She asked if these activities could be encouraged. 27 She said she is comfortable making these changes to bring things up to date, but she hopes 28 that the Board can come back and talk about new things that can be done with the rural buffer. 29 30 Council Member Storrow arrived at 7.42 PM 31 32 Council Member Ward asked how the land perkability affects these rules. 33 Michael Harvey said the reality is if that it is sometimes difficult to find perk sites. He 34 said if developers don't do the due diligence before going through the process then there could 35 be a lot of money spent for nothing. He said the County does require applicant to go through a 36 fairly arduous process to avoid this. 37 Council Member Ward asked if the County requires a back up perk site. 38 Michael Harvey said yes. 39 Council Member Ward asked if the County is being asked about above ground perks 40 and other alternatives with regard to land that does not perk 41 Michael Harvey said all of these are possible with state permits and state engineered 42 systems. He said a project in the rural buffer is prohibited from having water or sewer extended 43 to it. 44 Council Member Ward asked if developers can use the alternative strategies. 45 Michael Harvey said yes. 46 Commissioner Gordon said part of the reason for the rural buffer is to have a hard edge 47 around the urban areas so that the urban areas can be developed in a more effective way. She 48 said it is important to remember that whatever goes in the rural buffer needs to be able to 49 survive on groundwater systems. 50 She said there are possibilities to have soccer areas in other parts of the County, such 51 as Millhouse Road Park and the Twin Creeks Park. 27 I Chair Jacobs referred to the clustering option and thanked the staff for bringing it 2 forward. He said this is a gracious form of sprawl. He said the County loses the capacity to 3 have significant connected open space and smaller yards. He said he has been asking for this 4 for a long time. He said there has been frustration by this, and there has been hesitation to 5 open the discussion about the rural buffer, but he trusts the wisdom of his colleagues. He thinks 6 the County can do a better job, and he thinks this is a step in the right direction. He hopes this 7 goes forward. 8 Alderman Haven O'Donnell referred to the comments by Bolton Anthony. She said there 9 are people in Carrboro that have been there a long time and are discussing an elder co- housing 10 concept. She said this is not possible in Carrboro, as the lots are not large enough. She asked, 11 if this was to go forward, if there would be flexibility for these kinds of special uses. 12 Michael Harvey said his opinion is no, because there would still be a one acre minimum 13 lot size with clustering. 14 Alderman Haven O'Donnell said the County is rapidly approaching a time, with baby 15 boomers retiring, when a wise use of land makes sense. She questioned whether the County is 16 missing an opportunity to purposefully create an environment where transitional and affordable 17 housing would work. 18 Michael Harvey said it would require the efforts of the elected boards to put that type of 19 flexibility in the proposed document. 20 Chair Jacobs noted that the County's minimum lot size is .92 acres. 21 Michael Harvey said there are areas in Orange County where water and sewer are 22 available, and high density projects are encouraged and promoted. He said some of the 23 projects Alderman Haven O'Donnell is suggesting could be developed through established 24 processes; however this cannot be done in the current rural buffer. 25 Commissioner McKee said he supports the plan overall, but his only concern is the one 26 dwelling for every 5 acres in the University Lake Watershed. He said he is concerned about the 27 issue of affordability. He said with this limitation and the land prices in that area, there is no talk 28 of affordable houses — only mansions. 29 Council Member Ward asked for an explanation of why the County could not create the 30 ability to have smaller lot sizes. 31 Michael Harvey said the reason for the lot size requirements is the availability of active 32 repair septic and wells that require a 50 foot setback from structures and septic systems. He 33 said the lot sizes can vary dramatically in areas that have water and sewer. 34 Council Member Palmer said she understands the need for the septic system to support 35 the population. She questioned having the land and clustering the people. She referenced the 36 example of co- housing for the elderly. She said the homes in this setting are more like little 37 apartments that open into common areas. She asked if this would be permitted, as you still 38 have the density. 39 Michael Harvey said there are areas in the County where that concept would work, but 40 this would not work in the rural buffer unless this elected body wants to change this plan. 41 Council Member Palmer asked if this means changing the plan to allow clustering to 42 have lots of half an acre as long as the density is maintained. 43 Michael Harvey said that is one thing that would have to change, but there are many 44 more changes that would have to occur, and he is not prepared to discuss that this evening. 45 Council Member Palmer asked if it is possible in much of the rest of the County. 46 Michael Harvey said yes. He said there are existing subdivision categories that give 47 people the option to go through a process to create exactly what Council Member Palmer is 48 talking about. He said most of these are in areas where water and sewer are available. 49 Alderman Seils said he has concern about any reduction of lot sizes. He said these 50 discussions are describing an urban area, and the purpose of the rural buffer is to not be an 51 urban area. He said he is not interested in changing the rural buffer to an urban area. W 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 9 Commissioner Gordon agreed with Alderman Seils comments. She said the proposed concepts that Town Council Member Palmer mentioned require public water and sewer. She said there are good reasons why the requirements are in place for lots with septic and well. Commissioner Price said she is in favor of the proposal, but she has looked at the clustering option in the past. She said she some of these developments have community wells in other areas, and it requires creative planning and a consideration of the carrying capacity of the land. a. Orange County A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to refer this item to the: Orange County Planning Board for recommendation — May 7, 2014 Board of County Commissioners for possible action — June 3, 2014 VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Chapel Hill A motion was made by Council Member Palmer, seconded by Council Member Storrow to refer this item to the : Chapel Hill Planning Board for recommendation — May 6, 2014 Town Council for possible action — June 9, 2014 VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Carrboro A motion was made by Alderman Gist, seconded by Alderman Seils to refer this item to the: Carrboro Planning Board for recommendation — May 1, 2014 Board of Aldermen for possible action — June 3, 2014 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Attachment 4 — Excerpt of Approved 5/7/14 Approved April 2, 2014 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2014 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Herman Staats, At- Large, Cedar Grove Township; Paul Guthrie, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At -Large Bingham Township; Vacant- Eno Township Representative; Vacant - Hillsborough Township Representative; Vacant- At- Large; STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II OTHERS PRESENT: Brent Niemann, Louis lannone, Beth Trohes, Rich Kirkland AGENDA ITEM 11: JOINT PLANNING LAND USE PLAN AND AGREEMENT AMENDMENT: To receive information on a proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement in regards to density in the Rural Buffer land use classification and clarifications on other topics. The item is scheduled for public hearing at the March 27, 2014 Joint Planning Public Hearing and it is expected that the Planning Board will be asked to make a recommendation on the proposed amendment at its May 7, 2014 meeting. Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. Tony Blake: If I had a two -acre lot that was not currently subdivided, I could not build a house on it? Michael Harvey: You have a two acre lot that is the minimum lot size currently required by our zoning ordinance that would be considered a conforming lot. If you had a one -acre lot in this portion that existed prior to 1990, it would still be recognized as a legal conforming lot but you can't take a two -acre lot in this area and subdivide it because the minimum lot size and the density wouldn't allow for it. AGENDA ITEM 14: ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Tony Blake to adjourn. Seconded by Herman Staats. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Attachment 5 — Excerpt of Draft May 7, 2014 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MAY 7, 2014 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At -Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, At- Large, Cedar Grove Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrea Rohrbacher, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Paul Guthrie, At -Large Chapel Hill Township; Vacant- Eno Township Representative; Vacant- Hillsborough Township Representative; Vacant- At- Large; STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Patrick Mallett, Planner II; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Neal, Hartison Jones, Danny Jones, Pam Jones, Laney Jones AGENDA ITEM 8: JOINT PLANNING LAND USE AND AGREEMENT AMENDMENT: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on County- initiated amendments to the text of the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement in regards to the density in the Rural Buffer land use classification and clarifications on other topics. This item was heard at the March 27, 2014 Joint Planning Public Hearing and was previewed at the April 2, 2014 Planning Board meeting. Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. Pete Hallenbeck: Does anyone have any questions? MOTION by Tony Blake to recommend approval to the BOCC. Seconded by Buddy Hartley. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 31