HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-02-2009 - 5aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 2, 2009
.2
Action Agenda
Item No. .5a
_SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Establishing Regulations for Drive-thru Facilities
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Proposed Ordinance Amendment
Options
2. Minutes from April 1, 2009 Planning
Board Meeting
3. Minutes from February 23, 2009
Quarterly Public Hearing
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Craig Benedict 245-2592
Michael D. Harvey 245-2607
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation and consider taking action on a
staff initiated Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Article Six (6) Application of Dimensional
Requirements to establish regulations governing the development of drive-thru facilities within
the County.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the February 23, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing.
As staff stated during the hearing, the purpose of the proposed amendment is to address
concerns over the use and development of drive-thru facilities and their impacts on the
environment.
During the hearing, staff identified the following options:
1. Adopt regulations banning the development and/or use of such facilities throughout the
County's planning jurisdiction, or
2. Adopt regulations designed to mitigate the impacts of such facilities through the
imposition of buffering and site design standards.
Staff recommended pursuing Option Two (2) which would establish reasonable regulations
governing the development and operational characteristics of drive-thru facilities and address
their impacts on the local environment.
During the hearing, some Commissioners spoke in favor of banning drive-thru facilities outright
while others spoke of the need for comprehensive zoning regulations to offset their
environmental impact. Staff and the Planning Board were asked to review the options and
make a recommendation on which path to pursue.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its April 1, 2009
regular meeting.
a
Planning Board members discussed the item and recommended the following:
1. The Board of County Commissioners initiate a comprehensive and countywide
awareness education program about idling and the contaminants it puts in our air,
focusing specifically on areas with children and idling vehicles (such as schools, ball
fields, etc.) to start in the fall of 2009 and end in the spring of 2011. The goal of the
program is to encourage individuals to turn off their vehicles when parked rather than
allowing them to idle, and
2. To recommend the Board of County Commissioners disregard staffs two (2) options and
take no action on adopting regulations banning development of drive-thru facilities within
the County's planning jurisdiction (Option 1) or adopting comprehensive development
standards for drive-thru facilities (Option 2).
Both motions were approved by a seven (7) to two (2) vote amongst those members attending.
Please refer to the Planning Board's minutes in Attachment Three (3) of this abstract.
The Planning Board debated the subject at length and thought that better air quality progress
could be made in other areas besides the area of banning or overly regulating drive-thru
facilities. The Administration believes that Option 2 regulations would allow the limited use of
these facilities while adequately mitigating the effects.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: This request has been reviewed by various County departments who
have determined the approval of the request will not create the need for additional funding for
the provision of County services.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the BOCC take
the following actions:
1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation,
2. If necessary, deliberate further on the proposed amendment,
3. Close the public hearing, and
4. Adopt Option 2 text.
Attachment 1 S
STAFF OPTION ONE (1): PROHIBITION
Amend Article Six (6) Application of Dimensional Requirements as follows:
Section 6.9 Accessory Uses for non-residential developments -Drive-thru facilities
prohibited:
1. Any and all accessory uses necessary for the operation of a proposed
non-residential or mixed use development shall not be erected in any
required open space and shall conform to atl other applicable
regulations contained within this Ordinance,
2. Drive-thru facilities are hereby prohibited from development and/or use
within the County's planning jurisdiction with the following exceptions:
a. Stand alone Automated Teller Machines (ATM) either
freestanding or drive-up with a minimum stacking distance of at
`100'
STAFF OPTION TWO (2): REGULATION:
Amend Article Six (6) Application of Dimensional Requirements as follows:
Section 6.9 Accessory Uses for non-residential developments -Drive-thru facilities
regulations:
1. Definition
a. Drive-through business (land use). An establishment that sells
products or provides services to occupants in vehicles,
including drive-in or drive-up windows and drive-through
services.
i. Drive-through businesses, non-restaurants - Adrive-through
business that serves a use not related to a restaurant, fast
food restaurant or formula fast food restaurant. This use
includes the operation of drive-up or a drive-up or a drive-
through service at a bank or financial institution, food sales
(for off-site preparation or consumption only), personal
services, and retail sales (e.g., pharmacy).
ii. Drive-through business, restaurants - A drive-through
business that operates in conjunction with a restaurant, fast
food restaurant or formula fast food restaurant.
2. Any and all accessory uses necessary for the operation of a proposed
non-residential or mixed use development shall not be erected in any
required open space and shall conform to all other applicable
regulations contained within this Ordinance,
3. In addition to any and all applicable Federal, State, or local
requirements, the following specific standards shall govern the
development and use of drive-thru facilities for the Project:
4
a. Any non-residential land use utilizing a drive-thru facility,
whether as a principal use of property or within a Planned
Development or another similar multi-use non-residential or
mixed use development, shall not be located within fifty (50) feet
of an-exterior property line. This includes the building, kiosk,
drive lane for the drive-thru, or parking facilities,
b. No menu board utilized as part of a drive-thru shalt be visible
from an .external or internal roadway. This can be achieved via
the planting of a vegetative screen,
c. There shall be a minimum twenty-five (25) foot wide vegetative
strip planted along the length of the roadway utilized by the
drive-thru facility including any and all applicable stacking lanes.
This strip shall be planted with sufficient vegetation to form a
dense, opaque, buffer planted to the following standard:
There shall be a continuous evergreen hedge planted
along the interior curb of the drive-thru lane that will
have an initial planting height of thirty-six (36) inches
and achieve a height of at least five (5) feet at
maturity,
There shall be a second row of plantings behind the
continuous hedge line comprised of deciduous and
evergreen trees that will have an initial planting height
of five (5) feet with spacing at 20 feet on center and
achieve a height of at least twenty (20) feet at
maturity.
d. A minimum stacking distance of 180 feet shall be provided to
each pick-up window or automated machine.
e. A facility with a separate ordering point and pick-up window
shall provide stacking space for at least 4 vehicles in advance of
each ordering point and stacking space for at least 4 vehicles
between each ordering point and pick-up window.
Entrances to drive-thru lanes shall be at least 25 feet from
driveways entering a public or private street or alley.
g. The minimum width of each drive-thru lane shall be 11 feet.
The entrance to the lane and the direction of traffic flow shall be
clearly designated by signs and pavement marking or raised
curbs.
h. A solid six-foot high masonry sound wall shall be constructed on
the property boundary when the site, utilizing adrive-thru, is
contiguous to residentially zoned or used property (s). If the
proposed building site is part of a larger non-residential/mixed
use development, and is separated from residential uses or
zoning districts by three hundred (300) feet, then the wall shall
not be required.
Operation of the drive-up service facility shall be restricted to
between hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. when the site is
contiguous to residentially zoned or used property(s). If the
proposed building site is part of a larger non-residential/mixed
use development, and is separated from residential uses or
zoning districts by three hundred (300) feet, then the time
restriction shall not be required.
4. Development Guidelines
a. A minimum of a 0.50+ acre site shall be provided for adrive-
. through facility within an existing shopping center.
b. "Franchise architecture" shall be strongly discouraged.
c. Drive-through facilities shall be architecturally compatible with
the best examples of nearby structures (i.e. intended for the
zone) and complement existing or planned streetscape
elements.
d. Building design, location and parking areas shall be designed to
provide pedestrian orientation and clearly identify areas for
pedestrian access and limit pedestrian -drive-thru lane overlap.
e. Windows provided for aesthetics in dining and entry areas shall
be used abundantly to provide visibility to the street and
pedestrian view into the building.
f. Outdoor seating with high quality hardscape areas (such as
brick, cobblestone, and decorative pavers) and high quality
outdoor furniture shall be encouraged in zones approved for
outside seating.
g. A minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be landscaped
5. Operators of drive-thru facilities shall be required to pay an annual
carbon impact fee to the County in accordance with the County Impact
Fee Ordinance [at such time it is adopted by separate ordinance),
(Staff Comment. During the review of the Buckhorn Village PD, there
was some discussion over the need to assess developers for the
overall impact a particular project might have on the local environment.
Staff believes we have an opportunity to study the viability of imposing
an impact fee on such uses. This fee could be utilized by the County
to support on-going efforts to preserve open space, secure lands for
preservation, and possibly a reforestation program County wide. As
we continue to review the possible regulatory standards for drive-thru
development, this concept ought to be critiqued.)
5
6. For any multi-use non-residential development there shall be no more
than one (1) drive-thru facility per ten (10) acres of property with an
ultimate cap of five (5) drive-thru units per development in total.
Excerpt of Approved Minutes Attachment 2
6
i MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 APRIL 1, 2009
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large (Chair); Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheeks
7 Township; Nathan Chambers, Cheeks Township At-Large; Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough
8 Township; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; Earl McKee, Little River Township; Mark Marcoplos;
9 Bingham Township At-Large; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove Township At-Large; Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks
10 Township At-Large
11
12
13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township; Tommy
14 McNeill, Eno Township
15
16
17 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Robert Davis, Planner III; Michael Harvey, Zoning
18 Enforcement Officer; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II
19
20 *******~*,~**************************************************************************************~~**~*******«************
21 AGENDA ITEM 8: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -ARTICLE 6 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH
22 REGULATIONS FOR DRIVE`THRU FACILITIES
23
24 To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding this item heard at the February
25 23, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing
26
27 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer
28
29 Michael Harvey: Good Evening once again. As the Board may recall, at the February Quarterly Public
30 Hearing we presented an ordinance amendment with two options on the possible regulation of drive-thrus
31 and the use of drive-thrus in the County. The two options are as follows, we amend Article 6 to ban them
32 or amend Article 6 to adopt some regulations to address the negative side impacts that are generated from
33 their use. The County Commissioners, after conducting the Public Hearing, were unable to come to any
34 consensus to provide staff or the Planning Board any direction. We have provided you with both options:
35 We are recommending that the Planning Board consider adopting regulations amending the operational
36 characteristic of drive-thrus and we hope we've come up with some standards that would address the
37 concerns that have been expressed by both Planning Board and County Commissioners over their
38 development for the County. Attachment one is the proposed ordinance amendments for both options for
39 this Board to consider, options one and two. Attachment two has several articles and/or web pages and
40 general information dealing with drive-thrus.
41
42 Brian Crawford: Michael, I would just like to take a moment to complement you on this abstract, there's
43 some good information in here and I thought it was fairly balanced on pros and cons. Thank you good
44 information. Are there any questions?
45
46 Larry Wright: I would like to, first of all say that this is a very good package, I'm really concerned about the
47 study of the Sierra Research. The first thing about the study is that they are comparing two different
48 regions of California, one is in the high mountains and the other is lower California. There are two things
49 they omitted here, the first is what really hits our pocketbook and that's ozone. We pay for that because
7
50 that is measured throughout the year. States that are not in compliance with the 1990 Title 2 Clean Air Act
51 result in counties having to pay for added oxidations or oxidants in fuel and we pay for that at the pump.
52 We pay for that and that is not in here. Also not in here is anything about particulates, emissions
53 particulates, and they are not measuring that. So there are two parts of the study that are not really
54 measured and the particulates are really of importance to small children, the elderly, asthmatics, and
55 people with obstructive pulmonary disorders. I see some flaws in this study and I'm conflicted on this. It
56 looks to me like you have this lobby group, Califomia Business Properties Association that is paying for this
57 study. I looked and California Business Properties Association are advocates for shopping centers and real
58 estates firms. I'm not sure where I am on this whole thing but I just wanted to point some problems with that
59 study.
60
61 Jeff Schmitt: In the midst of the discussion, I would like to resurrect option one, (do nothing) handicapped
62 people today this is going to create a significant issue for them when they go to use adrive-in facility.
63 Parents with children who could previously go thru a facility with their children in the car safely in their seats
64 now will have to park the car get the kids out of the car and cross the lot, I could go on with issues like this.
65 I'm not sure that we have enough of this in the County that it creates that big of an environmental issue and
66 think this is somewhat of over reaction on the part of the Commissioners in bringing this forward. From my
67 perspective the questions and how we look at this, I'd like to have that in a context to think about it.
68
69 (Document °The Idle Free School Zone Project - 2006-2007n was passed out by staff from Planning Board
70 Member Mary Bobbin-Cooke.)
71
72 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: If you remember at the Quarterly Hearing, I talked about what Forsyth County had
73 done in terms of really looking at places where there were a lot of particulates and bad air around children.
74 They have initiated an idle free school zone project. Basically, it's an education project which is always a
75 good way to reach out first before you start doing a lot of regulation. It educates the parents to turn the car
76 off while they're waiting for their children to come out from school or when they are going to drop off. It has
77 posters they send around and it helps parents transfer the behavior to other situations where if you're idling
78 more than a minute you shut your car off and they understand how it affects children's asthma as well as
79 the whole concept of air. I live close to Grady Brown and the High School and that's build right next to a
80 highway. I think the parents in the grade schools in Orange County would be willing to listen to this. What,
81 they did in Forsyth County was there is no policy, they negotiated with the principal and the school staff to
82 put this in order. They have a Triad air awareness and emergency management program; all these groups
83 came together and worked with the schools to put this into place. It has been adopted by all the grade
84 schools and now they are moving into the middle schools. This is something we might want to ask the
85 County Commissioners to do first. The second thing in Forsyth County was the county employees have
86 been asked to turn their cars off. This is to model the kind of behavior they want all the residents in the
87 County to follow. I am thinking I would like to add to Jeff's proposal to resurrect option one, do nothing in
88 terms of regulation but let's start working in the areas where our children are and two see if the County
89 Manager would be willing to talk with the Forsyth County manager about this regulation and was it difficult
90 to put in place. Maybe staff here might want to react to that, do you have one in place?
91
92 Michael Harvey: We don't have one in place; I think the one in Forsyth County is a policy and a
93 suggestion. It is unenforceable which is why it's not a regulation so we need to be careful with how we do
94 that.
95
96 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: In terms of doing number one, do nothing in terms of regulation, I'm suggesting that
97 we say, let's do no regulation but let's consider some education and outreach where we can have behavior
98 modeled by county employees as well as really target where our children are which is a big concern. I think
2
8
99 there is a lot of asthma and we have a couple of schools close to the highway. It's an education and
100 community outreach but it's not a regulation so I think it's compatible with yours Jeff.
101
102 Jeff Schmitt: I think that's an excellent suggestion. As I read through here, option one is to prohibit it,
103 option two some of this stuff is over the top in the midst of what we're trying to do to get some of these folks
104 to do this. I think this suggestion is a very reasonable common sense approach to take in the midst of this.
105 Let's see if we can't do something on a voluntary basis with signs, placards, whatever doing it at schools
106 before we put another regulation in place. We have enough regulations in this County to begin with and I
107 think this is just another one. While it is not enforceable and we're not going to have the idle police out
108 there, I think it does make a lot of sense that we're trying to trust the responsibility, the integrity, and the
109 concern all of the citizens of the County probably have for pollution when we are sitting in long lines. One
110 other point I'd like to make is that the business model that a lot of restaurants and other businesses are
111 based upon being able to drive through so as the County expands what we are in essence doing is putting
112 a significant amount of limitations on them and/or telling them not to come to begin with because of this
113 regulation.
114
115 Larry Wright: First of all, I thing the OUTBoard has taken up this issue and I think that discussion would be
116 important to the Commissioners. I've thought about this a lot and I thought about the turning off of the
117 engines and as much I do not like exhaust pumping out into the atmosphere, it is almost impossible to get
118 by Cameron Park around 2:30-3:00 and you can't expect these parents to turn off a car when it is very cold
119 or very hot outside. I think it's a little unrealistic in some circumstances to ask them to turn off their cars.
120 see some problems here. Then I think as far as the businesses not coming in, Carrboro has proven that
121 wrong. They will come in. I think the rationale is flawed. I would like to know if the OUTBoard has
122 discussed this and what the outcome of those discussions were.
123
124 Mark Marcoplos: I agree with Larry on this lobbyist organization's study. I studied it for awhile and they are
125 talking about when a car stops gases emit from the engine. In the study they are only talking about what
126 happens in the parking lot, that's narrow. They are really stretching it there. If you look at some other
127 information, I did some research on this, we know that idling wastes fuel, we know it releases pollutants
128 that would not be released if the car were turned off, we know that if your car is idling for more than 10
129 seconds it's cost effective and resource effective to turn it off, 6-10 seconds is now understood to be the
130 amount of fuel it takes to start your car. Every hour you idle you waste 7/10 of a gallon of gas. This is
131 some information from Sierra Magazine, in a given year U.S. cars burn some 1.4 billion gallons of fuel just
132 idling. Idling trucks waste 1.5 billions gallons. Collectively we emit about 50 million tons of carbon dioxide
133 while we are essentially doing nothing just waiting and idling. It puts a little strain on the business to have
134 this kind of regulation but what is really at stake? We know global warming is real. We know we're
135 stressing our environment. We know people are getting sick so at a certain point you have to say do we
136 rise to the challenge or do we fall back into what we used to think 15, 20, 30 years ago that we can go on
137 pretty much as we have been living and expect things to just solve themselves. I really feel like we're not
138 doing a whole lot of damage to important businesses in our community if we require people to park to go
139 into a restaurant. All my favorite restaurants, they don't have drive-thrus the ones that keep money into
140 the community anyway, serve healthy food. It's where the mothers and children ought to be going anyway.
141 It's not my decision; I just throw that out as an observation. As far as the handicapped if people can get in
142 their cars they can get out of their cars. I think doing nothing as an option not only does it not get the
143 reductions in emissions that we need but it misses a great educational opportunity. It sends the message
144 that it doesn't really matter to us. It doesn't make the point that this is something we are really serious
145 about and understand the need to do. Maybe we don't all understand the need to do it yet. The business
146 limitation if that's the only litmus test we'll never get much done. As we learn about our impact on the
3
9
147 environment, and health we are called upon to meet the challenge to limit businesses that are part of the
148 problem. I am in favor of a ban.
149
150 Rachel Phelps Hawkins: I think as Mary said that education should be number one starting in the schools
151 when the kids are very young. The other problem is we have buses half full, everyone doesn't have to
152 drive their kids to school but they do and the buses are running with no one on them wasting gas.
153
154 Brian Crawford: Michael or Craig are we still under the EPA mandate for this area because of the number
155 of pollutants we put in the environment? I understood the Triangle had some sort of restriction.
156
157 Craig Benedict: The non-attainment designation has been released. We are now in another stage where
158 we had to provide a management and maintenance plan to make sure our land use plan and other policies
159 in the future would not move us into the non attainment area again but we have been released from that
160 non attainment zone.
161
162 Brian Crawford: My second question is has anybody sat down to look at the link between how severely our
163 drive-thrus in this county impact our carbon output. I don't think that's been looked at enough, we know
164 intuitively that it makes sense but if this isn't done will it throw us back into the management plan or EPA
165 guidelines. I don't understand how this is a solution. It looks like we are jumping to this regulation as a
166 solution to our emissions problem in the area but yet no one has made that connection that this would help
167 it at all. I say that because its seems to be that at the Commissioner level three are some fairly strong
168 opinions that this ban should be in place.
169
170 Michael Harvey: I think the goal we were asked to look at is what some reasonable regulations might be
171 because it's not just emissions or environmental pollution that are the ultimate concerns that we are
172 attempting to address here. It is noise; it is the commingling of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, stopped
173 traffic in drive-thru lanes. It is the shielding and buffering that provide esthetic separation from these types
174 of uses as well as help augment potential emission issues. Planning staff doesn't have the opportunity or
175 wherewithal to do the study that has been discussed. I don't' know where the County Commissioners
176 would be with funding such a study. These regulations were written to address County Commissioners'
177 concerns about coming up with options. We believe the regulations we have provided in the options try to
178 address those and provide reasonable regulations and not to address emission issues but address some of
179 the other issues identified during the review of the Buckhorn Village project as well as other issues that
180 have come up in the past about what is acceptable and what we should be trying to encourage to offset
181 some of the other concerns.
182
183 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I'm not sure we can really translate California data into Orange County. In the public
184 health information in this report looking at maybe doing something about childhood diabetes if they stop
185 drive-thrus, that is way off the charts, public health is really more responsible than that. I think someone did
186 it to make a presentation at a meeting. Obesity is an issue but it's not going to be solved by drive-thru
187 regulation. My real point, is that where there are big concentrations of emissions are where our children
188 are. Asthma is the number one reason children miss school. We may want to regulate these new
189 businesses when they come into this county but we are ignoring the health of our children. That is a public
190 health fact. I really think we would be remiss not to send back to our County Commissioners the idea that
191 using a pass through for health reasons or emissions is missing where the emissions really occur and that
192 is harming a very vulnerable and fragile part of our population, our children. It is voluntary, of course
193 people won't keep their car off when they need it for air conditioning or heat but the reality is as more
194 people get educated, the more they will turn them off. Public health has learned that you start with
195 education before you regulate. I would recommend that we send a message back that if we're interested
4
10
196 health issues that we think about the children and we should try some education first before we use
197 regulations.
198
199 Jeff Schmitt: In all seriousness, I don't know a lot about pollution and how it travels, but I'd suggest with a
200 southwesterly breeze that comes across the County, we're more affected by what's happening in
201 Birmingham, Alabama with the TBA than what's happening in the McDonald's drive-thru line. There are 12
202 home basketball games there are 6 home football games, I'd suggest the pollution generated by cars
203 standing in line over in Chapel Hill is much more significant. If we want to do a policy, we need to do it in
204 an area that's big enough where it can affect what's going on. That's the State of North Carolina, not
205 Orange County, we're one of a hundred. The significance of what happens in Charlotte, Greensboro,
206 Forsyth County as the wind moves this way is much more affected on us than what's happening in one of
207 these lines. The education, and then if we really do believe in this, the Commissioner going to the State
208 legislature to have something done seems to me it might create a bigger impact than trying to micro
209 manage what's happening on a very small scale.
210
211 Earl McKee: After reading over the supporting data and the two options, basically, I decided to write off all
212 the supporting data as being slanted one way or the other. I was left with two basic ideas, one Jeff has
213 touched on of the factor people who are handicapped or have supporting reasons to use drive-thrus, the
214 other thought was the percentage of facilities this will involve. As I am hearing, it will not affect the existing
215 drive-thrus they will still continue to operate, so you are going to have a very small percentage that will be
216 affected by the guidelines. The other thing is the number of cars sitting in a drive-thru at any given time
217 versus the total number of cars, trucks providing these emissions is very small. I am inclined to support
218 Jeffs suggestion that we go with no action. With the situation the County is facing with tax situation and
219 revenue it may or may not have an effect on a business that is looking to locate in Orange County but I can
220 assure you from running a business that any time I think about doing something or opening a new section
221 of my business, the first thing I look at is what I will be up against as far as regulations. I would suggest we
222 take the option of doing nothing.
223
224 Pete Hallenbeck: A couple of comments, the first one is whenever I see a report and I have number but I
225 don't' have a percentage, I have a very hard time absorbing that report. It would be nice to see it as a
226 percentage of total use in the U.S. Really from that point of view someone is saying what's the level of fuel
227 efficiency you should have. Do you ban drive-ins unless you're in a hybrid or an all electric car, it wouldn't
228 have the emission problem, so how much of this is based on pollution and carbon output. How much is
229 based on other concerns, do you look at passenger miles per gallon. If you have four people in a vehicle is
230 it ok to use adrive-in? All of this seems like very difficult stuff to deal with. We talked about convenience
231 and need. I think this would be very hard for any kind of government regulation that could define the need.
232 I think there are mechanisms for using zoning to say no drive-ins here similar to the Efland-Mebane plan. I
233 think a lot of this comes down to regulating a symptom and not a cause. We're looking at pollutants,
234 energy use, and so forth just at a drive-in and as mentioned we have basketball games and other things. I
235 would prefer to focus on the real problem which is fuel consumption of vehicles which helps everywhere
236 and everyone's driving and not just focus on the one thing of the drive-thru. Finally, on the school design,
237 the key there is designing schools so there are places people can park and the flow of children doesn't
238 have them crossing where cars are driving and that problem should be dealt with by encouraging the
239 County to work with schools. It is a special case. There are businesses where their whole model is based
240 on drive-ins.. I would tend to go with don't touch this one, use the zoning to protect areas where you're
241 dealing with esthetics, and I'd prefer to see the energy of the County and everyone else go to dealing with
242 the more overall problem of fuel consumption in the vehicles we're driving rather than focus on the impact
243 of all the emissions in one particular context.
244
5
11
245 Brian Crawford: I looked at the legal challenges, one thing that popped out at me. If you go and do a
246 general ban across the whole County, and we do run into a developer or someone who wants to challenge
247 it, would we be able to sustain it based on such a general ban. It's something we've got to think about in
248 this process. That is the exact thought that lead me to be very neutral on this whole plan and just say, we
249 might want to sit back and not do anything about it. There are just so many issues that we can't anticipate
250 at this point.
251
252 Mark Marcoplos: I am very much in favor of an awareness campaign, I think its key. I think a ban fits in
253 perfectly with it. I just want to put things in perspective. If you don't think it makes much difference, you
254 might take that logic and say we're in a drought, I could change my showerhead to a water saving
255 showerhead but it doesn't make that much difference. That's a flawed argument because every little bit of
256 progress helps and every small action is part of greater progress. I think you have to look at this as one
257 part of a solution. It complements an awareness campaign because it's something that gets people's
258 attention. It shows some seriousness and gets attention, it doesn't mean we are going to immediately go
259 out and bull doze all the existing drive-thrus. It really is a relatively small number of unknown future drive-
260 thrus that may be built. That means it's a pretty easy way to make a point and cut down on future pollution
261 and the problems that drive-thrus cause. There's this idea it's going to have this huge impact on
262 businesses across the County, it's not that kind of thing. It has been very successful in Carrboro and I
263 haven't heard anyone complain about it.
264
265 Michael Harvey: I think there is a consensus that there is going to be some motion made that includes the
266 provision for a campaign on educating people about emissions and idling, I would urge the Board to do this
267 in two steps. The initial motion being made to recommend to the County Commissioner to consider an
268 educational campaign, keeping that separate from any motion concerning the disposition this item.
269
270 MOTION made by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke to establish an awareness campaign for the entire County but
271 specifically targeted at schools where young children are present and that it precede any regulation on
272 drive-thrus. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt.
273
274 Larry Wright: So this has to precede anything?
275
276 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I'm recommending two phases, the first being an education awareness outreach
277 comprehensive and it specifically targets schools where there is a lot of idling waiting .for children. Phase
278 two would be that there would be no regulation until this campaign has run and people have a chance to
279 learn about ozone emissions and clean air.
280
281 Larry Wright: I find this motion flawed, I like the first part but the second could make this go on forever
282 where nothing is ever done. I cannot support that because you could educate forever.
283
284 Mark Marcoplos: I agree. I think we should decouple that. The second motion I believe we're going to
285 hear speaks to regulation. I think we would want to be able to vote on a comprehensive awareness
286 campaign with or without any regulations. I think we would want to be able to say we like that in and of
287 itself. I am totally in favor of this awareness campaign but to have the condition that it must happen before
288 any regulation is not something that I can support.
289
290 MOTION made by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke recommending a comprehensive countywide education awareness
291 outreach campaign to specifically focus on schools where there is a lot idling affecting the health of
292 children. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt.
293
6
12
294 Michael Harvey: I think it would be prudent if we say, prior to making a formal recommendation on staff's
295 recommendation, the Planning Board proposal is to make a recommendation to the County Commissioners
296 that this education program commence or be undertaken. That's prior to the Board making any formal
297 decision on what has been presented to you this evening by staff.
298
299 Jeff Schmitt: Can I make a friendly amendment? That in the midst of that the educational campaign would
300 go about for a specific time period. Say a year or eighteen months. After the end of that time accessing
301 the results of that campaign we would then go back and entertain staffs recommendations at that time.
302
303 Brian Crawford: That's very different, if she makes that motion, it does address the staffs
304 recommendation.
305
306 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: I accept that.
307
308 Earl McKee: I've got one question, that amendment brings us back to either accepting option or option two?
309
310 Brian Crawford: No, we're not going to accept either option. We're putting the education option forward to
311 the Board of County Commissioners and we're not going to make any formal deliberation on the staffs
312 recommendation for another eighteen months as suggested.
313
314 Pete Hallenbeck: I'm clear on the motion, but I really like the statement a) let's educate and then b) put
315 something back on the Commissioners and have those be two independent things. I think that's a lot
316 clearer and something's going to happen. It gets it moving and there's not vagueness about when does
317 this start how do you fund it, what's the impact.
318
319 Nathan Chambers: We are saying eighteen months and the months the schools are out should be
320 considered. If we are going to start let's do it in the school season. Eighteen months is fine but there are
321 three months they are out so it should include two school seasons.
322
323 Larry Wright: Craig, can the Commissioners ask or do they have any influence over the superintendent of
324 the schools to have them start these programs?
325
326 Craig Benedict: Volunteer, yes. There's good dialog.
327
328 MorioN made by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke to have a comprehensive countywide awareness education program
329 about idling and the contaminants it puts in our breathing air. It will specifically focus on areas with children
330 and idling vehicles (such as schools, ball fields, etc.) to start in the fall of 2009 and end in the spring of
331 2011. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt.
332
333 VorE: 7-2 (Wright, Marcoplos)
334
335 Brian Crawford: Michael can you read the recommendation on Item 8 to the Planning Board.
336
337 Michael Harvey: What staff is recommending is that we pursue option two which is what we testified to at
338 the Public Hearing. Your options are to a) prohibit or b) regulate. The Board can make a further
339 recommendation as has already been discussed. You can make a motion for a third motion if you so
340 choose.
341
7
13
342 MOTwN made by Mark Marcoplos to recommend adopting regulations banning development and/or use of
343 new drive-thru facilities throughout the County's planning jurisdiction. Seconded by Larry Wright.
344
345 VOTE: 2 -7 (Bobbitt-Cooke, Schmitt, Hawkins, Crawford, McKee, Hallenbeck, Chambers)
346 The motion was denied
347
348 MOTION made by Earl McKee that the Planning Board not accept either option one nor option two and
349 recommend that the County Commissioners take no action at this time concerning the drive-thru facilities in
350 Orange County's planning jurisdiction. Seconded by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke.
351
352 VOTE: 7-2 {Wright, Marcoplos)
353
354
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Excerpt of Approved Minutes
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
February 23, 2009
7:30 p.m.
Attachment 3
14
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Monday, February 23, 2009 at 7:30
p.m. at the Central Orange Senior Center in Hillsborough, NC.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners
Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve
Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geof Gledhill
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Willie Best and Deputy Clerk to
the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Jay Bryan, Mary
Bobbitt-Cooke, Judith Wegner, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Dr. Larry Wright, and Mark Marcoplos
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice-Chair Jeffrey L. Schmitt, Joel Forrest
Knight, II, Samantha Cabe, Tommy McNeill, and Nathan Chambers
*******************************************************************************************************
4. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to
Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance to establish regulations for drive-thru facilities.
Michael Harvey summarized this information. This issue was brought up during the
review of a recent development project. Staff would like to seek direction from the Board about
what it would like to do as there are opportunities for economic development, specifically with
the Buckhorn Village project.
There are two options:
1. Adopt regulations banning the development and/or use of such facilities throughout
the County's planning jurisdiction, or
2. Adopt regulations designed to mitigate the impacts of such facilities through the
imposition of buffering and site design standards.
Commissioner Nelson asked about the exemption of stand-alone ATMs. Michael
Harvey said that there are drive-up ATMs in a lot of the jurisdictions and these are very
beneficial.
Commissioner Nelson said that his interest in pursuing this is reducing greenhouse
gasses. He is fine with option 1.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that the County should not ban drive-throughs if it is trying to
promote itself as business-friendly.
Commissioner Pelissier echoed Commissioner Nelson's comments and argued that the
County should try and attract certain kinds of businesses. She would like to change people's
habits and still be business-friendly.
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Commissioner Jacobs said that he might agree with the stand-alone ATMs, but if there is
a bank, there should not be adrive-through teller. He suggested that staff do research on other
jurisdictions in the country that have been successful in banning drive-thrus and the other
models that are out there.
Michael Harvey said that the staff did some research and did not come up with anything
conclusive. It was not exhaustive research.
Commissioner Pellisier clarified that schools would be exempt from this ban.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he had a conversation with Ms. Bobbitt-Cook about this
before the meeting and she pointed out that the Forsyth County Schools ask/require parents to
turn off their cars while they are in the drop-off/pick-up lane. He would like to put something in
writing to the school systems to try and work toward having people either not drive or at least
turn off cars.
Commissioner Gordon pointed out the issues with the aging population and people with
small children in their cars. There is more to think about than just the environmental aspect.
She would like to think about this more in terms of how to go about this.
Michael Harvey made reference to attachment 2 and the facts about car idling.
Commissioner Foushee supported Commissioner Yuhasz's and Commissioner Cordon's
comments. She said that what some people see as a convenience, other people see as a
necessity.
Craig Benedict said that the only hybrid idea was a carwash type conveyor belt, where
people would get in line at adrive-through and be shuttled through like a car wash. Staff will
continue its research.
Mark Marcoplos made reference to attachment 2 and said that cars should be turned off
after 6-10 seconds and not 30 seconds. He said that it seems that car idling is the issue here,
and there should be signs to tell people to turn off their cars while they are waiting.
Mary Bobbitt-Cooke said that she is struck by the fact that nobody has ever requested a
drive-through ordinance. She cautioned the County Commissioners to step back and not put
regulations in place when they are not even being asked for. She suggested not being
progressive through regulation, but being innovative. She believes in a combination of policy
and education.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Melvin Whitfield said that all of the creeks and branches on his property have already
been graded, dug out, fenced, and sown with grass. He asked if there was any point in doing
anything with this.
Commissioner Jacobs said that the Hillsborough Economic Development District that
was developed jointly 8-10 years ago banned drive-thrus and Hillsborough ignores this in
approving developments.
Commissioner Nelson said that Carrboro has had a prohibition for drive- thrus since
1994.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
County Board of Commissioners in time for the agenda schedule of the June 2, 2009 BOCC
meeting, and adjourn the public hearing until June 2, 2009 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS