Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-13-1986 -11 14 41k- • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING AND SPECIAL MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT TOWN HALL, CHAPEL HILL OCTOBER 13, 1986 7:30 P.M. This announcement supercedes an earlier notice regarding a meeting with the Town of Chapel Hill which had been adver- tised as involving a public hearing and a work session. The Board of Commissioners will hold a special meeting and public hearing on October 13, 1986 at the Town Hall of Chapel Hill and in conjunction with the Chapel Hill Town Council. Purpose of the meeting is to consider the following subjects: 1. Designation of remaining area . of the Joint. Planning Areas Land Use Plan. 2. Adoption of text of the Plan. 3. Hearing on the Eubanks Road Townhouse Planned Development Application. 4. Discussion of a revised proposed Joint Planning Agreement. Don Willhoit, Chair • 4 -1 APPROVED 11/3/86 1� MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE 2 TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL AND THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF 3 COMMISSIONERS, HELD IN THE CHAPEL HILL MUNICIPAL 4 BUILDING, MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1986, 7: 30 P.M. 5 6 7 Mayor Pro-tem Bill Thorpe called the meeting to order. Council 8 Members present were: 9 10 Julie Andresen 11 David Godschalk 12 Jonathan Howes 13 David Pasquini 14 Nancy Preston 15 R. D. Smith 16 Arthur Werner 17. 18 Mayor James C. Wallace arrived late. 19 20 County Commissioners present were: 21 22 Don Willhoit, Chair 23 Moses Carey, Jr. 24 Ben Lloyd 25 Shirley Marshall 26 270 Also present were Town Manager David R. Taylor, County Manager 28 Kenneth Thompson, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, County Attorney 29 Geoff Gledhill, Town Planning Director Roger Waldon and County 30 Planning Director Marvin Collins and the Orange County Planning 31 Board. 32 33 Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area 34 35 Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Director, gave a presenta- 36 tion on the different recommendations of the Orange- County and 37 Chapel Hill governing bodies for the Joint Land Use Plan and the 38 proposed resolutions to address the differences. He said the 39 proposal included removing the southeast quadrant of I-40/NC 86 40 from joint planning since the Town had annexed the area effective 41 September 30, 1986 . In the area between Eubanks Road and 1-40, 42 designate the land zoned industrial as light industry and ally 43 other land Office-Institutional, up to the stream north of Clyde 44 Road. He said the stream was a better boundary to define the 45 rural buffer than Clyde Road; the land zoned for industrial use 46 should be reflected in the plan; and the office-institutional 47 designation was consistent with the concept of mixed use. For 48 the area south of Eubanks, Mr. Collins said the proposed resolu- 49 tion was to designate the area as suburban residential, except 50 for the south side of Eubanks Road, across from land zoned 51 industrial, where the office-institutional designation should be 52 made. The proposal also suggests removal of the office- 53� institutional designation along N.C. 86. Mr. Collins stated that 54 the area along Homestead Road and N.C. 86 was proposed to be 55 56 57 58 59 60 -2- 1 urban residential on the north side of Duke Power offices with 2 the boundary following the existing property lines and stream. 3 Finally, the proposal suggests the area around Star Point be 4 designated as suburban residential in the lower Morgan Creek 5 basin and rural residential elsewhere. Mr. Collins recommended 6 the Orange County Board of Commissioners and Chapel Hill Town 7 Council adopt the proposal resolving the differences between 8 earlier recommendations. 9 10 Council Member Smith asked that Orange County take into consider- 11 ation the extension of services to the Homestead Road area prior 12 to allowing massive development in the area. 13 14 Council Member Pasquini asked why the County was recommending to 15 keep part of the area north of Eubanks Road as Industrial. Mr. 16 Collings responded that the area had been zoned industrial prior 17 to the joint planning agreement and that the industrial develop- 18 ment in the area had established a land use in the area. 19 20 Council Member Pasquini also questioned why the County was 21 recommending urban residential for the area north of Duke Power 22 offices. Mr. Collins said this was in an attempt to keep the 23 types of designations consistent with uses in the area. 24 25 Council Members Preston and Andresen asked if the zoning map 26 could be changed to a lower density for that area even if the 27 land use plan had it designated as urban residential. Mr. 28 Collins said the Town could propose zoning designations for the 29 area in a manner consistent with the land use plan and that the 30 County would in all probability adopt the zoning designation 31 recommended by the Town. 32 33 Council Member Andresen urged coordination of the zoning map with 34 the adopted Land Use Plan. 35 36 COUNCIL MEMBER GODSHCALK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HOWES 37 TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 86-10-13/R-1. 38 39 Council Member Pasquini said he could not vote for the resolution 40 as proposed because of the urban residential designation for the 41 area north of Duke Power offices. He said he felt the area 42 should be designated suburban residential. 43 44 COUNCIL MEMBER PASQUINI, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRE- 45 SEN TO AMEND THE MOTION TO DESIGNATE THE AREA NORTH OF DUKE POWER 46 OFFICES IN THE PROPOSED AREA 4 (HOMESTEAD ROAD/NC 86) AS SUBURBAN 47 RESIDENTIAL INSTEAD OF URBAN .RESIDENTIAL. THE MOTION CARRIED, 48 (6-3) , WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS GODSCHALK, HOWES, AND THORPE VOTING 49 AGAINST. 50 51 THE MOTION, AS AMENDED, PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, (9-0) . 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Ln -3- 1 COMMISSIONER MARSHALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LLOYD TO 20 ADOPT RESOLUTION 86-10-13/R-1 AS AMENDED AND ADOPTED BY THE 3 CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, (4-0) . 4 5 The resolution, as adopted, reads as follows: 6 7 RESOLUTION ADOPTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR UN-DESIGNATED AREAS 8 OF THE ORANGE COUNTY-CHAPEL HILL JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE 9 PLAN (86-10-13/R-1) . 10 11 WHEREAS on July 14, 1986, the Chapel Hill Town Council adopted a 12 recommendation endorsing a Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning 13 Area; and 14 15 WHEREAS the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted a 16 similar plan on August 5, 1986; and 17 1C WHEREAS there are five areas of difference between the two 19 recommended plans; and 20 21 WHEREAS a Land Use Plan is therefore now adopted for all areas of 22 agreement in these two resolutions; and 23 24 WHEREAS the Town Council and Board of Commissioners have agreed 25 to resolve differences in these five areas in the manner shown on 26 the attached maps and described below; 27 2811, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the (Board of Commissioners of 29 Orange County / Council of the Town of Chapel Hill) that the Land 30 Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area be completed by the addition 31 of land use designations as indicated below and on the attached 32 maps: 33 34 35 Area 1: (SE quadrant of I-40/NC8) 36 37 Resolution: Remove from Joint Plan, since Chapel Hill has 38 annexed this area (effective 9/30/86) . 39 40 41 Area 2: (Between Eubanks and 1-40) 42 43 Resolution: Keep land zoned industrial, designated light 44 industry; all other land Office-Institutional 45 (which allows residential development) , up to 46 stream north of Clyde Road. 47 48 Area 3: (South of Eubanks) 49 50 Resolution: Suburban residential everywhere except on the 51 south side of Eubanks Road, across from land zoned 52 industrial; there, office-institutional (approxi- 5310 mately 9 acres) . Office designations along NC86 54 removed. 55 56 57 • 58 59 60 -4- 1 Area 4: (Homestead-NC86) 2 3 Resolution: Suburban residential on north side of Duke Power 4 offices, with boundary following existing property 5 lines and stream. 6 7 Area 5: (Star Point Area) 8 9 Resolution: Suburban residential in Lower Morgan Creek Basin; 10 rural residential elsewhere. 11 12 This the 13th day of October, 1986. 13 14 15 Land Use Plan Narrative 16 17 COMMISSIONER MARSHALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LLOYD TO 18 ADOPT RESOLUTION 86-10-13/R-2 AS AMENDED TO REFLECT CHANGES 19 ADOPTED IN RESOLUTION 86-10-13/R-1 . THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUS- 20 LY, (4-0) . 21 22 COUNCIL MEMBER HOWES MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON TO 23 ADOPT RESOLUTION 86-10-13/R-2 AS AMENDED TO REFLECT CHANGES 24 ADOPTED IN RESOLUTION 86-10-13/R-1. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUS- 25 LY, (4-0) . 26 27 The resolution, as adopted, reads as follows : 28 29 RESOLUTION ADOPTING LAND USE PLAN NARRATIVE (86-10-13/R-2) 30 31 WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Chapel 32 Hill Town Council have adopted a Land Use Plan for the Joint 33 Planning Area; and 34 35 WHEREAS, critical information was considered in discussion and 36 adoption of this plan; and 37 38 WHEREAS, this critical background information is contained in the 39 attached document, "Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint 40 Planning Land Use Plan; " 41 42 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the (Board of Commissioners of 43 Orange County / Council of the Town of Chapel Hill) that the 44 document "Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Land 45 Use Plan - October 1986" is hereby adopted as a component of the 46 adopted land use plan, and as such becomes a part of a comprehen- 47 sive plan for Joint Planning by the Town of Chapel Hill and 48 Orange County. 49 50 This the 13th day of October, 1986. 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 4n -5- 1• Public Hearing on Planned Development Rezoning Request - Eubanks 2 Road Townhouses (PD-1-86) 3 4 Citizens wishing to speak at the hearing were sworn in by the 5 Orange County Chair of the Board of Commissioners. 6 7 Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Director, asked that 8 agenda item #3, Action Agenda Item Abstract, dated October 13, 9 1986, PD-1-86 Eubanks Road Townhouses be entered into the record 10 of the meeting. 11 12 Mr. Collins made a presentation on the project saying this 13 hearing was the third public hearing on the proposed Eubanks Road 14 Townhouse project. He said the proposal was for 137 townhouse 15 units, grouped in clusters, on a 19 .2 acre site on the north side 16 of Eubanks Road, 1700 feet west of the intersection of 17 Interstate-40 and N.C. 86. There is a requirement of a 100 ' 18 buffer surrounding the site except for the side adjacent to the 19 industrial development which requires a 50 ' buffer. Sewer 20 service, according to Mr. Collins, would be provided by construc- 21 tion and installation of a pump station to serve the entire 22 drainage basin. 23 24 Mr. Collins stated that the current recreation standards (Article 25 5. 1. 1) require a minimum recreation space ratio of . 299. There- 26 fore the applicant needed to provide a minimum recreation space �7 of 5. 85 acres for a 19 . 2 acre site. However, section IV-B-7-b-2 28W also requires that 1/35th of an acre of land be dedicated for �9 each dwelling unit proposed. This results in an acreage require- 30 ment of 4.11 acres of public recreation area. If the figure 31 derived by application of Article 5. 1 . 1 is greater, the differ- 32 ence (1.74 acres) must be developed for private recreation 33 purposes. The internal recreation space provided totaled 1.08 34 acres, therefore an additional .66 acres of private recreation 35 area and a payment-in-lieu of recreation in the amount of $12, 823 36 for the 4. 11 acres of public recreation was required to meet 37 current standards. 38 39 Planning Director Collins said the project was to be developed in 40 phases with a completed project date in December, 1991. He 41 further stated that the project would have a measurable affect on 42 the traffic intersection of Eubanks Road and N.C. 86. He com- 43 mented that at present the County had not required off-site 44 traffic improvements feeling the road improvements should be 45 addressed by NCDOT, but that this was something the County needed 46 to review in light of needed road improvements to the intersec- 47 tion of N.C. 86 and Eubanks Road and the lack of State funding. 48 49 Commissioners Marshall and Carey asked about the size of the pump 50 station and who would pay for its construction. Mr. Collins 51 replied that the size of the pump station would be agreed with OWASA and that the applicant would pay for having it built. 5 54 Council Member Pasquini questioned the basis upon which the land 55 was valued for payment-in-lieu of recreation space. He felt the 56 amount was too low. Mr. Collins answered that the 1987 tax 57 appraisal was used. 58 59 6o -6 1 Council Member Werner asked if the commercial development and 2 this proposed residential development was consistent with the 3 adopted land use plan. Messrs. Collins and Waldon said that 4 these types of development were consistent and were examples of 5 the kind of balance expected to be acheived in mixed-use designa- 6 tions. 7 8 Council Member Andresen asked if office-institutional development 9 would generate more traffic than residential development. Mr. 10 Waldon replied yes. 11 12 Council Member Preston asked about the topography of the site and 13 the amount of impervious surface. She suggested there be a 14 requirement that protective fences be put around the trees to 15 remain. 16 17 Council Member Thorpe asked for the reason why the County was 18 requesting a payment-in-lieu of recreation space. Mr. Collins 19 responded that the County had established specific areas where 20 they wished to develop recreational and greenway systems. The 21 proposal' s site was not adjacent to any of the designated recrea- 22 tional areas therefore the County had decided to ask for a 23 payment-in-lieu of recreation space. 24 25 Council Member Smith questioned the statement of justification 26 regarding the traffic impact of the opening of 1-40 to traffic on 27 N.C. 86. 28 29 Dana Staats, a landscape architect representing the applicant, 30 said they had worked with the Orange County and Chapel Hill 31 Planning Departments in an effort to make the proposal acceptable 32 to both entities and he thanked the Planning staffs for their 33 assistance. He gave a brief summary of the proposal and said he 34 would answer questions from the Board and Council. 35 36 Commissioner Carey asked if the change in the expected completion 37 date from December 1990 to December, 1991 would affect the number 38 of units to be built. Mr. Staats said no, that it would just 39 affect to timing of the units. 40 41 Council Member Pasquini asked if the applicant were required to 42 provide on-site public recreation space how that would be accom- 43 plished. Mr. Staats replied that he did not know, but that it 44 would require a major redesign of the site as that requirement 45 would mean approximately 60% of the site used for recreation 46 purposes. 47 48 Ms. Gerrie Nunn, a resident of Eubanks Road, spoke in support of 49 the the proposal. 50 51 Ms. Eliza Liptzin, a resident of Eubanks Road, spoke in support 52 of the proposal. 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 _7- 1P John Carne, a resident, spoke against the proposal due to the 2 expected increase in traffic on Eubanks Road and Northwoods 3 Drive. He said he would prefer to see approval of the project 4 include conditions for improvements to the intersection of 5 Eubanks Road and N.C. 86. 6 7 Mr. Harry Poole, a resident, spoke against the proposal because 8 of the expected increase of traffic on Northwoods Drive. He 9 stated that the current condition of the intersection of Eubanks 10 Road and N.C. 86 already had people cutting through Northwoods 11 subdivision in order to avoid the intersection. He also com- 12 mented that he would prefer to see more green space in the 13 proposal. 14 15 Council Member Andresen asked if the County did not require 16 off-site improvements, how would the improvements get done and 17 who would paid for them. 18 19 Chair Willhoit responded that the County did not have a policy 20 not to require off-site improvements, they had just not required 21 such improvements to date. He said this was something the County 22 needed to review and examine, especially when the applicant 23 pointed out in his application that the intersection of Eubanks 24 and N.C. 86 was already at or over capacity. 25 26 COUNCIL MEMBER HOWES MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON TO 27. REFER TO THE MANAGER AND PLANNING STAFF. THE MOTION PASSED 28 UNANIMOUSLY, (9-0) . 29 30 COMMISSIONER CAREY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARSHALL TO 31 REFER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED TO THE COUNTY MANAGER, PLANNING 32 STAFF, AND PLANNING BOARD AND TO ADJOURN THE HEARING TO DECEMBER 33 1, 1986 WHEN IT WOULD RECEIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING 34 BOARD AND CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUS- 35 LY, (4-0) . 36 37 Joint Planning Agreement 38 39 Ken Thompson, Orange County Manager, gave a presentation on the 40 proposed amendments to the joint planning agreement between 41 Chapel Hill and Orange County. He said, in essence the proposal 42 would grant Chapel Hill the authority over development applica- 43 tions in the transition areas. Orange County would present a 44 recommendation on the applications but the approval would come 45 from the Town. He said the proposal would give the County the 46 approval authority for the joint land use plan and amendments 47 thereto, as well as approval for development applications in the 48 rural buffer. Mr. Thompson stated the proposal called for Chapel 49 Hill to recommend zoning classifications for the transition area 50 and that the County would grant approval of the zoning based on 51 Chapel Hill' s recommendation. Chapel Hill would also make 52 recommendations to Orange County for development applications in 53, the rural buffer areas. He said the agreement would be a two 54 party agreement between Chapel Hill and Orange County and would 55 supercede the existing joint planning agreement upon its adop-- 56 tion. 57 58 59 60 1 -g- 1 Council Member Howes expressed concern that the proposal elimi- 2 nated Chapel Hill from the development of a land use plan for the 3 joint planning area, feeling this elimination in effect did away 4 with the theory of joint planning. He said he understood the 5 reasoning for having Chapel Hill have sole approval/denial of 6 development applications in the transition areas as a means of 7 eliminating duplication of efforts both for developers and the 8 staff, however, he felt the Town should have approval authority 9 of the joint land use plan. 10 11 Council Member Andresen expressed concern about the County having 12 sole zoning authority of the transition area. County Manager 13 Thompson responded that the County would probably adopt the 14 recommendations made by the Chapel Hill Town Council for the 15 zoning of the transition area as long as the proposed zoning 16 designations were consistent with the adopted land use plan. 17 18 Council Member Godschalk agreed with Council Member Howes that 19 the Town should retain its approval authority of the joint land 20 use plan even though the bulk of this plan had already been 21 decided. 22 23 Commissioner Marshall agreed that the bulk of the work on the 24 joint land use plan had been accomplished and that any amendments 25 should be jointly agreed upon, but that the job of initiating and 26 carrying out the amendments should be handled through the County. 27 28 Council Member Pasquini commented that he felt the Town should 29 also have say in the planning of the rural buffer. He questioned 30 just how much streamlining would occur in the system if a devel- 31 opment proposal still had to go to the county for a recommenda- 32 tion prior to the Town granting approval. Mr. Thompson replied 33 that the county would use the Council' s time table for any 34 proposal as well as the Town' s ordinances, and that this would 35 reduce the amount of time involved. 36 37 Council Members Godschalk and Werner expressed concern that a 38 rezoning request could come before the County for approval 39 without the Town having any input or approval authority. 40 41 Commissioner Marshall commented that the County should not 42 initiate any rezoning request in the transition area without the 43 Town's knowledge and approval. 44 45 Council Member Smith said the joint agreement should include 46 language to that affect. 47 48 Council Member Howes asked about the legality of having the Town 49 grant approval/denial of development requests within the transi- 50 tion area. County Attorney Gledhill replied that in the agree- 51 ment, Orange County would delegate the approval authority to the 52 Chapel Hill Town Council. He said appeals would follow the 53 normal channels in that the appeal would be made to the Superior 54 Court. 55 56 57 58 59 An -9- 1 Manager Taylor stated that as he understood from the discussion, the staff should prepare a proposal that would give joint 3 approval of the joint land use plan and any amendments; joint 4 approval of zoning designations for the transition area; and 5 recommendatory authority for developments in the transition area 6 to Orange County and in the rural buffer to Chapel Hill. 7 8 Chair Willhoit suggested that two representatives from the County 9 Commissioners and Town Council meet with the Managers to work out 10 the wording. The general consensus of both Boards was for this 11 to be done. 12 13 A MOTION WAS DULY MADE AND SECONDED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. THE 14 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, (13-0) . 15 16 The meeting adjourned at 10: 00 p.m. 17. 18 19 20 111 MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL AND THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, HELD IN THE CHAPEL HILL MUNICIPAL BUILDING, MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1986, 7: 30 P.M. Mayor Pro-tem Bill Thorpe called the meeting or order. Council Members present were: Julie Andresen David Godschalk Jonathan Howes David Pasquini Nancy Preston R.D. Smith Arthur Werner Mayor James C. Wallace arrived late. County Commissioners present were: Don Willhoit, Chair Moses Carey, Jr. Ben Lloyd Shirley Marshall Also present were Town Manager David R. Taylor, County Manager Kenneth Thompson, Town Attourney Ralph Karpinos, County Attorney Geoff Gledhill, Town Planning Director Roger Waldon and County Planning Director Marvin Collins and the Orange County Planning Board. Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Director, gave a presentation on the different recommendations of the Orange County and Chapel Hill governing bodies for the Joint Land Use Plan and the proposed resolutions to address the differences. He said the proposal included removing the southeast quadrant of I-40/NC 86 from joint planning since the Town had annexed the area effective September 30, 1986. In the area between Eubanks Road and 1-40, designate the land zoned industrial as _light industry and all other land Office-Institutional, up to the stream north of Clyde Road. He said the stream was a better boundary to define the rural buffer than Clyde Road; the land zoned for industrial use should be reflected in the plan; and the office-institutional designation was consistent with the concept of mixed use. For the area south of Eubanks, Mr. Collins said the proposed resolution was to designate the area as suburban residential, except for the south side of Eubanks Road, across from land zoned industrial, where the office- institutional designation should be made. The proposal also suggests removal of the office-institutional designation along N.C. 86. Mr. Collins stated that the area along Homestead Road and N.C. 86 was proposed to be urban residential on the north side of Duke Power offices with the boundary following the existing property lines and stream. Finally, the proposal suggests the area around Star Point be designated as suburban residential in the lower Morgan Creek basin and rural residential elsewhere. Mr. Collins recommended the Orange County Board of Commissioners and Chapel Hill Town Council adopt the proposal resolving the differences between earlier recommendations. Council Member Smith asked that Orange County take into consideration the extension of services to the Homestead Road area prior to allowing massive development in the area. Council Member Pasquini asked why the County was recommending to keep part of the area north of Eubanks Road as Industrial. Mr. Collins responded that the area had been zoned industrial prior to the joint planning agreement and that the industrial development in the area had established a land use in the area. Council Member Pasquini also questioned why the County was recommending urban residential for the area north of Duke Power offices. Mr. Collins said this was in an attempt to keep the types of designations consistent with uses in the area. Council Members Preston and Andresen asked if the zoning map could be changed to a lower density for that area even if the land use plan had it designated as urban residential. Mr. Collins said the Town could propose zoning designations for the area in a manner consistent with the land use plan and that the County would in all probability adopt the zoning designation recommended by the Town. Council Member Andresen urged coordination of the zoning map with the adopted Land Use Plan. COUNCIL MEMBER GODSCHALK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HOWES TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 86-10-13/R-1. Council Member Pasquini said he could not vote for the resolution as proposed because of the urban residential designation for the area north of Duke Power offices. He said he felt the area should be designated suburban residential. COUNCIL MEMBER PASQUINI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ANDRESEN TO AMEND THE MOTION TO DESIGNATE THE AREA NORTH OF DUKE POWER OFFICES IN THE PROPOSED AREA 4 (HOMESTEAD ROAD/NC 86) AS SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL INSTEAD OF URBAN RESIDENTIAL. THE MOTION CARRIED, (6-3) , WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS GODSCHALK, HOWES, AND THORPE VOTING AGAINST. THE MOTION, AS AMENDED, PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, (9-0) . COMMISSIONER MARSHALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LLOYD TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 86-10-13/R-1 AS AMENDED AND ADOPTED BY THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, (4- 0) . The resolution, as adopted, reads as follows: RESOLUTION ADOPTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR UN-DESIGNATED AREAS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY-CHAPEL HILL JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN (86-10-13/R-1) . WHEREAS on July 14, 1986, the Chapel Hill Town Council adopted a recommendation endorsing a Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area; and •ui • WHEREAS the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted a similar plan on August 5, 1986; and WHEREAS a Land Use Plan is therefore now adopted for all areas of agreement in these two resolutions; and WHEREAS the Town Council and Board of Commissioners have agreed to resolve differences in these five areas in the manner shown on the attached maps and described below; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the (Board of Commissioners of Orange County/Council of the Town of Chapel Hill) that the Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area be completed by the addition of land use designations as indicated below and on the attached maps: Area 1: (SE quadrant of I--40/NC8) Resolution: Remove from Joint Plan, since Chapel Hill has annexed this area (effective 9/30/86) . Area 2: (Between Eubanks and 1-40) Resolution: Keep land zoned industrial, designated light industry; all other land Office-Institutional (which allows residential development) , up to stream north of Clyde Road. Area 3 : (South of Eubanks) Resolution: Suburban residential everywhere except on the south side of Eubanks Road, across from land zoned industrial; there, office-institutional (approximately 9 acres) . Office designations along NC 86 removed. Area 4: (Homestead - NC86) Resolution: Suburban residential on north side of Duke Power offices, with boundary following existing property lines and stream. Area 5: (Star Point Area) Resolution: Suburban residential in Lower Morgan Creek Basin; rural residential elsewhere. This the 13th day of October 1986. Land Use Plan narrative COMMISSIONER MARSHALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LLOYD TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 86-10-13/R-2 AS AMENDED TO REFLECT CHANGES ADOPTED IN RESOLUTION 86-10-13/R-1. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, (4-0) . COUNCIL MEMBER HOWES MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 86-10-13/R-2 AS AMENDED TO REFLECT CHANGES ADOPTED IN RESOLUTION 86-10-13/R-1. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, (4-0) . The resolution, as adopted, reads as follows: aitESOLUTION ADOPTING LAND USE PLAN NARRATIVE (86-10-13/R-2) WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Chapel Hill Town Council have adopted a Land Use Plan for the Joint Planning Area; and WHEREAS, critical information was considered in discussion and adoption of this plan; and WHEREAS, this critical background information is contained in the attached document, "Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Land Use Plan;" NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the (Board of Commissioners of Orange County/Council of the Town of Chapel Hill) that the document "Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Land Use Plan - October 1986" is hereby adopted as a component of the adopted land use plan, and as such becomes a part of a comprehensive plan for Joint Planning by the Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County. This the 13th day of October, 1986. Public Hearing on Planned Development Rezoning Request -Eubanks Road Townhouses (PD-1-86) Citizens wishing to speak at the hearing were sworn in by the Orange County Chair of the Board of Commissioners. Marvin Collins, Orange County Planning Director, asked that agenda item #3, Action Agenda Item Abstract, dated October 13, 1986, PD-1-86 Eubanks Road Townhouses be entered into the record of the meeting. Mr. Collins made a presentation on the project saying this hearing was the third public hearing on the proposed Eubanks Road Townhouse project. He said the proposal was for 137 townhouse units, grouped in clusters, on a 19. 2 acre site on the north side of Eubanks Road, 1700 feet west of the intersection of Interstate-40 and N.C. 86. There is a requirement of a 100 ' buffer surrounding the site except for the side adjacent to the industrial development which requires a 50 ' buffer. Sewer service, according to Mr. Collins, would be provided by construction and installation of a pump station to serve the entire drainage basin. .1: Mr. collins stated that the current recreation standards (Article 5.1. 1) require a minimum recreation space ratio of .299. Therefore the applicant needed to provide a minimum recreation space of 5.85 acres for a 19.2 acre site. However, section IV-B-7-b-2 also requires that 1/35th of an acre of land be dedicated for each dwelling unit proposed. This results in acreage requirement of 4. 11 acres of public recreation area. If the figure derived by application of Article 5.1. 1 is greater, the difference (1.74 acres) must be developed for private recreation area and a payment-in-lieu of recreation in the amount of $12,823 for a 4. 11 acres of public recreation was required to meet current standards. Planning Director Collins said the project was to be developed in phases with a completed project date in December, 1991. He further stated that the project would have a measurable affect on the traffic intersection of Eubanks Road and N.C. 86. He commented that at present the County had not required off-site traffic improvements feeling the road improvements should be addressed by NCDOT, but that this was something the County needed to review in light of needed road improvements to the intersection of N.C. 86 and Eubanks Road and the lack of State funding. Commissioners Marshall and Carey asked about the size of the pump station and who would pay for its construction. Mr. Collins replied that the size of the pump station would be agreed with OWASA and that the applicant would pay for having it built. Council Member Pasquini questioned the basis upon which the land was valued for payment-in-lieu of recreation space. He felt the amount was too low. Mr. Collins answered that the 1987 tax appraisal was used. Council Member Werner asked if the commercial development and this proposed residential development was consistent with the adopted land use plan. Messrs. Collins and Waldon said that these types of development were consistent and were examples of the kind of balance expected to be achieved in mixed-use designations. Council Member Andresen asked if office-institutional development would generate more traffic than residential development. Mr. Waldon replied yes. Council Member Preston asked about the topography of the site and the amount of impervious surface. She suggested there be a requirement that protective fences be put around the trees to remain. council Member Thorpe asked for the reason why the County was requesting a payment-in-lieu of recreation space. Mr. Collins responded that the County had established specific areas where they wished to develop recreational and greenway systems. The proposal 's site was not adjacent to any of the designated recreational areas therefore the County had decided to ask for payment-in-lieu of recreation space. Council Member Smith questioned the statement of justification regarding the traffic impact of the opening of I-40 to traffic on N.C. 86. Dana Staats, a landscape architect representing the applicant, said they had worked with the Orange County and Chapel Hill Planning Departments in an effort to make the proposal acceptable to both entities and he thanked the Planning staffs for their assistance. He gave a brief summary of the proposal and said he would answer questions from the Board and Council. Commissioner Carey asked if the change in the expected completion date from December 1990 to December, 1991 would affect the number of units to be built. Mr. Staats said no, that it would just affect to timing of the units. Council Member Pasquini asked if the applicant were required to provide on-site public recreation space how that would be accomplished. Mr. Staats replied that he did not know, but that it would require a major redesign of the site as that requirement would mean approximately 60% of the site used for recreation purposes. Ms. Gerrie Nunn, a resident of Eubanks Road, spoke in support of the proposal. Ms. Eliza Liptzin, a resident of Eubanks Road, spoke in support of the proposal. John Carne, a resident, spoke against the proposal due to the expected increase in traffic on Eubanks Road and Northwoods Drive. He said he would prefer to see approval of the project include conditions for improvements to the intersection of Eubanks Road and N.C. 86. Mr. Harry Poole, a resident, spoke against the proposal because of the expected increase of traffic on Northwoods Drive. He stated that the current condition of the intersection of Eubanks Road and N.C. 86 already had people cutting through Northwoods subdivision in order to avoid the intersection. He also commented that he would prefer to see more green space in the proposal. Council Member Andresen asked if the County did not require off-site improvements, how would the improvements get done and who would pay for them. chair Willhoit responded that the County did not have a policy hot to require off-site improvements, they had just not required such improvements to date. He said this was something the County needed to review and examine, especially when the applicant pointed out in his application that the intersection Alf Eubanks and N.C. 86 was already at or over capacity. COUNCIL MEMBER HOWES MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PRESTON TO REFER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED TO THE COUNTY MANAGER, PLANNING STAFF, AND PLANNING BOARD AND TO ADJOURN THE HEARING TO DECEMBER 1, 1986 WHEN IT WOULD RECEIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD AND CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, (4-0) . Joint Planning Agreement Ken Thompson, Orange County Manager, gave a presentation on the proposed amendments to the joint planning agreement between Chapel Hill and Orange County. He said, in essence the proposal would grant Chapel Hill the authority over development applications in the transition areas. Orange County would present a recommendation on the applications but the approval would come from the Town. He said the proposal would give the County the approval authority for the joint land use plan and amendments thereto, as well as approval for development applications in the rural buffer. Mr. Thompson stated the proposal called for Chapel Hill to recommend zoning classifications for the transition area and that the County would grant approval of the zoning based on Chapel Hill's recommendations to Orange County for development applications in the rural buffer areas. He said the agreement would be a two party agreement between Chapel Hill would also make recommendations to Orange County for development applications in the rural buffer areas. He said the agreement would be a two party agreement between Chapel Hill and Orange County and would supercede the existing joint planning agreement upon its adoption. Council Member Howes expressed concern that the proposal eliminated Chapel Hill from the development of a land use plan for the joint planning area, feeling this elimination in effect did away with the theory of joint planning. He said he understood the reasoning for having Chapel Hill have sole approval/denial of development applications in the transition areas as a means of eliminating duplication of efforts both for developers and the staff, however, he felt the Town should have approval authority of the joint land use plan. Council Member Andresen expressed concern about the County having sole zoning authority of the transition area. County Manager Thompson responded that the County would probably adopt the recommendations made by the Chapel Hill Town Council for the zoning of the transition area as long as the proposed zoning designations were consistent with the adopted land use plan. Council Member Godschalk agreed with Council Member Howes that the Town should retain its approval authority of the joint land use plan even though the bulk of this plan had already been decided. Commissioner Marshall commented that the County should not initiate any rezoning request in the transition area without the Town's knowledge and approval. Council Member Smith said the joint agreement should include language to that affect. Council Member Howes asked about the legality of having the Town grant approval/denial of development requests within the transition area. County Attorney Gledhill replied that in agreement, Orange county would delegate the approval authority to the Chapel Hill Town Council. He said appeals would follow the normal channels in that the appeal would be made to the Superior Court. Manager Taylor stated that as he understood from the discussion the staff should prepare a proposal that would give joint approval of the joint land use plan and any amendments; joint approval of zoning designations for the transition area; and recommendatory authority for developments in the transition area to Orange County and in the rural buffer to Chapel Hill. Chair Willhoit suggested that two representatives from the County Commissioners and Town Council meet with the Managers to work out the wording. The general consensus of both Boards was for this to be done. A MOTION WAS DULY MADE AND SECONDED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, (13-0) . The meeting adjourned at 10: 00 p.m. (Minutes transcribed by Nancy Wells, Clerk, Town of Chapel Hill )