HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember_8_2004_Joint_City_County_MeetingIREDELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 8, 2004
The Iredell County Board of Commissioners met with the Statesville City Council for a
joint meeting on Monday, November 8, 2004, 5:00 p.m., at the Agricultural Resource Center
located at 444 Bristol Drive, Statesville, NC.
Present were:
Chairman Steve D. Johnson
Vice Chairman Godfrey Williams
Doug Madison
Marvin Norman
Sara Haire Tice
County Staff Present: County Manager Joel Mashburn, Attorney Bill Pope,
Planning & Enforcement Director Lynn Niblock, Planning
Supervisor Ron Smith, and Planner Rebecca Harper
Statesville City Council Members
Present: Costi Kutteh, Mike Johnson, C.O. "Jap" Johnson,
Pete Peterson, and Jim Lawton
Statesville Staff Present: City Manager Rob Hites, Attorney Eddie Gaines,
and Planning Director David Currier
Others Present: Robb Collier
Media Present: Carrie Sidener, Record & Landmark
Speaker: Michael Lauer, Planning Works Inc.
Planning Works, Inc., Consultant Michael Lauer said the City of Statesville had concerns
about growing in an efficient manner, and for this reason, the joint meeting was being held. He
said long term, it was evident that Statesville would need the county to cede authority regarding
development review to the city for certain areas. He said, "As we moved through the Urban
Services Area (USA) plan, it became apparent the city should, in an effort to address growth that
is coming its way, look at opportunities to expand the sewer service in the Third and Fourth
Creek Basins. Along with that, the city is not in the position to run the sewer lines out there, but
needs to plan them carefully. In order to do that, the growth must be timed in accordance with
the provision of those services so the development is coordinated. The greatest obstacle to
extending sewer service would be if low-density development on septic systems ends up
consuming a lot of land, and it then becomes cost ineffective to provide those services. The
plan's directives address this in terms of where to provide sewer service and by making sure that
growth is timed in conjunction with the provision of services along with being sure that growth
pays its proportional share. In order to accomplish this, we should apply urban or city
improvement standards out in the area where the city is going to provide urban services. There
are several purposes of the service area. One is to make sure that we have equitable decision
making, and this gets back to the concern with ETJ -- regulation without representation. The
USA allows us to get past that. It provides an acceptable alternative to the ETJ, which does cede
authority. It coordinates land use and facility decisions to make sure our improvement standards
are coordinated so there are no new developments that will create substandard improvements. It
also makes it more cost effective to provide sewer service throughout the basins. It provides
predictability for not only the development community, but also for rate payers, taxpayers, city
decision makers, and county decision makers."
What is the City going to get out of this deal? Lauer said, "It will help the city
provide services more efficiently long term. It will minimize land -use conflicts at the edge of the
city. It will minimize potential costs associated with subdivisions with substandard facilities
(such as inadequate fire flow or septic systems).
What does the County get out of the deal? Lauer said, "It will support the county's
land -use goals -- ultimately to reduce transportation costs for schools. It will facilitate city -
county coordination. It will avoid delegating approval authority, and it will help increase the
predictability for rural residents."
What is in the agreement? Lauer said, "An outline for the agreement has been provided
(based on the contract), and there have been discussions since that time. The agreement contains
several different sections. For example: (1) it contains the findings and how everything will be
authorized, (2) it advises of a Joint Planning Committee that will need to be established, (3) it
sets up Development Procedures, Improvement Standards, and what Development Standards will
be followed, (4) it establishes the boundaries and the fees, (5) it describes how the agreement
will be amended, (5) it notes how to resolve disputes, and (6) it lists the term of the agreement."
Lauer continued by saying, "The Joint Planning Committee is left somewhat vague
intentionally. We initially thought about having three county commissioners and three city
council members, but decided to leave that up to the legislative bodies in each case. Staggered
terms of three years have been set up. The quorum (4) has been set and they will determine their
own rules of order. Their responsibilities are as follows:
1. To hear and make recommendations to the participating public agencies on
amendments to the USA boundaries.
2. To recommend changes to the agreement.
3. To hear and decide on appeals to city or county staff regarding a determination that a
use is inconsistent with applicable zoning standards.
4. To hear and make recommendations regarding the consistency of any other proposed
development application that the staff finds to be inconsistent with the comprehensive
plan, development regulations, and/or the agreement.
5. To hear and recommend action on requested exceptions to the adopted public
improvement standards."
On development procedures, Lauer said, "Basically anything that comes through is going
to get dual staff review. While the county will be asked to adopt many of these regulations, the
county is really not in the urban development business. The city is more familiar with urban
subdivisions that have centralized facilities. It will require the city's expertise to look at this,
since the city officials are more familiar with the city's zoning standards."
Lauer said, "The county staff will continue to approve all of the administrative permits
they approve today. They ultimately will have the approval authority. The board of
commissioners will continue to approve everything its members approve today plus any major
subdivisions will be directed to the board of commissioners."
Mr. Lauer said, "The city council will have only one area where its approval is
mandatory, and this is if there is a deviation from an improvement standard. In other words, `If I
come in with a development, and I say 1 would like to create a subdivision, but I don't want to
put in this size of a sewer line.' Then, because the city is going to ultimately take over the
improvements, the city should have the authority to say whether or not there may be a deviation
in standards."
Lauer continued by saying, "Improvement standards shall be designed to comply with
the city's adopted street improvement standards (including streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks)
stormwater management, water, and wastewater system improvements. The county will adopt
and apply the city's zoning districts for the USA and the subdivision standards. There is an
exception on the subdivision process. If the city manager finds that city services can't be
provided within five years, the city can authorize the county to approve a development that is not
on centralized services. The reason for this is because there is a large area in the USA. It
represents an area where the city thinks it can reasonably provide services within twenty years.
There may be some areas that someone wants to develop now, instead of waiting, and they can
approve what is called interim development by following standards as follows:
2
I . The design of the subdivision does not create an obstacle to future extensions of
centralized water or wastewater systems.
2. Necessary easements for future water and/or wastewater facilities are dedicated at the
time of the subdivision.
3. The subdivision provides sufficient right-of-way for planned roadways identified in any
plan adopted by the City, County or State.
4. Provisions (necessary easements and agreement to connect at the property owner's
expense) are made for future connection to centralized wastewater systems for any lot
that is smaller than one acre in size.
5. Provisions (necessary easements and agreement to connect at the property owner's
expense) are made for the installation of centralized water lines that provide adequate
water supplies for normal use and adopted fire flows."
Mr. Lauer then reviewed the proposed boundaries, and he said they were up to the county
planning director for interpretation. He said, "Ultimately, they can be changed, and we do
envision changing them with mutual agreement from the city and county. Changes that need to
be made on the proposed map are as follows:
A. City has annexed the Morroweroft property north of the hospital and this should be
added.
B. The ETJ around the airport needs to be scaled back.
"Otherwise, the proposed map reflects the discussions of staff and council in past
meetings regarding the USA.
"The city and county may establish reasonable fees for the processing of development
applications, inspection of development, and capital facilities. Approval from the board of
commissioners shall be required prior to the establishment of any fee that will be applicable to
development in unincorporated areas.
"The agreement may be modified, at any time, subject to the review and comment by the
Joint Planning Committee along with approval by the board of county commissioners and the
city council.
"The dispute resolution section stipulates that the parties agree to enter into mediation
before going to court.
"The terms of the agreement are for ten years, unless extended.
"Finally, the agreement envisions the adoption by the county of a number of city
regulations: subdivision regulations to be adopted; building code has already been adopted; and
the standards for public improvements need to be adopted."
Mr. Lauer advised that a few comments had been received regarding the draft, and he
said one was on page 5; item B. Major Subdivisions #2. The last 2 lines should read: The City
may request review of the decision in accordance with Section 8.
Mr. Lauer said he had earlier mentioned that the appeals of staff actions were to be sent
to the board of commissioners. He asked if they should be sent to the BCA or not.
Chairman Steve Johnson clarified that this was the county's Zoning Board of
Adjustment.
County Manager Mashburn said Mr. Lauer needed to know if the commissioners wanted
to hear the appeals or if the Zoning Board of Adjustment should hear them.
Mr. Lauer explained it was his preference to have the appeals heard by the board of
commissioners so the members would be aware of any disputes that might be occurring in
relation to the agreement, especially in regards to any revisions that might be necessary.
3
County Manager Mashburn said that currently, appeals were heard by the board of
adjustment. He said that if the USA appeals were heard by the commissioners, then part of the
county would be appealing to the board of adjustment, and another part would be appealing to
the board of commissioners. He said this would be confusing.
Chairman Steve Johnson agreed that he thought all appeals should be heard by the board
of adjustment.
Mr. Lauer suggested that if the board of adjustment heard the appeals, then the board of
;sioners should also be apprised of them (ETJ issues).
Statesville Councilman Mike Johnson said he had a problem with a quasi-judicial body
being used that didn't really have the authority to make exceptions to the standards. He
mentioned that someone might incorrectly install a curb. He said, "That can't be fined — it's a
standard that has to be adhered to. We can't subject the City of Statesville to be bound by that
decision when it is in direct contradiction to state permit or anything of that nature."
The consensus was for the appeals to go to the Board of Adjustment.
A discussion then occurred regarding major subdivision reviews and the difficulty for the
board of commissioners to know if the city had adequate facilities in the area.
Councilman Kutteh said there might be situations where an industrial client wanted to be
added to the sewer system and a residential community wanted to be added at the same time. He
said that due to sewer capacity limits, the city could prefer the industrial client over the
residential community.
Mr. Lauer asked if he should include a section for the city council's recommendation in
the major subdivision review. He said this was putting the pressure on the city staff to know the
capacity availability and if the city could render the service.
City Manager Hites said that when Statesville was in the Technical Review Committee
(TRC), there would be the issue of whether or not water and sewer were available. He said that
according to the city's code, any development outside the city limits required a separate motion
to allow water and sewer connection and to certify availability. Hites said, "This process can't
be short circuited unless the council changes the city code."
A consensus was reached allowing for a section to be included stipulating the city
council would be allowed to make a recommendation pertaining to major subdivision
review.
Chairman Steve Johnson asked for more explanation pertaining to interim development.
Mr. Lauer said, "Suppose we have a subdivision that the city says we can't serve today,
but it is in a location that crosses a creek. That is a natural draw to locate a sewer line. If they
develop, and they haven't dedicated adequate easements through that property for extending
sewer service, then they could form an obstacle for the extension of those facilities. It would be
encumbered upon the city to identify where the proper easements would be needed."
Mr. Lauer said the city was working on a capital improvement plan for scheduled
improvements. He said, "The sewer line provides density that increases value significantly. If
there is extensive development on septic systems, this makes it unfeasible for the city to run that
sewer line and make the property more valuable."
Commissioner Doug Madison said, "Suppose someone has property at the very edge of
this area and you say that you can get water and sewer out there in four and one-half years, then
the land is basically condemned for that period." Mr. Madison suggested that the city allow the
developers to extend their lines and to be reimbursed over a period of time as the people used the
line.
4
Lauer said another issue that had been discussed was driveway permits. He said the
county, at the present time, did not issue them. He said, "Ultimately, when the City is going to
be looking at annexation in a particular area, there needs to be some sort of staff review for curb
cuts on a state road. Currently all we have is site plan review."
County Planner Ron Smith said the stance on driveway permits was due to the county
primarily dealing with state roads. He said it was only the State Department of Transportation
that requested county approval of driveway permits. He said this was an unwritten county
policy, but the staff had to sign off on the permits. Smith said that if there were conditions that
needed to be tied to zoning, then the county made sure the State Department of Transportation
knew the conditions needing to be met.
Lauer suggested changing the language to "review" of driveway permits, rather
than "approval" of driveway permits. Ron Smith agreed.
It was also noted that the draft agreement referenced the International Building Code,
and this needed to be changed to the North Carolina Building Code.
Another discussion about the agreement concerned consistency with a comprehensive
plan. Lauer said one of the things the agreement needed to be more explicit about was to
include a provision that the county adopted the same future land use map, which is a guidance
tool for zoning. He said the city was comfortable with the idea about future amendments to the
map, if they were outside the city. He said these would be reviewed by the city, but they would
ultimately be a county decision. This provision needs to be added to the agreement.
Chairman Steve Johnson asked for discussion regarding sign permits.
Lauer said a paragraph stipulated the County Planning Director was in charge of issuing
sign permits; however, they were supposed to be in accordance with city zoning standards. He
said that as currently written, the agreement applied city zoning standards to the USA. After
some discussion, a consensus was reached to change this paragraph.
A consensus was reached to approve changing the term limits to 2, 3 and 4 years.
Chairman Steve Johnson asked the difference between the county and city's subdivision
ordinance.
Statesville Planning Director Currier said the city and county both had minor and major
subdivisions. He said that if they were minor, they were reviewed and approved by staff at the
TRC level. He said that if a major subdivision were being reviewed, it would be looked at by the
TRC, the planning board, and the city council. Currier said the city and county had similar
standard lot sizes, but the city had different cross sections on streets, curbs and sidewalks.
(Totally different from what was seen on state -regulated roads.)
The discussion then centered on allowing developers to extend water/sewer lines and to
make reimbursement payments over a certain period of years.
Lauer asked the pleasure of council/commissioners. He asked for direction on what was
now expected of him.
A suggestion was made to have a small area plan done with presentation to both boards
for approval.
An agreement amendment will be done pertaining to line extension recovery over a
period of time. The city will agree to pay for the difference in the costs for over sizing a
proposed line, if the city council members feel it is needed.
Lauer said he would incorporate the revisions into the agreement and provide a copy for
each governmental body to review.
I
In addition, Lauer said he felt the City of Statesville needed to set a separate policy on
how line extensions would be accepted along with the reimbursements, instead of making this a
part of the agreement.
The meeting then adjourned at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Approved:
M
Clerk to the Board