Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting 041896ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 orq b 0,° MEMORANDUM TO: Stoney Creek Planning Group FROM: Gene Bell, Planner III 6213 SUBJ: Agenda for April 18 Meeting DATE: April 16, 1996 ReCe1Veo. APR 17 1996 Managers Office Printed on the reverse of this memo is the agenda for our next meeting. I had hoped to have revisions to the draft plan text discussed on April 4 included, but they are not ready. I'll do my best to have copies ready for distribution on Thursday night and we can set an additional meeting to review and discuss them, if necessary. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 t• 0,09 A AGENDA STONEY CREEK BASIN PLANNING GROUP - MEETING 17 Orange County Government Services Center 200 South Cameron Street, Hillsborough, N.C. Thursday, April 18,1996 at 7:30 PM TIME AGENDA ITEM 7:30 1. CALL TO ORDER - Verla Insko, Facilitator 7:35 2. FOLLOW -UP ON APRIL 15 PLANNING BOARD MEETING - Gene Bell 8:00 3. CONSIDERATION OF REFINED CONCEPT PLAN - Gene Bell and Preliminary Design Subcommittee 8:30 4. FOLLOW -UP ON QUESTIONS FROM APRIL 4 MEETING 8:45 5. REVIEW OF REVISED DRAFT PLAN TEXT - Gene Bell 9:30 6. SUGGESTED SCHEDULE FOR REMAINDER OF PROCESS 9:45 7. MINUTES - Review and approval of minutes for April 15, 1996 9:50 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS, GROUP COMMENTS, UPCOMING MEETINGS 10:00 9. ADJOURNMENT ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 u ;2 b MEMORANDUM TO: Stoney Creek Planning Group FROM: Gene Bell, Planner III 0-0 SUBJ: Follow -up on Questions from April 4 Meeting DATE: April 15, 1996 1. Clarification on Rural Buffer Boundary - Two specific questions concerning the Rural Buffer were raised at our last meeting: Is it defined by the boundaries of the New Hope Creek Drainage Basin? For the portion of the Rural Buffer lying west of NC 86, the answer is "yes." The Rural Buffer was expanded to incorporate all of this area approximately 10 years ago as part of the review and approval process for the Joint Planning Area (JPA) Land Use Plan. For the section of the Rural Buffer lying east of NC 86 to the Durham County line, the answer is "generally." This portion of the Rural Buffer was defined in the 1981 Orange County Land Use Plan and was not modified when the JPA Plan was prepared. There are two areas where there is some discrepancy between the drainage basin line and the Rural Buffer line. The first is the area between NC 86 and University Station Road where the buffer is defined as a straight line and the second area lies east of Cornwallis Road where the Rural Buffer line follows the southern boundary of the Durham Division of Duke Forest. I will bring a map to the meeting which depicts these areas. Is the Rural Buffer drawn correctly on the map? Yes, it is drawn correctly in the sense that it depicts what was adopted by the governing boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro. 2. Prohibition on Further Subdivision of Lots - We talked at length on April 4 about the issue of expedited review and a basic premise being no further subdivision of lots created under such a system. Previously, Emily Cameron and I have stated that our current regulations do not prohibit further subdivision of a lot as long as the requirements of the County's zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations as well as those of Environmental Health are met. I was asked to explore this question further and have the following to relay from Planning Director, Marvin Collins. Deed restrictions (like restrictive covenants) expire and have to be renewed - 30 years being the outside limit the County will recognize. The only permanent approach available is a permanent conservation easement dedicated to Orange County, another unit of local government, the State of North Carolina, a private non - profit land conservancy or a homeowners association. As you may recall this is a basic feature of Flexible Development which states that "Estate /Conservation/Cluster lots shall be restricted against further subdivision through deed restrictions and /or permanent conservation easements." 3. Basis for Flexible Development Density BonusIODen Space Preservation - Mr. Collins told me he had discussed this issue at length with County Attorney, Geoffrey Gledhill and pointed out three areas in particular as the basis for density bonus /open space provisions in the Flexible Development proposal. Density Increase Permitted for Affordable Housing (page 6 -51 Orange County Zoning Ordinance): An increase in density may be permitted for developments which provide on -site or off -site housing opportunities for low or moderate - income households. There are many different provisions listed, but the one most directly applicable here states: "A 25% density bonus for single- family residential development may be approved if land with suitable soils or access to public water and sewer is donated to Orange County for the purpose of the development of affordable housing. The donated land shall contain at a minimum the land area needed to develop the greater of two (2) units or the total number of the bonus units, in accordance with the zoning requirements of the district in which the donated land is located, or with minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet in unzoned areas;" Modifications of the Impervious Surface Ratio (page 6 -34 Orange County Zoning Ordinance): In a protected watershed, a landowner can be allotted more impervious surface on his lot through the approval and recordation of a conservation agreement that prohibits development of adjacent land in perpetuity. The amount of land preserved has to correspond to the impervious surface ratio applicable in the watershed. "As an example, a person owning a 40,000 square foot lot and subject to a 12 percent impervious surface ratio would be limited to 4,800 square feet of impervious coverage. If the person's plans called for 5,500 square feet of a coverage (a difference of 700 square feet), the recording of a conservation easement on 5,833 square feet of contiguous property would satisfy the impervious surface ratio requirements (12% of 5,833 square feet is 700 square feet)." Local Act of N.C. General Assembly (1991 Session) : Among other things, this act clarified the terms open space /open area and the County's role as follows: "For the purposes of this Part `open space' or `open area' and the `public use and enjoyment' of interests or rights in real property shall also include open space land and open space uses. The term `open space land' means any undeveloped or predominantly undeveloped land in an urban area that has value for one or more of the following purposes: (i) park and recreational purposes, (ii) conservation of land and other natural resources, (iii) historic or scenic purposes, (iv) farmland, or (v) conservation of watershed areas and drinking water supplies to prevent the impairment thereof and assure, preserve, protect, and maintain the purity and quality of reservoir waters. The term `open space uses' means any use of open space land for (i) park and recreational purposes, (ii) conservation of land and other natural resources, (iii) historic or scenic purposes, (iv) farmland, or (v) conservation of watershed areas and drinking water supplies to prevent the impairment thereof and assure, preserve, protect, and maintain the purity and quality of reservoir waters." In my discussion with Mr. Collins on the above issues, I took extensive notes. I'll review these prior to Thursday evening so I can hopefully provide clarification at our meeting. M M 7 STONEY CREEK SMALL AREA PLANNING WORK GROUP MINUTES APRIL 4, 1996 The Stoney Creek Small Area Planning Group met on Thursday, April 4, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. in the Government Services Center, Commissioner's Conference Room Cameron Street, Hillsborough, North Carolina. MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Hall, James Bumphus, Bob Strayhorn, Judd Edeburn, Irene VanDyke (alternate), Meg McKean, Lee Rafalow, Dan Teichman, Clint Burklin, Curtis Bane, and Dean Zehnder. 1 MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Price, Bobby Nicholson, Trudy Cuffe, Michael Warner Gary Hanker, Elio Soldi, Keith Cook, Bill Bracey, Renee Price, David Yelton, Stephen Halkiotis and Don Willhoit. STAFF PRESENT: Gene Bell, Planner and Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk to the Board of Commissioners FACILITATOR PRESENT: Verla Insko FOLLOW -UP ON OPEN HOUSE: Gene Bell opened up the discussion about the open house. He mentioned that one of the issues that seemed most important to those attendees to whom he spoke, was that this proposal be voluntary. Lee Rafalow mentioned that the one attendee to whom he spoke about this proposal being voluntary vs. mandatory felt that it should be mandatory. Dan Teichman reported that Don Willhoit did not feel that an expedited review process would be accepted by the Board of Commissioners. Commisioner Willhoit also commented that the County does not know if it will be possible to use transfer of development rights. He suggested that this group should be considering other alternatives. Meg McKean commented that attendees seemed confused between zoning areas and intensity incentive areas. Clint Burklin suggested creating a map title "encouraged intensity" as well as one titled "zoning ". Verla Insko asked Gene Bell to get clarification on the Rural Buffer as it applies in the New Hope Drainage Basin. Do all of the units of government agree that the Rural Buffer includes the entire New Hope Drainage Basin area? A:ltaskforcelapr496a.min 1 2 Lee Rafalow felt that the Open House was good for answering questions but did not allow the community an opportunity to provide input. He suggested creating an opportunity for citizen input into the process. Judd Edeburn suggested creating a summary of proposed concepts, mailing that summary to residents and requesting feedback from them. Irene VanDyke felt that the purpose of the Small Area Plan Newsletters was to inform the community. She did not feel that another mailing was necessary. Verla Insko mentioned that the intent of these suggestions seemed to be to make certain that this group has the support of the overall community. She felt that notifying the community of the upcoming public hearing on May 28 along with listing the names and phone numbers of members of this group who attended the Open House could address Lee's concerns. Residents could be encouraged to call members of the Work Group and /or Gene Bell to have their questions answered and comments incorporated into the Groups outcome. There was consensus that the next Newsletter will include a cover sheet with meeting dates and meeting information. The Newsletter will indicate that an additional packet of information is available upon request. Bob Hall will contact the Tax Office to create a mailing list for landowners with over 10 acres of land. ADJUSTMENTS TO LAND USE INTENSITIES ON MAP: Gene Bell discussed the adjustments to Land Use Intensities on the Concept Plan and suggested that the Preliminary Design Group could this review prior to official acceptance. Verla Insko mention that there are restrictions on the flood plain. She asked if there were restrictions on wildlife corridors. Gene Bell stated that there were not specific restrictions on the wildlife corridors but there were other restrictions. Lee Rafalow suggested letting the Preliminary Design Group review and requested that they consider changing the green area to yellow and make it a different shade of yellow. He suggested that the same incentives apply to both of those areas. He also mentioned that the scenic corridor is not on the map but it should be defined. The area that is east of the Creek and North of Hwy 10 should be low intensity. There was consensus that it is important to follow property lines. Verla Insko mentioned that this needs to be presented to the Planning Board on April 15th. She asked which map would be presented to the Planning Board Gene Bell said that both maps will be shown to the Planning Board A:ltaskforcelapr496a.min 2 3 INITIAL REVIEW OF DRAFT PLAN TEXT: Gene Bell reported that he was compiling various past reports to produce the draft plan text and was soliciting feedback from this Work Group. He felt that this needs to be kept brief so that it is easily readable. Lee Rafalow mentioned that the enclosed Table of Contents included more information than he felt was necessary. He suggested including the purpose, a summary of the vision /value, the recommended plan and implementation strategy. Clint Burklin mentioned that the different strategies were not included. He asked if they were not being presented at the public hearing. Gene Bell mentioned that the Board of Commissioners charged this Work Group with preparing a plan and a recommendation for implementing that plan. That is what must be done first. The specific recommendations on implementation could be taken to Public Hearing in August. Lee Rafalow mentioned that the Executive Summary mentions "protecting the rights of landowners ". He did not feel that there was consensus on that issue. There is consensus on protecting land values but not protecting the rights of landowners. Gene Bell agreed to further research the wording used in the Executive Summary. Bob Hall mentioned that the Vision should be presented as a product of this Work Group rather than the subcommittee. Meg McKean requested that it be clearly presented to the public that the different density uses are actually different incentives which will be in addition to the zoning. Judd Edeburn mentioned that the constraints of the area and what currently exists in the area needs to be in the Summary Report. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES DISCUSSION CONTINUED FROM MARCH 14 MEETING: Lee Rafalow said there had to be assurance against further subdivision of a lot for expedited review to receive a favorable recommendation. Cling Burklin said he thought there were legal tools more permanent than restrictive covenants at preventing further subdivision of property. Gene Bell indicated that after the current recommendations of this Work Group go to Public Hearing, amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance will be drafted and presented to the Board of Commissioners for approval. He will also research what are the most binding of the Restrictive Covenants. AAtaskforcelapr496a.min 3 4 The group achieved consensus on recommending expedited review for conventional five (5) acre lots that followed the Rural Design Guidelines and were ensured against further subdivision. Bob Strayhorn stated that the incentive is to encourage fewer people on the land. He felt that there needed to be options other than open space. Bob Hall asked for clarification from County staff regarding what can be done using existing laws. Specifically, 1) what we know we can do; 2) what we know we can't do; and 3) what is fuzzy? Gene Bell mentioned a proposal that was considered several years ago which will allow reduced property tax for farm land. That proposal would require enabling legislation. The current Agricultural Board is looking into this option at the present time. Verla Insko asked if the group was interested in considering use of fixed term density bonuses (number 2 under Item 5)? Bob Hall asked if there was a specific size track which could use this option? Bob Strayhorn asked if it was of monetary value to the community for a certain parcel to remain in open space for a certain number of years. He felt that it was a benefit for areas in swift transition. Meg McKean felt that the appropriate action for this group would be to suggest what they would actually like to see happen regardless of what is actually allowed at the present time. Verla Insko asked if there was agreement on pursuing the 20 year conservation easement with the incentive being one additional dwelling unit for every 10 acres set aside. There was general consensus on this pending receipt of the additional information requested earlier. The Planning Board will review the suggestions and work of this group at their April 15th meeting. MINUTES: A motion was made by Irene VanDyke, seconded by Bob Hall, to approve the minutes of the January 25, February 15, February 28 and March 14, 1996 meetings were approved. - VOTE: UNANIMOUS There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, April 18, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. in the Government Service Center, Hillsborough, North Carolina. A:\taskforcelapr496a.min 4