Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 030613Approved 4/3/13 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 MARCH 6, 2013 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Wright, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township 6 Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill 7 Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Lisa 8 Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Herman Staats, At-9 Large, Cedar Grove Township; Dawn Brezina, Eno Township Representative; 10 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative; Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks 13 Township Representative; 14 15 16 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz; 17 Special Projects Coordinator; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 18 19 20 OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Heffner, Phil Koch, Pat & Ed Yahner 21 22 23 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 24 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 27 a) Planning Calendar for March and April 28 b) Interest Areas Raised by Planning Board Members at January 9, 2013 Meeting 29 30 Lisa Stuckey: Since Pete is not present, I would like to table this until the next meeting. 31 32 33 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 34 JANUARY 9, 2012 ORC MEETING NOTES 35 JANUARY 9, 2012 REGULAR MEETING 36 37 Larry Wright: On page 7, line 333 and 334 should read, “Protect Rural Orange wanted to go through the special use 38 permit process. The Board of Adjustment decided against the appeal process.” 39 40 MOTION by Alan Campbell to approve the minutes with the change. Seconded by Maxecine Mitchell. 41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 42 43 44 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 45 46 Craig Benedict presented Larry Wright and Alan Campbell with certificates of appreciation for their dedication and 47 their work on the Planning Board. 48 49 Lisa Stuckey: As Chair, Pete asked me to thank both of you very much for your service on this Board and for your 50 service to our community and our county. 51 52 Alan Campbell: It has been a pleasure working with you and an honor to be on this Board. 53 54 Approved 4/3/13 2 Larry Wright: It has been a pleasure working with you and we have grown so much as a board. 55 56 57 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 58 59 Introduction to the Public Charge 60 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 61 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 62 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 63 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 64 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 65 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 66 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 67 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 68 69 PUBLIC CHARGE 70 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 71 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 72 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 73 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 74 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 75 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 76 77 78 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 79 80 81 Agenda Item 7: PRELIMINARY PLAT – ANNANDALE AT CREEKWOOD – To review and make a recommendation 82 to the BOCC on the Preliminary Plat application for Annandale at Creekwood. 83 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 84 85 Michael Harvey: Reviewed abstract. 86 87 Johnny Randall: Why is the curb and gutter in this? 88 89 Michael Harvey: The curb and gutter is necessary as part of the storm water management transfer system as 90 discussed in the approved Flexible Plan option and detailed in the application packet. This project will need to 91 comply with state storm water standards and requirements, the curb and gutter is just to guarantee the conveyance 92 of storm water so it doesn’t run over private property. 93 94 Johnny Randall: So there is no option for swales that can sheet flow across properties? 95 96 Michael Harvey: The applicant chose curb and gutter to avoid potential issues with runoff erosion or other 97 problems. 98 99 Johnny Randall: It is very effective at conveying it and point source outlets. More progressive developments are 100 getting away from curb and gutter unless a sidewalk is necessary. Have we gone beyond the point of no return? 101 102 Michael Harvey: You can express your willingness for them to reexamine their proposal but the flexible 103 development option was recommended by the Planning Board and it showed curb and gutter. This proposal is 104 based on previous Planning Board comments. The Erosion Control officer for Orange County has indicated 105 approval of the preliminary storm water plan as well. 106 107 Johnny Randall: Where will the outlet for the storm water be? 108 Approved 4/3/13 3 109 Phil Cook: I am with Earth Centric Engineering and we are the engineers for the project. There are two separate 110 outfalls for this roadway. (Pointed out the outfalls). There is actually an existing natural swale that comes on the 111 back which allows us to let that have a level spreader respect. 112 113 Johnny Randall: The other issue has to do with critters moving around (i.e. salamanders and box turtles). Given 114 that this development on two sides had significant natural heritage areas and there is a creek. I apologize this 115 didn’t come to my attention earlier but I want it on the record. 116 117 Larry Wright: This is just for information, I was at a dinner meeting with a commissioner from another county and 118 she thought the DOT requirements for a cul-de-sac was 50 feet. Can you clarify that? 119 120 Michael Harvey: There is a difference between radius and the pavement portion. The minimum 37 feet of paved 121 area will be the minimum amount of paved area required for the project although the radius of the cul-de-sac will be 122 a lot wider to incorporate all elements in the right-of-way. The right-of-way for the cul-de-sac will have a radius of 123 50 feet. If there are no other questions, let’s move on to utilities. 124 125 Alan Campbell: On the septic areas, it looked slightly more involved than a conventional system. Are they 126 basically conventional with some tweaks with pretty much the same cost? 127 128 Phil Cook: Not the same cost. They are a little more expensive. Some of the lots have conventional systems. 129 There are two systems that use one of the line reduction methods. 130 131 Johnny Randall: About the septic drain field areas, they are pushed to the limit of the lots where the 50 foot buffer 132 zone, could they be pulled closer to the homes? One issue that would make the Triangle Land Conservancy more 133 interested in this development would be to offer them the option of holding conservation easements on some of 134 those lands adjacent to both Duke Forest and their own property. 135 136 Michael Harvey: The areas with the plats have been identified as perkable soils. It is certainly possible to have 137 them moved. We require they be denoted on the plat to ensure there is perkable soil in each lot. With respect to 138 the open space ownership issue Mr. Heffner (the applicant), at the November 7, 2012 Planning Board meeting, the 139 question came up of ownership of open space, where discussions on conservations easements were made. 140 Essentially, it was his determination that the local residents would be more readily available to address issues in 141 respect to management of the open space areas. 142 143 Tom Heffner: My experience has been that it is preferable to have homeowner’s association; there has to be 144 ownership of the open space so the HOA would own a fee simple interest in that space. 145 146 Michael Harvey: What will ultimately determine the final location of the septic field is the size of the house, the 147 number of bedrooms and the location of the well. 148 149 Johnny Randall: Given this site is forested with mature hardwood forest, if I, for instance, …. If the septic drain field 150 was pulled closer, there would be much greater sense of being in the forest . 151 152 Tom Heffner: Drain fields are not cleared. 153 154 Michael Harvey: Continued reviewing abstract. 155 156 Motion made by Larry Wright to approve the preliminary plat as submitted. Buddy Hartley seconded. 157 Vote: 9:1 (Randall opposed) passed. 158 159 160 Agenda Item 8: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – To make a recommendation 161 to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to modify existing 162 Approved 4/3/13 4 language to provide additional reference to land disturbance thresholds related to stormwater 163 management standards. This item was heard at the February 25, 2013 quarterly public 164 hearing. 165 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 166 167 Michael Harvey: This item begins on page 51 of the abstract. I would like to review what occurred at the Quarterly 168 Public Hearing and get feedback. This item will come back at the April regular meeting once the comments from 169 OWASA are obtained. 170 171 Larry Wright: On the BOA, we heard an application where they were dealing with impervious surfaces. . They 172 couldn’t get the driveway to the house. I would like to know, translating it to this, this 6% is not 6% when someone 173 buys a parcel and it is on a corner lot. The 6% is not their land. 174 175 Michael Harvey: I will respectively disagree. In the instance you are referring to, it is a 10 acre exempt subdivision, 176 meaning it did not go through the formal staff review and approval process. They had easements for the various 177 roadways placed on this property without thought of impacts associated with impervious surface limits. Roadway it 178 does contribute to the 6% impervious surface limit but the problem was created through the process they went 179 through in that the developer did not allocate impervious surface area from all of the lots to address roadway 180 construction. 181 182 Larry Wright: Are there parcels that were purchased like that application for the BOA that would be in the same 183 scenario? 184 185 Michael Harvey: I am sure there are. 186 187 Larry Wright: What would happen? 188 189 Michael Harvey: They apply for variances or make do with what they have. 190 191 Alan Campbell: I would like to get a sense of the current requirement is 6% and University Lake requires a 192 professionally prepared site plan. What is the benefit having that versus a plot plan? Does it help you understand 193 they are meeting that 6%? 194 195 Michael Harvey: We get with a certain level of specificity with a professionally prepared site plan versus a plot plan. 196 Detailed are breakdowns of the impervious surface is just a prime example. 197 198 Alan Campbell: It sounds like you are proposing an automatic burden on a lot of people when there is no need for it 199 when you always have the option of requirement and storm water to back you up. 200 201 Michael Harvey: That is not a wrong argument. 202 203 Lisa Stuckey: Is there a consensus among the group that “c” is the feedback we want to give. 204 205 Herman Staats: I understand based on that map that you have the 6% zones and they would have to have a 206 professionally prepared plan. How does the storm water runoff criterion compare or what does that mean? 207 208 Michael Harvey: Basically, we wanted to avoid county planning staff looking at one set of drawings and Orange 209 County Erosion Control looking at a totally different set. On page 54 for example, you can have ½ to one acre of 210 disturbance. If ”c” were the option, regardless of the watershed you are in, if you exceed these thresholds; we need 211 a professionally prepared site plan. 212 213 Herman Staats: If we used “c” these people in the 6% zones would not have to do it unless they met the storm 214 water criteria. 215 216 Approved 4/3/13 5 Michael Harvey: Or we make the formal determination we cannot make an affirmative finding a permit can be 217 issued unless we have more detail. 218 219 Tony Blake: I am trying to understand the historical context here. I realize that was the only water supply when 220 that was put in effect. I don’t understand why around Little River is 6% and others are not. 221 222 Craig Benedict: Part of University Lake is to ask OWASA what they know from history. That goes back before the 223 watershed rules were put in effect in 1994. Little River was in protection for a Durham water supply and that is not 224 a requirement of the state just Orange County protecting water supply. In Cane Creek, it is a very small watershed 225 and we are going to see what the differences or state mandates are in excess of that. 226 227 Herman Staats: The only other issue is the interaction with the public so if you use the storm water guidelines but 228 then you have the discretion of the requiring a professional plan, what will be the most public friendly. 229 230 Michael Harvey: There is language in the code that gives us discretion of requiring a professionally prepared site 231 plan if we can’t make a decision with respect to the issuance of permit and what is proposed complies with County 232 regulations. The typical cadence for a permit review now is that local residents, developers, etc. come to the 233 planning department and we do a site assessment. That provides a brief explanation, examination of the natural 234 features on a property. We have been directed by the BOCC to provide you with OWASA feedback in response to 235 the change in the ordinance and they will be giving you some history. 236 237 Lisa Stuckey: At this point, we are waiting for OWASA? 238 239 Michael Harvey: We are looking to answer your questions tonight and give us feedback on the option preference. 240 What I have heard here is that there is a consensus for pursuing Option “c” while awaiting a response from 241 OWASA. 242 243 244 Agenda Item 9: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT – To make a recommendation 245 to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to make changes to 246 the section regarding the Planning Board’s Rules of Procedure. This item was heard at the 247 February 25, 2013 quarterly public hearing. 248 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator 249 250 Perdita Holtz: Reviewed abstract. 251 252 MOTION by Larry Wright to accept the changes. Seconded by Maxecine Mitchell. 253 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 254 255 256 Agenda Item 10: PLANNING BOARD LIAISON TO THE OUTBOARD – To nominate a Planning Board member to fill 257 the position on the OUTBoard designated for a Planning Board member. 258 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator 259 260 Perdita Holtz: Reviewed abstract. 261 262 Alan Campbell: Explained his work on the OUTBoard. 263 264 Andrea Rohrbacher: I would like to volunteer. 265 266 MOTION by Alan Campbell to accept Andrea Rohrbacher. Seconded by Maxecine Mitchell. 267 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 268 269 270 Approved 4/3/13 6 Agenda Item 11: ANNUAL BOCC RETREAT– To receive a brief oral report on planning-related outcomes of the 271 annual BOCC retreat held on February 1, 2013. 272 Presenter: Craig Benedict, Planning Director 273 274 Craig Benedict: Reviewed the goals from the BOCC Retreat. 275 276 277 AGENDA ITEM 12: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 278 279 a) Board of Adjustment 280 b) Orange Unified Transportation 281 282 283 AGENDA ITEM 13: ADJOURNMENT 284 285 MOTION: made by Larry Wright to adjourn. Seconded by Maxecine Mitchell. 286 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 287 288 ___________________________________________ Pete Hallenbeck, Chair