Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4_3_24 Planning Board Minutes APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS 5.1.24 1 MEETING MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 APRIL 3,2024 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Adam Beeman (Chair), Cedar Grove Township Representative; Lamar Proctor 7 (Vice-Chair), Cheeks Township Representative; Delores Bailey, At-Large Representative; Beth Bronson, s At-Large Representative; Marilyn Carter, At-Large Representative; Statler Gilfillen, Eno Township 9 Representative; Chris Johnston, Hillsborough Township Representative; Steve Kaufmann, Bingham Township 10 Representative; Whitney Watson, At-Large Representative. 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Charity Kirk, At-Large Representative; Liz Kalies, Chapel Hill Township Representative. 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Cy Stober, Planning & Inspections Director; Patrick Mallett, Deputy Director— 15 Development Services; Taylor Perschau, Current Planning and Zoning Manager; Ashley Moncado, Planner III; 16 Lauren Coffey, Planner I. 17 18 OTHERS PRESENT: Phil Koch, EarthCentric Engineering, Inc.; Shawn Sidener, EarthCentric Engineering, Inc.; 19 Jamie Cox. 20 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 23 The meeting began at 7:04 PM. 24 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 2: INFORMATION ITEMS 27 None. 2s 29 3o AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 31 March 6, 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes 32 33 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to approve the minutes with corrections to line 59 and line 251. Seconded by Marilyn 34 Carter. 35 36 37 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 3s None. 39 4o AGENDA ITEM 5: PUBLIC CHARGE 41 42 INTRODUCTION TO THE PUBLIC CHARGE 43 The Board of County Commissioners, under the authority of North Carolina General 44 Statute, appoints the Orange County Planning Board (OCPB) to uphold the written land 45 development law of the County. The general purpose of OCPB is to guide and accomplish 46 coordinated and harmonious development. OCPB shall do so in a manner, which 47 considers the present and future needs of its citizens and businesses through efficient and 48 responsive process that contributes to and promotes the health, safety, and welfare of the 49 overall County. The OCPB will make every effort to uphold a vision of responsive APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS 5.1.24 50 governance and quality public services during our deliberations, decisions, and 51 recommendations. 52 53 54 PUBLIC CHARGE 55 The Planning Board pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks 56 its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board 57 and with fellow citizens. At any time, should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to 58 observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting 59 until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair 60 will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is 61 observed. 62 63 64 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 65 None. 66 67 AGENDA ITEM 7: MAJOR SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN—To review and take action on a Concept Plan 68 application for a Major Subdivision named Stonewall. The proposal is for an 18-lot subdivision on approximately 69 36.36 acres with 47.9% (17.42 acres) of dedicated open space. The parcel is located on Miller Road in the 7o Hillsborough Township, PIN 9875-64-5097. 71 72 Taylor Perschau overviewed the Standard Major Subdivision process and the timeline of review. She explained 73 that there will be two major subdivisions to review, beginning with the Stonewall Subdivision, which does not 74 include a preliminary plat at this time. 75 76 Ashley Moncado: Ashley Moncado, Planner III with the Planning Department. And the first item tonight for the 77 Board review is Concept Plan for a Major Subdivision on approximately 36 acres. The site is currently 78 undeveloped and located within the Rural Residential and Agricultural Residential zoning districts. It is located in 79 the Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed. Surrounding parcels are zoned as R1 and AR and include undeveloped 80 parcels, as well as single-family homes. Based on the Future Land Use Map, the parcel is classified as Rural 81 Residential and Agricultural Residential in the Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan, it is classified 82 as Rural Living. The applicant is proposing a Flexible Major Subdivision including 18 lots. The average lot size 83 is a little over 40,000 square feet. Based on the Conservation Cluster Flexible Development Option, applicants 84 are required to provide a minimum of 33 percent open space. This applicant is proposing 47.9 percent, or 17.42 85 acres of open space. The applicant is requesting reduced front and side setbacks for this proposed subdivision, 86 which is allowed based on the Flexible Development Option. They are also providing a 30-foot, Type B 87 landscape buffer along the western property line, which runs along Miller Road. Access to the site is proposed 88 via a 50-foot public right of way, and lots will be served by individual wells and septic systems. The majority of 89 the existing site is cleared. An eastern portion of the site includes trees and some existing vegetation. A stream 90 is located in a floodplain along the northern and then the eastern partial part of the site. In addition, there is also 91 a 100-foot-wide Duke Power utility easement that runs directly through the site here and has three utility towers. 92 The site analysis sheets detail the environmental features on the site, as well as identifies the Primary and 93 Secondary Open Space Areas. Again,existing trees and a stream,floodplain, and buffer areas are all contained 94 along the northern and eastern parcel. The different colors are the varying slopes on the site. The lighter yellow 95 includes areas with a slope of 7.5 to 15 percent. The darker yellow includes areas with a slope of 15 to 25 96 percent, and then the darker, the pink-reddish color here are areas with a slope greater than 25 percent. The 97 Primary Open Space totals almost 13 acres, and includes the stream, flood, buffer areas, as well as the slopes 98 greater than 15 percent. The Secondary Open Space Areas total 4.52 acres and include the buffer areas along 99 the western property line, as well as includes a gap here that runs along the southern portion of the site up APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS 5.1.24 100 against that private road. The Secondary Open Space also includes the remaining areas of slope with less than 101 15 percent. The proposed Concept Plan in front of you all tonight, which includes the 18 lots. It gives an 102 approximate location of building footprint and location of the future homes. Wells are also identified by the blue 103 dots, as well as approximate septic areas are identified with the green. The blue kind of looking ponds are the 104 approximate location of stormwater control measures on this site. Again,the 30-foot Type B Landscape Buffer is 105 shown here along the western part of the site, and the proposed 50-foot public right of way is shown providing 106 access to the 18 lots with a cul-de-sac at the end. The cul-de-sac does meet NC Fire Code. The proposed 107 public road is subject to NCDOT design and construction standards, no roadway improvements are being 108 required by NCDOT; however, a driveway permit will be required. The subdivision was presented at the 109 February 1 st Development Advisory Committee meeting. Comments are provided in Attachment 5. The 110 Neighborhood Information Meeting was held by the applicant on February 13th. The NIM report is contained in 111 Attachment 4 of your packets, and then tonight, here we are at the Planning Board Meeting for you to receive and 112 review the Concept Plan, approving the Flexible Development Option, and then, as this moves forward, the 113 Preliminary Plat will be coming back to you all on some time in the future for your recommendation to the BOCC. 114 Per Section 2.15.2 of the LIDO,the Planning Director is required to prepare and submit a recommendation on the 115 Concept Plan to the Planning Board for consideration. This analysis from the application has been deemed 116 complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.2 and 2.15.2 of the LIDO. Staff has determined that 117 the property is of sufficient size to support the proposed subdivision. Staff has determined that the Concept Plan 118 should conform with the Development Standards of Article 6 and Subdivision Standards of Article 7 of the LIDO, 119 and staff supports the approval of the Flexible Development Option contained in Attachment 1. The Planning 12o Director recommends the Board receive and discuss the Concept Plan application and approve the Flexible 121 Development Option contained in Attachment 1. At this time, I don't know if you have any questions for staff or 122 questions for the applicants. 123 124 Phil Koch: My name is Phil Koch, EarthCentric Engineering. We're out of Mebane. We've worked with 125 Orange County for almost 30 years at this point, so,we're really happy to kind of be back in the area and do some 126 additional work with the County. Most of the things that I do are 12-lot subdivisions or lower. So, I don't end up 127 in front of you very often. This particular subdivision, I think, Ashley has presented very well. One of the things 128 that the applicant was very good about doing, and chose to do from the very beginning of this,was to turn around 129 and only utilize area that, for the most part, was already cleared. There are some trees that will be cleared. At 130 the very end there's a cul-de-sac that's kind of unavoidable, but in order to make up for that, he's also providing 131 that 49 percent plus open space. The entire Duke Power easement that's there is all part of the open space as 132 well, so, none of the lots will extend back there. There is no reason for those lots to go back beyond that, so 133 we've been able to maintain basically the entire stream buffer in the area there, all as part of the open space,and 134 that will remain as is. Any trails that would be placed back there would be basically foot trails, and we would be 135 working with the County in order to actually place those trails. So,with that in mind, if you have any questions, I'm 136 happy to address them. 137 138 Statler Gilfillen: I have one simple question, I'm not sure I'm understanding. As I look at the plan here, over 139 on this side up in the corner, it says "wall." What is the wall? 140 141 Phil Koch: I believe there is an existing wall out there. That is not something that was put there. 142 143 Statler Gilfillen: When you say an existing wall, are we talking archaeological, 20th Century? Any idea what 144 we're talking about here? 145 146 Phil Koch: It's an old, like an old piece of a structure that's back that way. We are not touching that. 147 That's in the open space. It will be maintained as it is and left there. 148 149 Statler Gilfillen: Has anybody contacted the Orange County Historic Board? APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS 5.1.24 150 151 Phil Koch: They have actually reported on that the Clearinghouse. It's an old retaining wall. Nobody 152 really seems to know what that was related to but it's not on the Historical Registry and it's noted in the 153 Clearinghouse that there's nothing of archaeological importance there. This site had been used for agricultural 154 purposes, so, it's possible it was just something from some of that work out there. 155 156 Beth Bronson: And this is by that 25 percent slope? 157 158 Phil Koch: That I'd have to look at again, but it's, it's actually on the opposite side of where the 159 development is going. The stream actually runs between us and that wall, but that wall is on the property. Yes. 160 161 Marilyn Carter: I just wanted to ask about the boundaries of the, the site and just to confirm my 162 understanding. The boundaries are just to the north of that Duke Power easement or do the boundaries extend 163 further north past the Panther Court section? 164 165 Ashley Moncado: This is the existing parcel line, and the Duke Power easement runs here. All the proposed 166 lots and single-family homes are going to be located south outside the utility easement, but the parcel does go all 167 the way up here. This is the area where there's flood, there's 500 Year Floodplain. There is the stream, the 168 80-foot stream buffer is all within that northern area. And there is a little neighborhood here that's off of Panther 169 Court. There's some single-family homes there,and the parcel line is here,and before it heads back north again. 170 171 Statler Gilfillen: Quick question long term. Five years from now you've got this built. Each of those houses 172 are owned by an individual, different family. However, who controls or is responsible for the additional land 173 surrounding each one of the— 174 175 Phil Koch: That, that's all part of the HOA. That's a requirement. There has to be an HOA also from 176 the standpoint of stormwater control measures on this, so that's all rolled into the HOA documents. Those have 177 not been put together and should be coming with the plat. 178 179 Delores Bailey: We received a letter from a young woman who wasn't able to make the meeting tonight, and 180 she was concerned about the safety in this area. Particularly, she said she'd like to urge in an effort toward 181 building community stewardship to consider ways to make these roads safer for all of us. I'd like to urge you to 182 recommend to the developers and Orange County Commissioners that the proposed trail in the Stonewall 183 Development be open to the community and around it. And then the other question she talked about was safety 184 issues as they walk to school. Can you address that for me? 185 186 Phil Koch: Well, in the first instance regarding walking to school, my understanding is they are walking 187 up the roadway now. There is nothing along that roadway. There is no sidewalk— 188 189 Delores Bailey: But I think what she is concerned about is if you put 18 more families there, and they have 190 cars, then it's going to become ever more dangerous. 191 192 Phil Koch: Let me address that from the DOT standpoint real quick. This road currently is limited at 193 10,000 travel trips a day. That's actually in your report. That's your average daily travel. Currently, the road 194 sees 1,600 trips per day, and this development, at best, will put in another 150 trips per day. We're not even 195 coming close to the current standard that this road is listed for capacity from that standpoint. Additionally, in 196 terms of safety, one of the concerns that was raised to us was that they were walking up the roadway. In all 197 honesty, this is the safest part of the roadway. We are actually sitting at the high point, and we have provided 198 additional space back from the roadway, a 30-foot buffer, in order to be able to see better along it, so I believe we 199 have done what's necessary from the standpoint of safety in terms of that. APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS 5.1.24 200 201 Whitney Watson: So, I'm just looking and trying to determine where the property line is on the south, and if 202 Minnick Road, which is a private road, is impacted by the property line, or if there's any kind of easement there? 203 204 Phil Koch: It's actually not impacted by the property lines. Property lines were actually pulled away 205 slightly from Minnick Road to allow for that area that was part of this parcel. This parcel originally went to the 206 center line of Minnick Road, so the open space now extends from the centerline back into the property to where 207 the back of the property lines, and that's been provided as open space to make that essentially act as if it were a 208 public open space. Or a private right of way that had full right of way. 209 210 Whitney Watson: And so will there be landscaping buffers, plantings required along that line? 211 212 Phil Koch: No. There's not any that I know of that are required on that. Now, whatever is required by 213 the County would have to be there as part of the full design. But again, I want to point out, that's a private road 214 right now, and in fact,this property was subdivided out in order to help the neighbor who lives there actually have 215 a full access right of way to his house. 216 217 Marilyn Carter: Just following on Delores'question about road safety, can you talk about how the proposed 218 private road meets Miller? And what is the topography where the road meets the private road — 219 220 Phil Koch: But the road that we are currently putting in is a public road, not a private road. 221 222 Marilyn Carter: My apologies. So, the road that you would put in for the development, can you talk about 223 that road and how it interacts with the main road, and what's the topography of that junction? 224 225 Phil Koch: That is actually at roughly the high point there. That has been reviewed thoroughly by the 226 DOT. We have walked that with them. They actually asked for a sight distance study out there which has been 227 done, and they agree that this is, in fact, not only the best, but it does provide full sight distance for the 228 intersection south, as well as the roadway toward the north. 229 230 Marilyn Carter: Is there any visibility issue on that turn? 231 232 Phil Koch: No. The only visibility issue they have asked us to do some additional work on would be 233 there's a couple of trees out there that will require some pruning. That's it. But the sight distance itself is, I want 234 to say, it's 400 feet. Don't quote me on that right off hand. I can pull that analysis out. I think we actually 235 measured it out to 500 feet, and at that point the DOT was fine with it. It meets all AASHTO standards. 236 237 Beth Bronson: Does it include that turning lane in? They determined you did not need that. Correct? 238 239 Phil Koch: We do not need a turning lane out here, any type, no. 240 241 Statler Gilfillen: The property to the north, it's open land. Is that going to be available to the public for people 242 to walk through there, or be part of, or not? Or is that to be closed for this group? 243 244 Phil Koch: Well, I mean, technically it's part of this subdivision, but I know that neighbors are already 245 on the land regularly walking dogs, et cetera. I don't know that there would be a way to prevent that anyway, but 246 1 do know they cross over the stream there and actually do walk their dogs there. So, I would imagine the trails 247 themselves would remain there. 248 APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS 5.1.24 249 Statler Gilfillen: Looking at the land as a practical matter, I'm looking at the end of the driveway, there's a 250 circle there. It's going to a pond, and it goes immediately to the owner's property's line. If somebody were 251 walking a dog back there were injured, an emergency vehicle had to get in, that pond would restrict their access 252 up to there. 253 254 Phil Koch: There's going to be some modifications and find a way out just from the standpoint of 255 addressing items with the County there, but honestly, there is room between that pond to actually have the trail 256 system come directly off that and still beside the property line there and have adequate width. 257 258 Delores Bailey: Were the work that the DOT did and the studies that they did, they were done during busy 259 times and slow times as well? 260 261 Cy Stober: The trip generation, they take a baseline and they look at peak volume, and so peak hours 262 are rush hour. I think it's 4 to 6 in the afternoon, and I can't remember if 7 to 9 or 6 to 8 in the morning, and then 263 that's when they generally look at road conditions, and then there's a baseline for off-peak conditions, and that's 264 how they calculate the volume on the road, the current traffic that's generated on the road. They put out the 265 rubber tubes, and they do that on a cycle. I think it's every 3 years. I don't know when Miller Road was last 266 counted. 267 268 Lamar Proctor: So, Minnick Road is the private road to the south. And that just remains a private road, and 269 then the Department of Environment identified Stroud's Creek that runs along the north and the eastern edge of 270 the property. And it delineates it as highest conservation value, 10 of 10, so I'm just wondering if you could 271 describe what measures and how did you design this site plan to avoid interference with Stroud's Creek and 272 preserve its biodiversity and integrity. 273 274 Phil Koch: So, they have a specific distance they prefer you to try stay off of that. We exceed that 275 in virtually every spot except for right at the very corner with where the one SCM is, SCM being structural or 276 stormwater control measure, that's by the cul-de-sac, and again, it may still not go into that distance with it's 277 finally designed. I overestimated in general the size of the SCMs because I typically take into account the 278 amount of water that we're required to hold, plus what I expect for back slopes. So, rather than turning around 279 and doing what a lot of people do and just take the amount of water, throw that on there and that's it. 280 281 Lamar Proctor: Are there trails back there, and will they be open to the public? 282 283 Phil Koch: There is nothing back there right now. The intent is work with the County. They have 284 already spoken someone in the County about this. Any trails that would go back there, we would work with the 285 County on where they should be placed in order to prevent any damage to wildlife, et cetera that might be back 286 there. 287 288 Lamar Proctor: I just imagined that as people move in with the surrounding houses that are there that that 289 space may actually get more use as walking trails, or low impact or- 290 291 Phil Koch: And that's probable. I mean, that's what has happened at my house as well. But again, the 292 one thing that helps here is the separation of the Duke Power easement of the lots from that area. It helps protect 293 that area because there's nothing they can do from a standpoint of building back that way, or creating anything 294 other than pedestrian traffic back there. 295 296 Lamar Proctor: So you're unable to develop or build on the north and the far eastern portion. 297 APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS 5.1.24 298 Phil Koch: Yeah. There's nothing that we could do north of the stream because we simply can't access 299 it, but even on the southern part of the stream that Duke Power easement is going to act as our hard break from 300 going back there with any kind of lot, or any kind of structure. 301 302 Lamar Proctor: So, this plan, as it's presented, will be like the final development for this parcel. 303 304 Phil Koch: Yes. That's the intent of the Concept Plan is to give you. You're looking at probably about 305 90 percent of what this layout is going to end up being. The other 10 percent are little things that would have to 306 change just as we work through design. 307 308 Lamar Proctor: And the green spaces on each individual parcel, I assume that there's regulations within the 309 HOA that prohibit development of those or building of sheds or things. Like how does that all work? 310 311 Phil Koch: The green spaces that are shown there are representative of the septic areas that are in 312 there. 313 314 Lamar Proctor: So you can't do anything with it. 315 316 Phil Koch: Well,you don't want to do anything in there. You know, if a lot actually has more septic area 317 than is required for that lot, somebody could possibly put an accessory dwelling in there, but they would have to 318 still have septic space to accommodate that. I mean, that would be the only structures that I can think of, some 319 kind of an accessory dwelling or shed. 320 321 Statler Gilfillen: Did you individually do the septic check each in front of those? 322 323 Phil Koch: These septic soils were originally identified by Alan Clapp. He's pretty knowledgeable on 324 this. He's way more knowledgeable than I am, but we feel pretty comfortable that the space that's allotted for the 325 septic provides for three to five bedroom homes throughout that area. 326 327 Cy Stober: Mr. Chair, if I may, I just want to remind you of what this is tonight. So,to Mr. Proctor's point 328 on Stroud's Creek and the continued dialogue between the Department of Environment Agricultural Parks and 329 Recreation about the possible trails networks and so on, so, this is the Concept Plan. It's not the Preliminary 330 Plat. You can make a recommendation to the applicant. You can also make a recommendation to the Board of 331 Commissioners, external to the entire subdivision process on a possible partnership or a role for DEAPR to have 332 in either preserving and protecting or minimally developing that area for public access. So, that would be just 333 initiated by this Board. It would need a separate motion and so forth, but when this comes back as a Preliminary 334 Plat,just as a point of process, I would just offer you that guidance. There are things within the Major Subdivision 335 review process that you can interact with the applicant on, but there's also maybe a recommendation about a 336 significant resource that you may want to make a separate recommendation to the Board on, so just offering that 337 feedback. 338 339 Chris Johnston: Our purpose isn't to make suggestions to the applicant. It's more to approve or deny based on 340 UDO conformance and that sort of thing. We're not here to do the design. We can make suggestions, but in 341 terms of what we're here to do, it either fits or it doesn't. 342 Marilyn Carter: The UDO requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting which appears to have been well 343 attended, and so I'm interested to know at that meeting what was the primary feedback? What specific actions, 344 if any, were taken as a result of that feedback at that meeting? 345 346 Phil Koch: The majority of the design work in all honesty was pretty much in relation to comments from 347 the DAC. The biggest thing that came up again,well there were two things, stormwater,which always comes up APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS 5.1.24 348 at every meeting. I'm just going to tell you that's honest to God truth. Everybody always thinks that we're going 349 to end up creating more stormwater on them. The truth is there are State regulations regarding that, and we 350 have to meet that, and the County has regulations involved with that and that's one of the reasons why the 351 stormwater control measures are shown on the plan as they are. Again, the County knows me very well. I do a 352 lot of stormwater work in this County,and we try to be very cognizant of what the County actually needs from that 353 standpoint. The other one that came up was traffic, but again, many of the comments regarding traffic, the DOT 354 outright has stated clearly do not apply. We were told that it is far too heavy a traffic out here, that the road has 355 more traffic than it can bear out there, and again,the DOT is saying that we actually have less than 20 percent of 356 the capacity of the roadway up there right now. So, in their mind, there really was no reason to do anything 357 beyond verify the sight distance, and they have asked for some things regarding clearing some of the trees, 358 making it more appropriate to improve the sight distance where the trees were encroaching on that and that has 359 been handled. So, but those were the major questions, or comments, and the other was to ask again for 36o additional open space beyond what we had preferably saving a group of trees that were in the middle of the site, 361 and frankly, we're already providing almost 50 percent open space which is almost 20 percent more than was 362 required to begin with. Now, admittedly, that open space is down by the stream, and that was one of the things. 363 Well, of course, it's down by the stream. You know, you can't use the stream. Well, that's actually how your 364 Ordinance requires us to set aside open space is to use that open space first, and we would have done that 365 anyway because we would prefer to protect the stream, so we attempted to do those things ahead of time in our 366 design work. 367 368 Mr. Koch discussed NCDOT limitations on sidewalk provision and the lack of impact the development may have 369 on safety-improving measures for Miller Road. 370 371 Beth Bronson: I just have one more question about the lot size, the requirement for septic and well, is that 372 meeting the threshold of 1 acre? 373 374 Phil Koch: This exceeds the threshold. We're staying at the 40,000 square foot mark. We could 375 actually have gone down lower on this. 376 377 Beth Bronson: And I would assume that it also was in the report, but that all of the percing has been 378 performed so that you could guarantee 18 homes. 379 380 Phil Koch: They do a soil study out there. Nobody's going to actually set the entire perc sites and septic 381 sites up until lots have essentially been agreed on, and then Orange County will go out and analyze each one 382 and tell them exactly what they would have to do to move a line if they feel like there's not enough, but that will be 383 evaluated at that time. 384 385 Chair Beeman agreed to accept public comment. 386 387 Jamie Cox: I appreciate it. Hi I'm Jamie Cox. You'll see my name on there. We lived at the end of 388 Minnick Road, so we're adjacent to this property, participated in the public meeting, and I am a recovering city 389 planner and a land use and zoning lawyer. I did want to take the opportunity, we've asked the question, and 1 390 think it's appropriate and within the authority of this Board to ask the question, will 18, and actually it's 19, wells 391 being drilled there have any negative impact on the adjacent property and our water quality or water pressure? If 392 the answer is "I don't know," can we please find out? And if the answer is "no,"that's awesome. We love that. 393 And if the answer is"yes,"what is our recourse? This seems like the appropriate time for this body to make that 394 determination. It seems like a lot of wells and a lot of septic tanks in an area where there are historically poor 395 soils and a rural transition. Other than that,we're not opposed to development. We're excited about having new 396 neighbors, and we did ask,just for point of clarification,we did ask that the existing trees, which are— I mean, 1 397 love the fact that they're staying off of the non-buildable area. That's awesome. There is an area of mature trees APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS 5.1.24 398 that we didn't ask be included in open space but ask that the design consider maintaining those trees as lot 399 features, like not put them in septic or roadway. Simply mature trees, very few of them, on the property and 400 would probably increase the property value as well. That's our primary concern, the number of wells and septic 401 tanks, seems like an awful lot in that area. We've asked the question to staff and to the developer, and so far it 402 doesn't sound like there is an answer. Will that many wells being drilled in that area have an impact on our 403 water? That's our question. Thank you for letting me speak. 404 405 Chair Beeman explained his personal experience of going through septic permitting and Mr. Koch reiterated that 406 the a soil study was preformed to determine the preliminary information on septic sites and that permitting will be 407 required for each lot. 408 409 Phil Koch: I would like to address one thing in regards to the trees. The trees that will have to get taken 410 out, and the only thing that we would be actually, definitely taking out is what's in the roadway and right of way to 411 build the road and what has to come out for the SCMs. Whatever's on the lot, if it can stay there, they have not 412 set the house locations. Those house locations are conceptual in nature right now, so it is possible that they 413 could, in fact,fit houses in between trees. So, by no means are we saying we're tearing out all the trees that exist 414 there. We can only show that area is subject to development because it's part of a lot. 415 416 Lamar Proctor: And, to ask the question directly, has there been any hydrology study to determine the 417 answer to Mr. Cox's question? Regarding wells. 418 419 Phil Koch: No. Because, again, you're using guidelines. I'm relying on Alan Clapp'sjudgment. Right? 42o His professional judgment. I have no reason to suspect Mr. Clapp's judgment is not good given that he worked 421 for the County for years. We don't anticipate any problem. In fact, even if you look at the State guidelines for how 422 close wells can be together, this would not typically be a problem. So, the Orange County's guidelines for well 423 placement in relation to each other, is actually stricter than the State guidelines. 424 425 Mr. Stober explained that there is a USGS ground water assessment for the County providing some guidance. 426 427 Lamar Proctor: Got it. I didn't know if there were any examples of multiple well drillings that affected 428 adversely surrounding properties in Orange County. 429 430 Cy Stober: Not to my knowledge. I do know of wells going dry, but they're on a case-by-case basis, 431 and they're all in different locations in the County, and seem to be situational. But I will say with a caveat, I'm not 432 a hydrogeologist. I don't work at the Department of Environmental Health. 433 434 Adam Beeman: People visualize it as a giant lake under the ground, and we've put 19 straws in it, and that's 435 not what we're doing. We're not putting 19 straws in the same pool. You're crushing the rock and that water's 436 filtrating and piling up in that tube and you're not necessarily tapping into the same pool that everybody's into. 437 And I think that's the hard part for people to get around their head, is that we don't just put 19 straws into the 438 same cup. 439 440 MOTION BY Chris Johnston to approve the Concept Plan. Seconded by Steve Kauffman. 441 442 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 443 444 Lamar Proctor: And, can I make a second motion to ask the Planning Department and Board of County 445 Commissioners to consider the preservation of Stroud's Creek in the continuing development of this parcel? Or 446 how should I phrase that? My idea is given the parks and environmental concerns about Stroud's Creek and APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS 5.1.24 447 identifying it as 10, 10 in terms of conservation value that it be an overt consideration in terms of the continued 448 development of the parcel and the open space. Does that make sense? 449 450 Cy Stober: This is the Concept Plan. The Preliminary Plat will be presented to you again at a future 451 date. Is your preference to have that recommendation ride with the preliminary plat to the Commissioners, as an 452 associated recommendation or independent? 453 454 Mr. Proctor decided to retract the motion until the Preliminary Plat stage after discussion of procedure with Mr. 455 Stober. 456 457 Beth Bronson requested clarification from Ms. Moncado on primary versus secondary open space. 458 459 Marilyn Carter: My question is actually of a general nature. Given the potential to take recommendations 46o back to the Board of Commissioners. In doing some reading on conservation subdivisions, the North Carolina 461 State University has a guidebook that actually quotes Orange County and it is an exemplary starting point for 462 these types of subdivisions and open space requirements. I'm curious what are our current open space 463 requirements for these types of conservation subdivisions? 464 465 Ms. Moncado explained current open space requirements and their relationship to the Flexible Development 466 option. 467 468 Marilyn Carter: This particular guide recommends 50 to 70 percent of the buildable land being set aside as 469 open space. I know we have some unique soils challenges here, in Orange County, perhaps, unique geology. 47o But I was just curious why that differential of 33 percent, 50 to 70, and is it the soil's quality or is it something 471 else? 472 473 Cy Stober: No. I think that there's the open space requirements in the LIDO and then there's the goals 474 that are in the Comprehensive Plan, and they're different. So,we have set a lower threshold for regulation than 475 the aspirational goals that are in the Comprehensive Plan and perhaps in another document. Perhaps Land's 476 Legacy. I'm not sure where, exactly those numbers come from right now, and I can do research to get back to 477 you on that, but, I did look at that pamphlet and it's largely still consistent with what we practice. So, those 478 allowances for flexible development and conversation cluster subdivision were contemporary. Then, not much 479 has changed in terms of our process, since then. And that's twelve years. That was around 2010. 480 481 AGENDA ITEM 8: MAJOR SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT—To review and take action on a 482 Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat application for a Major Subdivision named Williams Glen. The proposal is for 483 a 15-lot subdivision on approximately 28.17 acres with 35% (9.95 acres)of dedicated open space. The parcel is 484 located on Lawrence Road in the Eno Township, PIN 9883-09-8108. 485 486 Ashley Moncado: The next item is for you to review is a Major Subdivision Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat 487 application for the Williams Glenn Subdivision on approximately 28 acres. The site is undeveloped and located 488 within the Rural Residential zoning district and Lower Eno Unprotected Watershed. Surrounding parcels are 489 zoned as R1, R2 and R4. Parcels to the north and to the east are undeveloped. Parcels to the south and to the 490 west contain single-family homes and there is church directly west of the existing site. The parcels is classified 491 as 20-Year Transition Area in the Orange County Future Land Use Map, and it is classified as Mixed Residential 492 Neighborhood in the Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan. The applicant is proposing a Flexible 493 Major Subdivision, including 15 single-family homes. The average lot size is 1.12 acres. Based on the 494 Conservation Cluster of Flexible Development Option, they are required to provide, at least, 33 percent open 495 space. The applicant is proposing 35 percent open space or 9.95 acres. The subdivision is planning to meet the 496 setback standards of the R1 zoning district. A 20-foot Type A landscape buffer is being provided along the APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS 5.1.24 497 southern parcel line and a 30 foot Type B landscape buffer is provided on the western property line along 498 Lawrence Road. Access is being provided by a 50-foot public right of way, and the site will also be served by 499 individual wells and septics. For existing conditions on this site, and we do have the larger Lawrence Road site, 500 here, for review tonight. So please be mindful the actual subdivision, being located down here in this quadrant. 501 There's an existing tree line. There is also a stream located on the existing site that would require a 65-foot 502 buffer. I was going to move on to the site analysis, zoomed in to the actual site, the actual parcel related to the 503 subdivision. You can see the stream here, as well as a 65-foot stream buffer. The lighter yellow includes areas 504 with a slope of 7.5 to 15 percent, and this pink-reddish color here includes a slope of greater than 25 percent. 505 The Primary Open Space totals 1.09 acres, and includes the stream. The stream buffer area and the little pocket 506 of slope, there. The Secondary Open Space totals 8.86 acres and includes the areas around the proposed lots 507 along the northern end,the western side, and the southern side of the site and includes the remaining areas. It's 508 been identified by yellow for slope. And then, here, we have the Concept Plan. We can see the 15 lots, the lot 509 lines, possible building location footprints. Wells are identified by the blue dots. Potential septic areas are 510 identified by the green polka dots at the rear of the lots. We can also see the 50-foot public right of way that is 511 being proposed to provide access to all the proposed single-family homes, and that does include an 18-foot 512 travel way that will be in that public right of way. Finally, there is also 20-foot wide pedestrian access corridor, 513 which will be connected to the cul-de-sac, running north to connect to the northern parcel, which would be the 514 future home of the recreational facilities that were affiliated with SUP that was approved by the Board of 515 Adjustment. We have the Preliminary Plat, which you'll notice is very similar to the Concept Plan on the last 516 slide. Again,we can see the lot lines. We can see the setbacks that are being proposed based on the R1 zoning 517 district. Landscape buffer is being identified on the western side, as well as the southern side of the parcel. 518 Stream and stream buffer and stormwater control measures are being identified here with circles, on the 519 Preliminary Plat. The Preliminary Plat also identifies 20-foot-wide drainage and access easements along the 520 northern part of the parcel here. It kind of cuts between these two lots along the southern side of the proposed 521 lots. The Concept Plan for this application was presented at the January 18th DAC. The Preliminary Plat was 522 presented at the February 15th DAC. Comments are provided in your agenda packets. The Neighborhood 523 Information Meeting was coordinated by the applicant and held on February 13th. The NIM report is in your 524 packets as well. This is where we kind of get a little different from the last application and what Taylor hinted at 525 earlier this evening. Tonight, you will receive and review the Concept Plan; approve the Flexible Development 526 Option; and then you'll be looking at reviewing the Preliminary Plat and providing a recommendation on the 527 Preliminary Plat to the BOCC. The Planning Director recommendation in front of you tonight, is to receive and 528 discuss the Concept Plan application; approve the Flexible Development Option contained in Attachment 1; and 529 then receive the Preliminary Plat application and recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, as submitted. 530 531 Statler Gilfillen: I am the Eno Village representative to the Planning Board. Lawrence Road is a street. It's 532 one of the only bypasses of Hillsborough, and we're all aware of the traffic congestion and the problems that we 533 have. Each time that you add a new access to Lawrence Road, you begin to control or potentially even make it 534 more dangerous going up and down Lawrence Road. I have some serious qualms, not with the development 535 itself, with providing two immediate accesses to Lawrence Road. When I look at this, as a licensed architect, 536 with over 40 years of experience in planning and design, why it is really necessary to design this to have two 537 accesses that close together, with individual cars coming out of each one of those streets will slow and congest 538 the traffic along Lawrence Road? I have serious problems with the design as it's presented, not the concept of 539 what he's trying to do. Thank you. 540 541 Phil Koch: So I'm very familiar with layout from the SUP, as well as from this, and the two things are 542 actually separate items, and the DOT has required turn lanes for the access that's above, that's going into the 543 ball field area, play area, all of that that is involved in the athletic association and a separate entrance here. And 544 they have reviewed this entrance.They are in agreement that this is the best spot for the entrance. I have looked 545 at it with them out on the site. They have actually stated this, I believe, even when the SUP was going through 546 that this was an acceptable entrance, and now they've come back, and they've met with us in the field and said APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS 5.1.24 547 this is where they want the entrance to be. It is near where the church entrance is, and they did not want these 548 lots coming out on to the roadway north. They did not want it to tie to the one for the ball field. 549 550 Statler Gilfillen: What's their logic for that? 551 552 Phil Koch: They wanted to go ahead and bring out to Lawrence Road. 553 554 Adam Beeman: Do you know if the road for the athletic fields, is that a private road or public? I believe it's 555 private, but I'm not positive. 556 557 Cy Stober: It's a Type A private road. The subdivision road will be publicly dedicated and maintained 558 by North Carolina DOT. 559 56o Adam Beeman: So you can't have a public tied to a private. 561 562 Phil Koch: And I will add that for the number of lots that are here, this must be a public road. 563 564 Marilyn Carter: I have a question about the DAC comments. One of the comments refers to the lot sizes 565 and concept wastewater disposal areas prohibit the department's siting private wells on each lot, according to 566 the setback requirements of Orange County, and then a community well may be a solution, otherwise permitting 567 is subject to denial. Where's the impact of that item in the DAC report on the plan? 568 569 Phil Koch: That comment was made at the original DAC. These locations, as they're currently shown, 57o actually address that comment and were sent back and have been reviewed, and they do meet the standards 571 now. 572 573 Delores Bailey: What size will the houses be? 574 575 Phil Koch: I don't know the exact size of the house. The way that we set this up, I believe, I think it's a 576 7,500 square foot block. That's not the house size. That's just the pad. So it was a proportion of that pad. I can't 577 tell you the exact size of the house. And, again, part of that will be defined also by the septic field. 578 579 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to approve the Concept Plan Flexible Development Option as included in Attachment 580 1. Seconded by Marilyn Carter.Adam Beeman, Lamar Proctor, Delores Bailey, Beth Bronson, Marilyn Carter, 581 Chris Johnston, Steve Kaufmann, and Whitney Watson in favor. Statler Gilfillen against. 582 583 MOTION PASSED EIGHT TO ONE. 584 585 Ashley Moncado: The Preliminary Plat is in Attachment 2 of your materials. 586 587 Beth Bronson: The proposed stormwater control measures are just five different areas of where that would 588 be added to? Can you elaborate on what management plan you have— 589 590 Phil Koch: Those are, again, those are State mandated. Location is based on the actual contours on 591 the site. We've placed these in the low area so that we can direct water to them. The actual sizing will be done 592 based on State requirements. The County has its own requirements. They generally match the State's for the 593 most part, but we work with them pretty heavily on these things. So, they do have to meet that before they'll get 594 approval. 595 APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS 5.1.24 596 Beth Bronson: I see that the Primary Open Space on the Concept Plan versus the Preliminary, is the 1.09 597 acres for Primary and then 8.86 for the Secondary Open Space? 598 599 Ashley Moncado: Yes. 600 601 Beth Bronson: Is there any reason why you would not have done a conservation easement, like, working 602 with the neighboring or adjacent properties on maintaining open space, rather than choosing to have the HOA do 603 it themselves? 604 605 Phil Koch: This is typical of any subdivision, is that the HOA actually is involved in doing the 606 maintenance of the open space, including all the SCMs that are involved here. In this case, because this is all 607 within an integrated area, it's basically, because of that. The HOA would have to maintain the SCMs. In that 608 case, they're just going to go ahead and handle the rest of the open space. 609 610 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to approve the Preliminary Plat as submitted. Seconded by Steve Kaufman.Adam 611 Beeman, Lamar Proctor, Delores Bailey, Beth Bronson, Marilyn Carter, Chris Johnston, Steve Kaufmann, and 612 Whitney Watson in favor. Statler Gilfillen against. 613 614 MOTION PASSED EIGHT TO ONE. 615 616 AGENDA ITEM 9: ADJOURNMENT 617 618 MOTION BY Lamar Proctor to adjourn meeting. Seconded by Marilyn Carter. 619 620 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 621 622 The meeting adjourned at 8:44 PM.