Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-30-1999 - 3b-23)b.l Orange County Planning Staff Comments CONSISTENCY Between the Facilitated Small Area for Carrboro's Northern Study Area and Proposed Amendments to the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance Section 2.6C of the Joint Planning Agreement requires that (w)henever Chapel hill proposes to amend the text of its Land Development Ordinance, and whenever Carrboro proposes to amend the text of its Land Use Ordinance, the respective towns shall deliver a copy of the full text of the proposed amendment to Orange county not later than thirty (30) days before the date of the public hearing on any such amendment. The agreement further states that (u)nless Orange County files with the respective towns a written objection on or before the date of the public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment, then adoption of the amendment by the respective town shall automatically effect a corresponding amendment to the applicable ordinance adopted by reference by Orange County as provided in Section 2.1 C Any such objection shall be based on a determination by Orange County that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the adopted Joint Planning-Area Land Use Plan. Proposed amendments to the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance (hereafter referred to as the NSA Ordinance) to implement the recommendation of the Facilitated Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study Area were received in the specified timeframe. The amendments consist of 29 revisions or additions to the existing ordinance comprising 35 pages; some revisions are contained in one sentence whereas others are multiple pages in length. Additional attachments include vernacular architectural standards with photographs and illustrations. The approach to analyzing conformity of the 29 revisions with the adopted small area plan at this stage is brief. The title or content of each section is listed below with a brief assessment of its consistency or inconsistency with the adopted plan. The primary intent is to identify areas needing further investigation. Section 1. The article and section references contained in this ordinance are to the Carrboro land Use Ordinance. Consistent Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable _X Comments: Section 2. Residential density of major developments in certain districts. Consistent _X .Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable Comments: Formula for determining constrained lands needs to be same in plan and ordinance. Section 3. Primary and secondary conservation areas. Consistent X Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable Comments Section 4. Village mixed use district established Consistent X Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable Comments Section 5. Village mixed use developments. Consistent _X_ Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable Comments: This is the most extensive and detailed section of the ordinance comprising 12 pages of text. Section 6. Residential density bonuses for affordable housing. Consistent X Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable Comments Section 7. Add "Village Mixed Use Development" to table of permitted uses. Consistent X Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable Comments Section 8. O/A CUOffice/assembly conditional use. Consistent X Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable Comments Section 9. Add "Office/Assembly Planned Development" to table of permitted uses. Consistent X Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable Comments Section 10. Distinguishes between general rezoning and conditional use rezoning. Consistent X_ Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable Comments Section 11. "Good Neighbor "performance standards. Consistent X Inconsistent Not Addressed ~ Not Applicable Comments Section 12. Smoke, dust, fumes, vapors, gases, and odors. Consistent _X_ Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable Comments: Related to "Good Neighbor" performance standards. Section 13. Ground water supply. . Consistent X_ Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable Comments: Related to "Good Neighbor" performance standards. Section 14. Excessive illumination. Consistent _X_ Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable Comments: Related to "Good Neighbor" performance standards. Section 15. Outdoor illumination. Consistent _X_ Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable Comments: Related to "Good Neighbor" performance standards. Section 16. Noise. Consistent _X_ Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable Comments: Related to "Good Neighbor" performance standards. Section 17. Site planning procedures for major subdivisions. Consistent X Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable Comments Section 18. Stormwater management. Consistent Inconsistent Not Addressed _X_ Not Applicable Comments: Not addressed specifically, but can be inferred from statements on natural, cultural, and scenic resource protection. Section 19. Buffers in northern transition area. Consistent X Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable Comments Section 20. No clearcutting. Consistent Inconsistent Not Addressed _X_ Not Applicable Comments: Not addressed specifically, but can be inferred from statements on natural, cultural, and scenic resource protection. Section 21. Protective buffer along major roads. Consistent Inconsistent Not Addressed _X_ Not Applicable Comments: Not addressed specifically, but can be inferred from statements on natural, cultural, and scenic resource protection. - Section 22. Deletion of "Wintergreen Barberry"and "Japanese Barberry. " Consistent Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable _X Comments: Section 23. List of Invasive plant species. Consistent Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable X Comments: Section 24. Northern Transition Area Advisory Committee. Consistent X Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable Comments: 4 Section 25. Reduction of up to 2S percent in parking requirement for YMU or O/A. Consistent Inconsistent Not Addressed _X_ Not Applicable Comments: Not addressed specifically, but can be inferred from statements on incentives to commercial and office businesses that locate in neo-traditional developments Section 26. Appendix J-noise generators. Consistent Inconsistent Not Addressed _X_ Not Applicable Comments: Related to "Good Neighbor" performance standards. Section 27. Architectural standards for major subdivisions Consistent X Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable Comments Section 28. Provisions of any town ordinance in conflict with this ordinance repealed. Consistent- Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable _X Comments: Section 29. This ordinance effective upon adoption. Consistent Inconsistent Not Addressed Not Applicable X Comments: ~~ 3 :~o q 9 3~ LAw oFFICEs COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 129 E. TRYON STREET P. O. DRAWER 1529 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 919-732-2196 FAX 919.732-7997 March 30, 1999 Alice M. Gordon, Chair Margaret W. Brown Moses Carey, Jr. Stephen Halkiotis Barry Jacobs Orange County Board Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, North of Commissioners Carolina 27278 FROM THE DESK OF GEOFFREY E. GLEDHILL RE: Implementation of Recommendation of the Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study Area - Proposed NSA Ordinance Dear Board Members: I have spent some time studying the Ordinance Amending the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance to Implement the Recommendations of the Facilitated Small Area Plan for Carrboro's Northern Study Area, the so-called "NSA ordinance." This ordinance was formally transmitted to Orange County on February 19, 1999. I have also reviewed the March 16, 1999 Carrboro staff report to the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and the undated Orange County Planning staff comments to you concerning consistency between the NSA ordinance and the amended Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. My first observation is that I think that the Planning staff did an excellent job in highlighting the consistency issues. The second observation that I have is that it is impossible to make a Land Use Plan consistency review with the information transmitted to Orange County on February 19, 1999. This is because the NSA ordinance is structured like a piece of legislation, containing section numbers which are not in themselves part of the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance. Each section amends one or more of the sections of the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance by reference to the ordinance sections amended. Therefore, without having the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance in Orange County Board of Commissioners Page 2 March 30, 1999 front of you when reviewing the NSA ordinance, it is not possible to capture the full sense and impact of the NSA ordinance. Those of you who want to read the NSA ordinance and draw your own conclusions about it will need the existing Carrboro Land Use Ordinance to do so. My review focused principally on "big picture" issues. I noted several editing ideas that I will share with the County Planning Director for communication to his Carrboro counterpart. However, there is one "big picture" point that I want to make at this time. Section 4 of the NSA ordinance adds a section to the Carrboro Land Use Ordinance establishing village mixed use districts and providing the process for the creation of a village mixed use district . As you know, the village mixed use districts can be created anywhere in the NSA and will require both a legislative decision to create the zoning district and a conditional use permit decision. In other words, these districts will be conditional use zoning districts. However, Section 4 of the NSA ordinance introduces a concept that had not previously been discussed by the Board of County Commissioners. That concept is "master planning." Under the master plan concept the Board of Aldermen will consider concurrently the rezoning application and the master plan proposal. At that point the legislative decision making is completed. Thereafter, a master planned village proposal goes through the conditional use permit process. However, it appears from the way the ordinance is drafted that the conditional use permit process will be wholly administrative, not concurrent with the legislative rezoning process and presumably will not involve the Orange County Board of Commissioners. In summary, the NSA ordinance permits someone applying with a village mixed use proposal to follow one of two paths. The first path would be to file a rezoning application and simultaneously file a conditional use permit application for the village mixed use development. In that case, the rezoning application and the conditional use permit application would be reviewed concurrently by the Board of Aldermen and by the Orange County Commissioners and would include a joint public hearing on both applications. The second path the developer could follow would be to submit an application for the rezoning of the property and an application for a master plan proposal. In that case, the rezoning application and the master plan application would be reviewed concurrently by the Board of Aldermen and by the Orange County Commissioners and would include a joint public hearing involving the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of Aldermen. The difference in the two paths is Orange County Board of Commissioners Page 3 March 30, 1999 significant. The master plan path takes Orange County out of the conditional use permit process. The conditional use permit path involves Orange County in the conditional use permit process. The master plan approach may not be consistent with the Board's view about its role in the village mixed use conditional use districts. You'll recall that the Joint Planning Agreement was amended to provide for a joint public hearing for conditional use zoning applications and to provide that no village mixed use conditional use and no office assembly conditional user zoning classifications can be made until an ordinance approving the zoning map amendment has been approved by Orange County. I think the Board envisioned that the administrative special use permit process and decision would be coupled with the legislative zoning process and decision in all cases and both would be part of the joint public hearing. The master plan concept clearly separates,' in time and in responsibility, the legislative rezoning process from the administrative special use permit process. Very truly yours, COLEMAN, ~LEDFiILL & FiARGRAVE, P . C . E. ~Gl~Zill GEG/lsg xc: Craig Benedict John M. Link, Jr. mydocuments/bdofcom27.ltr. The office assembly conditional use district process in the NSA ordinance does not include a master plan concept.