Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB minutes 110613Approved 12/4/13 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 NOVEMBER 6, 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; 8 James Lea, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, 9 Little River Township Representative; 10 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Johnny Randall, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill 13 Township; Stephanie O’Rourke, Eno Township Representative; Herman Staats, At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; 14 Vacant- Hillsborough Township Representative; 15 16 17 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, 18 Special Projects Coordinator; Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner; Jennifer Leaf, Planner I; Tina Love, 19 Administrative Assistant II 20 21 22 OTHERS PRESENT: Danny Jones; Michael Neal; Pam Jones; Laney Jones; Harrison Jones; Chris Hagenberger; Dean 23 Shangler; Janine Schreyack; Patti Szogas 24 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 27 28 Pete Hallenbeck called the meeting to order and let the members know that due to some correspondence that went 29 out to the public regarding the start time of the meeting, Item 7 could not be heard until 7:30. 30 31 32 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 33 a) Planning Calendar for November and December 34 a. Dinner meeting with BOCC – 5:30 p.m. on November 25 (before QPH) @ Link 35 Service Center. 36 b. Quarterly Public Hearing – 7:00 p.m. on November 25 @ Dept. of Social 37 Services – draft legal ad attached 38 39 AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 40 OCTOBER 2, 2013 ORC MEETING 41 OCTOBER 2, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 42 43 MOTION by Lisa Stuckey to approve the October 2, 2013 Planning Board ORC notes. Seconded by Tony Blake. 44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 45 46 MOTION by Tony Blake to approve the October 2, 2013 Planning Board Regular Meeting minutes. Seconded by 47 Maxecine Mitchell. 48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 49 50 51 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 52 53 54 Approved 12/4/13 2 AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 55 56 Introduction to the Public Charge 57 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, 58 appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development 59 laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and 60 harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner which considers the present and 61 future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that 62 contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB 63 will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services 64 during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. 65 66 PUBLIC CHARGE 67 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its 68 citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with 69 fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this 70 public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual 71 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting 72 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 73 74 75 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 76 77 (Planning Board started with Item 8 first to allow time for the expected public to arrive) 78 79 80 Agenda Item 8: Planning Board Annual Report and Work Plan for County Commissioners’ Annual 81 Planning Retreat – To discuss the input form for the annual BOCC planning retreat in early 82 2014. The annual report informs the BOCC of the past year’s activities of advisory 83 boards/commissions and assists in overall County work planning 84 Presenter: Craig Benedict, Planning Director 85 86 87 Craig Benedict: At our dinner meeting on the 25th, we will talk about what we have achieved in the previous year 88 and what we plan to achieve next year and this annual report will be our agenda. We will begin on page 60 with the 89 summary. Reviewed report. 90 91 Pete Hallenbeck: On page 66, we are trying to get a handle on adult entertainment, gaming and nuisance 92 ordinance to protect the EDDs. 93 94 Paul Guthrie: The first one that strikes me is the first one under Tony’s name which is transit oriented development 95 and maybe a discussion on the linkage between transportation as we see it moving ahead in the county and 96 development. I think we could mention several topics but it takes it into areas this Board doesn’t deal with very 97 quickly. For instance, the railroad and what is the railroad going to be like in 10 or 20 years. I will be glad to share 98 it with everyone but I’m not sure how you would frame that. 99 100 Pete Hallenbeck: The format on this page is almost sufficient. We would like to say to the BOCC that we have 101 members that are concerned about ….. how to deal with transit oriented development. 102 103 Paul Guthrie: A sub part of that would be that is highlighted by our discussion of small business in the county and 104 rural areas is people’s ability to get to work and is there a way to have a logical and efficient development in the 105 county that we can accentuate the desirability of good transit. 106 107 Tony Blake: I would be happy to take it off line with you. We can work together on that. 108 Approved 12/4/13 3 109 Craig Benedict: We have highway corridors, bus corridors, rural areas and the whole county is not urbanville so the 110 land use topic is a good one. 111 112 Tony Blake: The TTA is holding three informational sessions coming up. 113 114 Paul Guthrie: The TTA is not going to address the kind of issues I would address. 115 116 Pete Hallenbeck: The challenge is to get enough detail that it is not as broad as transit are in the development but 117 no so much detail it is a 15 minute because you only have a minute or two. 118 119 James Lea: What is the County’s current ordinance on adult entertainment? 120 121 Michael Harvey: We have an arcane definition; we do not permit them which are technically in violation of state 122 law. We have a draft ordinance that needs to go the attorney’s office for review but that is the current status. 123 124 Craig Benedict: For five years we have brought it up because you need to have this done before the issue comes 125 up. 126 127 James Lea: Do we know what Larry’s concern was about adult entertainment. 128 129 Pete Hallenbeck: You want to get a handle on it before someone comes in and sees an area that will be industrial 130 zoned. Residences are far away and schools and churches are far away and they put in a permit and there is 131 nothing to legally keep you from saying no. 132 133 Craig Benedict: It hasn’t come to the top of the list for the BOCC to say go because it does bring a lot of attention 134 to it. 135 136 James Lea: We do have them, we just don’t allow. Are we planning to develop an ordinance? 137 138 Craig Benedict: You would have to develop an ordinance that is consistent with state statute. You cannot be 139 completely prohibitive but you can set distance requirements. 140 141 Pete Hallenbeck: We need to let the BOCC know that the county needs to get on top of before we get that first 142 application. 143 144 Buddy Hartley: Nothing new. 145 146 Maxecine Mitchell: I would like to echo the concern about transportation. Affordable housing in Chapel Hill is 147 probably non-existent. A lot of people have to look elsewhere in Hillsborough and how will they commute back and 148 forth if their job is located in Chapel Hill or Carrboro since some people can’t afford a car and gas prices. 149 150 Pete Hallenbeck: When you discuss transit oriented development, you also want to focus on helping low income 151 people. 152 153 Tony Blake: Under Item 2, I have been having some, just because of the USDA loan we used to build and expand 154 our fire station, I have had interesting conversations with the USDA and I wonder if there is a partnership 155 arrangement to encourage USDA to invest in some of these rural economic zones. Especially regarding sewer and 156 water infrastructure which is holding people back from opening a small business. 157 158 Lisa Stuckey: I am really glad you are bringing up numbers four and five. We want to catch these spin off 159 entrepreneurial companies that will come out of Carolina North. 160 161 Approved 12/4/13 4 Pete Hallenbeck: Item 3, I have been pushing that. We do have people moving into areas and are surprised to 162 hear that the fire truck can’t get in there. I agree with number four. 163 164 Craig Benedict: I will organize the comments from tonight and put it into a master list. 165 166 Pete Hallenbeck: I want everyone to say something to the BOCC so they will understand we are working as a 167 group. 168 169 170 Agenda Item 7: Major Subdivision Concept Plan – To review and make a decision on a major subdivision 171 concept plan application (Triple Crown Farms), located off Dairyland Road. 172 Presenter: Jennifer Leaf, Planner I and Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 173 174 Michael Harvey: Reviewed the synopsis of the cadence with respect to review of a major subdivision on page 22 of 175 the abstract. 176 177 Jennifer Leaf: Reviewed abstract. 178 179 Paul Guthrie: Does the runoff go to Morgan Creek? 180 181 Mike Neal: I believe it does go into Morgan Creek. I will have to check to be sure. 182 183 Paul Guthrie: Is there any determination on how this development will affect the water flow into Morgan Creek or 184 Phil’s Creek and will that have any effect on the supply capacity to University Lake? 185 186 Michael Harvey: It is always good to bring these issues up at concept plan so the applicant and staff can think 187 about it. My honest answer is based on the preliminary stormwater designs for the project, we don’t anticipate any 188 problem with respect to compliance with our code. We do not anticipate a higher increased level of water flow 189 beyond what can be handled as the result of this development. We also don’t anticipate a flow problem as far as 190 water supply issues. The applicant can provide guidance on that when we get to the preliminary plat stage but we 191 don’t see any issues in talking with Orange County Erosion Control Stormwater management. 192 193 Paul Guthrie: I assume the conversations will blossom and will include OWASA. 194 195 Michael Harvey: Typically, there is not a conversation with OWASA concerning water flow or management; that is 196 obviously the purview of the stormwater manager of Orange County. OWASA is not a required primary partner 197 related to the review of a subdivision project. If you would like for the planning staff to have that conversation with 198 OWASA, I don’t see a reason why we could not do that. 199 200 Paul Guthrie: At some point it might be appropriate. 201 202 Michael Harvey: We have submitted this to our joint planning partners for review as required by the joint planning 203 agreement. We do anticipate comments as we move forward. 204 205 Paul Guthrie: Waste disposal on the property, it is probably too early to know how that is planned to be done but I 206 think that is something we need to continue to give attention to. 207 208 Jennifer Leaf: Each lot will be served individually by onsite septic. It is prohibited in the rural buffer to have 209 connection to water and sewer so they have to be done on site and they have done preliminary soil analysis on 210 some of the lots as indicated by the stippled boxes. 211 212 Paul Guthrie: That doesn’t tell me what system we are talking about. 213 214 Jennifer Leaf: Each individual system will be sized at the time the building permit is….. 215 Approved 12/4/13 5 216 Pete Hallenbeck: Paul, are focusing on whether the soil they found was suitable for conventional or low pressure 217 pump, what type of system. 218 219 Paul Guthrie: I was looking for information to draw from my own experience as to what the likely impact would be. 220 There are a number of ways to do this. 221 222 Jennifer Leaf: As the preliminary plat stage of this project the applicant will apply to Environmental Health for a 223 comprehensive review of soil suitability. At this point they have not been involved in finding or evaluating soil types 224 with respect to the location of septic systems. After the concept plan is approved, that is when Environmental 225 Health will be contacted and the official perk sites will go out and be located. 226 227 Pete Hallenbeck: This will be part of the preliminary site plan you are supplying is to have more details about the 228 soil test for septic, etc. 229 230 Mike Neal: Sure. We have had a soil scientist come out and look at the soil and there is a shading on the drawing 231 that shows what areas perk on the lot. We have these stipple boxes, we knew those were the size for a 232 conventional system. We knew the soils were acceptable for a conventional system so we ensured that each lot 233 had an area for conventional system and a repair area. When the lots are sold, we know they can put in a 234 conventional system and that will work and the homeowner may choose another system. 235 236 Tony Blake: How large is this acreage? 237 238 Jennifer Leaf: 104 acres. 239 240 Tony Blake: I have a recombination map that shows almost 200 acres. Is it the acreage that constitutes a major 241 subdivision as opposed to a minor subdivision? 242 243 Jennifer Leaf: The number of lots. One new lot up to five is a minor and then six and above is a major. 244 245 Tony Blake: I am still confused about this huge map that shows a recombination of four tracts and it is 200 acreage 246 not 100. 247 248 Michael Harvey: All we can tell you is this is a 104 acre tract by the current tax record. 249 250 Jennifer Leaf: This does have a label of 104 acres on it, the recombination plat, so the plat that was recorded in 251 2005, they shifted some boundary lines so that is how that lot ended up being 104 acres. 252 253 Tony Blake: Some lots are in the rural buffer and in the Chapel Hill school system and some are in the Orange 254 County School system and it appears as if they have already accounted for the impact fees and I wanted to 255 comment about that. 256 257 Michael Harvey: That is on page 36. There will be six lots potentially served by Orange County and 14 lots served 258 by Chapel Hill Carrboro. 259 260 Tony Blake: Since tracts two through four are owned by the same development company that ultimately these 261 tracts will be developed as well? 262 263 Jennifer Leaf: Those tracts are currently developed. 264 265 Pete Hallenbeck: It seems like it meets the requirements and staff is happy with it. Streams are getting good 266 protection and the soils are good enough for conventional. Is there anyone else from the public to comment on 267 this? 268 269 Approved 12/4/13 6 Christine Hagelburger: I share a 1,400 foot long boundary with the project. Please go to the vicinity map. Pointed 270 to the common line on the map. Four of these lots are going on our line which is a more significant impact to our 271 property than to the other properties and it seems you could draw those lines differently than they are on this plat at 272 this time and have less impact on that perimeter of the property. They are the smallest lots and four of them are on 273 my line. I would like to see it drawn more equitably so I do not get the brunt of the impact. 274 275 Dean Shangler: We own a couple of lots to the south. My concern is at the neighborhood information meeting, I 276 had asked about the boundary line along that creek and understood planning staff to say the creek is entirely 277 contained within the land owned by the developers and if that is correct, that is a concern to me because that is not 278 correct as a matter of deed record. My understanding is the lot line should be the center line in the creek. Would 279 we all agree that is correct? If you look at the site analysis, you could see that the property line is the center line is 280 the creek. 281 282 Pete Hallenbeck: When a plan for this is developed, you would like to make sure there is attention paid to exactly 283 where that boundary is in regard to the creek. 284 285 Dean Shangler: Yes. I would like that to be clear. 286 287 Pete Hallenbeck: Do you know how long it was surveyed with regard to using the creek? 288 289 Dean Shangler: I don’t know. In some of the older deeds, people who laid our subdivisions in some of the deeds 290 they go, it was mentioned. 291 292 Pete Hallenbeck: When the applicant makes that plan that is something they will be aware of. 293 294 Craig Benedict: The plat in your package is an appropriate survey of it and it does show that the boundary line 295 (showed map). The entire stream is not on that property, there is some on the other properties. (Reviewed map). 296 We will clarify that survey. 297 298 Dean Shangler: On our map, we show the stream buffer only on our property and do not show it on the adjacent 299 properties. It looks like the stream is on our property. The stream itself is the boundary line and it was traversed in 300 2006. I have another concern. I know you said there is a standard 100 foot setback, it is a rural and natural 301 preserve around the creek, could we request making the setback 150 feet to enhance the protection? 302 303 Pete Hallenbeck: That would tie into the density and impact of the houses being close. 304 305 Patty Zogust: When it was going to be developed before, my understanding it that it was because they were flood 306 plains and now there are not, how does that happen? 307 308 Jennifer Leaf: FEMA does modeling so they have much better technology now to model. As a result of work done 309 in 2007 the majority of the floodplain was removed from this property. 310 311 Patty Zogust: So between then and now, they got better technology? 312 313 Michael Harvey: In 2007, FEMA released new maps which we adopted and that removed a lot of flood plain from 314 this property. 315 316 MOTION by Buddy Hartley to approve the concept plan as submitted. Seconded by Lisa Stuckey. 317 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 318 319 320 Agenda Item 9: Provisions and Maintenance of Sidewalks in the County’s Jurisdiction – To receive 321 educational information on the challenges North Carolina counties face in providing and 322 maintaining sidewalks in unincorporated areas. 323 Approved 12/4/13 7 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator 324 325 Pete Hallenbeck: The Fire Chiefs have their meeting tonight so I have to go there and this is just an information 326 section to I will make a comment and turn it over to Lisa. I was involved with the Efland Small Area Plan 10 years 327 ago but we had a subdivision that came through, the Tinnin Road Subdivision, and there was a conflict in that we 328 have the comprehensive plan that encourages sidewalks and walkways but the comprehensive also encourages 329 affordable and then you have the problem of who pays for the sidewalks and maintenance all of which increase the 330 cost of the housing. In Tinnin Woods subdivision, it was dealt with as we will leave the room for the sidewalks and 331 a path to the school where we will put mulch down and keep it clear and progress like that. This is a sticky one 332 where you are trying to balance what we should do. 333 334 (Pete Hallenbeck left meeting) 335 336 Perdita Holtz: Reviewed information. 337 338 Tony Blake: Aren’t they in the right of way? 339 340 Perdita Holtz: They are but DOT won’t allow them to be in the right of way unless the County agrees to maintain 341 them. 342 343 Tony Blake: So DOT forbids them to be in the right of way. 344 345 Paul Guthrie: It is not just on the east west road in Efland. There are streets and roads in Efland that DOT has 346 never owned the right of way to. 347 348 Tony Blake: The walkability issues, the flow, you don’t want the sidewalk to change as you go along. This is a 349 symptom of a bigger issue. It is sort of out of the control of the planning department. I would encourage a place 350 where a transit node might be. 351 352 Paul Guthrie: Who is building the sewers? 353 354 Craig Benedict: Orange County. 355 356 Paul Guthrie: Easements allow sidewalks on top of them? 357 358 Craig Benedict: They are focused on water/sewer utilities. There is not as much of an encumbrance on the 359 property when the utilities are underground. 360 361 Buddy Hartley: We were saying about the Tinnin Wood subdivision they should have sidewalks, by doing that they 362 tabled everything? 363 364 Perdita Holtz: The overlay districts didn’t have anything to do with Tinnin Woods but you had discussed Tinnin 365 Woods prior to the overlay districts. My recollection is that Johnny Randall wanted bike lanes, etc. and he really 366 pushed it. 367 368 Buddy Hartley: There was no push of anything else. 369 370 Perdita Holtz: Johnny and Larry were particularly vocal about the issue. 371 372 Buddy Hartley: We voted on something? 373 374 Perdita Holtz: Yes. 375 376 Buddy Hartley: I would not have voted for this if I was here. I don’t remember that. 377 Approved 12/4/13 8 378 Craig Benedict: We brought the recommendation of the Planning Board to put it on the agenda, our attorney said 379 how can you impose these takings on private property so he pulled back from the Planning Board recommendation. 380 Then the recommendation that went through said we can’t do anything, public sidewalks, etc. then the BOCC saw 381 all the discussion and then it became a lot of misunderstanding. Then they denied everything. 382 383 James Lea: So what is the point? 384 385 Perdita Holtz: We were not able to have all our information about the problems with what the Planning Board was 386 about to recommend so it went through so we thought we would try to make it work then the county attorney said 387 no way so we ended up with a different staff recommendation. 388 389 Tony Blake: What about partnerships with utility companies? 390 391 Perdita Holtz: When an easement is granted, it states specifically what can happen in that easement. 392 393 Paul Guthrie: Why do you have to put the sidewalk in front of the house? Could there be a series of walkways on 394 the back property lines? 395 396 (Different conversations at the same time). 397 398 Paul Guthrie: There are some places where you may be able to work out pathways in open land between 399 structures by a group assembled by the residences. 400 401 402 403 AGENDA ITEM 9: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 404 405 a) Board of Adjustment 406 b) Orange Unified Transportation 407 408 409 AGENDA ITEM 10: ADJOURNMENT 410 411 MOTION: made by Buddy Hartley to adjourn. Seconded by Paul Guthrie. 412 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 413 414 415 ____________________________________ Pete Hallenbeck, Chair