Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 100213Approved 11/6/13 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 OCTOBER 2, 2013 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Hallenbeck (Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township 7 Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Tony Blake, Bingham Township Representative; Herman 8 Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large 9 Chapel Hill Township; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; 10 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; 12 Stephanie O’Rourke, Eno Township Representative; Vacant- Hillsborough Township Representative; 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator; Michael Harvey, Current 15 Planning Supervisor; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Abigaile 16 Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 17 18 HANDOUTS: Petition regarding Eno Area Access Management Plan; Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Coordinated Area 19 Land Use Plan Flowchart 20 21 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 22 23 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 24 a) Planning Calendar for October and November 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 27 SEPTEMBER 4, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 28 29 MOTION by Lisa Stuckey to approve the July 10, 2013 Planning Board ORC notes and the July 10, 2013 Planning Board 30 minutes. Seconded by Tony Blake. 31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 32 33 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 34 35 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 36 37 Introduction to the Public Charge 38 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints 39 the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development laws of the 40 County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious 41 development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and future needs of its 42 citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the 43 health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision 44 of responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and 45 recommendations. 46 47 PUBLIC CHARGE 48 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens 49 to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. 50 At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the 51 Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. 52 Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine 53 commitment to this public charge is observed. 54 Approved 11/6/13 2 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 55 56 Agenda Item 7: Zoning Atlas Amendment – To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a property owner-57 initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas to rezone a 2.67 parcel of property located at 3604 58 Southern Drive (PIN 9844-86-5155) from Rural Residential (R-1) and Light Industrial (I-1) to Light 59 Industrial (I-1). This item was heard at the September 9, 2013 quarterly public hearing. 60 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 61 62 Michael Harvey: (Reviewed abstract). We have provided a synopsis of the questions asked at the public hearing. A 63 Commissioner wanted staff to clarify if this property was in an overlay zoning district specifically a watershed overlay zoning 64 district which it is, Upper Eno Protected, that means there is going to be impervious surface limits imposed on any 65 expansion of this property. There was also a question asked if the rezoning of this parcel would have an impact on any 66 property surrounding, and the answer is no. The only public comment I have received from the public hearing is a call from 67 Miss May who live right here (pointed out on location map), who expressed consternation that I made Mr. Keizer go through 68 this process at all. You have a planning staff recommendation of approval and the rationale for our decision is the 69 application was submitted in compliance with the UDO, the property is of sufficient size to be rezoned as requested, and the 70 rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, the Growth Management System Map, and the 71 adopted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan. 72 73 MOTION made by Tony Blake to approve Attachments 2 and 3 to rezone the Keizer property a 2.67 acre parcel of property 74 located at 3604 Southern Drive. Seconded by Maxecine Mitchell. 75 76 VOTE: Unanimous 77 78 Agenda Item 8: Zoning Atlas Amendment – To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a property owner-79 initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas to rezone 2 parcels of property, totaling approximately 16 80 acres in land area, from Rural Residential (R-1) and Light Industrial (I-1) to Light Industrial (I-1). The 81 parcels are undeveloped and without an assigned street address but are located east and south of 82 the USA Dutch property at 3604 Southern Drive. This item was heard at the September 9, 2013 83 quarterly public hearing. 84 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 85 86 Michael Harvey: (Reviewed abstract). 87 88 Maxecine Mitchell: Are they on septic there? 89 90 Michael Harvey: They’re still on septic, however, sewer and utilities ought to be available in the near future. If it is available 91 they obviously could tie in if they go through the appropriate process. 92 93 Tony Blake: They have not purchased this property yet? 94 95 Michael Harvey: No, and as we stipulated at the public hearing, they have an offer to purchase and have signed a contract 96 to purchase contingent upon this rezoning going through. 97 98 Lisa Stuckey: Is this is the rural buffer? 99 100 Michael Harvey: No. This is rural residential zoning. 101 102 Maxecine Mitchell: Will this company’s future expansion create more job opportunities and is this something we should take 103 into consideration for this proposal? 104 105 Michael Harvey: It shouldn’t be part of the consideration but Mr. Kizer did make comment at the public hearing that 106 additional jobs would be created. 107 108 Approved 11/6/13 3 Paul Guthrie: Will that sewer system that is going through there have the capacity to handle that operation or will there have 109 to be pre-treatment? 110 111 Craig Benedict: The system is in the design stages and it will take into consideration the land uses and the water and sewer 112 demand enough to accommodate the change of land uses from what is there now to non-residential. From a demand 113 standpoint, yes we have it covered. We will examine what type of sewer flow they have and sometimes pretreatment is 114 necessary in some manufacturing operations. 115 116 Maxecine Mitchell: You said that a certain percentage of the R1 could be turned into I1. 117 118 Michael Harvey: The percentage figure I believe you are referring to was the allowable percentage of impervious surface 119 area on a given lot. The node, as currently defined, allows for minimal high intense residential development in the area. 120 121 Maxecine Mitchell: If we rezone this will it leave room for more requests? 122 123 Michael Harvey: Yes. Approval of this request will not limit or hinder future requests from being submitted or heard. 124 125 MOTION made by Tony Blake to approve attachments 3 and 4 to rezone two parcels totaling 16.1 acres. Seconded by Lisa 126 Stuckey. 127 128 VOTE: Unanimous 129 130 Agenda Item 9: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment – To make a recommendation to the 131 BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that will 132 require a neighborhood information meeting be held prior to site plan submittal for most proposed 133 governmental uses. This item was heard at the September 9, 2013 quarterly public hearing. 134 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 135 136 Michael Harvey: (Reviewed abstract). There were a couple of comments and questions at the quarterly public hearing. 137 This information is detailed on page 45 of your abstract. Concern was expressed by a Planning Board member that there 138 needs to be additional thought as to what constitutes government use and the expense of logistical issues of having this 139 neighborhood information meeting. Staff’s comment is essentially that we understand the concern but the direction we have 140 from the elected officials is that anytime there is a government use, that use is going to be reviewed by the adjacent property 141 owners in this form and setting to ensure that they understand what is going on. There are concerns about local volunteer 142 fire departments absorbing this cost and those have been expressed to the elected officials who have indicated that while 143 they understand the concern, they are moving forward with this option. Planning staff recommends that you deliberate on 144 this and vote to recommend approval of the amendment to the elected officials. 145 146 Tony Blake: I have a couple of comments. It was expensive and not what the intent of what the fire tax is. It was several 147 thousand dollars including renting space, printing boards and mailing expense. It was difficult to communicate to people that 148 this site plan was not approved yet so we didn’t have anything concrete to show them. 149 150 Paul Guthrie: Do I read this to be that the volunteer fire department is not a governmental function? 151 152 Michael Harvey: No sir. It is a government use. In Section 5.2 of the table under the government use category, it is listed. 153 154 Pete Hallenbeck: This is a pain for the fire department and it costs money but can be fairly cheap compared to upsetting 155 neighbors forever when something is just dropped on them. 156 157 Tony Blake: There were more complainers that lived further away. 158 159 James Lea: What are the nuts and bolts of this? It is the cost or the information for the meeting? 160 161 Michael Harvey: The issues were the cost of the certified mailing. 162 Approved 11/6/13 4 163 Tony Blake: There are costs for the volunteers to do this. 164 165 Pete Hallenbeck: The volunteer fire departments are run by volunteers and it is about a $3,000.00 cost. The county is 166 requiring these neighborhoods to have these meetings. 167 168 Michael Harvey: The issue is cost, resources, feelings that the meetings are unnecessary. 169 170 Tony Blake: We didn’t plan for this cost. 171 172 Paul Guthrie: One thing I mentioned is that once you established precedence in this area, the definition of governmental 173 uses in terms of projects, are there ways to do that communication without sending out thousands of letters. 174 175 MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to approve. Maxecine Mitchell seconded. 176 VOTE: 7:1 (Tony Blake) 177 178 Tony Blake: I think the certified mailings should be left out and we should identify the affected property owners and not just 179 the ones within 500 feet. 180 181 Agenda Item 10: Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Access Management Plan – To make a 182 recommendation to the BOCC on a proposed access management plan for the Eno Economic 183 Development District (EDD). The proposed access management plan involves approximately 980 184 acres of land in the vicinity of US Highway 70 and Old Highway 10 (near Durham County). This item 185 was heard at the September 9, 2013 quarterly public hearing. 186 Presenter: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner 187 188 Abigaile Pittman: (Reviewed abstract). At the quarterly public hearing several comments were collected and this is what we 189 came away with, that we need to prepare a summary of access management planning 101 to help educate residents and we 190 have given you some of that in these initial slides. There was some confusion over the relationship to recent zoning and 191 land use changes in the Eno EDD. Staff was asked to look at protections that could be applied on Old NC Highway 10 and 192 St. Mary’s Road was mentioned as an example. A petition was submitted by a group of citizens and it is one of your 193 handouts. We have mapped the addresses of the people who have signed it. Some petitioners have voiced their concerns 194 related to overall previously approved development plans, the zoning and future land use maps, water and sewer extension 195 plans, etc. and not so much the access management plan. They don’t like the zoning that is there. As a follow-up, based on 196 County Commissioners’ and public comments, staff has begun researching protections that may be put into place to 197 preserve the character of Old NC Highway 10 including previous protections pursued for St. Mary’s Road, secondary view 198 shed regulations, scenic corridor overlay regulations, scenic byway regulations, and scenic conservation easements. Staff is 199 recommending the following revisions to the plan based on comments: on page 4 and page 21 of the plan, to rephrase 200 language regarding bike lanes to state that NCDOT has striped the pavement two feet from the shoulder of Old NC Highway 201 10 for bicycles, and on page 26 of the plan which is the concept map, to remove the simple symbol for possible commuter 202 rail transit stop from the map and legend and revise the legend for signalized intersections to indicate that it means existing 203 signalized intersections. The staff recommendation is that the Planning Board review the plan and provide its 204 recommendation to the BOCC and the Board could also include the request that staff continue its research on protections 205 for St. Mary’s Road and report back to the BOCC. 206 207 Herman Staats: At the Quarterly Public Hearing it seems that most of the public comments I heard related to this were the 208 misperception that this was a plan to build a lot of new roads, stop lights, signals, etc. so I agree that education is needed. 209 210 Tony Blake: When we did the rezoning last year, I took a drive up there and I heard at least 4 or 5 people comment that the 211 biggest transportation improvement needed is to fix the railroad bridge on Old NC 10 because the trucks keep going down 212 there and slamming that bridge overpasses or having to back up when they realize the bridge is too low. Did that figure into 213 this plan? Are you working with DOT on that? 214 215 Approved 11/6/13 5 Abigaile Pittman: We reviewed that in the course of this access management plan because we heard comments from the 216 residents out there that they don’t want the truck traffic going down NC 10 and into Hillsborough. Our review is that it is not 217 possible because of the bridge. They don’t have adequate clearance. I think what could be done is that we need some 218 good signage and good communication from NCDOT because truckers have to clear their routes and it needs to be properly 219 signed that they can’t get down that road. We can certainly recommend communication with NCDOT to create a good 220 system of signage through there. 221 222 Maxecine Mitchell: People are concerned about the vehicle traffic and speed. To not encourage more traffic on Old NC 10. 223 Whatever development that comes will create more traffic on Old NC 10and it will be very dangerous for pedestrians and 224 bicyclists who utilize that road as a scenic route. 225 226 Abigaile Pittman: One of the objectives of an Access Management Plan is to control that traffic flow and manage the access 227 points so the road has capacity to manage it in a safe manner. 228 229 Maxecine Mitchell: If we have it in here, we will have to educate the community on how we plan to redirect the traffic. 230 231 Craig Benedict: If you don’t have an access management plan on Highway 70 where the focus of the growth is, the higher 232 intensity area where things are planned, then people are going to look for a bypass. The main purpose of this is to 233 designate efficiently spaced intersections on 70 with frontage roads so that people are directed to these potential of a 234 signalized intersection to handle the growth and then they won’t look for these bypasses as much. It really is a benefit to the 235 peripheral areas to bring people to those services that may be eventually on 70. 236 237 Lisa Stuckey: Could you repeat what you said about the bike lanes? 238 239 Abigaile Pittman: NCDOT striped two feet from the edge of the curb to allow for the bicyclists. 240 241 Paul Guthrie: Most of the signatures on the petition is concentrated in that area of the subdivision so I would suggest that 242 further communication with them regarding the access management plan, the transportation planning, may ease their pain. 243 244 Pete Hallenbeck: One of the things we can see from the petitioners’ map and addresses is that there is confusion over the 245 difference between zoning and an access management plan. 246 247 Tony Blake: Do we act on this petition? 248 249 Pete Hallenbeck: This is just information about public input. 250 251 Tony Blake: Ok, that was my question. 252 253 MOTION made by James Lea to adopt agenda item 10 as recommended by staff. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey. 254 VOTE: Unanimous 255 256 Agenda Item 11: Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan – To 257 make a recommendation to the BOCC on future land uses proposed for areas of County jurisdiction 258 located in the Town’s Urban Service Boundary. This is the next step towards completion of a joint 259 Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Plan. This item was 260 heard at the September 9, 2013 quarterly public hearing. 261 Presenter: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor 262 263 Tom Altieri: (Reviewed map). At the public hearing there were no members of the public that spoke but there was a 264 comment from Commissioner Gordon regarding process and more specifically some questions about the ETJ swaps that 265 are mentioned and part of the Interlocal Agreement. The ETJ swaps are not part of this process. It is a good question and 266 Commissioner Gordon is looking down the road at next steps. You have a handout that is a flowchart of what comes next 267 and the decision points. I can refer to that with those questions. The swapping process must be initiated by the Town of 268 Hillsborough and that had not been done prior to the public hearing and it since has. The County received letter and 269 Approved 11/6/13 6 notification from the Town on September 13th that the Town is prepared to initiate that process and has asked for 270 coordination with County staff and that a meeting be held to determine how that process will unfold and when. I don’t have 271 those specifics now but certainly will have more soon following that meeting we anticipate to take place this month. The 272 recommendation is that the Planning Board deliberate as necessary on the draft plan and provide that recommendation to 273 the County Commissioners in time for their November 5th meeting. 274 275 Pete Hallenbeck: I know that Commissioner Gordon had concerns about the area where the municipal was all in black 276 and gray in the map, did you have a chance to look at that. 277 278 Tom Altieri: I have and what she if referring to is the area shown within the Town’s ETJ and is included in the area that is 279 to be swapped with Orange County. It will become Orange County’s jurisdiction. There is an area that is presently in the 280 County’s jurisdiction that is to become Town of Hillsborough ETJ and therefore it has colors on the maps in those areas. 281 282 (Planning Members and staff reviewed maps) 283 284 Pete Hallenbeck: (referring to area on map) That area is Duke Forrest and critical watershed so it is really unlikely there 285 will be factories or condominiums in that area. 286 287 Tom Altieri: That is exactly why the Town is entertaining this swap and it makes sense to both parties. 288 289 Craig Benedict: ETJ is usually intended for growth and they can’t grow there so we are giving them areas such as near 290 the interchange that would allow them growth. We need some clarity with regard to the ‘rural living’ category within Orange 291 County planning jurisdiction. 292 293 Pete Hallenbeck: One of the things driving this is that Hillsborough historically had this very large bite of the County they it 294 was anticipating for services and then figured out how much it would cost to do water and sewer and the other thing that 295 really affected this was that I-40 came along and this area between I-40 and I-85 is pure gold. It developed in a way that no 296 one could anticipate prior to knowing about I-40. What we are really deliberating on here is saying yes this is a good 297 process in having the County and Hillsborough get together and come up with an agreement on how things should go and 298 coordinate their planning efforts to go in that direction. 299 300 Tony Blake: The swap makes sense. 301 302 Tom Altieri pointed out areas on the map in regard to the Town of Hillsborough’s plans on when to potentially service with 303 water and sewer. 304 305 MOTION made by Paul Guthrie to approve the draft Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Coordinated Future Land Use 306 Plan. Maxecine Mitchell seconded. 307 VOTE: Unanimous 308 309 AGENDA ITEM 12: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 310 311 a) Board of Adjustment 312 b) Orange Unified Transportation 313 314 AGENDA ITEM 13: ADJOURNMENT 315 316 MOTION: made by Lisa Stuckey to adjourn. Seconded by Tony Blake. 317 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 318 319 ____________________________________________ Pete Hallenbeck, Chair