Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 08-04-1993 - VIII-A
1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item Abstract Meeting Date: August 4 . 1993. Action Agenda Item # VlX-A SUBJECT: Orange County Zoning Atlas Amendment Z-2-93 Lake Hogan Farm DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Application Mary Willis Vicinity Map Extension 2583 Staff Report 4/15/93 Public Hearing Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Resolution of Approval (Carrboro) Hillsborough-732-8181 6/21/93 Planning Board Minutes Durham -688-7331 Mebane -227-2031 Chapel Hill -967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider a rezoning request for property owned by Lake Hogan Farm Inc. This request involves an amendment to both the Orange County Zoning Atlas and the Carrboro Zoning Map. BACKGROUND: The area proposed to be rezoned is located on the east side of Old NC 86 north of Homestead Road. The property consists of all or part of seven parcels totaling approximately 264 acres. According to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan (JPALUP) the property is categorized as Suburban Residential, and is located with in Transition Area I of the Carrboro Joint Development Review Area. The Suburban Residential designation allows densities up to 5 dwelling units per acre. The property is currently zoned R-R, which allows a density of up to 1 dwelling unit per acre. The proposed zoning is R-20, which allows a density of up to 2 . 1 dwelling units per acre. Attached is a Staff Report for the proposed rezoning prepared by the Carrboro and Orange County Planning Staffs which was presented at the April 15, 1993 Joint Planning Area public hearing. There was extensive public comment at the public hearing. Draft minutes of the public hearing are attached. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen approves changes to its Zoning Map by Resolution, based on the information contained within the Staff Report and comments 2 received through the public hearing process. The Orange County Board of Commissioners takes action subsequent to action by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen. Both Boards must act in the affirmative before the rezoning can become effective. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen approved the rezoning request on May 25, 1993 (Resolution attached) . The Orange County Planning Board considered the proposed rezoning on June 21, 1993 and recommended approval. The vote was unanimous. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed rezoning. ORA `E COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA APPLICATI_.. FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISZ ,__ CT 3 Date : i46. '0 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS )RANGE COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of )range County as hereinafter requested . '1 . The property is located on the North ,side of S . R . # 1777 ( HomPstPad _Road Street/Road ) between S .R . # 1728 _ and S .R . # 1009 . It is known as Lot ( s) Sri- 2 , Block , of Orange County Tax Map 109 — Calvander Township . It has a frontage of 4350 feet and a depth of 5000 feet , and contains 19 , 079, 280 square feet or 304 acres . 2. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from R—R ( T-1 ) to . , p-20 ( T-1 ) • .3 .- The .following information has been _ attached . .in__ support of the application for changing the Zoning Atlas (. — required on all applications) . • 'a A fully dimensioned asp at • ■csle of not less then one (1 ) inch • equals one—hundred (900) feet nor more than one (1) inch equal& twenty- 1201 fast--showir-"-tthe lend which, is proposed to be rezoned. 'b . A legal description of the land proposed to be rezoned. 'c. A statement of justification addressing one or more of the following: (1) The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which would be corrected by the proposed emenoment with a detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning At Las end detailed reasons hoe the proposed ■mendeent will correct the error . (2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which make the proposed smendment reasonably necessary Co the promotion of the public health, safety end general welfare. '(3) The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adapted Land Use Plan or part thereof. •(4) ALL other circumstances, factors end reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including, but not limited to, documentation from service agencies (e.g. firs, police, rescue and utilities agencies) assuring ■ervicaa provision capability to the development. d. A list of all individuals, fires or corporation■ owning property adjoining or within five hundred (500) feat of the property souO3ht5or9 rezoning is ettacned. The list is current us of . Mete) I certify that ell information furnished in this application is accurate o the best of my knowledge . ,pplicant ( s) • Dale E. Redfoot AIA Young/Jewell & Assoc, (Bradley W.young ) ddress • 123 Blackcherry Ln. P.O.Box 2725 • Chapel Hill . NC Chapel Hill. NC 27514 • 'hone : 919-979_nc1p , 9199-913-5170 L ; REZONING REQUEST CHECKLIST OWNER'S NAME Dale E. Redfoot.� ADDRESS 123 Blackcherry Ln. Chapel Hill, NC Approx. Current zoningR -R ( T -1 ) Total number of acres 304 Current land use Open /Farm land Type of rezoning requested R -20 Proposed land use -Residental ( See Addendum to Application for Lots ) Tax map # Block # Number of lots Proposed Water Supply: Public }{ Community ,,Individual Proposed Sewage Treatment: Public X Community Individual septic tank SR 1777 SR 1777- 3070 ' Access onto state road # SR 1009 Average daily traffic count on the state road 2x00 Describe existing critical areas: Flood.prone areas Poorly drained areas Jones Branch See Wetlands Ma Streams Bolin Creek,Buckhorn Br. Other sensitive areas p Describe land uses in: General Area Dairy Farm, Open undeveloped land , Horse Farm Adjacent parcels of land South - Homestead Rd: Farm Land' ,East -Haan Farm -R -20, South- Stoney Hill= Subd.,. West. -01d: a6(SR1009_)_•Open Land & Sincile Family Homes, North- Undeveloped / Farm Land M 5 Addendum to Application for Change of Zoning Lots: 1,2,3, most of lot 4 (acerage west of Lake Hogan Rd. ) , approx. 5.5 ac. of 5 & 5A, 24, 25,31,& 31F Map 109 Lake Hogan Farms- Statement Of Justification For Rezoning (1. ) We find No error in the zoning ordinance. (2. ) We do find there are changing conditions. Foremost, the Hogan family has a desire' to leave the dairy farm'business. It has become harder and harder each year to make a profit in the dairy business. The Hogans also find that they can not sell their land to another dairy farmer and make anywhere close the amount per acre from a farmer as they can from a developer. Development of this property is inevitable as developments get closer and closer every day. (3. ) The adopted Land Use Plan has designated this property as T-1 transition area. This means that it is slated for development for densities of 1 to 5 units per acre. Our rezoning request of a change from R-R to R-20 is in accordance with the Land Use Plan as it would allow a density of 2.178 units/acre density. (4. ) The area south and east of our proposed development has usually been developed in small 20 to 50 acre tracts. We are proposing rezoning a much larger piece of land at one time to allow us to -properly plan a large master planned/ open space development. This allows the developer a considerable cost saving per lot in extending sewer approximately 4000 feet to the project. A smaller project would be forced to develop with septic systems and therefore would be forced to into 1 acre lot minimums. Open space planned developments would not be economically probable. Water has already been carried adjacent to Lake Hogan Farm Road by the Wexford development. Owasa has the ability with its current water and sewer treatment plants to service our project. We will have to extend lines at our cost. We have presented a letter from Carrboro Fire and Police Dept. ,the Carrboro Public Works Dept. as well as all the utility companies assuring services provision capabilities to our development. .. r- IIIIII_r - RR _ 1 1 II 'II -,i---------- _J111 r ------- II 1, .' FIGURE 1 - . - - - -- -- - - -- - - -- - - - - --N--- -r, I 111 Il , .. , ---- ! 11 ..., Talbryn Allip al a, , P1i01,. * In Ad. W. ,,, 111111 11111 . , Meadow Run • ullOMMIN -----_-___ • ay ___.___________ ----------811111111111111111111111111 , l' . ring ------....._ RIR , 1.---1-Nii■A II IR alai imme, --1. F. .5.::.5..: :::..\ . , -...;41•11 ____, Fox Meadow All*It 11111M. ..m.. 4111— mmoigo&&.a: 4 1 I r04 1 I 14 / I i i __ „ ........ .. ...... ..,,,,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::„:„.. ,.inci::::mmmi: ....• s • -I ''' . _a- •:::31,115Epostsmines • II,. al,. . , LAKE HOGAN FARM .... ........ ............,..............._............... -..---,-.........—„.. ___ - REZONING REQUEST Change Carrboro RR zone munNUSMOKORMUggMBWWWWIN ---,. - , iI -- -- N. / -to Carrboro R-20 zone i" ''- , :,... __. Approximately 264 Acres 01NWNNESMMOMMBREMMINEM / Alli it ominalligE ENVIEUVI: / ---,s c a 1 e - 1" = 1200 ' , ORM Aganagalignan EiN" . 2.--.-"--------- ..c ..<,....: A /, 4-1-93 ir. • ....- // R-20 \.s 1 firm g ...Aim iskomodutons w. ......„..,_....,.............,..„............ ........... .....,..,...,...............•..."........„,".•.%„.............,„••...„ .............•. ,,,.............,.......,.....,w, ■ ................--,...." ..........., . ............. .......... Stony Rill ......,...............— ,..... . .„............., ................-• ••-• .........,........- •••„,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:.- -- ,,,,,,-• ....„... ...„.......„.„, , ...,.. --- ----• ......................,„ ... •• ( .. ...„,„ . . .... ___ I\ 'IiiII 1 AWN , Awl I 1 • 11 1 , ..... ....„4„, f III 1111 ' ' c.....,,,,,...„,...„., I. 11 .0,...,1' ,Ca t yonder II Lill IIPP-1111111111111 .0- '.. ‘koolies 1 °'. ... NI IIIII 1. i ,,,,oe'0 R-15 1 - • - / / ••• \ / . , - - F --i Wexford Subdivision -- \ , 7 STAFF REPORT TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners Carrboro Board of Aldermen Orange County Planning Board Carrboro Planning Board FROM: Carrboro Planning Staff Orange County Planning Staff DATE: April 6, 1993 SUBJECT: Lake Hogan Farm Rezoning Request REQUEST: An amendment to the Orange County Zoning Atlas has been requested which would incorporate a proposed change to the Town of Carrboro Zoning Map. The proposed change would rezone all or part of 7 parcels located in the Carrboro Joint Development Area as identified on the Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Land Use Plan. The total area is approximately 264 acres in size and is located on the east side of Old Rt. 86 (aka Old Chapel Hill- Hillsborough Highway) north of Homestead Road. Figure 1 (attached) depicts the properties proposed for rezoning. PETITIONERS: This rezoning has been requested by Dale E. Redfoot AIA and Bradley W. Young, agents for the property owners. DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA: The specific parcels to be rezoned are identified as: all of Lots 1, 2 , 3, 24 and the portion of Lot 4 west of Lake Hogan Farm Road on Tax Map 109 in Chapel Hill Township and the portion of lots 31 and 31F south of the Buckhorn Branch of Bolin Creek on Tax Map 23 in Chapel Hill Township. All properties or portions of properties specified are located within Transition Area I of the Carrboro Joint Development Review Area. 1 8 Staff Report Lake Hogan Farm Rezoning Request Lots 1, 2, 3, and the portion of Lot 4 west of Lake Hogan Farm Road on Tax Map 109 are currently zoned Carrboro R-R, Rural Residential, which allows a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per acre (43, 560 sf) . Lots 31 and 31F on Tax Map 23 are also zoned Carrboro R-R, Rural Residential. The proposed zoning is Carrboro R-20, Residential 20, 000 sf Minimum Lot Size, which allows a maximum density of 2 . 1 dwelling units per acre. EXISTING LAND USE: The properties proposed for rezoning contain residential and agricultural uses. LAND USES AND ADJACENT ZONING: North: Vacant land and residential uses zoned Carrboro R-R north of the Buckhorn branch of Bolin Creek. This area is considered to be Carrboro Transition Area II. South: Residential uses zoned Carrboro R-R, including the Stony Hill Road subdivision. Also the Drew Lane subdivision zoned Carrboro R-15, Residential 15, 000 sf Minimum Lot Size. East: Vacant land, agricultural and residential uses zoned Carrboro R-20, Residential 20, 000 sf Minimum Lot Size. West: On the east side of Old Rt. 86 (SR 1009) there are 4 lots surrounded on 3 sides by one of the properties proposed for rezoning. These lots are either vacant or in residential use. West across Old Rt. 86 are residential uses and vacant land including the Deer Ridge Drive subdivision. ZONING HISTORY OF THE PROPERTIES: 1988 Zoned Carrboro R-R, Rural Residential, 1 unit per 43, 560 sf (1 acre) Minimum Lot Size, as part of the implementation of the Joint Planning Agreement. Pre-1988 Orange County R-1, Rural Residential, 1 unit per 40, 000 sf Minimum Lot Size. 2 9 Staff Report Lake Hogan Farm Rezoning Request COMPARISON OF ZONES: Carrboro R-R, Rural Residential 43,560 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Size: Carrboro' s R-R zone is defined in Section 15-135 (c) of the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance as follows: The R-R (rural residential) district is designed to accommodate residential and related uses as well as several additional uses that would be appropriate in the more sparsely populated areas of the town's joint planning area, but that would be inappropriate within the more intensively developed residential zones. This residential zoning district requires 43, 560 square feet (one acre) of land per dwelling unit. Lot sizes may be reduced to 20, 000 square feet of land per dwelling unit if a development is clustered; however, the land which is "saved" must be set aside as usable open space. The overall density of the tract cannot exceed one dwelling unit per 43, 560 square feet of land; thus, the maximum density permitted under R-R zoning is 1 unit per acre. Table 1 (attached) compares the permissible uses in a Carrboro R-R zoning district with those in a Carrboro R-20 zoning district. Table 2 (attached) compares the density and dimensional requirements of both zones. Carrboro R-20, Residential 20,000 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Size: Carrboro's R-20 zone is a residential zoning district which requires 20, 000 square feet of land per dwelling unit. Lot sizes may be reduced to 15, 000 square feet of land per dwelling unit if a development is clustered; however, the land which is "saved" must be set aside as usable open space. The overall density of the tract cannot exceed one dwelling unit per 20, 000 square feet of land; thus, the maximum density permitted under R-20 zoning is 2 . 1 units per acre. Table 1 (attached) compares the permissible uses in a Carrboro R-20 zoning district with those in a Carrboro R-15 zoning district. Table 2 (attached) compares the density and dimensional requirements of both zones. CONFORMITY WITH THE JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN: According to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan adopted by Carrboro, Orange County and Chapel Hill in 1986, these properties are categorized as Suburban Residential located within Transition Area I of the Carrboro Joint Development Review Area. Under the 3 • 10 Staff Report Lake Hogan Farm Rezoning Request JPALUP, the category of Suburban Residential is defined as follows: Suburban Residential Areas are designated for housing densities ranging from one (1) to five (5) dwelling units per acre. Such areas are located where land is changing from rural to urban, suitable for urban densities, and to be provided with public utilities and services. Housing types range from single-family homes to duplexes to multi-family dwellings. However, densities may be lower than one dwelling unit per acre in Suburban Residential Areas. Chapel Hill as part of its Southern Small Area Plan has identified certain areas in the Southern Triangle as being suitable for densities not exceeding one (1) unit per acre for areas immediately east of U.S. 15-501 and densities not exceeding one (1) unit per five (5) acres for areas immediately west of Old Lystra Road. (amended 2/1/93) Both the current Carrboro R-R (1 unit/acre) zoning and the proposed Carrboro R-20 (2 . 1 units/acre) zoning are well within the density limits of the Suburban Residential Area category of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. CARRBORO SMALL AREA PLANNING PROCESS: Carrboro is at the beginning of a small area comprehensive planning process designed to produce a comprehensive plan for the growth and development of the northern edge of Carrboro's incorporated limits and the Transition Area. The study area encompasses approximately 3 , 900 acres within Carrboro and its permitting jurisdiction. The process has just begun and is expected to take a minimum of 2 years to complete. Carrboro has begun this process in response to increasing growth pressures along its northern boundary. Currently, over half of the land lying north of N. Greensboro St./Hillsborough Rd. and south of Homestead Rd. (excepting the Horace Williams tract) is either developed, undergoing development, has a current development permit, or is in the permitting process. Development of a comprehensive plan for this area is the responsibility of the Small Area Planning Work Group, a 34 member group which is made up of the Carrboro Planning Board, representatives from the Carrboro Transportation Advisory Board and Carrboro Parks and Recreation Commission, and 21 citizens of the study area. 4 11 Staff Report Lake Hogan Farm Rezoning Request No decision has been made by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen to place a moratorium on development permits during this project. The land in the Transition Area cannot be rezoned by the Board of Aldermen alone, rather it can only be rezoned by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to a joint public hearing process as provided for in the Joint Planning Agreement. A moratorium on rezoning requests would have to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners after a joint public hearing process. ANALYSIS: Carrboro's R-R and R-20 zoning districts are similar in many of the uses permissible in each. Nonetheless, there are a number of uses permissible in the R-R zoning district which are not permissible in a R-20 zoning district. These uses include temporary homes for the homeless; horseback riding stables; institutional residences such as nursing care, intermediate care, handicapped, aged, infirm, or child care institutions; veterinarian and kennel operations; agricultural operations which include livestock; airports; sanitary landfills; cemeteries; and commercial greenhouse operations with on-premises sales. Rezoning to R-20 would move these parcels to a more restrictive zoning category while doubling the allowable density. There is a significant difference between Carrboro R-R and R-20 in the maximum number of dwelling units allowed per acre. Carrboro R- R allows 1 dwelling unit per acre; R-20 allows up to 2 . 1 dwelling units per acre. Dimensional requirements for the R-R and R-20 zoning districts are the same. The parcels under consideration for rezoning total approximately 264 acres. Under R-R zoning a maximum of 264 units could be developed; under R-20 zoning a maximum of 574 units would be possible. It is critical to note that it would be very difficult to realize this many standard single family lots from the parcels because no land has yet been set aside for roads, recreation purposes, required stream buffers, or as undevelopable land. However, under multi-family or certain cluster designs it would be more likely that this many lots could be realized. The parcels proposed for rezoning are accessed via Old Rt. 86 (SR 1009) or Lake Hogan Farm Rd. (SR 1728) off of Homestead Rd. (SR 1777) . These are the main transportation routes which would be affected by any development which occurred on these parcels. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has recently completed a feasibility study of possible improvements to Homestead Rd. from the Calvander intersection east to NC 86. A feasibility study is required before any road project can be reviewed by the State Board 5 12 Staff Report Lake Hogan Farm Rezoning Request of Transportation for possible inclusion in the State Transportation Improvement Plan. A feasibility study is very preliminary and is used mainly for cost estimating purposes. It represents the first of several detailed studies which must be completed in order for a road improvement project to move forward towards funding and construction. The time between feasibility study and actual construction is generally measured in years rather than months. In addition, detailed transportation impact studies would be required as part of Carrboro's permit process for development of these properties. Nonetheless, the following information is offered as a first take on the transportation impacts of full development of these parcels on Homestead Rd. Under Carrboro R-R zoning, single family development of these parcels would allow a maximum of 264 units producing an estimated 2, 640 vehicle trips per day. Single family development of these parcels under Carrboro R- 20 zoning would allow a maximum of 574 units producing an estimated 5,740 vehicle trips per day. The 1992 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Homestead Rd. is estimated to be approximately 3000 vehicles per day (vpd) . Homestead Road is designed to handle an ADT of 12, 000 vehicles per day at capacity. It is apparent that full development of these parcels at either zoning density will, at completion, significantly increase the number of vehicles per day on Homestead Road; however, full development of these parcels alone would not push the ADT beyond the current design capacity of this road. These properties could be served by public water and sewer. As a part of its application for rezoning, Orange County requires that applicants obtain letters from agencies stating that the property can be served by public utilities and services. Those letters are attached for your reference. 6 13 Table 1 Comparison of Permissible Uses in Carrboro's R—R and R-20 Zoning Districts Permissible Uses R—R R-20 Single family uses x x Multi—family uses x x Group homes such as fraternities, sororities, homes for the handicapped, and boarding houses x x Homes emphasizing services, treatment or supervision such as nursing care homes, halfway houses, child care homes, x x Temporary homes for the homeless x Elementary and secondary schools x x Colleges, universities,and community colleges x Churches, synagogues and temples x x Libraries, museums, art galleries under 3,500 sf in size x x Community centers x x Outdoor recreational facilities——public and private x x Horseback riding stables x Institutional residences such as nursing care institutions, intermediate care institutions, handicapped, aged or infirm institutions, child care institutions x Veterinarian and kennel operations x Emergency services facilities x x Agricultural operations——excluding livestock x x Agricultural operations--including livestock x Silvicultural operations x x Reclamation landfills x x Airport x Sanitary landfill x Neighborhood utility facilities x x Towers and antennas x x Cemetery x Nursery schools and day care centers x x Commercial greenhouse operations without on—premises sales x x Commercial greenhouse operations with on—premises sales x Source: Carrboro Land Use Ordinance Section 15-146 14 Table 2 Comparison of Density and Dimensional Requirements Between Carrboro R—R and R-20 Zoning Districts Requirements R—R R-20 Minimum Land Area per Residential Unit 43,560 sf 20,000 sf (1 acre) Maximum Number of Dwelling Units per Acre 1.0/acre 2.1/acre Minimum Setbacks: from street right—of—way 40 feet 40 feet from rear lot boundary 20 feet 20 feet Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 100 feet Maximum Building Height 35 feet 35 feet Source: Carrboro Land Use Ordinance 15 J 1 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN JOINT PLANNING AREA PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 15 , 1993 1 The Orange County Board of Commissioners , the Carrboro Board 2 of Aldermen and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint 3 session on Thursday, April 15 , 1993 , at 7 : 30 p . m. , in the Orange 4 Water and Sewer Authority Community Meeting Room, Carrboro , NC . 5 6 ORANGE COUNTY- BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: - Chair Moses Carey , 7 Jr . and Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis , Don Willhoit , Verla Insko 8 and Alice Gordon. 9 10 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN PRESENT: Mayor Eleanor G . Kinnaird , 11 Aldermen Frances Shetley, Jacquelyn Gist , Hilliard Caldwell , Randy 12 Marshall and Tom Gurganus . 13 14 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN ABSENT: Jay Bryan. 15 16 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Reid , Bill 17 Waddell , Virginia Boland, Paul Hoecke , Joan Jobsis and Clint 18 Burklin. 19 20 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: James Gray, Elizabeth 21 Eidenier , Kent Scott , Jean Hamilton and Carol Cantrell . 22 23 ORANGE COUNTY ATTORNEY: Geoffrey Gledhill . 24 25 TOWN OF CARRBORO ATTORNEY: Michael B . Brough . 26 27 ORANGE COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M . Link , Jr . , 28 Planning Director Marvin Collins and Planner Mary Willis . 29 30 TOWN OF CARRBORO STAFF PRESENT : Town Manager Robert Morgan , Senior 31 Planning Julia Trevarthen and Deputy Town Clerk James Spivey . 32 33 NOTE: All materials referenced herein are on file in the Orange 34 County Clerk' s Office . 35 36 Chair Carey and Mayor Kinnaird welcomed the citizens in the 37 audience . 38 39 I . PUBLIC HEARING/REZONING REQUEST -- LAKE HOGAN FARM, INC. 40 41 Chair Carey explained that the public hearing was being held 42 to receive citizen comments on the proposed rezoning requests for 43 property owned by Lake Hogan Farm, Inc . , and property owned by 44 Virginia Pollitzer . If approved , the requests would involve D uU` nj 16 n "..i C". G 1 amendments to both the Orange County Zoning Atlas and the Carrboro 2 Zoning Map. 3 4 County Attorney Geoff Gledhill explained two procedural 5 questions . The first question dealt with the effect of a Protest 6 Petition on the rezoning request . Protest petitions are not 7 applicable in County zoning issues . However , they do apply within 8 town limits . He also explained the process that would be followed 9 after the public hearing and the process leading to the final 10 decision which will be made by both Boards . If the protest 11 petition is determined valid by the Town of Carrboro , a 4/5 vote by 12 the governing Board would be required for approval of the proposed 13 rezoning request . 14 - 15 Mary Willis , Orange County Planner , presented the Lake Hogan 16 Farm, Inc . rezoning request . Ms . Willis gave a historical review 17 of the Joint Land Use Plan and Joint Planning Agreement . She 18 explained that Lake Hogan Farm is located in the T-1 Transition 19 Area, which means that it is slated for, development with densities 20 of 1 to 5 units per acre . The proposed rezoning request to change 21 zoning from R-R to R-20 designation is in accordance With the Joint 22 Planing Area Land Use Plan. 23 24 Julia Trevarthen presented information regarding both the R-R 25 and R-20 zoning districts . Ms . Trevarthen explained that although 26 these districts are similar in many of the 'uses permissible , the 27 R-R zoning district does have uses which are not permissible in the 28 R-20 district . A significant difference between the Carrboro R-R 29 and R-20 zoning districts is the maximum number of dwelling units 30 allowed per acre . Carrboro ' s R-R allows 1 dwelling unit per acre ; 31 R-20 allows up to 2 . 1 dwelling units per acre . Dimensional 32 requirements are the same for both districts . Ms . Trevarthen 33 reviewed the maximum number of units that could be built per the 34 respective zoning districts , reviewed possible transportation 35 impacts , and explained that the properties could be served by 36 public water and sewer. 37 38 Chairman Carey read into the minutes the following letters and 39 memorandums received by the County and the Town of Carrboro 40 regarding the proposed rezoning request . 41 42 Letters voicing opposition to the proposed rezoning from 43 Spencer and Eleanor Leighton, Michael D. Tashjian and Christene 44 Petry, and Carolyn Miller. 45 46 A letter was received from Carol-Ann Greenslade , member of the 47 Carrboro Small Area Planning Work Group. She asked for an 18 to 24 48 month moratorium on zoning changes to allow the Work Group to study 49 the issues and make a report to the Town of Carrboro . 50 LL [7 3 1 A letter was received from "Jef" requesting that all zoning 2 changes be postponed until after the Carrboro Small Area Planning 3 Work Group has had an opportunity to study the issues . 4 5 A memo from Roy Williford to the Board of Aldermen regarding 6 receipt of the Protest Petition. 7 • 8 A memo from Michael Brough to Julia Trevarthen regarding the 9 application of protest provisions . 10 11 A Protest Petition which was received by the Town on April 12 , 12 1993 . 13 14 A memo from Robin Lackey to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen 15 regarding the protest petition submitted by nine members of the • 16 Small Area Planning Work Group . 17 18 The Protest Petition submitted by the nine members of the 19 Small Area Planning Work Group. 20 21 A letter from Mr . and Ms . H. Taylor Vaden to Roy Williford and 22 Marvin Collins . 23 24 A telephone call memorandum from Joe and Barbara Arendt 25 voicing opposition to the proposed rezoning . 26 27 A memorandum from John Hartley indicating opposition to this 28 rezoning request . 29 30 Dan Jewell , the representative for the applicants of the 31 proposed rezoning , stated that the rezoning request of the 32 applicants would be amended to withdraw one-hundred feet ( 100 ' ) 33 from the southern border of the property, allowing a 100-foot 34 buffer area between the original rezoning request boundary and the 35 Stoney Hill Subdivision. This amended request reduces the acreage 36 of the proposed rezoned area. Mr . Jewell stated that the proposed 37 rezoning request does not mean that the land will be annexed nor 38 does the request mean that the land will be developed at five units 39 per acre . He also stated that development of the land would not be 40 a project that would happen immediately but would be a project 41 developed over the next decade or so . Mr . Jewell stated that 42 public water and sewer would service the area and low to moderate 43 density development is the goal of the applicants . 44 45 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED FOR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF 46 COMMISSIONERS , BOARD OF ALDERMEN AND/OR PLANNING BOARD . 47 48 Alderman Jacquelyn Gist questioned the effect of the 49 applicant ' s amended request of allowing a 100 ' buffer along the 50 southern border of the property. 51 18 1 C If Michael Brough explained that , by law , the 100 ' buffer 2 nullifies the petitioners ' protest petition. The law does allow an 3 applicant to lessen the area of one ' s rezoning request , prior to or 4 during the hearing of the request . 5 6 Commissioner Alice Gordon asked whether a fiscal impact 7 analysis had been done and, if it has been, asked that it be shared 8 with the Board . Mr. Jewell stated that a fiscal impact analysis 9 had not been done , but that one could be completed and shared with 10 the Board . 11 12 Commissioner Don Willhoit questioned the status of the trailer 13 park and requested that staff give a report listing the 14 subdivisions in the transition area , with lot sizes and the density 15 of each development . 16 17 Commissioner Gordon added that a map depicting land use 18 activity in the transition area over the last ten years would be 19 helpful . 20 21 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS 22 23 Mary Ayers voiced support for the rezoning request stating 24 that the applicants have dedicated much time and thought to their 25 rezoning request They have solicited input from their neighbors 26 and Carrboro Planning staff members . Ms . Ayers criticized a 27 brochure that was created and circulated in the community by those 28 opposing the rezoning request because the brochure contained 29 misinformation and untrue statements . 30 31 Bob Cosgrove voiced opposition to the rezoning request because 32 higher zoning density would reduce his property value . 33 34 Bart Willis voiced support of the rezoning request stating 35 that a great deal of thought has been dedicated to the rezoning 36 request and to a possible plan for development . The plan would be 37 sensitive to the land and wildlife . 38 39 Jane Cates Fowler voiced support - of the rezoning request 40 stating that planned development would be good for the community. 41 42 Stephanie Padilla read a protest petition, signed by nine ( 9 ) 43 members of the Small Area Planning Work Group ( SAPWG ) , in 44 opposition to the rezoning request . The petition requested a 45 moratorium on any and all rezoning request in the Ti and T2 land in 46 the transition area until the Small Area Planning Work Group has 47 time to execute the charge given it by the Carrboro Board of 48 Aldermen . 49 50 Linda Roberts voiced opposition to the rezoning request 51 because of traffic impact and higher density . Ms . Roberts stated 52 that she accepts that development of the land is inevitable , but �(' 19 U 5 1 feels that the SAPWG should be allowed to execute the charge given 2 it by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen . 3 4 Chip Baker read a petition requesting denial of the rezoning 5 request because of the density impact on Seawell School , area roads 6 and the wildlife corridors . Mr . Baker also stated that approving 7 the rezoning request would undermine the charge of the SAPWG and 8 the 2000 Task Force Report . 9 10 John Hartley presented sketched scenarios of areas , in closer 11 proximity to the town limits , for possible development , other that, • 12 Hogan Farm. Mr . Hartley voiced opposition to the rezoning reque 13 citing the density impact ' on the land , school , and roads . He also, 14 stated concerns that the Hogan land is a large part of the are 15 that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen have requested the SAPWG 16 consider for possible planning/development scenarios . 17 18 Sally Nussbaumer stated that she does not oppose the rezonin.: 19 request per se but does reject the process used by the governinL 20 Boards to consider the request . This process excludes the SAP‘,,., 21 from the process and prohibits them from executing the char 22 issued by the Carrboro of Aldermen to plan for the future 23 development of the transition area. Ms . Nussbaumer asked that the 24 SAPWG be included in this planning process . 25 • 26 Carol Ann Greenslade , a member of the SAPWG, stated that thy , 27 Work Group needs to be allowed to execute the charge given to them . 28 She requested that a moratorium be placed on all rezoning request -, 29 in the T1 and T2 area. She felt that the applicant ' s request 1 ;1' 30 been made solely for financial gain and does not take oth'• : 31 important issues into account . 32 33 Bud Varden reviewed the legal criteria for requesting Ant 34 granting rezoning applications . Mr . Vaden asked that the financi .t 35 gains of a few citizens not be allowed to outweigh the good of the 36 community as a whole . 37 38 Carol Miller spoke in opposition to this zoning request citin _ 39 increased density and adverse impact on Sewell School . 40 41 Doris haneklides voiced opposition to this rezoning requ' 42 because of problems created by water run-off . 43 44 Stephen Dear spoke in opposition to this request . h- 45 mentioned its negative impact on traffic flow, the school system , 46 and wildlife . He requested that an environmental impact study he 47 completed prior to any further action being taken . 48 49 Sidney Harrell voiced opposition to the rezoning reque 50 citing traffic impact and stormwater run-off . He asked that , 51 comprehensive storm water model be developed for the Bolin Creek 52 Watershed with particular emphasis on the T1 Transition area . I 1 20 6 1 Chuck Mosher voiced opposition to the rezoning request citing 2 the negative impact on the land and the destruction of wildlife 3 habitat . 4 5 Steve Davis read a letter from H . Trawick Ward which voiced 6 opposition to the rezoning request because of the increase in 7 traffic as well as the increase in the number of school age 8 children. He commented that this proposal would have a negative 9 impact on the environment and would destroy or disturb 10 archeological material . 11 12 Tree Moore voiced opposition to the rezoning request because 13 of the impact on the environment , traffic , schools , and the 14 negative impact of higher density on property value . Mr . Moore 15 felt that this request is solely for the financial gain of the 16 applicants . 17 18 Jean Worth read a letter from Maggie Grace voicing opposition 19 to the rezoning request . 20 21 Lynn Jaffe voiced opposition due to negative impact on the 22 surrounding property owners . She asked that the SAPWG be given an 23 opportunity to carry out its charge before further rezoning 24 requests are granted which would be out of sync with the Carrboro 25 2000 Task Force Report . 26 27 Barrie Vaden voiced opposition to the rezoning request stating 28 that careful planning of the transition area is very important and 29 that mechanisms and processes already in place should be used in 30 planning the transition area. 31 32 Chris Hogan , one of the applicants , gave a historical review 33 of circumstances which have caused the Hogan' s to make this 34 rezoning request . Mr. Hogan stated that a proposed development 35 plan was presented to members of the community approximately 1 1/2 36 years ago to receive their input . The information was used to 37 modify the proposed plan in order to satisfy their requests . He 38 also indicated that the plan was informally presented to members of 39 the Carrboro Planning staff . . Mr . Hogan indicated that he was 40 surprised to hear citizens say that they knew nothing of this plan. -11 He also mentioned that the schools are currently overcrowded and 42 that new schools will be built regardless of whether or not this 43 development is approved . He stated that time , effort and planning 44 went into this development plan and that it is not based solely on 45 personal financial gain . He stated that the rezoning request and 46 development plan have been in the making for approximately five ( 5 ) 47 years . Citizens and staff have been kept abreast of plans during 48 that time . He felt it would be an undue hardship to require the 49 SAPWG to complete its charge before this rezoning request was 50 considered . He expressed his own strong feelings for this land and 51 desire to protect it ecologically and environmentally. 52 L 21 AU 1 Rob Hogan , another of the applicants , asked that the governing 2 Boards grant the request . He indicated that they have already 3 responded to community concerns voiced over the years by not 4 requesting the highest possible density which would be allowed by 5 the requested zoning designation. 6 7 Katie McLaurin voiced support of the rezoning request and 8 stated her disappointment with the scare tactics being used . She 9 presented a copy of the informational brochure which was sent home 10 with the students of Seawell School . She indicated that the 11 brochure was both incorrect and misle'adi.ng . 12 13 Ann Leonard , one of the applicants , stated that the approval 1-1 of this request would allow the family to -afford to farm the 15 remaining land . She also mentioned that the proposed density is 16 much lower than that which could have been requested . 17 18 . Alan Finkel voiced opposition to the rezoning request and 19 stated that individual financial gain should not outweigh the 20 community welfare . 21 22 Livy Ludington voiced opposition to the rezoning request . She 23 mentioned the adverse impact on roads , schools and the environment . 24 However , she also stated that land owners who chose to farm their 25 land should be paid fairly if they are being asked to preserve 26 their land. She urged all parties to work together to reach a 27 compromise . 28 29 Gary Giles stated that he had signed a protest petition 30 because he believes the density should be increased . He commented 31 that the physical features of the land will force land preservation 32 for open space and wildlife and still allow for higher density. He 33 also requested that a moratorium be placed on the T1 and T2 34 transition area. 35 36 Jan Hogan asked that the governing Boards approve the rezoning 37 request . She stressed her family' s love of the land and stated 38 that they had devoted much time and effort to developing this plan . 39 40 41 Ester Atwater McCauley voiced support for the rezoning request 42 stating that knowing the Hogan ' s concern for the land , she has 43 confidence that any development they proposed would be 44 environmentally and ecologically sensitive . 45 46 A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit , seconded by 47 Commissioner Insko , to refer the proposed rezoning to the Carrboro 48 Planning Board meeting of May 6 , 1993 for a recommendation to be 49 presented to the Carrboro Board of Aldermen on May 25 , 1993 . After 50 action by the Board of Aldermen the proposed rezoning will be 51 referred to the Orange County Planning Board at their June 21 , 1993 LuJ c ) G 7 22 U� • 8 1 meeting for a recommendation to be presented to the Orange County 2 Board of Commissioners on August 2 , 1993 . 3 VOTE : UNANIMOUS 4 5 A motion was made by Alderman Gurganus , seconded by Jacquelyn 6 Gist , to refer the proposed rezoning to the Carrboro Planning Board 7 meeting of May 6 , 1993 for a recommendation to be presented to the 8 Carrboro Board of Aldermen on May 25 , 1993 . After action by the 9 Board of Aldermen, the proposed rezoning will be referred to the 10 Orange County Planning Board at their June 21 , 1993 meeting for a 11 recommendation to he presented to the Orange County Board of 12 Commissioners at their August 2 , 1993 meeting . 13 VOTE : UNANIMOUS 14 15 Ii . PUBLIC HEARING/REZONING -- VIRGINIA POLLITZER • 16 Orange County Planner Mary Willis presented this item. She 17 indicated that the total acreage of this property which is proposed 18 to be rezoned is 16 acres . The property is currently zoned R-20 19 which allows a density of up to 2 . 1 dwellings per unit per acre . 20 The proposed zoning is R-15 , which allows a density of up to 2 . 9 21 dwelling units per acre . 22 23 Carrboro Planner Julia Trevarthen also made a presentation on 24 this item which compared the R-20 and R-15 zoning districts and how 25 both the present and the requested zoning conform with the Joint 26 Planning Area Land Use Plan. Ms . Trevarthen stated that the uses 27 permissible in the R-20 and R-15 zoning districts are virtually 28 identical with only one difference . Dimensional requirements are 29 somewhat less in the R-15 zoning districts and the property can be 30 served by OWASA . 31 32 Michael Hughes , representing Ms . Pollitzer, addressed the 33 Board stating that plans for development of the land have not been 34 done yet , but once developed , the land would be serviced by OWASA. 35 36 THERE WERE NO COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS OR CITIZENS 37 38 A motion was made by Commissioner Insko , seconded by 39 Commission Halkiotis , to refer the proposed rezoning to the 40 Carrboro Planning Board meeting of May 6 , 1993 for a recommendation 41 to be presented to the Carrboro Board of Aldermen on May 25 , 1993 . 42 After action by the Board of Aldermen, the proposed rezoning will 43 be referred to the Orange County Planning Board meeting of June 44 21 , 1 993 for a recommendation to be presented to the Orange County 45 Board of Commissioners on August 2 , 1993 . 46 VOTE : UNANIMOUS 47 48 A motion was made by Alderman Gist , seconded by Alderman 49 Gurganus , to refer the proposed rezoning to the Carrboro Planning 50 Board meeting on May 6 , 1993 for a recommendation to be presented 51 to the Carrboro Board of Aldermen on May 25 , 1993 . After action by 52 the Board of Aldermen , the proposed rezoning will be referred to 23 En CAB- ed I s 4, ,2 Pe-e-ct, c.�]( G� I J p 2 v-€ at `Hve. 17-q r t`I 16, 1?q 3 ?cal b .- r; A C-$5'• ' ' • 1 - MAW a Pa a A2ZIAlri_ - I C;JQ nT"e c{ -i-o 0-164 e. S c.0 f' e 1 tJas riterpr 'ed corf^e-etly Q.nd ` -- - 1' 4- i's p laced 1,n ` i.e minus-es o -hilcti 1 I --H-tat- e. 5 -s-o -i-k _ _'._ .rib o ho hid rr1en L.5(1 11 'hatra 1 - - - o e Per. -1-0 1c-e Tnc Y � xnD --/-0 -Poi- `, Er'� ine.d7( /Las .._ ._, Ifl r a5, Jg9.3 , 1 L _ , imp n __ I ,�c;t---U\ rlSl �t7cic\ 1-Gthm 1°Ce z.ont nz 24 � Ltr. � ■ � � , 1 I -t - e y Cenn,.isSr& e tren P `, e cc�rins e�i Ccrrbor-o ��err,� r� �- Jrc ,t�Q CA I o , t.4.1 rvCir - s L►nda, 1RroGkW eM Roberts tend as mas'1' o� 0 713 i. a.rr. Q, t A ler.5 t-es i dent- cc' '4 e Vk ea.rzt o-P Cctio-ckraer - t o .t ah ,`s CZAZ o know rti dy PrN-cx.r.1 o Lk s. a.s " Gods Cb tlrlt h r I._11 toast. 1OL �A\ knew Qi(-s1 0-9 c l 1-` ,`- I 1 t (� e.'�t h 1 hca..S Q �- '�Ge, e. �Q.f\. �-""'"Al �`( g\`k. Seal .t t r e pet: e.` �a1re. aA�at s �e-�� CN e SV\-\ -,.z Q,nd 1 C.a_r\ r e c.,∎ate e 8 ; cu,(- d e_c i s ;o n. i-keAl i14"v-e. C"■a-cr --\1u h13--ke , , , hoLJe lr r , , , I ci o ‘-\a.lr c.. S e.o-eral co nec,r.Rs -ca r b t-t-'r wbrast-ct---A Cohnm.u....t. ,; 41 `}'\-t- I Ve,e_ 1 S q`f' L L.u.r'r`1�bhv aO tlow �y-Q ire SClr r'�1j�u�`� l'tu-� delre10 r,�R��.�1 e 1 r\det- Co n.r.u.� -Y ` ' Lt5 e-r e. d e �oped em or\e ancA v c_e.re oils - Lat x e_A Sp-41-. ...s g is c,, 0.1'ce e�(,arr\ I �e , A rno. ' o Cotic,erh .°-"C) —' L� .ter m► h.e. c`boti' ` ke, I-e-z�onC n. is ` -ke is t.-c--'9-90c. - i' + i s l' g - Z kew t•m( br a` EU-er y 4-t rr e g o ,r -\-- 3 u s� `k-\,,,e. e\---1,er rte t-.1-):‘n9 at T.44)5 ,N. , I tO e,:i s i M+ Y1.w e g � US-�" � �e� C 1,x ' o� Cri t{ d r t v-e,�nY r`�o �e 1h and , ,, tl 00- L�e . . .�y d r�'�-�.� t`s a_F p ro i mom' -ety \ DO LJc ras -dm ` e Cautirvier .-\-0? 1'` so 1 A cr- i IN ' CA t.\e w ca„\t o ��erd, �, y ---- e 4-. ani c overt 'ire . Z terser A 1rtitrii-ck,"\ ON +0 Gz.0 be tIou ` d ri trewcW o r e n r� --- --� �' C.©rr�, end ��-}- �� „ "•`! ask. ,r e,ti- � �-t- `� .-Cr o h�t" e o roe r\k `t i rn.e, r 3 t�.s�t" e rte 1-out- r Z czb �-I-bm�s`� �� eu ,� ll 4-X� lc,-\d=hd ex4e.�lY t..,s - 1 I k; Roo.rk ct.nd `.\-t.,e. t r.:terseetitc" 1 s a 1-coa +00 data e u anal we de r1.el- n e.cd a` \-\(,V,.Gr dens i - de.tr-e,a ,,�- k Y i l JT' 1- m BIZ wok-se , e. C i-,t-beto PIck_r■n: S C. Ref o r:7\-" -d-cd'e s ii--\a.-- ` kif s o r,e, dev e,1 rr,e ,-t- 1 d n e t.� I l i - t fA e +I\ `l- j b s Pc,r dc.Y a.r)-d \- head e 4 Goad -1-o o-P' �`fs p '� 8 �o rr l --k-'t`c--e e, aC.i 4-y s Its ter., y .-a.a i cv,tflus -�--�c C o c\s l d cz- reZ,or, r,5 s li, ro er--'1- `1 l CO n 1t �( C,erntnl.k.t..i 1 s p r'e_Ct ol�S ±0 4,A l b-P L�.. sot 1E. C 1 1 ets ck,t. ` toot Y 1 k ` o , .er +0 p last l'-1- i'n s 1.k. .k 25 May 19 , 1993 Eleanor Kinnaird , 207 W. Poplar Ave . Carrboro , N . C . 27510 Dear Mayor : We are writing to seek your support for the rezoning request we have submitted As you have heard , the decision to sell this section of Lake Hogan Farm has been a long and difficult one . Yet a range of forces have brought us to the point where continuing to operate the dairy farm is no longer wise for our family . Over the past four years we have discussed with Dale Redfoot our vision for how the land should be treated when it can no longer be farmed . We have grown to trust Dale and to feel that he understands the importance we attach to developing the land in such a way that we will continue to be proud °to be associated with it. Together we have worked hard to create a design that reflects the reality of increased demand for housing in this area while enhancing the sense of community that we in Calvander have always had . We believe we have done that . We view our request to be a reasonable one . The transition area was created as the area to absorb the inevitable expansion of Carrboro . While requests for increased density of up to 5 units per acre are permitted in the area , our request for the 2 . 1 specification reflects our desire to create a community we will enjoy living in . We firmly believe • that one acre lots only worsen urban sprawl and consume more of the rural nature of the county that we all appreciate . Our plan combines clustered housing with walking trails and open space . The increased density we are requesting helps us conserve more open space and allows for sewage and water hookups which are vastly preferable to individual wells and septic fields . We intend to continue farming the other segments of the farm, on Old 86 and on Homestead Rd . The development of the land under discussion will give us that flexibility . While we are sorry that the Small Area Planning Group began too late to be involved in the current request , we will welcome the ^ }^ ;y opportunity to work with them on the long term plans for this 4 remaining land . .�.,. {1' '•,,jam ,, -. #, ," 241393 j�cC-1V1 ...� • 26 2 While the process of this request has been difficult for us , we appreciate the goodwill demonstrated on the part of the town , the Board and the staff to work together with us toward a reasonable and desirable use for our land . We want to continue working with the Board in that spirit as a specific plan goes through the process , whatever your decision on the rezoning request . Thank you for your consideration of our request and for being the good neighbors that Carrboro has been to us . We hope to be good neighbors to Carrboro too . Sincerely , 14,,t ar Bob and Dot Hogan Rob Hogan and Ann Leonard • • 27 May 23, 1993 The Board of Alderman • • Town Hall Carrboro, North Carolina 27510 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter concerns the request for rezoning the Hogan Lake Farm property. _ I was born on a farm on Homestead Road that has been in my family since the 1700's and I continue to make this my home. I am pleased to support the request for rezoning. Yes, the farm and lake are beautiful properties and I have many happy memories of playing there, learning to swim, camping, ball games, class picnics, etc. Bill and Bob have been most generous as was their Dad, Henry, their uncles, Hubert, Glenn and Jack and their grandfather, Clay. Their roots go deep: This property is their inheritance and I know that their desire is to develop it to be an attractive area. They care: Growth is here. We, in this area, are no longer country and I, for one, believe that there is too much control on land use and development. At some point we must trust people and I think we should trust the Hogan's working in concert with the developer to provide an addition to the neighborhood in which we can all take great pride. I do not consider their request to be out of character for the area. Single family development of this type will prove to be benefical for all concerned. Again, I urge you to vote favorably for this rezoning request. Cordially, Ellen Kepley John and Ellen Kepley 1309 Homestead Road Chapel Hill, N. C. 27516 cc: Mr. Robert Hogan Mr. Bill Hogan. :: . 'RECEIVED MAY 2 5 1993 • ,,,,,,, 28 To : The Carrboro Board of Aldermen We , the following neighbors of Lake Hogan Farm , strongly support the rezoning of the Hogan property north of Homestead Road . We request your support of the rezoning proposal . Thank you for your consideration . Name Address I CUlt--ie.- ( -173( -7--z--'--7/ ,-- • 4' rr 2 6 LI)t..xt,t,1 4,3/14D kQ__.-1 ., e . 4.. .. -3 ,7.-,-,/ ex ,. .(•. _J•'‘ , ,,-,,,-sze. , /) -- . ,, , 1. cr . :1 / (....1CiL,V Ci riciE irs (.. /--.1:e./54-L (:"el- --4:' -7" ( • , , — •-• --/ -7 -,-,'.•:. I . /1( ' -,• I. - - , (-2X---, , 4 • 11 .:-) ., ./' ' 4.7-{1.., '. / '/1 -/, 1, . i . . 1 ( /---. _ , . ( (L2 ,'',,, ' - 7-;', . y'). -:-/ k',...,,' , ,,. 4,5--- c•--- c1\ v6.1/4"-e-le' 2...1„4. ...,, • ,,,,,,.,_:,..., . ,..,,,,._.,• .. „., ., , ,...4.7„...7,, •. +4 r0; 25 129,3 F:77 ,.:... ; • ,,- • . :....:,.... : 29 To : The Carrboro Board of Aldermen We , the following neighbors of Lake Hogan Farm, strongly support the rezoning of the Hogan property north of Homestead Road . We request your support of the rezoning proposal . Thank you for your consideration . Name Address /1 a c t ti11.LC 5 'Q�c �a C {- �-( �-+�- i ` Xia.1 s1c7 e1 ' X. c- Sc. c1- 4 . —L—L— a.�- 1-. 3 , n ,s..4_ ,.9, %ac 3 oLA N , C . fl- ,? /, lk,,,y 7( 7yt; C � 2,, ce)61,-ze://;_ • 6%., -- E-„, , 4//z/ic t?6-. Ve/2„7 1-/-e._17K..z).., .,-, ":,(9160.&-- 40-A-dt- i(i.,Q..0 4-01')J- -k-. , v w 1 -()u r, - /1 5L' ',&(,/,daW /yezi-- )716frwweai a (,.., .. , A / / . el/ • U. 7 ,e , r , ,. ,, �' , 2,,,z,, �' '�i�- C 7 3 �� - ,% . P47/ e-W 4-', ,c.-• a , _/ /4//7 4,2 7si< ( ..} Ak7p77.......-z, 2_79y , FO 0 ? C;) ( ?PC Ss C .7—::7 Z.-,<..—, 2 6'72._ I 1 '1 I i psECE ED 'Av el\I 2 5 4 n.J 30 TO : THE CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMAN WE , THE FOLLOWING NEIGHBORS OF LAKE HOGAN FARM STRONGLY SUPPORT THE REZONING OF THE HOGAN PROPERTY: . .q IVE ADDRESS • 1 . vt�c. 6,&,_ 4.7za, ".,,„_:,.. 9 d 6" c,44.7.72 ,*0a.,04 p--,L,t_ daL2..,,t,e..L.- y o g I . zi,"„A /P, pv,ig„.0 '07-, 1-72-,74< <-Lge_L-opel fir5tehd____ ,.6,,h_:-..,c g- -0,,______ boo/ . . .._...._-.____. . .. _._ _ (/ %GCS - - L- _ - �G'O/ i,iii.e/', - A' 6_zi-.-e_ 0 ,,,2/. /4/,,,,4_, 1 ,erz - . ___. (------ -2 f.4-• )' - ilV4- -)-14_1" -----(-1- S,._ '\: C-�i Ci�_, /L:�Ltil2 v -2� I!f / � 40 i % , i0 , f2 2 $ 471 € LJ ___4- ,- _ 40"F. .. c)lc, 5)-X-Z' cni./eD , cilil .�- glob 2jC-- a-40 . z , usA - e!/1 4/ c oic( 8(0 um , . 7---\----%i0-c,- ___S II(\ L)Q__ \ k -- : ,.-�. z.�aY 2 1993 s a. 31 304 Ray Rua. Chapel Hill, NC 27516 May 21, 1993 Dear Mayor Kinnaird and Members of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, I would like to take this opportunity to share my ideas about the rezoning request for the Hogan Farm. I feel strongly that Carrboro would be courting disaster if the Town were to grant this request. The Triangle area is growing so rapidly that we are now the third fastest growing region in the country. The implications of this phenomenon are staggering and difficult to imagine. I have enclosed a build-out map to help visualize what Carrboro will look like in the not so distant future under current zoning. Please take the time to look it over. To my way of thinking, rezoning to allow even more development should be inconceivable. Where is the open space to be preserved? ,Who pays for the roads, the schools? Most important, what happens to the quality of life? With Orange County's and Chapel Hill's current zoning, we are heading in the direction of Miami and Los Angeles. Not only would a rezoning of the Hogan Farm add considerable density to the area, it would be a piecemeal approach to a comprehensive problem. What Carrboro needs, instead, is a broad- based plan, arriving at an overall plan for its northern and southern areas. Furthermore, the rezoning of the Hogan land would set a clear precedent for other landowners in the surrounding area. How can you deny their requests, once you have approved the Hogans'? That's a poor way to plan, in my opinion. The Hogan Farm is the gem in Carrboro's northern planning jurisdiction. Why develop this land in a mediocre way, increasing density and losing the beauty of the land? Mediocrity is not the answer. There is a better way. Developers, landowners, neighbors can all work together with Carrboro to find a better way. Everyone will have to compromise but in the long run, I think that the developers and landowners can make their money (maybe not as much), the pond and its surrounding land can be preserved (though it won't be as beautiful), and the neighbors can continue to enjoy this area (though it won't be quite as nice), while schools and roads will not be so greatly impacted, and Carrboro won't have to raise taxes to finance the cost of services . We can work together to find a solution. The answer, however, is not to grant a rezoning request which would allow twice the current density. Let's work towards continuing to build a quality community. We should not gradually erode the quality of life which we are so fortunate to enjoy. Thank you,jA,1‘ Oecti,t,;f.j RECEIVED MAY 2 1993 Livy Ludington 32 May 24, 1993 Sarah C. Williamson Town Clerk P.O. Box 829 Carrboro, NC 27510 - Re: Hogan Farm Rezoning Dear Ms. Williamson: In accordance with Mr. Roy M. Williford's May 14, 1993 letter and my understanding that the tape recording of the April 15th hearing was marginal, a reconstruction of my comments at that hearing is as follows: "Given the interconnected neighborhood roads policy, the lack of viable thoroughfares around/to and from Carrboro/Chapel Hill in this area, and the fact that traffic, much like flowing water, follows the path of least resistance, I am extremely concerned about the potential impact of increased traffic pressure from this and other developments on existing neighborhoods. I ask that the rate of development be matched to the proactive development of services such as transportation including roads and bicycle/pedestrian paths. Has a stormwater model been run for the T-1&2 area/Bolin Creek watershed and for the Lake Hogan Farm parcel in particular?" Thank you for the opportunity to submit written comments on this issue. Sincerely, Sidney L. Harrell 204 Barington Hills Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 (919) 942-7978 �•: R E C E' r O 1f AY 2 5 1993 33 Katie Early McLaurin - 109 Windsor Circle Chapel hill, NC 27516 Tel: 919-968-8673 May 24, 1993 Carrboro Board of Aldermen Town Hall Carrboro, NC Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing in regard to the rezoning request being considered by the Carrboro Alderman for the property known as Lake Hogan Farm. I have spoken at two meetings on this issue, once at the Homestead Community Building at a gathering of "concerned" citizens and once at the joint Carrboro-Orange Country public hearing. I am a Chapel Hill resident with children attending Seawell Elementary School. I am also a close personal friend of the Hogan family. The issue I want to address with this letter is the impact of additional development on the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School System. I have served as an elected school governance committee member at Seawell and as a Seawell parent volunteer to the last system-wide school redistricting committee. • The request for rezoning Lake Hogan Farm is not the make-it or break-it issue for Seawell or the school system as a whole. Some of the information that has circulated by those who oppose this request lay the majority of the development burden on Seawell School. This is simply not the case. Development is here and more development is on the way throughout our community. Our school administrators and board members, in collaboration with local governing boards and the community at large, are responsible for meeting the educational needs of our children. It is my view that we have extremely competent and dedicated educator- administrators who are best able to face the growing demands of our increasing school age population when they are able to plan adequately. The development that is proposed with the rezoning request will take a minimum of eight to ten years to build out. This type of planned development will facilitate rather than hinder the work of those charged with designing and implementing educational facilities and programs for our children. 3,c RECEIVED NAY 2 t0 34 Carrboro Board of Aldermen May 24, 1993 Page 2 I urge you to weigh the rezoning request for the Lake Hogan Farm property in light of the big picture of planning for the long term for the Carrboro community, its schools and the entire school system. Sincerely, Katie Early Mcc aurin • 35 417 Stony Hill Road Chapel Hill, NC 27516 May 25, 1993 Board of Alderman, Town of Carrboro c/o Sarah C. Williamson, Town Clerk P.O. Box 829 Carrboro, NC 27510 Re: Hogan Farm Rezoning Gentlemen: The purpose of this letter is to voice my objection to the proposed rezoning of the Hogan Farm properties from RR, one unit per acre, to R-20, almost 2.2 units per acre.. Article XX Section 15-325 of the Town of Carrboro Land Use Ordinance states that "In deciding whether to adopt a proposed amendment to this Chapter, the central issue before the Board is whether the proposed amendment advances the public health, safety or welfare. All other issues are irrelevant..."Subsection 15-325 (1) goes on to state that the Board shall not consider "any representations made by the petitioner that, if the change is granted, the rezoned property will be used for only one of the possible range of uses permitted..." and subsection 15-325 (2) states that regardless of the advantages to the applicant, the Board shall only "consider the impact of the proposed change on the public at large." Not a single benefit to the public was advanced in the applicants' request for this zoning change. Indeed, a great number of people raised serious questions regarding the impact of a greater than 100% increase in the built-out repercussions of such a change including a negative impact on the Bolin Creek drainage basin, road traffic, school capacity, and eventually on our taxes. We already experience frequent flooding of Bolin Creek, precious wetland wildlife has already been displaced by growth along its course and no data has been presented on the impact of doubling the permitted density on these issues. Our schools are currently beyond their intended capacities and no provision has been considered to alleviate already heavy traffic through the Calavander intersection, such as paving Eubanks Road in its entirety. Accommodating the permitted and anticipated development of the Hogan Farm as zoned will not positively impact our tax burden. The impact of double density may well be more than twice as bad. This has been the case in many other developing residential areas. Time and again it is only the developers who end up putting money into their pockets. The Hogans suggest that they will not utilize the rezoned acreage at its capacity of 2.2 units per acre, but rather only at 1.3 units per acre, or as I last heard 1.6 units per acre. The Board must, in its deliberations, consider the impact of the full permitted uses of such a rezoning, as nothing less could be enforced. *,> X;. RECEIVED no( 2 5 1993 36 open space, they might have requested a variance which would have permitted clustering on 15,000 sq. ft. lots instead of 20,000 as the RR zone permits. This would be cost effective for them, be beneficial to the environment and be within the anticipated growth projections of the area planning. Possibly in exchange for the increased open space, some additional density such as the originally suggested 1.3 units per acre could be considered. Surely, there must be some compromise that could result in a win-win situation. I implore the Board to deny this application and encourage the applicants to pursue an alternative that would be more in keeping with what they say they really want, and the public is prepared to accommodate. Respectfully, toy Carol-Ann Greenslade • • I F • Georgann Eubanks: Hogan Lake Rezoning Summation 1 37 This proposal has created an unfortunately tone of debate for our community, marked on both sides by anger and hurt feelings. The bickering was regrettable-- but it must now be put behind us. Tonight you must not decide based on personalities and feelings. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the one, central issue before you now be the advancement of the public health, safety and welfare. To assure this focus, the ordinance declares two issues off-limits: promises regarding specific uses for the land, and advantages or disadvantages to the applicants as distinguished from the general public. We know and you know that the applicant has various possible plans for the property. They have promised a cluster subdivision-- Lake Hogan Farms-- with a golf course and a commercial center, at a density much lower than could be built under R-20. We are interested in a full, detailed and open discussion of each element of this concept, but this is not the time for that discussion. Had the planning staff encouraged the submission of this proposal as a PUD zone specifically tailored to the applicant's plans, the details of the proposed development could be debated now, and we might all be more comfortable with the terms of the discussion. But with the request that was submitted, the single question before you is whether public good would be advanced by doubling the zoning density on this 254-acre core of the Rural Transition Area, including all the uses that would be permitted under R-20. That means-- instead of 264-- up to 574 houses, on lots down to one- quarter acre. That is the only question before you. 1714):' 38 Georgann Eubanks: Hogan Lake Rezoning Summation 2 The applicants are not entitled to the rezoning unless they convince you through solid, relevant facts in the public record. For two reasons, we do not believe that the applicants' case can convince you. First, the case rests almost entirely on the two arguments prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance. Second, it fails to answer any of our objections regarding the threats to public health, safety and welfare which increased density would bring. . The applicants offered three points at the public hearing, all irrelevant to what the ordinance requires: • that the Hogan family wishes to leave the dairy business and will receive more by selling to a developer than to another farmer-- in other words, the special benefit to the developer; • that higher density development will allow more economical provision of sewerage, encouraging a "master planned/ open space development"-- in other words, a promise of a particular use of the land; and • that the proposed density is permissible under the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan- a fact that proves nothing, since both R-R and R-20 are allowable under general plans. But a greater weakness in the applicants' case lies in what it does not address. We have shown that rezoning would impair, not advance, the public health, safety and welfare. Doubled density would bring a projected 5,740 daily additional automobile trips on Old 86 and Homestead Road instead of 2,640. It would bring twice the impervious coverage on the land, with corresponding increases in already-serious downstream peak flooding in any major storm. It would create extra public expenses for roads, schools, fire, police 39 Georgann Eubanks: Hogan Lake Rezoning Summation 3 and sanitation for a "leap-frog" development, exceeding tax base income and likely requiring higher tax rates. And, under the Joint Planning Agreement, doubled density means setting a precedent for further, similar rezonings throughout the T-2 transition area. All of these objections have been documented with detailed, uncontroverted facts. Since time is limited, I would like to review evidence in just one area: roads. Planning staff advises you that, because NCDOT studied Homestead Road last winter and proposed five-laning it from Calvander to Airport Road, all is well. This optimism rests on oversimplification, to say the least: NCDOT found that the accident rate on Homestead is already 1.6 times the state average, even without the additional traffic of Wexford and other newly approved subdivisions. Road improvements may be years in coming, all out of Carrboro's control. Old 86, which carries many more cars and bicycles, particularly south towards the new school and shopping center, was not studied and is not planned for widening. We have raised similarly detailed concerns regarding flooding hazards downstream, negative fiscal impacts on the town budget, adequacy of schools and other public facilities, and incompatibilities with the Small Area Planning process and Carrboro 2000 policies. The applicants have answered none of these; your planning staff has responded only by promising that such impacts will be studied before any Conditional Use Permit is issued. However, rezoning entitles an owner of land to subdivide to the allowed density-- without any impact studies at all. No CUP need ever be applied for, and no 40 Georgann Eubanks: Hogan Lake Rezoning Summation 4 further determination of the interests of the public need ever be made before the maximum 574 housing units are built. Because our objections to this rezoning have met anger and aspersion, let me emphasize again that we are not attacking the motivation or the integrity of the Hogans. Nor are we attacking any proposed plan for Lake Hogan Farms, which must remain outside discussion in this rezoning. Rather, we are asking that you consider this rezoning under the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and that you reject it because the applicants have failed to show, through relevant, solid facts in the public record, that it will not impede the general health, safety and welfare. We are not opposed to development. In asking you to deny the applicants' request, we are not asking you to stop development of these parcels, and we are not asking you to reject the Lake Hogan Farms plan. We support a full and open discussion of the Hogans' concept after a resubmission of this proposal under PUD zoning, instead of the arbitrary R-R - R-20 districts. And we truly hope that, in a full and open discussion of the applicants' real plans, a neighborly spirit of communication and compromise will replace the misunderstanding, distrust and ugliness that has hurt all of us this time around. "14►°, TOWN OF CARRBORO 41 „;,z'� NORTH CAROLINA 0- 11 ; 1 ' ,APT, C L I The following resolution was introduced by Alderman Tom Gurganus and duly seconded by Alderman Hilliard Caldwell. A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARRBORO OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AND THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS REZONING APPROXIMATELY 255 ACRES COMPRISED OF ALL OF LOT 3 AND PORTIONS OF LOTS 1, 2, 24, AND 4 ON TAX MAP 109; AND PORTIONS OF LOTS 31 and 31F ON TAX MAP 23 LOCATED WITHIN TRANSITION AREA I OF THE CARRBORO JOINT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AREA. Resolution No. 32/92-93 WHEREAS, Carrboro is party, along with Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill, to a Joint Planning Agreement effective November 1987 ; WHEREAS, a Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Map were prepared and adopted by all parties pursuant to the Joint Planning Agreement; WHEREAS, according to the Agreement, requests to rezone lands located within Carrboro 's Joint Development Review Area may only be acted upon following a Joint Public Hearing involving the governing boards from Carrboro and Orange County; WHEREAS, a request to rezone from Carrboro R-R (Rural Residential, 43 , 560 sf minimum lot size/1 unit per acre) to Carrboro R-20 (Residential, 20, 000 sf minimum lot size/2 . 1 units per acre) all of Lot 3 and portions of Lots 1, 2 , 24 , and 4 on Tax Map 109 and portions of Lots 31 and 31F on Tax Map 23 located within Transition Area I of Carrboro' s Joint Review Area and totalling approximately 255 acres has been received from the property owners, Lake Hogan Farm Inc. ; WHEREAS, the properties proposed for rezoning are categorized as Suburban Residential Areas and defined as follows: Suburban Residential Areas are designated for housing densities ranging from one (1) to five (5) dwelling units per acre. Such areas are located where land is changing from rural to urban, suitable for urban densities, and to be provided with public utilities and services. Housing types range from single-family homes to duplexes to multi-family dwellings. P. O. BOX 829 • 301 WEST MAIN STREET, CARRBORO. NORTH CAROLINA 27510 • (919) 942.8541 • FAX (919) 968-7737 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 42 Page Two Resolution No. 32/92-93 WHEREAS, both the current zoning of Carrboro R-R and the proposed zoning of Carrboro R-20 are consistent with the Suburban Residential Area designation in the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, a Joint Public Hearing was held on April 15, 1993 to consider this rezoning. NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE TOWN OF CARRBORO HEREBY RESOLVES THAT: Section 1. As shown on the accompanying map, all of Lots 1, 2 , and 24 except for that land lying within 100 feet of the southern property line on each lot; all of Lot 3 ; and the portion of Lot 4 west of Lake Hogan Farm Road on Tax Map 109 and the portion of lots 31 and 31F south of the Buckhorn Branch of Bolin Creek on Tax Map 23 be rezoned from Carrboro R-R (Rural Residential, 43 , 560 sf minimum lot size/1 unit per acre) to Carrboro R-20 (Residential, 20, 000 sf minimum lot size/2 . 1 units per acre) . All properties or portions of properties specified are located within Transition Area I of the Carrboro Joint Development Review Area. Section 2 . The Town Clerk shall send a copy of this resolution to the Orange County Manager. Section 3 . This resolution shall become effective upon adoption. The foregoing resolution, having been submitted to a vote, received the following vote and was duly adopted this 25tH day of May, 1993 : Ayes: Randy Marshall, Tom Gurganus, Hilliard Caldwell, Eleanor Kinnaird, Frances Shetley Noes: Jacquelyn Gist, Jay Bryan Absent/Excused: None I, Sarah C. Williamson, Town Clerk of the Town of Carrboro, North Carolina, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen at its meeting held on May 25, 1993 . �,a�•'""m,",,a P•u I- A i (A) • 'v��S E �/" '(% Town Clerk \ 1911 , ; 47.8...c ad ��.. �t//#t1ii1\ho ::J 43 difficulty is that a portion of the tract is located in Alamance County. Walters expressed concern about the number of entrances proposed for Bradshaw Quarry Road. The applicant indicated there would be two entrances once the remainder of the tract is developed. One entrance would be from the portion of the road in Alamance County which is named Thom Road. The applicant asked if a lot is located in both Alamance and Orange counties, which county would actually have approval. Ms. Best continued that she owns a thirty-five acre tract that is located in Orange County and, a larger adjoining tract located in Alamance County. Willis responded that the entire tract is taxed in Alamance County. Even though it is taxed in Alamance, each subdivision will be reviewed by the County in which it is actually located. If lots are created that split the county in some way they must be signed off by each jurisdiction. Perc tests would be done by the County in which the lot is located. Willis continued that if a portion of a lot is located in both Alamance and Orange Counties, Staff would communicate with Alamance to determine the most appropriate way to proceed. VOTE: Unanimous. AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT JPA PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 15, 1993 a. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ( 1) Z-2-93 Lake Hogan Farm Presentation by Mary Willis. This item is to consider a rezoning request for property owned by Lake Hogan Farm Inc. It involves an amendment to both the Orange County Zoning Atlas and the Carrboro Zoning Map. The area proposed to be rezoned is located on the east side of Old NC 86 north of Homestead Road. The property consists of all or part of seven parcels totaling approximately 264 acres . According to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan (JPALUP) the property is categorized as Suburban Residential, and is located within Transition Area I of the Carrboro Joint Development Review Area. This designation allows densities up to 5 dwelling units per acre. The 44 property is currently zoned R-R, which allows a density of up to 1 dwelling unit per acre. The proposed zoning is R-20 , which allows a density of up to 2 . 1 dwelling units per acre. A Staff Report for the proposed rezoning prepared by the Carrboro and Orange County Planning Staffs which was presented at the April 15, 1993 JPA public hearing is an attachment to these minutes on pages There was extensive public comment at the public hearing. A copy of the public hearing minutes and written comments are on file in the Planning and Inspections Department. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen approves changes to its Zoning Map by Resolution, based on the information contained within the Staff Report and comments received through the public hearing process. The Orange County Board of Commissioners takes action subsequent to action by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen. Both Boards must act in the affirmative before the rezoning can become effective. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen approved the rezoning request on May 25 , 1993. A copy of the Resolution is an attachment to these minutes on pages The recommendation of the Orange County Planning Board will be presented to the Orange County Board of Commissioners for its decision on August 4 , 1993 . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning. Burklin asked about the zoning of Stony Hill and Willis responded RR - one unit per acre. Burklin asked about the zoning for Fox Meadow and Meadow Run. The response was RR. It was noted that Fox Meadow and Meadow Run were originally in Orange County's jurisdiction. MOTION: Reid moved approval of the proposed rezoning as recommended by Planning Staff . Seconded by Eidenier. VOTE: Unanimous . (2 ) Z-3-93 Virginia Pollitzer Presentation by Mary Willis.