HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-16-1993 - III-F 1
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 16, 1993
Agenda Abstract
Item # .21r-F
SUBJECT: CP-1-92 UNIVERSITY STATION
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes_X_No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
December 1 and 14, 1992 Planning Director X2592
Public Hearing Minutes
January 25, 1993 Planning PHONE NUMBERS:
Board Minutes Hillsborough 732-8181
Mebane 227-2031
SEE AUGUST 24, 1992 AND Durham 688-7331
DECEMBER 1, 1992 PUBLIC Chapel Hill 967-9251
AGENDA PACKETS FOR BACK-
GROUND MATERIAL. SEE ALSO
JANUARY 25, 1993 PLANNING
BOARD AGENDA.
PURPOSE: To consider a proposed amendment to the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
BACKGROUND: The property in question is located south of the
Southern Railroad on both sides of Old N.C. 10 (SR
1710) . The property contains approximately 629 acres
and is specifically described as lots 20 and 20A of
Tax Map 27 in Eno Township, lots 47 and 48 of Tax
Map 26 in Eno Township, lots 7, 12 , 13 , 13A, 13B, and
13C of Tax Map 3 in Chapel Hill Township, and lots
51, 52, 52A, and 52E of Tax Map 4 in Chapel Hill
Township. The property fronts on New Hope Church
Road (SR 1723) for a distance of 2 , 900 feet, on Old
N.C. 10 for a distance of 4 ,920 feet, and on
University Station Road (SR 1712) for a distance of
865 feet. The current zoning designation of the
property is R-1 Residential.
The property is being considered for re-designation
in the Eno and Chapel Hill Township components of
the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element from Rural
Residential, Agricultural Use, and Resource
Conservation to Ten-Year Transition. Areas
designated as Ten-Year Transition are those
projected for change from rural to urban, suitable
for urban-type densities, and provided with public
utilities and services. The purpose of the request
2
is to allow the applicant to make application for
approval of a planned residential community.
Another option under consideration is the
application of a proposed new land use plan category
- Open Space Development Area. A public hearing was
held on the new plan category on November 23 , 1992 .
If approved, the new category would be added to the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Such an area is defined as land adjacent to an Urban
or Transition area which is generally non-urban in
character and which will generally remain as such.
Land in this category will generally contain low-
density residential uses which may be served by
public water and sewer, provided such facilities are
solely for the purpose of serving large-scale
developments, or a combination of small
developments, which set aside and preserve
significant amounts of open space pursuant to
adopted County open space preservation strategies.
The applied zoning districts would include AR
(Agricultural-Residential) , R-1 (Low-Density
Residential) , and R-2 (Low-Moderate Density
Residential) .
The initial request for Transition Area designation
was presented at public hearing on August 24, 1992 .
When the BOCC considered University Station on
October 5, no decision was made. Instead, the BOCC
continued the hearing until November 23 and asked
that the project be considered along with the rural
character strategies. The BOCC also asked that
specific impacts of the development be addressed at
the hearing; i.e. , schools, traffic, environmental,
etc.
At the request of the Planning Board and concerned
citizens, the Board of Commissioners decided to
conduct separate hearings on the two issues. Thus,
items presented for consideration at the
November 23 public hearing related to the University
Station project included:
1. Presentation of Rural Character
Strategies; and
2 . Comprehensive Plan amendment to create
"Open Space Development Area" land use
plan category which basically follows
intent of Open Space Area surrounding
Hillsborough Transition Areas.
University Station was subsequently approved for
consideration at a special public hearing on
3
December 1, 1992. Because of the length of the
presentations and the number of persons who wished
to speak on the request, the public hearing was
continued to December 14, 1992 . In addition, a
dispute resolution process was established,
involving the neighboring owners and the developers.
The first meeting of the Dispute Resolution Group
was held on November 18, 1992 .
The University Station applicants presented a
revised plan at the public hearings which complied
with the proposed Planned Community Development
Option being proposed as part of the Rural Character
Strategies. That strategy would have required that
at least 60 percent of the land area be set aside
for open space purposes and that the overall project
density not exceed 1.74 dwelling units per acre.
Based on the land area of the University Station
project (629 acres) , 1, 094 dwelling units were
proposed and a minimum of 377 acres of open space
was to be provided.
During the period following the public hearings,
several meetings of the Dispute Resolution Group
were held. At a meeting on January 12 , 1993, one of
the applicants indicated that the proposal was being
withdrawn. On January 22, 1993 , a formal letter
withdrawing the proposal was submitted. Pursuant to
Article 20.9 of the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant
may not apply for the same or a similar amendment;
e.g. , Comprehensive Plan amendment, until the
expiration of a one year period from the date of
withdrawal.
At the time the original application was submitted,
only seven property owners were identified. The
total acreage owned by those individuals was 576 . 97
acres. The concept plan submitted for the project
showed a total of 14 parcels totaling 631. 04
acres.
Staff does not question the withdrawal of the
original applicants. However, some question exists
as to whether other property owners wish to have the
proposal withdrawn. With the elimination of
approximately 577 acres from consideration, the
remaining 54 acres constitutes neither a primary or
secondary plan amendment. A principal amendment
would involve a new freestanding plan area or
addition to an existing area that exceeded 100
acres. A secondary amendment would involve the
expansion of a designated plan area where the
additional area is contiguous to the existing plan
area and does not increase its land area by more
than 100 acres.
4
•
To insure that all portions of the University
Station property are no longer considered, the
Planning Board, at its January 25, 1993 meeting,
recommended that the remaining 54 acres remain as is
and not be changed to either Transition or Open
Space Development Area.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends denial of the request
for the remaining 54 acres of the University
Station proposal per the Planning Board's
recommendation.
1:2wctcnApe_a t i 2-24 ct.,_
i c a, 5
g x t
V ,LaI .A3
y Vl EST r --t Properties,inc.
•
4,•-4,.„Land, Commercial and Investment Real Estate
4601 Six Forks Road • Suite 502 • Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 . (919) 787-7400
January 22 , 1993
Mr. John M. Link, Jr.
County Manager
Orange County
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Mr. Link:
As a representative of the Amerivest/Kenan/Cogswell Group I would
like to take this opportunity to request in writing that our
request known as "CP-1-92 UNIVERSITY STATION" be withdrawn from
consideration.
We regret that we must take this action, however, our attorney
has just notified us this past week that the group known as
"CITIZENS AGAINST UNIVERSITY STATION" are planning to take this
change, should it happen, to court.
Sincerely,
(OP / - N .-ci is T. Mullis
6
1
D R A F T MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 1, 1992
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning
Board held a joint meeting on December 1, 1992 at 7 : 30 p.m. in Superior
Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. , and Commissioners
Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis, Verla C. Insko and Don Willhoit.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Carol Cantrell and members James
Grey, Elizabeth Eidenier, D. Kent Scot, Clinton E. Burklin, and Joan Jobsis.
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill
STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr. , Clerk to the Board
Beverly A. Blythe, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Recreation and Parks
Director MaryAnne Moore and Planner Mary Willis.
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRMAN
Chair Moses Carey, Jr. welcomed everyone to the meeting. He stated that
letters and statements have been received and will be noted in the minutes for
this meeting.
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Moses Carey, Jr. read the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
A. CP-1-92 UNIVERSITY STATION
Planning Director Marvin Collins presented slides to explain the
request. He emphasized that this public hearing involves an amendment to the
County' s Comprehensive Plan. It is not a rezoning and is not involved in
considering the issuance of a Special Use Permit. It is not involved with any
specific site plan or any subdivision plat, but is an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan. If that amendment is approved, there would be another
public hearing process that the applicants would have to go through. That
could not occur before the February quarterly public hearing. If this
amendment is approved, then they would be involved in considering a specific
site plan for the project, the issuance of a Special Use Permit, and also
rezoning of the property. He stated that normally they do not have this many
public hearings involving a project which is simply an amendment to the Land
Use Plan. He noted that a dispute resolution group has been set up to try to
work out some agreement in terms of the project. The plan shown tonight is
still in the conceptual stage. There is room for change. It is not as
detailed as the plan that will be considered at the February public hearing.
The slides show the location of the property at the intersection of
New Hope Church Road and Old NC 10. It is currently designated in the plan
as Rural Residential which allows one unit per acre. The slides show the open
space development area around the Town of Hillsborough. He noted that in that
area public water and sewer extensions would be permitted for any development
7
•
2
that preserves a significant amount of open space. He briefly told of the
historical background of this area beginning in 1938 . In 1966 a change begin
to occur and although the north side of NC 10 is in farmland, the south side
had changed completely and become forested. In 1985, most of the property was
wooded. He presented several slides which showed the area as it exists today.
One thing that characterizes the property is wetlands. Mr. Collins showed
several slides on the condition of the land. He emphasized that the plan
tonight is the revised plan. The plan presented in August had 1, 326 units
located in a village to the south of the power line which runs through the
middle of the property and scattered in cluster subdivisions to the south and
northwest of the village and across NC 10 . In the August plan there was 54
to 55% open space being proposed. The revised plan has reduced the number of
units from 1, 326 to 1, 094 . There are more wetland areas preserved and there
is more open space and buffers provided in terms of the cluster subdivisions.
The County park site 'has been expanded from 25 acres to 30 acres. The area
on the north side of NC 10 has been left open from the eastern extent of the
'property to the western end. The village would have a day care center and a
transit stop. In the center around a commons area, there would be a cluster
of commercial and institutional uses as well as a community center and a
church site. The golf course would be located on the north side of the
village. There are many trees and vegetation that would need to be protected.
He told about neotraditional villages. It does not mean that it is a Duarry
village. Andres Duarry is the godfather of neotraditionalism because of his
work around the United States. Mr. Collins showed some slides of Pinehurst
which demonstrated a similar pattern to what the developer for University
Station would like to do. He then showed some slides of what the applicant
has in mind for the concept of University Station with a village commons
surrounding by small scale commercial and institutional uses. It takes a very
detailed plan to carry out the village character. One of the issues is the
impact on public schools. The elementary school membership would grow 81
children over capacity or the equivalent of four classrooms. The impact on
the middle school membership would be 40 over capacity in the first year only
and the impact on the high school capacity would be 14 in the last year of
project development. Another issue would be traffic impacts. The capacity
of New Hope Church Road is 7760 vehicles a day which is based on a speed limit
of 35 miles per hour and a pavement width of 20 feet. The projected growth
on New Hope Church Road is 3% a year. The University Station project would
generate 6, 194 cars a day which falls below the capacity of the road. He
showed the same information for NC 10 which indicates that the long range
impact falls within the capacity of the road. University Station Road would
have lower impacts because of the traffic assigned to that road. He talked
about water and sewer service to the area. The major water distribution lines
would be 12-inch lines and would extend from a 16-inch line on US 70 and go
down University Station Road, turn and go down Old NC 10 and then down New
Hope Church Road to connect to the 12-inch line in front of New Hope
Elementary School. In terms of the impact on the Hillsborough Water Treatment
Plant, there will still be at the end of ten years one million gallons per day
capacity. He showed how the lines would serve the development. The sewage
treatment plant has a capacity of three million gallons per day. At the
buildout of University Station, there will still be one million gallons left.
Distribution lines and collection laterals associated with the sewer system
will be installed by the developer. The developer would also be responsible
8
- 3
for paying capital facility fees and a perpetual maintenance fee associated
with the lift station and paying the entire cost of putting in the major
distribution lines. That total cost is 2 . 5 million. The fiscal impact of
University Station shows a surplus resulting from University Station. In
terms of the fiscal impact on the school board, there is zero impact.
Mr. Collins stated that there are many opportunities of-
accomplishing some of the strategies that are set forth in the rural character
strategies. The Planning Staff has made several recommendations. One
recommendation is that, in terms of the corridor along Stoney Creek, there be
a 600 foot corridor that extends through the site and designated as a wildlife
corridor. In terms of the golf course, they recommend that it be removed from
the wetlands and the wildlife corridor and remain less than 50% of the open
space on the property. In terms of the impacts, the developer may want to
consider a self-imposed impact fee to collect $330, 000 which would be used for
acquisition of a future school site. They would also like to see the older
structures incorporated into the design of the plan as much as possible. They
would like to see the beech bluffs incorporated into the open space area.
Street improvements include widening all the roads abutting the property to
24 feet, and installation of deceleration lanes and center turn lanes at any
entrances into the property. They would like to see the bridge over Stoney
Creek replaced so that it could provide for pedestrian as well as wildlife
movement along the corridor. Both NC 10 and New Hope Church Road have been
identified as potential bike routes. If the road is widened, bike lanes could
be installed. In terms of the wildlife corridor, they would like to see that
given over to some organization such as Triangle Land Conservancy or some
other private land trust. In conclusion, there recommendation is that the '
Land Use Plan amendment be approved. There are two options. The first is to
designate the property as Transition which will allow the extension of public
water and sewer and allow the development of the site. The second option is :
that the Open Space Development Area category be put into the Land Use Plan.
This would insure that this project would stay in the county's jurisdiction
and that the project be carried out in accordance with adopted open space
strategies.
COMMENTS FROM BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Commissioner Gordon asked for a further explanation of the fiscal
impact. Mr. Collins noted that they used the number of school age children
per household as developed as a part of the school impact fee study which was
lower than the number of children per household that was reported in the 1980
Census .
Commissioner Willhoit made reference to the alignment of New Hope
Church Road with NC 10 and asked if that realignment had any affect on the
carrying capacity of the road. Mr. Collins stated that widening the roads
would increase their carrying capacity. If NCDOT were requested, as part of
the Transportation Improvement Program or the secondary road improvement
program, to widen New Hope Church Road and NC 10 to 24 feet, it would increase -'
the capacity of the road substantially. Speed limit signs need to be placed=
on these two roads.
Commissioner Insko clarified that the purpose of this hearing is to
hear comments on the plans, goals, objectives , policies and locational
criteria without respect to the particulars of the proposed project. She
asked if the goals pertain to the goals of the Transition area or Open Space.
9
•
4
Mr. Collins indicated this could mean any of the goals as contained in the
Comprehensive Plan. It could also include the goals of the Master Recreation
and Parks Plan. She asked how they can legally hear comments on the open
space concept in addition to the transition area. Mr. Collins clarified that
the open space concept was included in the new advertisement which means that
this is a continuation of the cld public hearing which included the transition
area with the addition of the open space concept. In answer to another
question, Mr. Collins indicated that he would recommend that this be
designated Open Space Development Area but that assumes that the rural
character strategies will be adopted as well as the open space Land Use Plan
category. If neither of these are approved, he would like to see the project
go forward and have the site designated Transition. The County has not yet
adopted a Cooperative Land Use Plan with the Town of Hillsborough. If the
County wanted to assure that a particular project stayed within its
jurisdiction, it could be placed in an Open Space category. If University
Station is approved and designated as Open Space, it would be incorporated
into the Cooperative Planning Zone with Hillsborough. Commissioner Insko
asked if the Open Space is part of the Rural Character Study. Mr. Collins
stated that the County's Water and Sewer Policy discourages public water and
sewer extension outside of Transition areas except for emergency purposes or
to serve a public facility. It says that where developments are carried out
with significant amounts of open space that public water and sewer facilities
would be allowed. The understanding with Hillsborough is that the strategies
that control what constitutes a significant amount of open space or
constitutes open space development would be the Rural Character Strategies .
If a developer carries out a project in accord with the Rural Character
Strategies and preserves open space, then he would be allowed to have public
water and sewer. This falls under option #6 in the Rural Character
Strategies.
Commissioner Willhoit made reference to the Open Space Development
Area category and stated that this was an outgrowth of comments made by County
Commissioners regarding the Transition area because of the implications of
annexation. This was not considered previously as part of the Comprehensive
Plan. He questioned why the County would oppose annexation and if this issue
was identified as a concern of the neighborhood in the University Station
area.
Commlssioner Insko asked if comments are appropriate on the
particulars of the University Station project. Mr. Collins indicated that the
only way the Board can assess the impacts of the development is to get into
a fairly specific plan. In answer to a question about light rail, Mr. Collins
stated that in the revised plan, there is a site designated as a transit site.
These areas are not intended to support the rail system but to supplement it.
Commissioner Insko stated she has a problem in supporting light rail
as a concept and have the philosophy that drives the development decisions to
increase density in order to be able to support light rail. Mr. Collins
clarified that if the Board adopts the Land Use Plan Category of Open Space
on January 8 , 1993 , they could then, if they approve this Land Use Plan
Amendment, place University Station into that category.
Commissioner Gordon asked about option #6 which is allowed only' in
the Hillsborough Open Space Area. The other Rural Character Strategies are
allowed anywhere in the County. She asked if the Board needs to act on all
the Rural Character Strategies or just #6 . Mr. Collins noted that Rural
10
5
Character Strategies and Open Space Strategies are the same. Actually all the
strategies would be available in the Cooperative Planning Area.
Chair Carey asked for suggestions on a date to continue this public
hearing and it was decided that this public hearing would be continued on
December 14 , 1992 at 7 : 30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom in Hillsborough, North
Carolina.
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Callie Warner stated that the choice is between staying within the
current zoning and do cluster Open Space Developments and save portions of the
rural character while addressing the needs or go to a category which will
bring in higher density and water and sewer. She feels that this plan has
been presented to the public as a great alternative to the one house per acre
development and a statement as to what can be done in Orange County. She
thinks it is something that has generated a lot of concern. She introduced
Randall Arendt who has had 20 years of experience in rural planning with
emphasis on blending, conservation and development. He is co-author of
Dealing With Chanae.
Randall Arendt stated that he thinks the University Station plan
represents a tremendous amount of site analysis and thought and represents the
work of a lot of people but the logic is based on the wrong premise and that
no matter how good the analysis is, from then on it is flawed. He addressed
the three areas of density, sewer service and open space. Mr. Arendt stated
that offering 67% density bonus and extending sewer lines to protect open
space is like building a highway to relieve traffic congestion. The solutions
cause growth. He stated that density bonuses have been seen for a long time
as a way of encouraging developers to do better site design, but maybe the
solution is to write design standards in the ordinances so that better design
is part of the package the developers normally do and density bonuses are then
not necessary. He made reference to a planning document called "Rural Orange
Buildout Analysis" dated January, 1992 . That document indicates that in the
rural area in 1990, there were less than 20, 000 people. The buildout of rural
Orange when the unbuildable areas are deleted is 130, 000 without any density
bonuses. He showed some slides of Farmview which is a development on 430
acres in an area with 1 acre zoning located within easy commuting distance of
Philadelphia. Of this 430 acres, 130 were wet woods. This left 300 acres for
300 lots. The developer asked that he be allowed to build these 300 homes on
150 acres leaving 150 acres of farmland which he donated to the local land
trust. This ended up to be the fastest selling development in this area. Not
only are density bonuses necessary but so are public sewer line extensions.
One alternative is land treatment of reclaimed wastewater land application.
This would avoid the need for expensive sewer connections. A publicly
financed sewer line encourages growth. Mr. Arendt's third point is the
definition of open space. He recommends clustering on 50% of the buildable
land to reserve the other half as permanent open space. He doesn't count
unbuildable wetlands or floodplains or steep slopes, power line easements,
road rights-of-way, storm retention basins or parking lots as contributing
toward open space requirements. But he feels that in this very creative
University Station plan, one of the creative aspects is how much of these
power line easements and retention basins and golf courses could be counted -
as open space. A highly developed intensively managed active recreational
plan should definitely count toward open space, but should not count for any
11
6
more than half of the required open space. He noted that except for the golf
course and the 30 acre recreational park, almost all the 60% open space
consists of unbuildable areas as noted above. He recommends a balanced
approach to open space which would include pastures, meadows and overgrown
forests which is not preserved in this plan. The plan is workable but this
imbalance of the Open Space Area needs to be addressed. He feels this could
be done by (1) scaling back the proposal, (2) redesigning the proposal to a
true neo-traditional village, or (3) legitimizing his request for a hugh 67%
density bonus by preserving 500 acres of developable land elsewhere in the
University Station neighborhood. To increase the acreage of neutral lands
preserved as open space, the developer should also consider eliminating the
golf course or at least scaling it back to nine holes. He noted that the
Rural Character Study listed three goals which he feels are not included in
the University Station plan. The first goal is to preserve and protect
agricultural lands and managed forestry. This goal would permit farming and
forestry operations to coexist. The second goal is to preserve and protect
natural resources. He feels that in the University Station plan any land that
is buildable is designated for house lots, streets and a golf course except
for the 25 acre park on the north side of NC 10 . A third goal of the Rural
Character Study is to preserve and protect visual resources. He feels the
plan doesn't do a terrible job of that but could do better. Mr. Arendt feels
that in return for a 67% density bonus, the plan should satisfy these three
stated goals in order to get this density bonus . Extending the sewer line is
going to open up the area and cause growth. He continued his presentation
by showing a group of slides which demonstrate a density neutral development.
Mr. Arendt indicated that he works for a land trust near Philadelphia which
owns 54 nature preserves and has an active planning group which advises
developers and municipalities on conservation and development strategies.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Halkiotis, Mr. Arendt
stated he is serving as a consultant and the group is making a contribution
to the Land Trust to cover his time and expenses .
ARTHUR COGSWELL, one of the planners for University Station, stated
that the issue with University Station is jobs and economic growth versus the
elitist interest of a small group. They had considered doing a very high
priced subdivision using a self contained sewage system as Mr. Arendt
mentioned which would have cost the same as the sewer and water system. He
understands that the Town of Hillsborough needs the water customers. He
emphasized that this is a middle market, project. The struggle is to keep the
unit prices down so that middle management and supervisors -- moderate income
people can buy the houses and thus companies can be induced to move to Orange
County to provide jobs and increase the tax base. They are designing this
project within the existing regulations. It is not their role to propose
radical changes from the existing ordinances. This project meets all the
existing and the proposed regulations. They have reduced the density from
1326 to 1094 which is what they were told they could do. He explained that
he and all the planners for this development are from Orange County and
Raleigh. The outcome is very important to them and it is important that what
they do is good for Orange County and its people on all levels . They want to
be proud of this development. They are not the kind of people that would
knowingly do anything to harm the environment or create other serious problems
for the county. They are concerned about the misinformation and distortion
12
of facts that characterize the comments from those who oppose this project.
The environmental impact to the golf course will be minimal . Michael Ortosky
will discuss this issue later in this presentation. The traffic issue will
be discussed by Mr. Robert Grill. This development will not raise taxes as
has been claimed by the opponents. Also, the open space areas will not be
built on in the future. The open space will be deeded to the Triangle Land
Conservancy. The planning principles used in this project have been used
everywhere in the 19th and 20th centuries. The citizens who oppose this plan
say that the plan is rural. Mr. Cogswell stated that that is not true. This
is a deteriorating and disused farm located between two interstates next to
a trailer park and contiguous to a Transition area in a section of the County
that will clearly be developed in the near future. It has been said that
University Station will flood the school system which is not true as shown in
the presentation by Mr. Collins.
Owen Keenan-, one of the University Station planners, emphasized that
this land is priced at $6, 000 to $10, 000 an acre. This project is very risky.
The property will provide affordable housing which is needed in this
community. The average cost of these homes will be $140, 000 with a range from
$80 , 000 to $220, 000. This is the only scenario that will work that will
provide enough margin of profit that anyone would be willing to risk. He
feels that golf courses do not pollute. A typical 200 homes in a neighborhood
will produce at least double to three times the pollution that a golf course
wiurse and a dairy farm will pollute probably four times more than a golf
Mr. Cogswell stated that they have incorporated into the plan a 600
foot wide wildlife corridor along the bed of Stoney Creek and pulled all golf
holes out of that area. They have agreed to the improvements to the roads and
bridges that were recommended by the Planning Staff. They have pulled back
from all of the Beech Bluffs that were mentioned and will preserve the old
houses both north and south of NC 10 and if they can find the old slave
cemetery, they will preserve that. They have eliminated the exit onto
University Station Road and incorporated the realignment of NC 10 and New Hope
Church Road. They have done everything that the Planning Staff has
recommended.
Mr. Michael Ortosky made comments on the environmental assessment.
He is with a company called "Soil and Environmental Consultants" located in
Raleigh. His company prepared a preliminary ecological and archeological
assessment of the site. He used slides to review this assessment. He showed
the different soil types in the area. They reviewed the site from the
standpoint of general plant communities and habitat and from the standpoint
of jurisdictional wetlands on the site as well as the wildlife that occurs
within each of those habitats and a review of the archeological significance
of other areas on the site. He showed the nine different types of habitat
and plant communities as indicated in their preliminary report. He showed the
wetlands and the farm ponds . He pointed out that some of the bottomland
hardwood habitat is in danger from the beaver activity. He showed some of the
houses that are located on this property. The present plan does accommodate
all of the wetlands which is 50 to 60 acres. He showed a golf course in
Raleigh that maintained the vast majority of their wetlands and redesigned the
golf course to do so. He showed development that had taken place around the
wetlands which have taken a newer status in development because of
environmental regulations and because of a new ethic in developing around
13
•
8
wetlands. The qualitative impacts are regulated by DEM in terms of 401 water
certification which would be required. Any impact from the wetlands would
also require Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The 401 has to do with water
quality which the State will review relative to runoff from the golf course.
The State has a degradation policy which says that this will not degrade the
quality of the water locally in the region. They can construct buffers or
physical diversions or wet retention ponds to reduce the runoff from the golf
course. He feels that the University Station Plan can be exercised with very
little impact to ,the water quality in the wetlands and in the surrounding
flowing stream.
Leon Lucas, a professor of Plant Pathology at North Carolina
University, indicated his job is to work with turf grasses throughout North
Carolina specifically on disease and pesticide education. He made comments
about the golf course, and the use of pesticides. Research studies are showing
that turf grasses are the very best pollution control methods they have right
now. In Pennsylvania they did some studies by putting on fertilizer and
pesticides and then exposing the turf to three to six inches of rain per hour.
When they trapped the water that ran off they did not detect high levels of
these nutrients or pesticides. He cited other studies where they have not
identified problems with the use of pesticides. They have analyzed water from
ponds and wells and not found high levels of nutrients or pesticides
associated with golf courses. The scientific facts indicate that the
perception that golf courses provide large amounts of pollutants is not true.
It is only happening where they are not following the recommendations. Some
advantages with golf courses is that sludge and compost are being used as
fertilizer.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the levels of pollutants that are
present. Mr. Lucas noted that the problem is determining the base level.
They must determine what,amount is already present and establish a base level.
The golf courses have not contributed to the base level or caused an increase.
His recommendations include the type of turf grass best for a golf course,
silt fences and fertilizer control. Mr. Lucas will provide additional written
material for the County Commissioners.
Craig Morgan, Environmental Consulting Engineer specializing in
water and wastewater management and silt sanitary systems, gave his list of
credentials. He noted he takes his ethical responsibility to help protect the
health, safety and welfare very seriously. He noted he objectively evaluates
the relative dimensions of any controversial environmental issue and screens
out irrelevant dimensions. He feels the irrelevant dimension at this time
is a lot of the specifics of what University Station may or may not be. What
they do in the Stoney Creek drainage basin is very relevant. The question is
do they let this be one or two acre development with onsite septic system
disposal or encourage the growth and development which will bring sewer and
water to this area. Mr. Morgan stated that water and sewer can be on site but
it is not without its own environmental consequences. He questioned if it is
the responsibility of a developer of a select parcel to protect the entire
corridor. He feels that this authority is best left in the hands of the
county and the towns. In this drainage basin there is Strayhorn Hills,
Colonial Hills and Joppa Oaks. Joppa Oaks and Colonial Hills are in trouble.
Their septic systems are failing. He asked that people who don't want this
development to talk to people who are trying to sell their homes in these
14
. 9
subdivisions. In Strayhorn Hills they cannot expand their homes because they
have peeked out with no reserve capacity for their septic systems. These
three existing developments are contributing more pollution to the environment
and allowing University Station to develop with on site wastewater disposal
would not protect the water quality in the area. By putting the sewer in,
they will create a mechanism by which they can clean up a lot of the existing
development which is causing environmental problems in this section of
Hillsborough. With regard to golf course pollution, if they caused pollution
as claimed by the opponents, they would have to condemn Pinehurst. They
developed a golf course on the banks of the reservoir in Southern Pines . They
monitor the runoff and nothing has shown any pollution.
Robert Grill, traffic engineer, stated that Mr. Collins has
indicated that New Hope Church Road can handle the number of vehicles
generated by this development.
Mr. Cogswell indicated that their intent is not to hurt the
environment. They are aiming at middle income people with moderate housing
to benefit Orange County economically.
Commissioner Insko asked if the changes in the plan changed the
percentage of open space. Mr. Cogswell stated that they are at 60% . It did
reduce the area for the golf course. He will provide these figures to
Commissioner Insko. With regard to the impact on the road, she asked if this
took into consideration normal increases from other development and Mr. Grill
indicated that it takes into account the 3% annually increase in growth. In
answer to another question from Commissioner Insko about the cost of the
homes, Mr. Cogswell indicated they hope to keep the price in the 90's . They
will be dedicating all the neutral open space including the buffers. They
will also pay school impact fees. The golf course will have public access
which is one of the two required by the Master Recreation Plan.
Commissioner Willhoit asked if the development rights of the golf
course would be dedicated to assure that it remain as open space. Mr.
Cogswell indicated they could develop an arrangement that would satisfy that
request. Commissioner Willhoit stated that the goal is not jobs and economic
development. Mr. Cogswell stated that they understand that young adults in
the northern part of the County have complained about the lack of employment
in the County. They want to address the middle income market which would help
the county economically. Providing housing will encourage citizens to move
to the County. He feels that what they are doing will preserve the rural
character of the County.
Commissioner Insko stated that her goal is preserving open space in
perpetuity. It is helpful to hear the comments. She is glad that people are
willing to talk to determine if something like University Station can happen
in Orange County.
Randall Arendt stated that the idea of open space development is not
only density neutral but it ranges up the scale from beginning homes to larger
homes. He feels that the developers should identify how many units they plan
to build in each price range. He feels the project should address affordable
housing and should be guaranteed. The land prices are driven by the density.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the use of alternative systems and
Mr. Arendt stated that he has used these alternative systems with many types
of soil including clay soil very similar to that here in Orange County. He
would recommend public water and a shared sewage plant.
15
10
Commissioner Willhoit asked about Mr. Arendt's knowledge of other
alternative forms of wastewater treatment in the triaffic basin. He indicated
that he would follow up on this.
OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS
THOMAS BUELL, JAMES M. BARTON, SR. and JOHN STONE declined to speak.
One of the developers noted that the land prices have not been
inflated due to the potential development. They were $6 , 000 to $10, 000 an
acre four years ago and are still that today. The landowners are not
interested in how many units will be built.
LETTERS RECEIVED Each County Commissioner, Planning Director and County
Manager received copies of all letters received in the County Commissioners
Office in Hillsborough. (Each letter is filed in the Permanent Agenda File
in the Clerk' s Office)
Below is a list of letters received.
ROXANNE BARKSDALE wrote in opposition of the proposed change in the land use
plan. She stated that University Station would be the first of future
developments that would demand changes in the land use plan to fit the
definition of "rural" .
BENITA BARTON strongly opposed such development in this area. The beautiful
countryside will be ruined and the schools will be overcrowded.
JAMES BARTON wrote in opposition of University Station.
JUANITA BARTON wrote opposing University Station Town.
ROBERT CANTWELL wrote in opposition of the zoning variance requested for
University Station.
NORMAN L. CHRISTENSEN, JR. , Dean, School of the Environment, expressed
concerns about transportation, adequacy of a 25 acre park, location of utility
corridors, and the overall environmental quality.
PAULA ECKLUND asked that development proceed in a planned and controlled
manner. He would like Orange County to remain a 'rural buffer" with no more
than about 1 residence every 2 acres. He feels that the University Station
plan is ill-advised.
JUDSON EDEBURN, Duke Forest Resource Manager, asked that several specific
areas be considered as details of the development are determined. These
include recreational pressure, utilities, roads, water quality and parkland
designation.
JANE AND JONATHAN FARBER wrote in opposition to this gigantic, hasty project.
They feel that the University Station development will benefit only the
developers and that it will irrevocably spoil one of the last large and lovely
pieces of rural Orange County.
16
11
ALBERT HARDY wrote in\support of the project. He expressed
already over-crowded roads and asked that an open pace buffer remain about around
such a village. He listed several design considerations he would like the
developers to consider.
JEF asked that the Board deny this particular rezoning and allow the developer
to consider building a development on the property that fulfills a truly rural
character as the Land Use Plan calls for.
G. ALLAN JOHNSON wrote in opposition to any development at density greater
than 1 unit/acre.
HORACE JOHNSON, Mayor of Town of Hillsborough, expressed the support of the
Hillsborough Town Board for the project. He indicated that the Town has the
resources and the :desire to provide the proposed University Station
Development with water and sewer service.
CAL JORDAN, President of the Hillsborough Area Chamber of Commerce, wrote in
support of the concept of rural villages such as University Station in Orange
County to provide housing and economic development and to restrict urban
sprawl.
KATHERINE C.H. KLING RODNEY W. KLING AND KATHERINE B. HARDING asked that the
rezoning for University Station be declined and that the land be kept, as it
now is.
JANE MASKE wrote in opposition of the University Station high density village.
She feels the plan can destroy the rural character of this area of the county,
decimate the wildlife, create an unbelievable traffic situation and dilute the
quality education by overcrowding the schools. ,
SUSAN MICKELL wrote in opposition to the planned University Station
development. Her concerns included damage to the area, harm to wildlife,
water and the general environment.
JENNIFER MILLER asked that the County Commissioners to not separate the Open
Space decision from the Rural Character Study. She asked that schools be
added to the Open Space Area Development Locational criteria.
JOHN AND HARRIETT MOORE wrote in opposition of any efforts to rezone the area
proposed for the University Station development. Their concerns include
environmental effects of such a subdivision and especially the golf course,
the effects of increased traffic in the area, effects on the existing schools
and cost to the current residents of Orange County.
JAY AND DOT PENCE wrote in opposition of the rezoning which would allow
University Station to become a rural village.
DEBRA A. PERRY AND DONNA MARNELL wrote in opposition to part of the Rural
Character Study proposal to the University Station
project.
concerns about roads, schools, water, sewer and police and fire protection.
17
•
12
•
1
TRISH RAFALOW wrote in opposition of creating urban space in a rural space.
KAREN SANDERS RALEIGH wrote in support of University Station. She feels that
a planned community shows vision and forethought.
JOHN RINGLAND wrote in opposition to the rezoning of the University Station
development. He feels a development of this size is unwarranted, unfeasible
and is not likely to succeed economically. His concerns include the runoff
from the golf course, the traffic and the schools.
ROY W. ROTH asked that the applied zoning districts in the "Open-Space
Development Area" not include R-2 as it may relate to the potential University
Station development.
WILLIAM B. STROM wrote in opposition of the "Open Space" designation.
'GEORGANNE SEBASTIAN AND DENNIS PFEIFFER wrote in opposition of changing the
land use designation for University Station to 20 year transition or the open
space category. She expressed concerns about schools and the effects a large
development and golf course would have on county roads in the area.
LARRY D. WALLACE wrote that he thoroughly oppose the planned University
Station development.
TAMMY WALLACE wrote in opposition of the University Station plan. She
expressed concerns about schools, traffic and pollution.
JAMES WEBSTER wrote in opposition of the proposed development on N. C. #10 and
New Hope Road.
SHIRLEY WEBSTER wrote in opposition to the University Station project. She
expressed concerns about traffic, schools and the wildlife.
PHILIP L. WITT expressed concern about the water supply for the University
Station development. He outlined an alternative development plan that would
minimize some of the complaints and fit in with the rural character of the
area while at the same time provide Orange County businesses the opportunity
to grow.
ELIZABETH L. WOODMAN wrote in support of developing "clusters" . She is
opposed to the University Station development because it does not offer an
appropriate solution to "democratizing" the rural housing needs. She asked
that the Board consider the financial and social implications of approving a
community centered around a golf course.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to
adjourn this meeting to December 14 , 1992 at 7 : 30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom,
Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk
1$
1
1 D R A F T MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
3 AND
4 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
5 DECEMBER 14 , 1992
6
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning
9 Board met in adjourned session on December 14, 1992 at 7 : 30 p.m. in Superior
10 Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. The purpose of this adjourned
11 meeting was to continue the Joint Public Hearing held on December 1, 1992 on
12 a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan.
13
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. , and Commissioners
155 Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis, Verla C. Insko and Don Willhoit.
16 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Amanda Carol Cantrell, and Members
17 ' H. Paul Hoecke, William J. Waddell, James Gray, Elizabeth Eidenier, Clinton
18 Burklin and Virginia Boland.
19
20 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRMAN
21 Chair Moses Carey, Jr. welcomed everyone to the meeting. He announced
22 that comments from the public will be from the list of people who signed up
23 at the December 1, 1992 Public Hearing but did not get the opportunity to
24 speak. Those who spoke at the last meeting and those who did not sign up at
25 the last meeting may speak after the list is exhausted.
26
27 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
28 Chair Moses Carey, Jr. read the Public Charge.
29
30 Commissioner Willhoit noted that the mediation session scheduled for last
31 Thursday was canceled. The Dispute Settlement Center is interested in
32 getting another session scheduled. He asked Callie Warner, spokesperson for
33 the University Station group, to suggest a date for the next session so that
34 notices can be sent to those persons involved in this process.
35
36
37 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM - CONTINUATION OF DECEMBER 1, 1992 HEARING
38 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
39 a. CP-1-92 University Station
40 Planning Director Marvin Collins gave a brief presentation. This
41 is a continuation of the December 1, 1992 Public Hearing on the proposed
42 University Station Land Use amendment. He emphasized that this is a Land
43 Use Plan amendment. This is not involved in the consideration or approval
44 of a specific project. There are two options available in amending the Land
45 Use Plan. The first is to place it in a transition category which would
46 allow the applicant to come back, if approved, and apply for a zoning
47 designation which would permit them to carry out the proposed project. The
48 current zoning of the property is R-i Residential which permits one unit to
49 the acre. In order to achieve the density necessary to implement the plans,
50 the zoning request of R-2 where two units to an acre would be appropriate
51 would need to be approved at a later time. The other option that is being
52 considered is to place the proposed University Station area in a new Land Use
19
2
1 Plan category which is called an Open Space Development Area. The Open Space
2 Development Area proposal was presented at Public Hearing on November 23 ,
3 1992 . Comments regarding that proposal have been sent in from people who
4 live in that area and have been included as part of the Public Hearing
5 record. If the University Station property was to be placed in an Open Space
6 Development Area category, it would also allow them to go forward with the
7 next step if that Land Use Plan amendment is approved. That step would be
8 to apply for a Planned Development designation. That designation involves
9 the rezoning of the property, issuance of a Special Use Permit, and approval
10 of a specific site plan and subdivision plat for the project. The soonest
11 that that particular phase could be considered would be at the February
12 Quarterly Public Hearing. In each of these Land Use Plan categories there
13 are specific criteria that the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning
14 Board must consider. These have been reviewed previously and are part of the
15 initial public hearing packet on December 1, 1992 .
16
17 Commissioner Insko asked that comments be focused on the agenda item.
18
19 PUBLIC COMMENTS
20
21 THOMAS BUELL read a one page statement which has been made a part of the
22 record of this meeting by reference. In summary he is against the University
23 Station development proposal as it is now proposed. He feels that the time
24 has come to consider some version of such a planned development. He feels
25 the golf course must be replaced with legitimate open space like fields and
26 woods.
27 JOHN STONE, a Professor at North Carolina State University specializing
28 in land use and transportation planning, read a statement which has been made
29 a part of the record of this meeting by reference. In summary, he stated
30 that while he supports the concept of neotraditional neighborhoods, he urges
31 the County Commissioners to reject the Comprehensive Plan amendment which
32 will permit the proposed University Station experiment to proceed. He feels
33 that the proposed University Station plan is flawed with respect to
34 neotraditional design guidelines and that the traffic analysis is incomplete.
35 He gave several reasons in his written statement why he feels the plan is
36 flawed and the traffic analysis is incomplete.
37 CHERIE ROSEMOND read a statement which has been made a part of the record
38 of this meeting by reference. She is concerned about the language used to
39 describe the proposed University Station project. She does not feel that 367
40 three story condominiums describe a rural village. She feels that traffic
41 will be a problem. She would like to see the golf course eliminated and the
42 density reduced by 50%.
43 LARRY BOHS read a statement which has been made a part of the record of
44 this meeting by reference. In summary his greatest concerns are the
45 preservation of the wildlife habitat, the forest, the streams and wetlands
46 that form a major part of the property. He showed some slides of the natural
47 areas in the proposed University Station area. He is concerned about the
48 runoff from the development and its affect on Stoney Creek. He thinks the
49 idea of clustered development is great and believes that with a thoughtful
50 density-neutral clustered development, it may be possible to preserve much
51 of the wildlife habitat and natural beauty of Stoney Creek. He does not
52 believe that Stoney Creek and the wildlife who live there will survive the
20
3
1 intense development, golf course and sewer lines in the current University
2 Station plan.
3 BARBARA ROBERTSON read a statement which has been made a part of the
4 record of this meeting by reference. In summary she emphasized that they
5 bought land in this area because it was rural. They have created a rich
6 organic vegetable garden and perennial flower beds. She questioned how this
7 can be preserved if they run sewer and water out to Old Ten and New Hope
8 Church Road. She asked that they not extend sewer or change the category to
9 Ten-Year Transition to Urban and to Open Space that allows R-2 and sewer
10 extension. She favors density neutral planning and clustered housing within
11 density neutral open space. She feels that Old Ten is already crowded. She
12 is against the golf course.
13 ILENE SIEGLER read a statement which has been made a part of the record
14 of this meeting by reference. In summary she asked that the Board of County
15 Commissioners not adopt the proposed change to the Land Use Plan to create
16 a new category of open space development with R-2 zoning or the ten-year
177 transition. She feels the proposed University Station project, and the R-2
18 zoning change proposed for the Open Space Development area threatens the
19 rural character of this part of Orange County. She asked that the Board of
20 County Commissioners develop plans that preserve the Rural Character of
21 Orange County in the areas now threatened by the proposed University Station
22 project.
23 CHARLES EDELMAN stressed that he and others in the University Station
24 area have informed themselves very well and their hope is that the
25 information they present will help the Board of County Commissioners to
26 oppose the project. He talked about risk. The people who live in the area
27 are putting their health and aesthetics at risk if the environment is damaged
28 by this project. He feels they have a safety and mobility risk by overburden
29 roads and an overburden school system which will cause higher taxes and more
30 bond issues. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners reject
31 University Station.
32 LIBBY SEARLES read a statement which has been made a part of the record
33 of this meeting by reference. She lives about five miles north of the
34 proposed development area. She feels that mass transit, reasonable walking
35 distances to avoid driving, retail shops that avoid driving trips, affordable
36 housing, the use of open space to protect important natural areas and
37 clustering of houses to avoid suburban sprawl have been used as strategies
38 by the developer to promote the plan. She addressed each area and how the
39 plan does not provide for any of these strategies. She feels that the land
40 should be developed within the current zoning density level of R-1 and with
41 a plan that truly embraces forward-thinking, open space and clustered
42 development.
43 ROBERT CANTWELL read a statement which has been made a part of the record
44 of this meeting by reference. In summary he addressed the developers'
45 presentation at the last public hearing, the proposed University Station
46 project itself and the use of language in this debate. He feels the
47 developers made no case for University Station and that the wetlands, storm
48 water retention areas, steep slopes, a powerline easement, and other
49 otherwise undevelopable areas do not constitute open space. He would like
50 to see a true density-neutral cluster development at University Station which
51 genuinely preserves and restores its agricultural character and natural
52 beauty.
21
4
1 A. SOLDI lives adjacent to the proposed University Station development.
2 He expressed a concern for the natural habitat and the streams. He realizes
3 there is a conflict between growth and sound development while still
4 preserving as much farmland as possible. He urged the Board of County
5 Commissioners to give preference to development that trades open space and
6 even better natural habitats for higher density developments. By increasing
7 densities in some places, it relieves the pressure for using more and more
8 land as well. If the Board of County Commissioners approve this project he
9 asked that more evidence be presented to assure affordable housing and that
10 the construction schedule be carried out so that they is little disruption
it to animals and vegetation.
12 JOE HAKEN, Chairman of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce,
13 stated that his Board requests that the Board of County Commissioners
14 consider any plan which has diversity of housing included in it. He feels
15 that it is important to provide an opportunity for people who work in Orange
16 County to live in Orange County. The Chamber assumes that the developers
17 will take care of the environment, traffic and other issues which have been
18 brought forth by the citizens.
19 JANE MASKE distributed a newspaper article entitled "Study links
20 leukemia., chemical contact" . She stated that she feels the information given
21 at the last meeting by Mr. Cogswell, the developer, about the safety of
22 toxins on golf courses was erroneous and that low levels of toxins are
23 dangerous. She spoke to the issue of risk indicating that there are other
24 than financial risks at stake like health and well being. She is opposed to
25 the proposed University Station high density village. She feels that this
26 village can destroy the rural character of this area, destroy the wildlife
27 and create an unbelievable traffic situation and dilute the quality education
28 by overcrowding the schools.
29 JENNIFER MILLER read a statement which has been made a part of the record
30 of this meeting by reference. She presented information on the detrimental
31 effect that the proposed University Station development would have on Orange
32 County schools. In her statement she list sixteen errors in the new school
33 impact study presented by Planning Director Marvin Collins. She feels that
34 the strain of a new town on the schools, combined with strains on public
35 safety, roads and water quality, constitute a cumulative and predictable
36 impact, sufficient to cause the Board of County Commissioners to deny the
37 petition that is before them to amend the Land Use Plan. The impact on New
38 Hope Elementary will be the equivalent of one new classroom each year.
39 GREGG FRAHELY spoke against the proposed University Station development.
40 This area has a great potential for development within the next forty or
41 fifty years. He feels there is a loophole in the proposed rural village
42 concept. That loophole allows developers to call golf courses open space.
43 He would like to see true open space -- true rural character written into the
94 code and not allow wetlands or golf courses to be included in that category.
45 This would allow the growth to be managed and not turned into a golf course
46 community. _
47 BILL STROM presented two maps which showed the proposed open space area
48 and water and sewer lines. He read a statement which has been made a part
49 of the record of this meeting by reference. He feels that questions about
50 providing water and sewer to this proposed development have not been
51 adequately addressed. The proposed University Station plan does not meet any
52 of the four stated objectives of the Rural Character study. He feels it is
22
5
1 irresponsible to grant density bonuses to developers before there is a clear
2 definition of open space. He emphasized that he wants to see cluster
3 developments with community wastewater systems, mandatory neutral densities
4 and true contributions of open space. He asked the Board of County
5 Commissioners to truly consider the long term impact of University Station
6 and have the courage to vote this proposal down until the open space strategy
7 is completely defined.
8 ROBERT HARRELL read a statement which has been made a part of the record
9 of this meeting by reference. He presented an analysis of the school impact
10 study which showed the increase in students as the number of housing units
11 increase. He also presented a fiscal impact study which projected an annual
12 deficit stating that it is very unlikely that this development will generate
13 any net tax revenue for Orange County.
14 KAREN BLEY stated that the community is clearly opposed to the proposed
15 University Station plan. She feels the developers care more about making
16 money than about the needs and wants of the community, the environment or
17 neutral density. She likes the solitude that she now has. She asked that
18 the Board of County Commissioners listen to the community.
19 JENNIFER TAYLOR read a statement which has been made a part of the record
20 of this meeting by reference. She spoke about the term affordable and how it
21 is being used in the proposed University Station project. She feels it
22 important before calling housing affordable to ask the question affordable
23 to who. For housing to be affordable, it must be affordable to families and
24 individuals earning below 80% of the areas median income. The highest price
25 in this area which can be called affordable is $94 , 000 . For smaller
26 households, the upper end is much lower. For a single person, the most they
27 could afford is about $60, 000. She noted that the developers have referred
28 to a house costing $143 , 000 as affordable. It would take a family of four
29 with an income of $54 , 000 to afford a house costing $143 , 000 . She wants to
30 know the price of housing they plan to build, what size they will be and what
31 will be included in a $100, 000 house and does the cost of the golf course
32 make the housing less affordable and by how much. She also wants to know
33 when the affordable housing will be built and if the developer is willing to
34 sign a guarantee to build a specific number of affordable houses at a
35 specific price. She stressed that there is a need for affordable housing in
36 Orange County.
37 ROY ROTH made reference to some prepared materials which are made a part
38 of the record of the minutes of this meeting by reference. He included in
39 this material numerous references which allude to neotraditional villages and
40 their problems particularly as they relate to the University Station proposal
41 and alternate development possibilities. He asked that the Board of County
42 Commissioners read all the information he prepared. He spoke about ethics.
43 A former U. S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart defined ethics as knowing
44 the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right
45 thing to do. The problem is that people sometimes adjust their ethical
46 values to meet immediate pressures. He asked if the Land Use Plan
47 modifications are being drawn around the proposed University Station project.
48 Orange County has a carefully developed Land Use Plan. He asked that they
49 not look for loopholes. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners and
50 the Planning Board decide the ethical thing to do concerning the proposed
51 University Station development.
52 PHIL WITT made reference to his letters which have been made a part of
23
.6
1 the record of this meeting by reference. He mentioned that he cannot
2 conceive of this area supporting a light rail system. He is concerned about
3 the water. The Durham pipeline was built for emergencies and the golf course
4 does not constitute an emergency. Education, not housing is the number one
5 concern in North Carolina. He feels the process should have started with
6 information on making the area urban. He feels that this property could be
7 used for an equestrian community.
8 BILL BRACEY, Conservation Chair of the Orange/Chatham Sierra Club, made
9 reference to newspaper articles stating that some have been incorrect. He
10 feels that the terms rural character and density neutral have been misused.
11 He stated that the Sierra Club did not endorse University Station. They do
12 endorse the idea of cluster development and rural villages that preserve open
13 space and facilitate mass transit and hope that appropriate zoning will be
14 put in place to allow this. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners
15 take this opportunity to aggressively pursue innovative planning options,
16 especially including transferable development rights. Strict agricultural
17 and very large lot zoning can prevent the sprawl that sewer lines, transit
18 corridors, etc. will cause if allowed. He hopes that those who oppose this
19 project will consider joining one of the conservation groups to preserve some
20 of the natural areas in the county.
21 CINDY IDOL stated that they moved to University Station Road from
22 Woodcroft because they wanted to live in the country. She is strongly
23 opposed to the proposed University Station development and particularly the
24 rezoning of that section of land which would allow for smaller lots. She
25 hopes the Board of County Commissioners listen to what the people have to say
26 and that something good comes from this. If this development goes, she hopes
27 that the best of all the knowledge the people have assimilated is put
28 together for the good of all. PATRICIA ANDREWS read a statement which
29 has been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. She is
30 against the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and to the creation of a
31 newly designated category of Open Space. She feels that the economic,
32 environmental, logistical and educational issues are very different than
33 they were several years ago when the University Station village was first
34 introduced. She expressed concerns about the schools and the carrying
35 capacity of the roads. She questioned what will happen to this area if the
36 venture fails. She is against any amendment or category changes or other
37 loopholes which would make it possible for urbanization to take place in this
38 area.
39 PAUL ANDREWS spoke about seven concerns. He feels that the density is
40 too high. The density bonuses are too generous. The developers have
41 proposed a golf course community, a suburban subdivision and village density
42 or three developments for the price of one. He is concerned about the
43 overcrowded roads and schools. Dense urban development leads to groundwater
44 contamination. His fifth concern is open land. University Station will not
45 preserve rural open land. Most all studies show that developments of this
46 kind are a liability to local governments. He feels that this is actually
47 two developments with a University Station North and University Station
48 South. He suggested that the county adopt a policy of not extending water
49 and sewer to rural areas. The affect has been to rejuvenate growth in urban
50 areas and preserve the rural areas. He feels that high density growth will
51 follow water and sewer.
52 BOB HALL, Director of Research for the Institute for Southern Studies,
24
7
1 stated he has written a number of articles on Land Use strategies. He stated
2 he does not understand the information that backs up this amendment request.
3 If the information is flawed, can the Board of County Commissioners vote on
4 it. He pointed out several contradictions in the background information.
5 On page 195, the information indicates that 258 children will be generated
6 by this project while on page 303 the information indicates there will be 345
7_ school age children generated by this project. On page 245, the developers
8 say there will be over 1, 000 children living in this project. On page 248
9 the developer indicates there will be 6700 average traffic trips generated.
10 On page 255, the information indicates there will be 9, 431. On page 301 it
11 says that the average price of a home in this development will be $159 , 944 .
12 He noted that there is no evidence presented in the background information
13 to merit a favorable vote by the Board of County Commissioners to designate
14 this project as open space. The amendment was changed in the middle from
15 Ten-Year Transition to Ten-Year Transition or Open Space transition.
16 ALLEN SPALT, Director of the Agricultural Resources Center in Carrboro,
17 read a statement which has been made a part of the record of this meeting by
18 reference. In summary, he stated that he supports planned communities but
19 saying that this kind of development will preserve Rural Character and is
20 consistent with the kind of density thats allowed is just not right. He
21 feels that a golf course is not open space but more like a medium on a
22 freeway counting the grassed area as open space. Active open space should
23 not count the same way as a field. Responsibly managed gold courses are not
24 toxic waste dumps and their environmental affects should not be exaggerated.
25 But neither are they benign or neutral. They have been a source of serious
26 problems affecting water quality, wildlife and human health primarily from
27 the heavy use of pesticides. He presented some written information on the
28 affects of golf courses and other articles.
29 PETER PICKENS read a statement which has been made a part of the record
30 of this meeting by reference. He is against any rezoning of this part of
31 rural Orange County which would allow a development such as University
32 Station to be built. He objects to the apartments, townhouses and
33 condominiums planned for this development. He is opposed to the whole
34 village concept of University Station. He would be very surprised if
35 University Station doesn't have urban restrictive covenants, which will not
36 allow livestock such as horses or perhaps chickens. He feels that the
37 developments built in rural areas should themselves have rural character with
38 rural covenants, which would give residents the option, the alternative, the
39 freedom to live and pursue a country life in those rural areas. He asks the
40 Board of County Commissioners to do whats best for rural Orange County and
41 not to change the zoning from Rural Residential to Ten-Year Transition or
42 Open Space Development Area and not to approve the proposed University
43 Station project.
44 LEE RAFALOW read a statement which has been made a part of the record of
45 this meeting by reference. In summary he made reference to the comments Mr.
46 Kenan and Mr. Cogswell made at the last public hearing _-on December 1 and
47 indicated that a lot of people know about risk. His vision is that of a
48 density neutral development that does not distort the concept of preserving
49 open space and rural character. He feels that the developers will transform
50 their homes into urban sprawl and ruin the quality of life for which they
51 have all worked so hard. He asked the Board of County Commissioners to help
52 the citizens implement an alternative to urban sprawl.
25
8
1 MARK MARCOPLOS stated he lives in Bingham Township approximately fifteen
2 miles from the proposed University Station development. He thanked all the
3 residents in the area for bringing forth additional information on this
4 proposal. He hopes that this doesn't get labeled as a pro anti-development
5 process. This is a situation where people are aware of the choices and aware
6 that there will be development and they just want it to be the best it can
7 be. Just because they oppose the proposed University Station development,
8 it doesn't mean they oppose affordable housing, economic development or anti-
9 development. He feels that the Rural Character study should be amended and
10 then proceed slowly.
11 ALAN SEIFERHELD made two points on rural character. Because of the type
12 of land that exist at University Station, the property most likely will not
13 support more than 300 homes under the current zoning. University Station is
14 asking for approximately 1100 homes, almost a 400% increase in the density
15 over what the land will now support. Water and sewer should not be extended
16 into University Station. Extension of water and sewer will invite similar
17 developments. He is opposed to the Land Use Plan amendment.
18 ELIZABETH WOODMAN spoke for Michael Warner. She noted that Mr. Warner
19 has reviewed the Land Use Plan which makes very specific recommendations
20 about what types of development is in the interest of Orange County and where
21 they should be located. She showed on a map the two high density areas of
22 the County namely, Hillsborough and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro area. Excluding
23 those two areas, the average density in the County is seven units per 100
24 acres. the University Station proposal would transform this area from low
25 to high density and it would climb from seven units to 175 units per acre.
26 The University Station development would constitute the highest density
27 development between Hillsborough and Durham. She stated that the County is
28 being asked to change the Land Use Plan to allow the developers to create
29 this high density development and the third largest town in Orange County
30 right in the middle of an area that match every definition of rural. She
31 made reference to page 322 of the Land Use Plan and the 22 categories listed.
32 The only category that the proposed University Station development fits is
33 Ten-Year Transition. She stated that the reasons for voting against this
34 proposal include (1) it doesn't fit the Land Use Plan, (2) it creates
35 leapfrog development in the inevitable corridor affect and (3) the process
36 is not about planning but a reaction to what the developers want. She urged
37 the Board of County Commissioners to reject University Station.
38 LINDSAY EFLAND stated that on September 10, 1992 , the Economic
39 Development Commission passed a resolution stating their support for master
40 planned development where a wide range of housing opportunities, adequate
41 open space, commercial activities for residents and support services are
42 included. Based on the review of the concept plan for University Station the
43 Economic Development Commission has concluded that this proposed development
44 offers potential economic benefits for Orange County. They voted to support
45 the proposed University Station village concept. Mr. Efland pointed out that
46 mass transit and recreational space have been identified as long term goals.
47 This proposal does address in some form these two long term goals. It has
48 a diversity of housing styles, a diversity of prices and focuses growth. As
49 present companies grow, they will being in additional people who will need
50 a place to live. He stressed that the decision before the Board of County
51 Commissioners is very difficult and that it is a time for political
52 leadership. There are many issues that will need to be addressed and they
26
. 9
1 will all affect someones neighborhood. The EDC supports the concept of a
2 planned rural village and asked that the Board approve the change from
3 Transition to Open Space classification per the staff's recommendation.
4 MARGARET MCKEAN read a statement which has been made a part of the record
5 of this meeting by reference. She understood that water and sewer would not
6 be extended into the Rural Buffer except for emergencies and questioned why
7 they plan to extend water and sewer to the proposed University Station
8 project. She feels that the rural residential zone without water and sewer
9 is meant to be a buffer for the rural buffer. She feels the county should
10 stick with the Land Use Plan and devise a plan that provides community well
11 and community septic treatment. She made several suggestions for changing
12 the plan that would reduce some of the risk to the developers and to existing
13 county residents. She suggests removing the golf course, setting aside half
14 of the buildable acreage and making special plans for the two houses which
15 have historical value.
16 MARGO BOWERS read a statement which has been made a part of the record
17 of this meeting by reference. She noted that she likes to golf but prefers
18 not to have a golf course unless its organic. She suggested turning the
19 nearly full landfill into a golf course. She has worked very hard to be able
20 to live in this area. She cares more about the earth than a round of golf.
21 She does not want this area to become Hillsborough. She wants to remain a
22 Chapel Hill person.
23 AL JOHNSON made reference to a graph on page 296 and noted that it
24 indicates that if there are 1300 units instead of 600 units that the
25 developers will make eight times as much money. He feels that the developers
26 are trying to optimally design their model to control the theory that they
27 want to propagate.
28 PHIL PRICE presented into the record a letter from J. Moredock which has
29 been made a part of the record of this meeting by reference. She want to
30 protect the old forest and wetland habitats and is against the golf course
31 because of the toxins involved. Mr. Price stated he is strongly against the
32 proposed University Station project as currently proposed. He is opposed to
33 bringing urban density and urban traffic through the heart of the designated
34 rural buffer. He is opposed to golf courses, power easements and new water
35 and sewer lines being designated as open space. He asked that an
36 Environmental Impact Study be done. The traffic analysis did not address
37 lifestyle, noise and preservation of rural character. He asked that the
38 Board of County Commissioners not allow this part of the County to be rezoned
39 for higher density and sewer lines into the Rural Buffer but allow this area
40 to grow at the current R-1 designation with emphasis on cluster development
41 and real open space.
42 RUDY RENFER noted that the vast majority of people who have spoken do not
43 represent a particular group or organization but people in the community.
44 He feels this neotraditional model is a test. He feels that all the
45 information generated has been generated from a perspective of a desire to
46 see the particular project fly rather than look at the reality of the impact
47 on the people who are actually going to live with it. He stated that they
48 can only speak through their representatives and asked the Board of County
49 Commissioners to listen to the people they represent.
50 PHILLIP SCHERRER stated he lives in Stoneridge and is concerned with
51 orderly and planned development of the area. He has not taken a position but
52 has only provided information.
27
'10
1 WAYNE POOLE stated he is opposed to the proposed University Station
2 development because he is concerned about the affects this development will
3 have on the people who live in that area. This development will cause
4 increased traffic and increased taxes. Also, a lot of animals will lose
5 their homes.
6 CALLIE WARNER showed some slides of affordable housing communities that
7 are all done within the current zoning allowed in that area . She entered
8 into the record a letter from Randall Arendt dated December 4 , 1992 reading
9 several paragraphs dealing with density bonuses. Excerpts from Randall
10 Arendt's book entitled Rural by Design were also submitted for the record.
11
12 ROBERT EPTING noted that Orange County has a tradition of having planning
13 drive development rather than development proposals drive planning. He noted
14 that this development is being considered before the Rural Character Study
15 process in finished and before the definition of Open Space has been
16 determined and before determining the appropriate density for Open Space
17 developments. There has not been any information on the impact of the
18 transition zoning extension or the Open Space designation on the use of land
19 and the most appropriate use of land throughout the County as the statute
20 requires. What has been presented is how this development within the
21 concept, not yet set, would affect a particular neighborhood, not the entire
22 band around Hills-borough where the Open Space may be placed but only with
23 respect to this one neighborhood. He stated that it is his opinion that this
24 process could be challenged in a court of law. He had several questions
25 about water and sewer. It is his opinion that excluding tapons into a line
26 that has been run at public expense is a very difficult thing to do. He will
27 submit written remarks at a later time.
28 STEVE OUINN spoke about the cost the residents in the area paid to create
29 a rural buffer zone. When the rural buffer zone was created it was done to
30 preserve the rural character. He emphasized that the Board of County
31 Commissioners made a commitment to the people in the buffer zone who gave up
32 value, sale or marketability of their property in return for long-term
33 planning.
34 Commissioner Willhoit noted that this proposal is not in the Rural
35 Buffer.
36 Commissioner Insko asked that there be a discussion or information
37 provided on height limitation for multifamily residences and that some
38 consideration be given to the concept of municipal golf courses and whether
39 or not this golf course proposed meets the specifications or requirements for
40 a municipal golf course.
41 Commissioner Gordon asked that Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill respond to the
42 questions from Mr. Epting on procedure and process.
43 Commissioner Insko expressed a concern that deals with the use of Open
44 Space Area for developed recreation space. She questioned if the percent of
45 open space allowed for recreational use should be lower than that allowed in
46 a more urban setting.
47 BONNIE ROGERS asked if the developers or planners have taken into
48 consideration the recently passed American Disability Act in their planning
49 and cost analysis and the impact that would create with respect to
50 transportation, restaurants, etc.
51
52 Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner
28
*11
1 Halkiotis to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to
2 be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than February 1,
3 1993 .
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 LETTERS RECEIVED Each County Commissioner, the Planning Director and the
7 County Manager have received copies of all letters received in the County
8 Commissioners office in Hillsborough. Each letter is filed in the Permanent
9 Agenda File in the Clerk's Office.
10
11 Following is a list of the letters received from citizens who did not speak
12 at this Public Hearing:
13
14 JULIE ANDRESEN, Chapel Hill Council Member, asked that Chapel Hill be
15 given an opportunity to review and comment on this Land Use Plan Amendment.
16 She indicated that the Council has a particular interest in clarifying the
17• issues pertaining to water and sewer extensions outside Hillsborough's urban
18 services area, and the implications those extensions raise for the Joint
19 Planning Agreement and for all County residents.
20 JANE FARBER wrote in opposition of providing water and sewer lines and
21 density bonuses. She does not feel that the residents in this proposed
22 development will work or shop there. She feels the railway corridor will
23 never work on a scale Orange County can afford to promote. She questions if
24 growth on this scale will benefit the community.
25 DEBBIE AND CHRIS FIKEEN wrote in opposition of the request to change the
26 Land use designation of the University Station area. They believe this
27 project will only benefit a small number of people. They expressed concerns
28 about the traffic, schools and the environmental impact of this project.
29 They feel that Open Space in rural areas should involve forests and farms.
30
31 RHONDA HICKS wrote about her concerns with the possible development of
32 "University Station Town" . She cannot see any benefit to their community
33 from this "town" and feels that everyone will lose. She asked that the Board
34 of County Commissioners put the people of Orange County first.
35 PRESTON LEE submitted information on Spray Irrigation. The document was
36 produced by the Department of Public Works, Newark, Delaware.
37 RAEFORD A. MAYBE AND OTHERS (7) wrote in support of the project. They
38 have land adjoining the proposed development and feel that the University
39 Station development will create jobs, both during construction and after
40 construction. It will provide family closeness with activities and an
41 environment that will generate activities for families. The wide range of
42 housing cost is a great advantage for a county in which everyone is not a
43 "professional" but "just normal every day people" . They asked that the Board
44 of County Commissioners consider all the advantages and not be swayed by the
45 citizens who speak the loudest.
46 TRIP AND RONA FRIED-OVERHOLT AND OTHERS (25) wrote in opposition of the
47 proposed University Station project. They feel that a golf course is
48 intensive development which provides no animal habitat, no natural recreation
49 experience for humans, and pollutes the water. with pesticides and synthetic
50 fertilizers. They asked that the Board of County Commissioners reject the
51 plan.
52 EMMIE PARKS AND CASSANDRA WILLIAMS wrote about their concern of what the
29
"12
1 developers want to do in University Station. They stated their concerns
2 about the environment and erosion. They don't want a golf course that uses
3 pesticides. They feel the traffic will increase and they will need a new
4 school.
5 There were pictures submitted from an unidentified person. These
6 pictures showed areas of Durham that are congested and areas of New Hope
7 Church Road and Old Ten as well as wetland areas.
8
9 D. ADJOURNMENT
10 With no further items for the Boards to consider, Chair Moses Carey
11 adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting of the County Commissioners
12 will be held on January 4 , 1993 at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the Old
13 County Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
14 Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair
15 Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk
16
30
D (Cantrell out of the room during this vote. )
AGENDA ITEM #12 : MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (12/1/92)
a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
( 1 ) CP-1-92 University Station
(A copy of the abstract and documentation is on
file in the Planning Department. )
Presentation by Marvin Collins.
Collins informed the Board that a letter was
received on January 22, 1993, from Amerivest
Properties requesting that CP-1-92 University
Station be withdrawn from consideration. (A copy
of the letter is an attachment to these minutes
on page . )
Collins continued that there is some question
about what the withdrawal means in the number of
acres in the total project. The original
application indicated a total of seven property
owners who owned approximately 577 acres. The
concept plan that was submitted indicated a total
of fourteen parcels totaling 629-631 acres. The
advertisement was for 629 acres and all fourteen
properties. Discussions with the applicant and
the letter, indicated that only the 578 acres was
being formerly withdrawn. Collins noted that he
had heard that some of the property owners would
still like for the amendment from Rural
Residential to Transition to be considered.
Collins noted that the criteria for a Transition
Area is 100 acres. Since the 54 acres would be a
free standing Transition Area and would not meet
the criteria, Collins recommended denial of the
54 acres as Transition.
MOTION: Waddell moved approval of Collins '
recommendation. Seconded by Eidenier.
VOTE: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM #13 : MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING (2/22/93)
a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
( 1 ) CP-1-93 Economic Development Districts