Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOCPB Minutes 090518MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT : Randy Marshall (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham Township Representative; Patricia Roberts, Cheeks Township Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; Hunter Spitzer, At-Large; MEMBERS ABSENT : Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; Alexander Gregory, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; STAFF PRESENT : Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Supervisor; Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner; Meredith Kern, Administrative Assistant II OTHERS PRESENT : Linda Griffin, Minutes Preparer; AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Randy Marshall (Vice-Chair) Called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM AGENDA ITEM 2:INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a.Planning Calendar for September and October b.Information Item on September 4 BOCC Agenda Regarding Land Use Plan Amendments to Expand Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD) Tom Altieri presented item related to conclusion of Joint Land Use Plan and County Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Area of Old NC 86 and I-40,Southside)(Memo in Packet). There has been a change as result of the Commissioners’meeting last night,specifically to the schedule on second page of memo.Anticipate the steps will remain the same -Public Outreach meeting in 2 parts to explain all aspects of land use and zoning (“Planning 101”)and then get into specifics of the amendment and expansion of proposed area.County Manager has been asked to follow up with Hillsborough Town Manager.The two things she was directed to discuss had to do with provision of services -primary purpose,Town already approved in March.Then issue over annexation –timing of annexation,if annexation were to occur and who’s land development ordinance (UDO)would apply.Discussion should be taking place in next few weeks.Then,issue will go back to County Commissioners for discussion and rescheduling. Meeting on September 26, 2018 needs to be removed from the Planning Board calendar. AGENDA ITEM 3:APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 1, 2018, Training Session Notes August 1, 2018, ORC Notes August 1, 2018, Regular Meeting Minutes MOTION by Adam Beeman to approve the August 1, 2018, Training Session Notes, August 1, 2018, ORC Notes, and August 1, 2018, Regular Meeting Minutes with correction to attendance on page 13. Seconded by Laura Nicholson. VOTE: Unanimous AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA - NONE AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land development laws of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner, which considers the present and future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and recommendations. PUBLIC CHARGE The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual Approved regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS THERE WERE NO COMMENTS AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – FEMA FLOOD MAPS - To make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated text amendments to the UDO regarding FEMA flood maps. This item is scheduled for public hearing on October 16, 2018. PRESENTER : Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor Michael Harvey: To remind you that we are a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program, which requires the County to enforce flood damage prevention regulations including adopting and enforcing what are known as Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FIRMS. There is a database maintained by FEMA and in this case also by the State of North Carolina. The State of North Carolina is also unique in that they have a technical agreement in partnership with Federal FEMA to update and maintain Flood Maps. In the Fall of last year we revamped our entire flood plain management ordinance to address changes to make FEMA including adopting a whole new set of FIRMS. Included within your packet is a sample of the online data available showing location of special flood hazard areas and other map details. This is technically known as the FIRM map. This map is what staff references for local resident’s and property owners when their parcels of property are encumbered by flood plain and this is the document we utilize to give them information about what their development opportunities and constraints are. Last November the County Commissioners’ approved amendments to adopt the new FIRM maps with an effective date of November 17, 2017. We were informed in May of 2018 by FEMA that they need to update and” tweak” several maps primarily impacting Durham County. FIRM maps don’t respect political boundaries and there are several Orange County FIRMs that include property in Durham County. If FEMA changes flood data in this area, they are effectively changing the effective date of this map. The short and sweet of why we have initiated this amendment is that in order for the County to remain a member of the National Flood Insurance Program we have to update our Unified Development Ordinance to properly reflect the new effective date of the new FIRMs, which is going to be October 19, 2018. If we fail to do this, we will be suspended from the National Flood Insurance Program and local residents will not be able to get flood insurance. It should not come to that but that’s the practical results of us not moving forward and doing this. We are updating the effective FIRM date in the UDO as we are required to do and making a couple of “tweaks” to make existing a little more user friendly. The staff recommendation is that you all take an affirmative action on recommending approval of the statement of consistency and attachment to and recommend the change to the ordinance amendment attachment. Michael Harvey reviewed abstract. Carrie Fletcher asked what this change does for policy holders Michael Harvey said there would be no change for policy holders. If the County didn’t do anything, flood insurance would not be available. If for instance you were going to do a refinance on your house, the most recent data would be used, which is the best available data. We are not looking at major impacts on property owners in Orange County, this is primarily dealing with flood panels that are in Durham County but because they are changing that data set the map has to be updated so we have to include the new effective date it is a “bookkeeping issue”. Carrie Fletcher asked if it will tend to raise rates or have any impact on rates? Michael Harvey answered: it will not have any affect on rates at all. MOTION by Kim Piracci to approve statement of consistency. Seconded by Hunter Spitzer. VOTE: Unanimous MOTION by Hunter Spitzer to approve the UDO text amendment change. Seconded by Laura Nicholson. VOTE: Unanimous AGENDA ITEM 8: EFLAND-BUCKHORN-MEBANE ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN - To review and comment on draft updates to the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan . PRESENTER : Nish Trivedi, Transportation Planner I will explain the background of this plan. It was originally adopted in November 2011. A Transportation Study was done in 2017. It looked at existing conditions, environmental constraints and traffic analysis. I will explain the updating processes, some of the findings from the 2017 Transportation Study, show you what the next steps entail and how this plan will be implemented. The Access Management Plan is the proposed long-range plan master plan of existing roads and possible new roads. The main purpose is to maintain the overall safety of the transportation system, minimize congestion and crash rates, provide efficient traffic flow and pedestrian safety; and provide appropriate access to adjacent business properties. (included in your packet you received is a copy of the power point presentation.) One slide was not included in your packet and it explains what the plan is and is not. The plan is a long-range vision of the area, it is a means to get people to dedicate the right of way as development applications come in. It is not a road map, it is not for buying or constructing roads. It is not to purchase the right of way, it is not for design of the road and it is not guaranteed. The development may occur and this plan is subject to change over the years. The plan for this started back in 1981. A comprehensive plan was done in 1981 and an area plan later in 1991. The water and sewer plan was done in 2002 for the area. The Efland Area Study followed by 2006 Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan and the 2011 E-B-M Access Management Plan was adopted by the County and we are simply updating that plan. In 2017 Volkert Inc did a transportation study of the area and we will hear more about in the presentation. The original 2011 Access Plan included a map of the area and possible roads that will be in this area and improvements that will be done. It included a variety of access management strategies including and 2 possible street cross sections. In September 2011 the Planning Board and Orange Unified Transportation Board reviewed it and made its recommendations. There was a public information meeting held in November of that year and the Board adopted it that same month on November 15, 2011. In 2017 Volkert was contracted to do a Transportation Study for this area and they did it with the help of Pilot Environmental Inc who studied of environmental concerns and issues including existing conditions analysis, land use and traffic impacts, corridor and intersection feasibilities for this 4.25 square mile area. Randy Marshall asked a question: Who contracted this study- the State? Nish Trivedi answered: The County paid for the study. Nish Trivedi continued presentation. This study included a big spreadsheet with 30 rows of data that showed what the various development sites might be. How much might be developed for example a 100-acre of land and only about 30 acres of it could be developed due to constraints, environmental issues and market factors. What is developed on these 30 acres would help determine the traffic impact in the area, traffic impact being how many cars it might generate. The 2017 Transportation Study also evaluated NCDOT 24 different street cross sections; these are what State routes are required to look like. It proposed 3 NCDOT cross sections of those for this area. The Study also took into consideration the impact at intersections, what would be needed at those intersections such as turn lanes and stop signs. The slides show some of the intersections that would need turn lanes, stops signs, etc. to address the increased traffic for that development. Now we are in the process of updating the original 2011 Access Management Plan using the 2017 Transportation Study. On August 28, we conducted a community meeting at Gravely Hill Middle School to let the public know what is going on in this process and get their feedback. The study also included recommendations and these are all presented to you for your consideration as part of the draft. We are taking the original 2011 Plan, adding the transportation study, with public comments, to create a whole new Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan. The study analyzed possible roads, these roads were carried forward from the original 2011 Access Management Plan to insure everyone had access to their property while development occurs, and the circles are for the various intersections. The green lines are from the study itself. The purple lines you see are where staff identified additional roads that would be needed and additional studies would also be required to address the increased traffic issues brought on by future development. The red circles are the intersections from the 2017 Transportation Study. We as staff think that additional intersections will be needed and more study and possible improvements needed for those intersections (see the blue circles). Mebane has also recently adopted a Comprehension Transportation Plan and it was adopted in June 2018. That is shown as the yellow lines and circles on the map from their recently adopted CTP. The 2017 Transportation Study proposed 3 different cross sections a 90- foot right-of-way that includes bike and pedestrian accommodations and sidewalks. It included a 60 ft right-of-way for areas east of Buckhorn Road and an 80 ft right-of-way for some of the major areas. The study also recommended improvements to various intersections, adding turn lanes for various east and westbound routes along 70, Buckhorn Road, West Ten Road and Ben Wilson Road. As part of community outreach, we sent out letters to property owners in and around the study area. We sent out over 700 notices about the community meeting. The community meeting was held last Tuesday to get public comments. An estimate of 100 people attended. The meeting had nice positive feedback. People engaging in knowing what’s going on in the area. We created a website to keep the public informed and involved in the process and as a means of getting more feedback as this process continues. We handed out a survey at the Community meeting to get feedback about what was presented to them. The next steps – we are currently at the next step phase presenting the planning process and plan before the Planning Board for review. The Draft Plan is in your attachment to for your review and comment. We will come back next month in October for your recommendations to include as we present this to the Board of County Commissioners’ later this year, tentatively targeting November for Public Hearing. This same presentation will be given to the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) later this month and they will provide their recommendations in October. A tentative Public Hearing is scheduled to go before the Board of County Commissioners’ in November and depending on what they decide, they will act in November or December for their decision. Randy Marshall question: Has the Outboard seen this at all? Nish responded: They will see this in two weeks on September 19. Your meeting came first, so it will be presented to them at their meeting in two weeks. Both of your recommendations will go to the Board of County Commissioners’ together. It is not like one is going then the other. Both packets together with all your comments together and then the Board will make a decision either at the public hearing or the following meeting. The plan will be implemented through the Unified Development Ordinance which requires development be in compliance with adopted local plans like an Access Management Plan and it is through the UDO we would use this plan to get people to dedicate the right-of-way in the event these roads are constructed. Any Questions. Hunter Spitzer asked when comments are needed by? Nish Trivedi answered: by the 28th of September. I want to put all comments together before sitting down with staff to see if there is anything to add or improve. We will add a simple Q&A at the end of the document. Those will come back to you in October for your recommendations. Tom Altieri clarified the comment period. Any comments the Board would have tonight, we will take our notes and collect those comments. As Nish mentioned it is coming back to you next month and as you are reviewing the document and have comments send them to him. If you want to send an email to Nish you are welcome to do that and he can report out at the beginning of your next meeting what comments he has collected so far and how those comments will be addressed. At the end of the presentation is Nish’s contact information. Randy Marshall spoke about detail of plan and mentioned the feedback forms. He stated the plan looked comprehensive for such a small part of Orange County in the sense that a lot of time, energy and thought was put into the preparation. Such as assessment of traffic, where traffic wants to go and to get to the different parts. I did notice on the feedback forms that people were still confused, I am sure a lot of that is to be expected because it is all conjecture at this point. This will hit the road so to speak when development comes in and we will have this as a starting point in terms of planning purposes for that area. Adam Beeman asked about the bridge at Buckhorn Rd. and I-85. Are there any plans of putting lights up on that bridge at Buckhorn Road when you get off I-85 and come across the bridge, now there are no lights on that bridge at all? You are presently at mercy of stopping and looking for traffic before making those turns. Just wonder when that’s coming. Nish Trivedi said that they will look at future improvements Tom Altieri spoke about developers and traffic impact studies. That will come when development comes. For example, if a developer came in and wanted to develop a piece of property, much like the application for Settlers Point, when it came in there would be forecasts done for additional traffic on the roadway, if roadway improvements would be necessary, turn lanes and traffic lights could be some of those improvements. There is nothing planned now for construction of the network reflected in the draft Access Management Plan. Carrie Fletcher asked about road updates on Buckhorn Rd and bridge developments? Tom Altieri answered. One of the recommendations, in fact, one of the only four lane cross- sections is at Buckhorn Road. The cross-section for Buckhorn Road from West 10 all the way towards Hwy 70 would be for a four-lane divided cross section. So, that’s something as an example of if a developer came in they may be able to ask to, at least, protect the right-of-way and the right-of-way width, so, eventually when there is enough critical mass there it could become a four-lane road in the future. I doubt that the first developer that comes in, would be asked to provide four lanes unless a very large project because otherwise there would not be enough associated projected traffic there to justify that type of improvement. Adam Beeman mentioned the bridge at 86 and I-85 coming over from Wal Mart. It’s got to the point that something has to happen, it’s getting pretty congested. Nish Trivedi – The interchange at I-85 at NC-86 is a funded project in the State’s Strategic Prioritization of Transportation (SPOT) 5.0. The State will eventually redo this interchange. Hunter Spitzer asked about alternative transportation such as for cyclists, pedestrians? Nish Trivedi answered yes. In 3 the NCDOT cross sections recommended as part of the 2017 Transportation Study include bike/ped accommodations such as sidewalks and/or paved shoulders. The plans show 5 ft sidewalks, paved shoulders – 5 ft paved shoulders even without sidewalks. Just for area west of I-85. Nothing planned for east other than 5 ft paved shoulders. Carrie Fletcher asked about eminent domain. If you are talking about accessing right of way are you talking about private lands? Tom Altieri. The right of way would be dedicated through future private development processes, so this is an unfunded plan. There is no plan now to build these roads. I think the best way to describe the plan is like an insurance policy so that, as the area is develops over time the County has the ability to then request right of way or have the developer make some roadway improvements that are applicable to whatever property he or she is developing. So, a lot of the roadway network you see there may not be achieved in the next ten years, even beyond. It is only going to be achieved through the development process. As property owners want to sell their property for development. If no one wants to sell their property, the developer is not building those roads, the County does not have money to build those roads there would be no reason. So, that’s where there will be no exercising of power of eminent domain or condemnation of property to build the roads. Randy Marshall: I understand that if the developer wants to develop in this area then this plan would ask that developer to reserve some of that property to develop a right of way or as a right of way for a road or other pieces of this plan. It would be up to the developer whether to do that or not. The County is not taking anybody’s land as an eminent domain issue. If you are going to develop it, this is what our long- range plan in this area is so that other properties down the road – that the access from outside the area. I don’t know if I can make that any clearer or not. Tom Altieri and Nish Trivedi went over the plan in more detail. The plan is designed so that no property end up land locked with no access. If you are familiar with residential subdivisions and that process maybe there is a cul-de-sac or stub out, there is no road going through to the adjacent parcel, it is not developing yet but there is a right of way there so if and when the adjacent parcel develops you can have some connectivity. The plan done in 2011 shows lines and to date only one of those roads was built and it is the road that serves Morinaga candy factory and the reason for that is that we haven’t had any other development in the area. If there had been development the County would have been able to look at this plan and say future development will be requested to dedicate right of way for future road improvements. This plan is largely conceptual, but we need some type of right of way through this property so that adjacent property owners can have access to their property. The 2011 Access management Plan was done without the benefit of surveying. As Nish stated consultants from Pilot Environmental did this survey so that is one of the differences between the 2011 plan and 2017 study. The 2017 Transportation Study is a more in-depth analysis and environmental surveying to determine where the lines should be on the Access Management Plan. The 2011 plan was really done in our office, looking at boundaries of parcel lines, trying to avoid stream crossings where we knew there were streams and those kinds of things but there was no surveying and it was not really the “boots on the ground” as we do not do that type of detailed site analysis of this scale in our department. So, that’s the difference between the 2017 and the 2011. Really kind of an update. Much like the 2011 plan, if there is not a lot of development in the area, we won’t see those roads getting built. I mentioned the service road to Morinaga, that was partially funded by DOT and one of the things that DOT looked for, as it wanted to be very careful that it was not providing funding for an individual driveway to go to a business, and one of the things they asked for was for the County to demonstrate how this service road was part of a greater transportation network to serve the area and we were able to demonstrate it was because we had that 2011 Plan. We were able to show them that we had an adopted plan and as a result the State contributed the money and we were able to get that road built. Randy Marshall: Vision was a very good way to describe the whole process here. A vision for how it could develop and what we would want to see when it is developed, but it doesn’t mean it is going to be developed but if somebody comes in and wants it developed then this is what our vision is, and they can take that into account. Patricia asked: The yellow roads what does that mean? On Page 6? Also, what about the Richmond, Lebanon Rd how it’s going to connect to the 119 bypass? Answer: Another transit route that was proposed – new bus route proposed. Nish answered: Every new state road or improvements to state road goes through the state’s SPOT process. The State uses this quantitative data driven process to determine which projects are best suited for funding through the State’s Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The yellow lines on the map you are referring to are Orange County priorities we submitted to corresponding Metropolitan Planning Organizations to be considered for the current SPOT process. The green lines on the same map are funded projects in the current adopted STIP. The yellow lines you see are the County priorities. These lines did not score for the SPOT process for the State. The green ones you see are funded and approved. The repaving of I-85. Tom: for example - Buckhorn Road. The county has identified it as one of its transportation priorities and the County attempted to see if that is a project could be funded through the State’s Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). So, what we are looking at here in this section of the draft is just background information. Planning Board Meeting ended by consensus at 7:50 PM Lydia N. Wegman, Chair