HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-03-2009 - 7a ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 3, 2009
Agenda
Item No. 7.'0
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Implementation Recommendations — BOCC 2009/2010
Priority
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) N
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1) Planning Director's Memo, 11/24/08 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 245-2575
2) County Attorney Memo, 1/29/09 Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
3) Planning Department's Draft Work Plan Supervisor, 245-2579
4) Identified BOCC priorities 2009/2010 Michael Harvey, Zoning Administrator, 245-2607
PURPOSE: To provide a report outlining Planning Staff's recommendations for beginning
Comprehensive Plan implementation during Fiscal Year 2009/2010.
BACKGROUND: On January 29, 2009, the BOCC discussed its priorities for FY 2009/2010.
Although several of the priorities are related to Comprehensive Plan implementation, this report
will focus primarily on Priorities P-2a and 2b:
Priority P-2a - "Implement Comprehensive Plan - Small Area Plans Implementation and
Process for Implementation of Plan Objectives by Annual Work Plan"; and
Priority P-2b - "Implement Comprehensive Plan - Re-write Zoning and Subdivision
Regulations [Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)]".
Planning Staff provides the following recommendations as a preview to the Department's
requests that will be coming forward to the BOCC as part of the budget process.
PLANNING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS — FY 2009/2010:
Introduction - Although the County has prepared a good Plan, for it to serve the community well
there must be ongoing commitment and progress towards implementation. The 2030
Comprehensive Plan is a long-range/general plan, including far reaching goals and objectives
that will require implementation over the course of several years.
This report is to outline what staff believes is an orderly and logical sequence of events.
Implementation should include carrying out "existing ideas", in some cases very specific
recommendations that are contained in BOCC adopted small area plans and special studies,
early in the implementation program, and the generation of "new ideas" (i.e. tools, techniques,
2
programs, standards, indicators, etc.) through a well thought out and inclusive process, later in
the implementation program.
Existing Ideas
Item 1, Land Use Plan Amendments (map and text) — The County has completed small area
plans for the following areas: Efland/Mebane, Eno EDD, and NC 57/Speedway. In addition,
Land Use Plan (LUP) amendments have been suggested as part of the Hillsborough/Orange
County Strategic Growth Plan and associated interlocal agreement that each party will be
considering.
Planning Staff recommends:
1a) Holding a public hearing this August on LUP amendments to correct inconsistencies
among the land use categories described and listed in various places of the Comprehensive
Plan. These inconsistencies were not created or addressed by the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan but rather "carried over" from the 1981 Land Use Element.
1 b) Holding a public hearing this November to begin implementation of Land Use Plan
amendments that have been recommended in adopted small area plans.
Notification and advertising costs to amend the Land Use Plan have been included in the
Planning Department's budget proposal to the County Manager.
Item 2, Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) — A unified code is useful to address
organizational structure and present the code in an orderly and easy-to-use format. A unified
code combines all regulations — zoning, subdivision requirements, environmental standards,
landscaping and tree protection standards, and any regulation that pertains to developing and
using land — into a single document. Through creation of a unified code, duplications are
eliminated, such as repeated sets of definitions in each ordinance or procedures for issuing
permits or other development approval. A unified code helps every user see how the
regulations fit together for the entire development process and ensure that nothing is
overlooked, thereby streamlining the development process.
A UDO could provide the County with a solid foundation and manageable starting point to begin
the ongoing implementation of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan that will include review,
evaluation, and the evolution of new ideas into ordinance and/or practice (Staff will distribute an
example UDO outline at the meeting).
Planning Staff recommends completion of a UDO to include:
• Rewrite of existing regulations into new format and clean up inconsistencies
• Addition of Sustainable Landscaping Standards
• Addition of "Green"/LID site design standards (to include encouragement of energy and
water conservation)
• Addition of Signage Regulations
• Addition of Conditional Use District/Conditional Zoning
• Addition of Parking Standards (graphics)
• Addition of Rural Lighting Standards
• Addition of Rural Traffic Impacts
3
Attachments 1, "Planning Director's Memo, 11/24/08", provides additional description of the
items listed above plus a few additional items that are not being recommended for inclusion in
the initial UDO such as Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation because of its complexity.
Attachment 2, "County Attorney Memo, 1/29/09", reflects support for the completion of a UDO.
New Ideas
Item 3, A Process for Annual Comprehensive Plan Review and Work Plan Authorization —
Following the initiation of items 1 and 2, Planning Staff intends to develop guidelines for staff
and advisory boards to review the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and
generate implementation ideas/strategies for BOCC consideration on an annual basis. These
guidelines will be completed to be available for use during the FY 2010/2011 budget cycle.
Guidelines will help ensure ongoing commitment to Plan implementation and maintain
consistency in the collection and reporting of proposed implementation ideas/strategies to the
BOCC. The identification of lead and contributing departments and advisory boards,
coordination, community outreach, staff resources, and anticipated fiscal impacts are some of
the items that can be addressed through the guidelines. Each year, Comprehensive Plan
implementation work plans can be coordinated and prioritized by the BOCC.
Input on guidelines will be requested from the Managers Office and the Departments of
Economic Development; Environment and Resource Conservation; Housing and Community
Development; and Parks and Recreation.
Attachment 3, "Planning Department's Draft Work Plan", provides a snapshot of the
Department's potential workload for the upcoming year, as it relates to all of the BOCC's FY
2009/2010 Priorities.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.
Estimated costs for Items 1 and 2, as proposed, are $21,300 and $36,700, respectively. An
additional $29,000 for permanent salaries has been included in the Planning Department's
budget request to address items 1 and 2, as well as other BOCC priorities that will require staff
resources of the Department. Costs will be provided by line item (i.e. printing, postage, contract
services, etc.) as part of the agenda materials for the March 24th BOCC Budget Work Session.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board review Planning Staffs report
for further consideration during the 2009/2010 budget process.
ika,c A ivet l 4
f
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, A1CP, Director
Administration 306F Revere Road
(919)245-2575 r ht� P O Box 8181
k4
(919) 644-3002 (FAX) F . , Hillsborough,
www.co.orange.nc.us ''� tsSD North Carolina, 27278
2' I
- A r rya ".C.t ? ��- �
r 17:-',tt ft` c r Z .rti.,.�r,•tis w.r-3 xi. F .6. . .,._,z,
•
MEMORANDUM
TO; Board of County Commissioners
. . Orange County Planning Board
FROM: Craig Benedict,AICP--Planning
THROUGH: Laura Blackmon, County Manager
• DATE: November 24, 2008
SUBJECT: Written Updates on Planning Related Items
As Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan Update has been adopted, staff has begun to
shift focus to several on-going planning projects in an effort to bring them before the
BOCC for review and action. These projects include the following:
1. Conditional Use District
2. Agricultural Support Enterprises
3. Upper Eno Conservation District—land use
4. Clarification of Zoning Ordinance Notification Requirements for Comprehensive
Plan Amendments
5. "Orange Turning Green" (Building/Development)
B. Sustainable Landscaping
7. Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation (SGRC)
B. Assessment of Regulatory Issues: drive-thrus, rural traffic impacts, rural lighting
impacts
9. Small Area Plan-related Amendments
10.Special Use Permit construction commencement timeframe
Written updates on these projects are included as attachments. The following Table
shows 2009 Quarterly Public Hearings and when each project is expected to be
heard:
•
5
2009 Quarterly Public Hearings .-�
•
-�-- February '09 --- May `09 l August'09 or November
409
Conditional Use District Upper Eno Conservation Lighting Standards
District-land use •
Agricultural Support �! Small Area-plan related ! Traffic impacts �T
Enterprises amendments
Notification Special Use Permit
Requirements construction commencement
timeframe
Sustainable Orange Turning Green" - �-- -----..-�-�
Landscaping I (Building/Development)
Drive-thru Regulations Strategic Growth and Rural
Conservation (SGRC)
Note: T This is not an exhaustive list of all projects for each Quarterly Public Hearing, but rather
a chart showing where each project for which a written update has been prepared is
scheduled to be placed. For example. the Planning Department was recently directed to
prepare airport regulations which will be complete in the first part of 2009, but are not part of
this written update.
Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, and Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems
Coordinator, will monitor these planning proposals to ensure consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan and consistency with the public involvement process. Planning staff
will continue to work on these items with other appropriate departments, as noted in each
of the written updates.
•
•
•
Cc: Willie Best,Assistant County Manager
Geof Gledhill, County Attorney
Brian Ferrell, County Attorney's office
•
•
•
•
PLANNING PROJECT PROPOSAL #1 — November 2008
Lead Department: Planning & Inspections
Primary Contact(s): Michael Harvey (245-2607)
Department Interaction: Administration and County Attorney
Subject: Update on Conditional Zoning District (CZD)
. BACKGROUND:
Staff has been working on a comprehensive refining of various permitting approval
processes, including the development of a Conditional Zoning District review and
approval process. Staff had originally intended to bring this item to the February 2008
Quarterly Public Hearing but work was suspended when it was determined that the
proposal would involve major revisions to the County's existing Planned Development
standards contained within Article Seven (7) of the Zoning Ordinance.
ISSUE:
As the Board may be aware from previous correspondence, North Carolina land use law
currently permits the use of two (2)types of zoning districts that allow a governing body
to apply site-specific development standards for a proposed project, specifically:
1. Conditional Use Districts (CUD), which is currently reflected within our present
Planned Development (PD) regulations contained within Article Seven (7) of the
Zoning Ordinance, and
2. Conditional Zoning Districts (CZD).
As we currently have the substantial equivalent of a CUD process, staff would like to
provide an explanation of the components of the CZD zoning construct..
Conditional Zoning Districts (CZD):
The CZD process allows for the establishment of certain uses, which, because of their
nature or scale, have particular impacts on both the immediate area, and the community
as a whole. Through this process a landowner presents a site-specific development
plan to the County for review and requests that a specific parcel of property be rezoned
to allow for the development of the proposed use. CZD involves the creation of'floating'
zoning districts that can be applied in specific designated `overlay' areas of the County
based on findings referenced within approved planning studies, Small Area Plans, or
the Orange County Comprehensive Plan.
The major difference between the CUD and the CZD process is that the CZD process
does not require the issuance of a permit by the governing body, as is normally required
under the PD/SUP process. The implementation of the CZD process provides an
opportunity for the County to consider providing a single-step legislative rezoning
process when an applicant requests a rezoning of a particular parcel for a particular use
in a 'floating' overlay area.
Planned Development(Conditional Use Districts (CUD):
As previously indicated the County currently employees a variation of the CUD
permitting process within the Planned Development (PD) process contained within
Article Seven (7) of the Zoning Ordinance. Through this process a property owner
requests the development of a specific use, currently,listed as a permitted or special
use of property within the Table of Permitted Uses of the Zoning Ordinance, on a
specific parcel of property. This process requires a two (2) step approval process,
specifically: a legislative rezoning approval and a quasi-judicial permit approval
PROPOSAL— New Zoning Construct Organization:
Staff is currently working on the following: .
1. The revision of Article Seven (7) Planned Development Districts to revise existing
regulatory standards in an effort to bring them more in line with State
requirements. This Article is currently proposed to be renamed `Article Seven-A
(7-A) Conditional Use Districts'.
2. The creation of a new Article, Seven-8 (7-B), establishing the CZD process as
outlined herein.
PROCESS/TIME.LINE:
•
Staff intends to have the proposed amendments for formal review at the February 2009
Quarterly Public Hearing. Staff intends to begin working with the Planning Board's
Ordinance Review Committee (PBORC) and to solicit courtesy review comments from
other County departments, including the Attorney's office, on the amendment package.
•
•
•
PLANNING PROJECT PROPOSAL #2 - November 2008
Lead Department: Planning & Inspections
Primary Contact(s): Michael Harvey(245-2607); Shannon Berry (245-2589)
Department Interaction: County Attorney; Environment& Resource Conservation
(ERCD); Economic Development Commission (EDC);
Cooperative Extension Service; Orange County Soil and
Water
Subject: Agricultural Support Enterprises
BACKGROUND: - -
At the May 2007 Joint BOCC/Planning Board Quarterly Public Hearing, and at the June
12, 2007 regular BOCC meeting, staff presented the Board(s) with an update on the
ASE program. At the June 12, 2007 meeting, staff received authorization from the
BOCC to commence the following:
1) Draft various amendments to the Land Use Element to establish support
and/or consistency for the program within the Comprehensive Plan;
2) Draft amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to:
a. Establish a list of permitted uses for the program including
appropriate application and review processes,
b. Establish implementation guidelines,
c. Establish clear performance standards, and •
d. - Develop the conditional district zoning review process, for review
• and comment by the BOCC and Planning Board,
3) Create the ASE Manual for review and comment by BOCCI Planning
Board, and other County advisory bodies.
•
Since the June 12, 2007 meeting staff has completed the following:
1) Members of Economic Development, Planning, and ERCD meet with the
County Attorney to review proposed performance standards for the ASE
program and to develop the conditional district rezoning process.
2) Staff presented an overview of the ASE program concept to a joint meeting of
the Agricultural Preservation Board and the Soil and Water District
Commission Board.
The consensus among Board members was that this program was an
•
important first step in allowing for a broader spectrum of land uses that
9
farmers could utilize to support, augment, and sustain their existing
agricultural activities.
3) Staff distributed draft copies of the ASE User Manual to various county staff
members, including Dr. Fletcher Barber of Cooperative Extension and
representatives of NRCSIOrange County Soil and Water District, for review
and comment.
Responses to the Draft Manual were incorporated into a revised document.
4) In September of 2007, staff met with representatives of the Towns of Chapel
Hill and Carrboro Planning Departments to review the overall goals and intent
of the ASE program. !Overall, our planning partners expressed support for the
purpose and intent of the project. They did, however, express modest
reservations over the possibility• of allowing for commercial development
within the Rural Buffer (RB).
As the program has been developed, commercial development on a farm
located within the RB zoning district is not being proposed.
5) Throughout the months of October 2007 through February 2008 staff had
been working on various Zoning Ordinance amendments to complete the
implementation portion of the ASE program. The final ordinance amendment
package is now being completed for distribution to the:
a. BOCC,
b. Manager's office,
c. Attorneys office.
d. Planning Board,
e. Cooperative Extension,
1. Orange County Soil and Water,
g. Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and
h. Town of Hillsborough (courtesy review)
for final review and to solicit additional comments. It should be noted that
formal presentation on the proposed implementation methodology for the
ASE program was put on hold due to the submission of the Buckhorn Village
Planned Development project. The proposed implementation strategies
sought to comprehensively revise the existing Planned Development process,
which could not be completed while a project was being reviewed under the
current Ordinance requirements.
ISSUE:
This program was initially a multi-department effort led by EDC and ERCD, with input
from the County Attorney's Office and Planning. There have been some continuity
ii)
aberrations in the recent past that have now been worked through by Planning taking
the lead at this stage.
•
CURRENT AND FUTURE ACTION:
As staff has previously informed the Board, there are six (6) typical steps involved with
implementing planning changes, which are as follows:
1) Multi-departmental ASE workgroup (with updates to the PBORC and
invitations to other departments and/or advisory boards)
Staff Comment: The work group has nearly completed all work associated
with the development of the ASE manual and development standards for
review by the BOCC at the February 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing.
2) Land Use Plan Text (pending)
3) Land Use Plan Map
Staff Comment Staff has determined that there will not be a need for map
• amendments to support the ASE program.
4) Zoning Text
Staff Comment Staff is in the process of finalizing several amendments to
the Zoning Ordinance to implement the ASE program. These amendments
are anticipated for presentation to the BOCC at the February 2009 Quarterly
Public Hearing.
5) Zoning AtlesfMap (pending)
6) Petitioner Application •
Staff Comment Staff has finalized a petitioner application and will present it
as part of our presentation of the ASE program at the February 2009
Quarterly Public Hearing.
•
PLANNING PROJECT PROPOSAL #8 November 2008
Lead Department: Planning & inspections
Primary Contact(s): Craig Benedict (245-2592)
Departmental Interaction: Environment& Resource Conservation Department(ERCD)
and County Attorney
Subject: Upper Eno Conservation Area
Background
The 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update, as well as the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan
(SAP), has identified the need to examine present watershed classifications, future
reservoir sites (if any), and preservation of critical mass.environmental areas. This
latter subject is further developed in concept by the Lands Legacy Action Plan.
issue •
A 1987 engineering study noted the potential of a Seven Mile Creek Reservoir located
southeast of Efland and southwest of the Town of Hillsborough. This was the basis of
critical area watershed zoning overlay boundaries adopted in 1994. This designation of
zoning overlay (Upper Eno Critical) lowers impervious percentage, restricts certain-land
uses, and lowers density (1 dwelling unit per 2 acres). These regulatory programs help
maintain water quality that flows into the nearby Eno River Town of Hillsborough public
water supply intake at Lake Ben Johnson. Orange County has purchased
environmental lands in the Seven Mile Creek area.
Proposal
Depending on the Board of County Commissioner policy making, the value of holding a.
critical area designation over the study area of Seven Mile Creek Reservoir area may
be waning. This is due to supplementary countywide water resource planning and
sustainability efforts. However, retaining a new 'conservation area' in a more defined
area to protect environmental resources in this bottomland area may be prudent. A land
use map amendment with a concurrent zoning overlay amendment would be
suggested.
•
ProcesslTimefrarne
The Planning Department could work with ERCD, the County Attorney's office, and a
small workgroup of the Planning Board and Commission for the Environment (CfE)
members. This group could develop the proposal and bring recommendations to the
public in the spring of 2009,followed by a public hearing in May 2009.
,.., ... : .41,..r., •.,,,re0:74k.-<,... 7..-i:6---.: 4:%,.....- ...- '.. •-, - — -,-.F i44, r�, tom' .�,-` `.'{ f � •. y _� �-_
itiYt` .1i1 'F}' ,. � r. • ±CpA � +-y fT`r� •3 [-
`1 , .4 tie LPL i p%r. ? 1 ' ! -., ,,, tt.!} : T�yY .�4o'15.'4.,„ •' ,,.Y ,': ' -„,,,,,....
i'"„- 'a �3 { 's 1 •"' �'t� $yf+�.. - FX's,,}'± q {ra ,'� t' 't s.;;• •
:�'ayj emu* y / . A- ",,vii,„ ws,,,.. ..,
y+� : y s'S f _:...!.:L,..I y� �3 4?y' r t �/�'� -4�3 lr i ), " ,. -_ `1 ` hz' t''; - S'I •!
a s fir '{ 7 ,, r i t 4 1 0'3, _ a fib 535
y/ 2 �. „ -1r E s r yf �1 f ' r "r•s _
♦ � 4: L 4� •
� zn _ Y'F-Illsbcrol�h ��.
r � .��"�? yam=& �? �. .r,.y '+�`� l� !✓ r ;�a>- / l�.r,ft,,ivv-r-.9-4—, -E.7.--„,-_,,,..,,w,,r_...,„,z, ,,,,,_„,„„,,. ..,,c4 2 Yk•
�:. ‘....;4 5 7 y �•'"^�r" ��i�yet `f�{C�� v�rf�h�{,s�/hrlC" 'Sj��Oi•`+�t 'ip^~�`�Z'
14 74
�y- s.; V-15"‘. ✓ r a,,��^ i t i 4 Y i i _ •
�' �7 71--,---,1g.' , 1_F'. sh''44.4-.# $ Y4 ter. ' p�3x ` '�'.?i i
.__ _ t 3,3]41)-•:� ,,,,q-,,it. �� , 'aa- t :x�"6�•y am, .. �^.t
_ . -IC > '., i q + � ',rte., 7-•••• ,rev r•"s f,t3Gry �,,,r•s I y.,_•:a t • s'Y ' 4-45'1 .F• r �3
•.>` g , t/ a ye 1 (I� 3 y� •, '. `7 d.Y C .... A+s. t •' _,-{'•c .�,. • '•. �,. '� 1 !�lr.'* -t ';F:5:1;.„,,1.1,:.raj , 7' li .a•. ` t,::. :-
f •�.�' f lj r4 T ,ry 1 ,;,.,,,,ft. ., w rsN'i y 3 ytar�yf f { �I
•''� µ a+`, ' "�k i - h �` ,°-b! *t ''!r<'•f '-`Q!� xa -�u•4 h .F.,:••• 1 I, :•f I I3•t i..t h� i w i t 4. 5,..r ° -,G , ' :.` -1t.' `4 ; 7,V--a r4
•
•
•
PLANNING PROJECT PROPOSAL #4 - November 2008 •
Lead Department: Planning& inspections -
Primary Contact(s): Shannon Berry (245-2589); Perdita Holtz (245-2611)
Department Interaction: Administration and County Attorney
Subject: Notification Requirements for Comprehensive Plan
Amendments
BACKGROUND
_ The processes and requirements for amending the Comprehensive Plan are outlined in
the adopted Zoning Ordinance. White the procedures have been in place for a
significant period of time, there are-a number of ambiguities in the language, leaving the
processes open for interpretation. Historically,there have been only limited
amendments to the previously adopted plan. These amendments were processed as
they had always been done, interpreting the procedures outlined in the Zoning
Ordinance.
Following the adoption of Phase 11 of the Comprehensive Plan update,the
implementation phase will begin. This may include amendments to the Future Land
Use Map and other text components of the Comprehensive Plan. With these upcoming
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, it has now become a more pressing matter to .
clearly define the procedures for these amendments, ensuring public participation
throughout the processes and eliminating any potential for challenges due to varied
interpretations of the current ordinance.
lssu
The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance will clarify the procedures for
Comprehensive Plan amendments. The proposed revisions will specifically outline the
processes for Comprehensive Plan amendments, ensuring compliance with all statutory
requirements, maintaining transparency, and promoting public participation throughout.
FUTURE ACTION
Staff has developed revised language for the Zoning Ordinance, clearly articulating the
processes for amending the Orange County Comprehensive Plan which differs from
zoning map changes. The new language will be concise, ensure €ompliance with all
statutory requirements, and eliminate ambiguities within the ordinance_ Staff anticipates
presenting the revisions at the February 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing.
PLANNING PROJECT PROPOSAL #5 — November 2008
Lead Department: Planning & Inspections
Primary Contact(s): Susan Mellott (245-2593), Glenn Bowles (242577)
Department interaction: Current Planning Division, Public Works Department,
Comprehensive Planning Division, Purchasing
Department, and Inspections Division
Subject: `Orange Turning Green' (Building/Development)
Background
I~3DCC Policy The BOCC first adopted two objectives under its Environmental
Responsibility Goal on December 5, 2005, The first objective was to develop a
countywide environmental leadership policy and institute a standing
Environmental Action. Committee. The second was to continue, expand, and
formally adopt the use of green building standards; construct new facilities and
deconstruct outdated facilities in a way that is eco-friendly, utilizing energy
conservation measures, and minimize environmental impact. On April 12, 2007
• the 130CC adopted five priorities to enhance the implementation of the second
objective of its Environmental Responsibility Goal. The five priorities are:
1. Research and provide suggestions for green building standards through
the Comprehensive Plan process and the Planning and Inspections
Department regulations for both public and private sector development by
the end of 2007.
2. Implementation of green building standards through the Planning and
Inspections Department, Building Division regulations for both public and
private section development by the end.of 2008.
3. Participate in education opportunities related to LEED guidelines through
training of building and planning employees and eventually education of
the general public and private sector builders.
4. Adopt 'smart growth' principles of land development and site planning
including °low impact design."guidelines in appropriate sectors of County
policy by the end of 2007.
5. Adopt_°smart growth.'=principles of land development and site planning
including "low impact design' guidelines in planning end erosion control
regulations by the end of 2008.
.Orange Turning.Green Committee The 'Orange Turning Green ' committee,
which was comprised of staff from Public Works, Planning and Inspections,Town
of Hillsborough, local builders, architects, and utility companies, was organized to
provide input, discussion, and guidance for implementing a Green Building
Program for Orange County.
•
E5
•
These discussions led to the following staff recommendations for the referenced
fiscal years:
FY 2008 f 2009
• Begin incentive based voluntary compliance with a 'Green Building'
Program for residential and commercial construction.
• Provide 'greenbuilding' and energy star; grant funded educational
programs for builders and homeowners.
• Expand inspections, Current Planning and Erosion Control web pages
to promote green building and energy star programs.
FY 2Q09 /2010
• Formulate plan for new construction or renovation of public buildings
to be Green Certified through a nationally recognized Green Building
program such as Triangle J High Performance Guidelines, Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)or Green Globe_
• Require Energy Star Certification for all private commercial and
residential construction.
• Prepare plan and establish future energy efficiency goals and their
implementation_
•
Comprehensive Plan The 2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted November 18,
2008, includes the following overarching BOCC Planning Principle that generally
supports the use of green building practices in the County: BOCC Planning
Principle 3a—"Encouragement of energy efficiency, tower energy consumption,
and the use of non-polluting renewable energy resources". In addition,
Objectives included in the Plan provide specific mention of green building
standards for publicly owned and managed buildings and identifies the need to
explore green building standards for private development. Items such as the
County's preference for deconstruction over demolition, use of LEED "Gold" (or
equivalent) standards, and the need to educate staff on preferred technologies
and techniques are also mentioned.
Green Building Program Proposal
The National Association of Horne Builders, in conjunction with 64 other
stakeholders, including the International Code Council (ICC), released a Working
Draft of its National Green Building Standards on March 22. 2007. This is the
first and only true consensus based standard for residential green building, it will
also be the first to be accredited by the American National Standards institute
(ANSI). The projected publish date is early May 2009, pending ANSI review.
Once published, the standard can be adopted by local jurisdictions, which will fit
within the ICC Building Codes,which is the foundation of the North Carolina
State Building Codes.
•
• go
Staff has reviewed the proposed standard and will propose that Orange County
adopt this standard in 2009 to support the incentive based voluntary green
program for residential construction previously proposed.
Process/timeline
Staff proposes to put forward guidelines for voluntary and educational programs
for at least twelve (12)and possibly eighteen (18) months before considering
mandatory compliance. The National Green Building Standard is being
developed by the National Association of Home Builders and may become part of
the international Building Code in the very near future. As such, Orange County
could adopt them as part of the Building Code we now enforce.
Staff proposes to bring the National Green Building Standard to a Quarterly -
Publiic Hearing after its finalization by the National Association of Home Builders.
The anticipated Quarterly Public Hearing is May 2009.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I/
PLANNING PROJECT PROPOSAL #6 -M November 2008
Lead Department: Planning & Inspections
Primary Contact(s): Glenn Bowles (245-2577), Craig Benedict (245-2592)
Department Interaction: Environmental & Resource Conservation Department
(ERCD)
Subject: Sustainable Landscaping Standards
BACKGROUND
On April 15, 2008,the BOCC received the"Collaborative Water Conservation
Strategies for Joint Consideration by Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County,"
adopted a resolution regarding general support for interlocal water conservation
strategies, and directed staff to continue collaborative work on these water
conservation initiatives.. Three of the near term recommendations contained
within the resolution were:
'1. Local governments and OWASA should conduct water use audits and
cost-effective water conservation retrofit projects at local government-
owned and managed properties, thus "leading by example";
2, The Towns, County, and OWASA should continue to incorporate and
formalize our collective commitments to state-of-the-art water use
efficiency in the design of new local government-owned and managed
properties and, where practical and cost-effective, in renovated local
government owned and managed properties; and
3: The Towns, County, and OWASA should develop sustainable landscape
guidelines and requirements to ensure that landscape and irrigation
system design, installation and maintenance are more water efficient and
environmentally friendly than traditional practices. Such measures could
include limits on the amount of turf that can be established on a given site
and irrigated with OWASA-supplied potable water, as well as
• requirements for the placement and design of the irrigation systems. The
use of harvested rainwater and reclaimed water would be encouraged as
alternatives to potable OWASA water.
•
OtherWork Groups. The need for water conservation strategies with the other
water providers in the County has been periodically discussed during the past
few years. In particular, this topic was addressed in part by the Water
Conservation Ordinance Subcommittee, created from the Eno Confluence II in
October 2006. A joint work group of the Planning Board and the Commission for
the Environment has been meeting since July 2008 to formulate sustainable
landscaping standards for consideration.
Another work group, comprised of staff from the Planning and Inspections
Department,the Town of Hillsborough, local builders, and utility companies has
helped develop the "Orange Turning Green" program. The program was
established to begin implemention of BOCC environmental policies. The
recommendations advocate for better water use and sustainable landscaping
standards, which are ecologically supportable and more energy efficient.
BOCC Policy. The BOCC first adopted two objectives under its Environmental
Responsibility Goal on December 5, 2005. The first objective was to develop a
countywide environmental leadership policy and institute a standing
Environmental Action Committee. The second was to continue, expand, and
formally adopt the use of green building standards; construct new facilities and
deconstruct outdated facilities in a way that iseco-friendly, utilizes energy
conserving measures, and minimizes impacts on the environment. On April 12,
2007 the BOCC adopted five priorities to enhance the implementation of the
• second objective of its Environmental Responsibility Goal. One of five priorities
is to adopt`smart growth' principles of land development and site planning
including 'low impact design' guidelines in planning and erosion control
regulations by the end of 2008.
Comprehensive Plan. The text below summarizes the planning principles,
goals and objectives found in Phase ll of the Comprehensive Plan Update,
approved on November 18, 2008,which provide direction to sustainable
landscaping concepts. As the amendment comes forward, specific references
will be made to the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
•
The overarching planning principle put forth in the Comprehensive Plan is to
"Encourage energy efficiency, lower energy consumption and the use of non-
polluting renewable energy resources while promoting both air quality protection
and the development of an effective transportation system.'
Within this planning principle are several goals statements as follows:
1. Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, consistent
with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of
life.
2. Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and
features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and
community character.
3, Energy conservation, sustainable use of non-polluting renewable energy
resources, efficient use of non-renewable energy resources and clean air.
4. Water Resource Preservation.
5. Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental conditions and
features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and
community character.
6. A balanced and healthy diversity of native plant and animal populations.
7. Networks of protected natural, cultural, and agricultural lands.
8. Adequate, safe, and healthy groundwater withdrawal and wastewater
disposal systems with minimum impacts upon water and land resources.
9. Efficient and effective drainage, stormwater,floodplain management, and
erosion control systems:
TISSUE .
The existing County landscaping and buffering standards do not adequately
reflect recent national and international efforts to apply sustainability principles to
local land development projects. Also,the subject of Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) is absent in the present County code.
PROPOSAL
To incorporate sustainable landscaping and tree preservation principles into the
Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations and Economic Development Design
Manual through text amendments to each document. An alternative to inserting
new standards into multiple codes is to begin to create a Unified Development
Code which was a goat in previous years. The topic and how it can lead to better
organization and understanding of revised old codes and implementation of new
Comprehensive Plan objectives will be explained more in upcoming months.
PROCESS/TIME FRAME
Staff proposes to present amendments to Sections 12 and 22 of the Zoning
Ordinance at the February 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing. At that time the
B0CC may wish to refer the proposed amendments to both the Planning Board
and Commission for the Environment for review and recommendations.
Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding sustainable landscaping will
implement several objectives listed in the Comprehensive Plan.
•
2-0
PLANNING PROJECT PROPOSAL #7 - November 2008
Lead Department: Planning & inspections
Primary Contact(s): Glenn Bowles (245-2577), Craig Benedict(245-2592)
Department Interaction: Environmental & Resource Conservation Department
(ERCD) and County Attorney
Subject: Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation (SGRC)
•
BACKGROUND
In June of 2004 the BOCC authorized an RFQ to develop a TIER program. In
December 2004, the BOCC selected the Berger Group and the University of
North Carolina —Charlotte Urban Institute to complete Phase I. By June 2005,
the BOCC appointed the TOR Task Force and in June 2006, the BOCC received
the Feasibility Study report (Background Research and Data Gathering -- Phase l
and Feasibility Study and Concept Plan — Phase II) and affirmed the Task Force
recommendation that the program continue. The BOCC gave formal notice to
proceed with Phase Ill (Program Design and implementation Plan) in December
2006, but the terra of the contract was extended to allow sufficient time to adopt
the Comprehensive Plan. SGRC Goals include the following:
• Preserve the farm economy;
• Protect drinking water resources;
• Preserve environmental and cultural resources;
• Preserve the character of-rural Orange County; and
• Avoid excess public costs to provide water, sewer, and education
services.
The program objectives are to direct growth and development activities away
from important natural and cultural resources by shifting those activities to areas
better able to accommodate them. important study conclusions are as follows
• The program shall be strictly voluntary,
For now, only County-to-County transfers will be considered,
• The County will not maintain a "Bank,"
• The program will be titled "Strategic Growth and Resource Conservation,
• Use existing enabled ordinances, such as Zoning, Conditional Zoning,
and Development Agreements.
Below are summaries of planning principles, goals and objectives found in Phase
II of the Comprehensive Plan Update, approved on November 18, 2008, which
provide direction to SGRC concepts. Planning principles include the following:
1. Efficient and Fiscally Responsible Provision of Public Facilities and
Services.
ZI
2_ Natural Area Resource Preservation.
3. Preservation of Rural Land Use Pattern and Preservation of Community
Character.
Within these three principles are found the goal statements pertaining to
SGRC concepts: -
1. Infrastructure that supports desired development
2. Development ordinances and incentives that promote inclusionary
practices and housing options for all income levels.
3. Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, consistent
with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of
• life.
4. Preservation of historic, cultural, architectural and archaeological
resources, and their associated landscapes.
5. A balanced and healthy diversity of native plant and animal populations.
S. Networks of protected natural, cultural and agricultural lands.
7. A variety of land uses that are coordinated within a program and pattern
that limits sprawl, preserves community and rural character, minimizes
land use conflicts, supported by an efficient and balanced transportation
system.
A number of objectives are also relevant, including:
ED--2.1. Encourage compact and higher density development in areas served by
I water and sewer.
�ED-2.2.Encage mixed-use projects that sue,Port walkable communities.
M-4.3. Evaluate the feasibility of development incentives to stimulate the production
lof needed affordable low-income housing.
H-4.4. Evaluate collaboratively with the towns; identify regulatory barriers to be —(
removed and opportunities for development incentives to encourage the construction -
of a diverse range of housing types.
!Li- 1.1. Coordinate the location of higher intensity-Thigh density residential and non-
residential development with existing or planned locations of public transportation,
commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure,while
iavoldinq areas with protected natural and cultural resources. _-
ncreasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts where
adequate public services are available could achieve this. _.- J
CR--5. Promote existing programs that offer financial incentives for preservation
purposes and pursue new programs to encourage the purchase, preservation,
j maintenance or adaptive reuse of historic landscapes and soon to be historic
I structures.
I NA-1. Conserve high-priority natiral areas and wildlife habitats, includi9ng wetlands, 1
rivers and streams, floodplains, steep slopes, prime forests,wildlife corridors, and other
critical habitats. __ _ w J
22.
•
NA—10. Develop a comprehensive plan for achieving a network of protected open
spade throughout Orange County,which addresses threats to important natural areas,
connectivity between protected areas,coordination with neighboring counties, and
management of critical natural resources.
NA 15. Protect land in and around biologically significant areas, and connections
[sustainable
between these areas,to allow for the maintenance of native wildlife and plant
populations and their functional relatlonshius.
LU—3.1. Discourage urban sprawl; encourage a separation of urban and rural land
uses, and direct new development into areas where necessary community facilities and
services exist through periodic updates to the Future Land Use Plan_
LU--3.9. Create new zoning districts)which allow for a mixing of commercial and
residential uses,a mixing of housing types, an creates a more pedestrian friendly
development pattern. New districts should be applied in areas where public services
exist or are planned for In the future, in areas that promote higher intensity and high
density uses. �.. .
ISSUE
The SGRC concept was initiated independently of the Comprehensive Plan
adoption process, but the SGRC program has been envisioned as an
innovative tool to implement the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives.
Now that the Comprehensive Plan is adopted the program can move forward.
PROPOSAL
Planning staff proposes to complete the third and final phase of the SGRC .
program to be made a part of the Comprehensive Plan text and Zoning
Ordinance text and map. .
PROCESS/TIIVIEFRAME
The SGRC Program Design and Implementation Plan is proposed to be
adopted and implemented in the following manner: .
1. Adopt the SGRC Program Design and Implementation Plan as part of the
Comprehensive Plan (Presented at the May 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing);
2. Revise the Land Use Element map to designate Transitional Areas,
Economic Development Areas and Rural Community Nodes as potential
SGRC areas (receiving areas) and presented at the August 2009 Quarterly
Public Hearing);
3. Adopt Conditional Use zoning text amendments and other minor text
changes to ensure text consistency with SGRC terminology (This item is
scheduled for the February 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing).
•
•
•
PLANNING PROJECT PROPOSAL #8 -- November 2008
Lead Department: Planning & Inspections
Primary Contact(s): Michael Harvey (245-2607); Karen Lincoln (245-2594);
Jennifer Leaf(245-2603)
Department Interaction: Administration and County Attorney
Subject: Assessment of Regulatory Issues: Drive-thrus, Rural
Traffic Impacts, Rural Lighting Impacts
BACKGROUND:
Over the last few months, various development proposals and/or complaints have
uncovered facets of our existing regulations that may be in need of re-examination.
Some of the land development standards do not differentiate between urban and rural
intensity levels. New environmental concerns of old methods of business such as drive-
thrus may need to be reflected in green site development regulations.
ISSUE:
Drive-thrus — During the review of the Buckhorn Village Planned Development, concerns
arose over the development and use of drive-thru facilities within the project, and throughout
the County as a whole.
The Orange County Zoning Ordinance does not contain any reference to specific design
criteria, or language establishing an outright ban, on the development of such facilities (with
the exception of the Hillsborough Economic Development District).
PROPOSAL Staff believes there are two (2) options available if the County decides to
regulate drive-thrus, specifically:
OPTION A: The Ordinance can be amended to include a prohibition on the
development of drive-thru facilities for any and a non-residential uses including, but
not limited to: restaurants, banks, drug stores, dry cleaners; etc. This prohibition
would be located within Article Six (6) Application of Dimensional Requii rnents of
the Ordinance.
•
OPTION B: The Ordinance could be amended to include specific design criteria
designed to address the ancillary impacts of these types of accessory uses.
PROCESSITlMELINE:
Staff intends to present both options for review and possible action by the BOCC at the
• February 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing with staff proposals to the Planning Board
Ordinance Review Committee.
ISSUE:
Rural Traffic Impacts— During the review of a Class A Special Use Permit, local residents
expressed concern over the threshold levels of standards governing traffic generated by a
proposed development within a rural portion of the County.
It was suggested that staff begin looking at the need to modify existing regulations to
differentiate between acceptable levels of traffic being generated for projects within rural vs.
urban areas.
PROCESS/TIMELINE
Because there are a variety of land uses with different traffic generation attributes the
subject must be examined comprehensively and not.necessarily as a response to a specific
case. Staff will soon begin work on addressing this issue with draft text to be presented at a
Quarterly Public Hearing in the latter part of 2009.
ISSUE:
Rural Lighting Impacts -- The County has received a complaint from a iota! resident
concerned over the use of outdoor ball field lights at a local church adjacent to her
residence. The resident has indicated that the lights are out of character with the rural
setting of the area and detract from her ability to make reasonable use of her property.
Staff has inspected the church and determined the erected ball.field lights do not fully
adhere to the requirements of the Ordinance. A Notice of Violation has been issued and we
are currently in the process of coordinating, with the church, efforts to address the various
inconsistencies.
PROCESS/TIMELINE
in terms of addressing the need for Ordinance amendments, relating to our existing outdoor
lighting standards, staff is in the process of finalizing a report to present to the Planning
Board Ordinance Review Committee and then report to the•BOCC in January or February of
2009 outlining various options in an effort to solicit guidance on appropriate amendments.
In staffs opinion it will not be sufficient to merely amend existing regulations to require
outdoor athletic field lights within the rural portions of the County be turned off earlier than in
more urban areas of the County. Staff believes there is a need to re-evaluate our current
• regulatory philosophy and complete a wholesale revision of the existing lighting standards.
•
•
•
z5
•
•
•
PLANNING PROJECT PROPOSAL ##9 — November 2008
Lead Department: Planning & Inspections
Primary Contact(s): Perdita Holtz (245-2611); Glenn Bowles (245-2571)
Department Interaction: Administration and County Attorney
Subject: Small Area Plan-related Amendments
•
BACKGROUND:
The County has adopted three small area plans in the past two years. Orange
County's practice for adopting small area plans calls for implementation
measures to be adopted subsequently as separate actions. Essentially, the
small area plans in Orange County are documents that oontaintask force
recommendations with implementation of those recommendations to occur at a
later date. The following presents an update on the actions required to
implement some of the recommendations contained in the three adopted small
area plans.
Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan •
The BOCC adopted the Efland-Mebane SAP on June 27, 2006.. Further .
implementation of the plan (one implementation measure--the Efland Cheeks
Zoning Overlay District—has been adopted)will require additional actions.
Specifically, the following actions must be completed:
1. Adopt the Efland-Mebane SAP as part of the Comprehensive Plan;
2. • Decide whether the suggested changes to the Water and Sewer
Management Planning and Boundary.Agreement will be pursued. lithe
suggested changes are to be pursued, this action needs to occur first.
3. Revise the Land.Use Element map to reflect the Possible Future Land
Use Map contained in the SAP and revise the Land Use Element text to
include the new land use categories.
4. Develop a tong-range Master Plan For water and sewer services.
Additionally, an engineering study of the existing Orange-Alamance Water
System (PAWS) should be completed in cooperation with OAWS.
5. Develop design guidelines for the designated Mixed Use Efland Core
Area.
6. Additional Zoning Ordinance text changes will likely be necessary in order
to increase density in the planning area, as the SAP suggests.
7. A connection from Highway 70 east to the Interstate connector should
remain a priority when submitting projects to NCDOT for consideration.
Please note that the above list is not a complete list of all of the -
recommendations contained in the E#land-Mebane SAP, but serves as a guide to
the most significant actions that must occur before subsequent actions can be
pursued.
•
NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan (Highway 57 SAP)
The BOCC adopted the Highway 57 SAP on August 27, 2007. Implementation of
the plan will require actions as follows:
1. Adopt the Highway 57 SAP as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Revise the Land Use Element map to include the Highway 57 SAP Study
Area.
• 3. Adopt Conditional Use zoning text amendments,with the Rural Economic
Development Area component_
4, Consider developer-initiated zoning atlas amendments within the Highway
57 SAP Study Area at a later date.
Eno EU D Area Smelt Area Plan
The BOCC adopted the Eno EDD Area SAP on June 24, 2008. The successful
implementation of this small area plan is dependant upon an interlacal
Agreement with the City of Durham to provide water and sewer services to this
area. Implementation of the plan will require actions as follows:
1, Adopt the Eno EDD Area SAP as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Negotiate an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Durham-to provide water
and sewer services to the area.
3. Revise the Land Use Element map to reflect the Proposed Future Land Use
Map contained in the SAP and revise the Land Use Element text to include
the new land use category.
4. Incorporate necessary text changes into the Zoning Ordinance to implement
the revised Land Use Element.
Please note that the above list is not a complete list of all of the
recommendations contained in the Eno EDD Area SAP, but serves as a guide to
the most significant actions that must occur before subsequent actions can be
pursued.
•
Z.7
•
PROCESS/TIMELINE
A major factor in the implementation of the Efland-Mebane.SAP is a decision on
the suggested changes to the Water and Sewer Management Planning and
Boundary Agreement. Staff recommends the BOCC work with the other
signatories to the Agreement to determine the feasibility of revising the
Agreement and, if feasible, initiating the steps to do so in a timely manner. Staff
recommends the topic be placed on the March 2009 Assembly of Governments
meeting agenda for feasibility discussion.
A major factor in the implementation of the Eno EDO Area SAP is the need for an
Interlocal Agreement with the City of Durham for water and sewer services. Staff
recommends the 80CC open formal discussions with City of Durham
representatives regarding this topic in a timely manner.
All three small area plans require adoption into the County's Comprehensive
Plan and revisions to the Land Use Bement Staff proposes to bring these
amendments to the May 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing, after Notification
Requirements have been clarified (see Attachment 4 for information pertaining to
this issue).
•
•
Z.3
PLANNING PROJECT PROPOSAL #10 - November 2008
Lead Department: • Planning& Inspections
Primary Contact(s): Craig Benedict (245-2692)
Department interaction: Administration, County Attorney, Economic Development
Subject: Modification of Special Use Permit Construction
Timeframe
•
BACKGROUND;
in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, development projects that
are either a Planned Development and/or a Special Use have a one-year time period in
which to commence land-disturbing activities or face the potential revocation of any and
all approvals.
ISSUE: •
•
While this requirement may be realistic for a small-scale, single use, project it is not
practical for large, multi-phase projects, involving:
1. Infrastructure improvements (i.e. water and/or sewer) and State approvals,
2. Transportation Improvements requiring the issuance of permits by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation,
3. Erosion control and stormwater management permits, and
4. Other similar local, State, and/or Federal permitting processes.
In such instances, the necessary permits may take longer than a year for an applicant to
obtain in order to commence land-disturbing activities. Further, unique economic
conditions might also impact the ability of an applicant to commence land-disturbing
activities in a timely fashion.
PROPOSAL:
Staff Is currently reviewing the feasibility of amending the Ordinance to modify the
permit submittal and construction commencement requirements in an effort to provide
some flexibility concerning large-scale, multi-phased, development projects. Ultimately,
staff would like to require that a developer submit various permit applications to local,
State, and/or Federal agencies in order to show progress in commencing the
development of an approved project.
•
•
ZI
PROCESS1TEMEUNE:
•
Staff intends to have the proposed amendments for formal review at the May 2009
Quarterly Public Hearing. Staff intends to begin working with the Planning Board's
Ordinance Review- Committee (PBORC) with input from the Economic Development
Commission and to solicit courtesy review comments from other County departments,
including the Attorney's office, on the amendment package-
t 30
T ► 0,0Atte V1A— Z
•
LAW OFFICES
COLEMAN, GLEDHILL, HARGMVE ST.PEEK
A PROFE S13 AL C ORPO.A77CaN
129E.TP.YONSTR1 T
P.O.DRAWER 1529
HILLSBOROUGH.NO _"r1 CAROLDI t 2717c5
9:9-732..4196 PROM 151L L' C OF
FAX 919-7n-7°97
+Fww.c• p-ransom BRIAN M.FERRELL
•
bfriTelk :aliOuw.Wm
January 29,2009
•
Mr.Michael Harvey,Zoning Enforcement Officer
Orange County Planning Department
P.O.Box 8181
)!Iillsborough,NC 27278
RE: Legal Advertisement For February 23,2009 Quarterly Public Hearing
Dear Michae l:
This letter pertains to proposed Item A.4. "Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Conditional Use
District/Conditional Zoning" as contained on the "Notice of Joint Public Hcaring>" for the February 23,
2009 joint Board of County Comrnissioners/Planning Board public hearing. i understand that the Board
of County Commissioners (the "BOCC') will be asked to approve the legal advertisement for the joint
public hearing on February 3, 2009. For the reasons that follow,we recommend that the Conditional Use
District/Conditional Zoning item not be placed on the February 23,2009 quarterly public hearing agenda
and that you remove the item from the proposed legal advertisement.
We offer unqualified support for the eventual implementation of the conditional zoning tool
within Orange County's planning jurisdiction. We also offer unqualified support for modernizing Article
7 "Planned Development Districts" of the County's Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") to reflect the •
most up to date components of conditional use district zoning. I recognize that you have spent a great
deal of time and effort.developing well crafted amendments to Article 7 of the Ordinance to accomplish
these two tasks. However, I also recognize that significant additional staff and legal time and effort will
be necessary to review, revise and finalize the proposed amendments before they are presented to the
13OCC for adoption.
• Therefore, we recommend the focus of our collective efforts on writing and implementing a
modern Unified Development Ordinance ("UDO") instead of spending a substantial amount of time and
effort creating brand new constructs for conditional zoning and conditional use district zoning within the
current, and admittedly outdated, Ordinance. This course of action will not leave the County completely
without the benefit of these two tools. As you are well aware, the Ordinance does contain a regulatory
tool similar to "conditional use district zoning" in Article 7 of the Ordinance which is titled "Planned
'Development Districts". There is benefit to modernizing Article 7 of the Onxlinance as we discovered
during the review of the Buckhotn Village PD application, We support making minor revisions within
the cunent Article 7 in the short term to address these needed improvements while we focus the majority
of our collective resources on the longer term goal of drafting a IJDO for consideration by the l3QCC.
Given the luxury of time, we would be making this same recommendation with regard to the
substantial proposed Ordinance and Zoning Map amendments related to the County's flood damage
prevention program. However, given that the County risks its participation in the Federal Flood
Insurance Program if it does not move forward with those amendments posthaste; we do not recommend
delay of these revisions at this time.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this letter.
Best Regards,
CO 1~IvAN, GLEDHILL,HARGRAV{ FEK P.C.
•
cc: Laura Blackmon
Craig Benedict
(leaf Gledhill
Anncue Moore
•
•
Attachment 3 32
2009/2010 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARINGS
Quarterly Public Hearing May Aug Nov Feb May Aug Nov
2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010
Date Materials are due for Mgr/Atty/PD pre- March May Oct 1 Early Late Mid Early
agenda meeting 26'09 21'09 '09 Jan'10 '10 M 0 Oct'10
1st 2nd 2nd 2nd Oct
L al Ad A royal by BOCC April June Oct 19 Feb April June
pp y 21'09 16'09 '09 mtg mtg mtg 10
'10 '10 '10
BOCC "
Priority . ,
Number ,� � � 9,y �<.
P-2 Notification Requirements — Zoning
Atlas Changes X
Shannon Ber ??
Target Planning Board Meeting June
Target Month of BOCC Meeting August
P-12 Upper Eno Conservation District—
Land Use x (?) Craig to coordinate w/ Dave Stencil
Craig Benedict
Target Planning Board Meeting June
Target Month of BOCC Meeting August
P-2 Special Use Permit Construction
Commencement Timeframe X
Michael Harve
Target Planning Board Meeting June
Target Month of BOCC Meeting August
P-2 Rural Nodes — Commercial
Thresholds X
Michael Harve
Target Planning Board Meeting June
Target Month of BOCC Meeting August
P-2 Comprehensive Plan Text
Amendment— Land Use Plan
category definitions and matrix (and X
add proposed categories found in
SAPs???)
Tom/Perdita??
Target Planning Board Meeting Sept.
Target Month of BOCC Meeting Nov.
P-2 Comprehensive Plan Annual Work
Program Process X
om Altieri
Target Planning Board Meeting __ Dec.
Target Month of BOCC Meeting Feb. ____
33
Quarterly Public Hearing May Aug Nov Feb , May Aug Nov
2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010
Date Materials are due for Mgr/Atty/PD pre- March May Oct 1 Early Late Mid Early
agenda meeting 26'09 21'09 '09 Jan'10 March May Oct,10
'10 10
1st 2nd 2nd 2nd
April June Oct 19 Feb April June Oct
Legal Ad Approval by BOCC 21'09 16'09 '09 mtg mtg mtg 10
'10 '10 '10
Priority n ,, ,d'
Number --,
P-2 Unified Development Ordinance
To include:
• Rewrite of existing regulations
into new format and clean up
inconsistencies (major
undertaking — Michael Harvey)
• Addition of Sustainable
Landscaping Standards
(moderate undertaking —
Jennifer Leaf)
• Addition of°Green"/LID site
design standards (to include
encouragement of energy and
water conservation) (moderate
undertaking — Glenn Bowles??)
• Addition of Signage Regulations X
(moderate undertaking —
essentially complete)
• Addition of Conditional Use
District/Conditional Zoning
(major undertaking —
essentially complete)
• Addition of Parking Standards
(graphics) (minor undertaking
— Glenn Bowles)
• Addition of Rural Lighting
Standards (minor undertaking —
Michael Harvey/Jennifer Leaf)
• Addition of Rural Traffic
Impacts (minor undertaking
Karen Lincoln/Karen Markovics)
Target Planning Board Meeting March
Target Month of BOCC Meeting May
34
Quarterly Public Hearing May Aug Nov Feb May Aug Nov
2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010
Date Materials are due for Mgr/Atty/PD pre- March May Oct 1 Early Late Mid Early
9 Y Y
agenda meeting 26'09 21'09 '09 Jan'10 '10h Maly Oct'10
1st 2nd 2nd 2nd Oct
Legal Ad Approval by BOCC April June Oct 19 Feb April June
21'09 16'09 '09 mtg mtg mtg 10
'10 '10 '10
Priority r, � �;
Number — p,
"�' � "�
P-2 Agricultural Support Enterprises —
addition to UDO X (?)
(Shannon Berry)
Target Planning Board Meeting _____ Sept.
Target Month of BOCC Meeting
(Note: potential new BOCC Nov.
members in Dec. 2010
Airport Regulations .. X
Crai• Benedict/Michael Harve ... .
Target Planning Board Meeting ____ Sept.
Target Month of BOCC Meeting
(Note: potential new BOCC Nov.
members in Dec. 2010
P-2, Strategic Growth and Rural
P-12 Conservation (SGRC) — incorporation X
into Comp Plan/UDO
Glenn Bowles
Target Planning Board Meeting _____ Sept.
Target Month of BOCC Meeting
(Note: potential new BOCC Nov.
members in Dec. 2010
P-3 Economic Development District
Reanalysis X
(Note: EDC must do its plan first)
Crai• Benedict/Perdita Holtz
35
Additional Priority Items for '09 and '10 that do not go to a QPH
BOCC Target
Priority Item Description Completion Date
Number
P-1 Explore whether timing is right for updates to land dedication and P-I-L Oct. '09 if to be
provisions in Subdivision Regulations (Robert Davis) (Note: should be rolled included in UDO
into UDO???)
P-1 Increase the amount of open space required in subdivisions (Robert Davis) Oct. '09 if to be
(Note: should be rolled into UDO???) included in UDO
P-3 Work with Economic Development to develop plans for the EDDs (Craig June'10
Benedict/Perdita Holtz)
P-5 Review density bonuses in Zoning Ordinance to determine if they encourage Oct. '09 if to be
for-profit development of Affordable Housing (Perdita Holtz) (Note: should included in UDO
be rolled into UDO???)
P-7 Work with Durham on Interlocal Agreement for water/sewer services (Craig Dec. '09
Benedict)
P-10/12 Propose amendments to the Building Code to foster"Green Buildings"in Spring '10
both public and private sector (Susan Mellott)
P-10/12 Participate in training opportunities related to green buildings and energy On-going?
conservation (staff identified for training)
P-11 Central Permitting (Susan Mellott) 2011
P-12 ESAC Benchmarks and Assessment report on proposed action strategies for June'10
Environmental Responsibility goal (staff???)
36
2009/2010 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARINGS
BOCC May Aug Nov Feb May Aug Nov
Priority Number 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010
EFLAND/MEBANE
(IFG-identified priorities)
(Craig/Perdita/Shan non)
P-2 Seven Mile Creek Reservoir Upper Eno Conservation District need to happen first????
(revise watershed map)
(change critical area)
P-2
FLUM Changes X
P-2
WASMPBA changes Propose to Manager's Office that this item be discussed at the Sep. '09 AOG meeting
P-2 I I I I I
Mixed Use Area — Design Guidelines Seven Mile Creek determination must happen before this item
P-2 I l I I I
Water & Sewer Master Plan QPH not needed;dependent on funding
I I I I
ENO EDD
(Craig/Perdita)
P-2,
P-3, P-7 Interlocal Water & Sewer Agreement with Durham CMO to initiate discussions???
P-2, Coordination with Durham required
P-3, P-7 Land Use Plan Changes (map &text) X
P-2, X
P-3, P-7 Zoning Ordinance (need to flesh out permitted uses)
P-2, Access Management Plan QPH necessary??? x
P-3, P-7 (US 70 &Old Hwy 10) -
W
37
BOCC May Aug Nov Feb May Aug Nov
Priority Number
2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010
CENTRAL ORANGE (HILLSBOROUGH AREA) COORDINATED
AREA
(Craig/Perdita)
P-7
Agreement X Draft going to it. Mtg on 2/19.
P-7
FLUM x (?) If Agreement is in place by May
P-7
WASMPBA changes Propose to Manager's Office that this item be discussed at the Sep.'09 AOG meeting
q
P-7 I I
ET] Switch Does this require a QPH??
P-7
Zoning Text and Map (?) If FLUM in Nov.
us
p
3$ •
! AA
• A "'0.Ci\ 4
ATTACHMENT 3. IDENTIFIED PRIORITIES FOR 2009-2010 BUDGET_ _
•Priority . Votes.. Priotities for FY 2009.10(sorted•an.descendinig order •.
. .. . .
•
'P.1 6• conserve high priority natural areas,w lct:fe habitat,and prime torests:
• (Goa) 5) - _ • _
P-2 :8 :Implement Comprehensive and Use Plan (Goal 3) - . :�
--: a Rewrite zoning and suoaiVisibh.requlaiions .._
-
_P 3 • - :1 5 Develop econornic.ptans for.3 districts:(Goal 3) .
•P=4 5 . Review services to identify and protect `safety riei' pr-ograms.ana services. ,
• • • {Goal 7} .. ... . . . . ::. .: . •
*P-5. 4 . �. Ersc:oivrage.for profit investments in affordable housing and review available:
tools. (Goal 1) :.
.P_6 4 Develop plan and fools to improve the way county:an•d:citiaens, .„
• •• communi.cate with each other;foster two-way exchange (Goal 2).-.• .
P-7 .. . . .4 . Improve infra-.and intergovemmental•coordination, cooperatk n, and
collaboration. (Goal 2)
'a, Work with Town.of Hillsborough on
•
: : 1 • o .toirit land use:planning approaches, policies and ordinances:
and drmneXoti0n .
a E;;nnomic Development Districts
•
. b- Work with Durham on: - •-
a Economic Development Districts :•
P-8 • •4 Examine advisory boards and commissions (Goal 2): .
.- a. Ensure they are-meeting their mis5ions • • . •
. b. Determine.how boards relate is each other and-how their work can:.•
• be best integrated with BO . . ..
e, Ensure sustcxinab Eity goals .
: d. Ensure fit with overall county vision
•
a. Recognize {and be sensitive to) consistencies represented by.
boards,commissions when framing this review • . • .
P-9 . 4 Update economic development pion for county (Goal 3):
• - a, Clarity Economic Development plan for each district
•
• b. Identify spectrum of tools . . .;
. [ c: identify other stakeholders •
. •
. .d. Identify what county wants to see happen -
P-7.Q 0 .l 4 - lOeveloP an energy plan thai ircluds economic development strategies fo.
_ z
. .(attract,retain,and avow " green":business -
•
P-1 i : .4 • In est tn.:technology to increase woiicer efficient ies,e-g-,web strearning,
:• . pcaperIecS.pgendas,integrated tracking,sysfeYns between field.and office •••
.• • ;