HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-18-2009 - 5bORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: August 18, 2009
1
Action Agenda
Item No. ,5 - b
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Relating to Development Limits within
Nodes
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Proposed Ordinance Amendment
2. Minutes -June 3, 2009 Planning Board Craig Benedict, Director 245-2592
3. Draft Minutes -May 18, 2009 Quarterly Michael D. Harvey, Planner 245-2607
Public Hearing
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation and consider taking action on a
staff initiated Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section(s) 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 seeking to
modify existing development limitations on non-residential development within Nodes.
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the May 18, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing. As
staff stated during the hearing, the Ordinance currently limits the total amount of non-
residentially zoned property permitted within a Node based on population density. The various
Nodes are limited to a total of ten (10) acres of non-residential zoning.
It was determined, after the review of a Zoning Atlas Petition at the November 24, 2008
Quarterly Public Hearing, that a more reasonable method for regulating non-residential zoning
within the Nodes was needed.
During the hearing, the following general comments were made relating to the proposed
amendment:
1. A Board member expressed concern that the Planned Development process would allow
more non-residential development within the Nodes than was acceptable,
2. A Board member suggested exempting septic and repair area from the acreage
calculation in an effort to address the problem in the short term,
3. A Board member indicated there ought to be an evaluation of the existing land uses to
determine if they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and
4. A Board member expressed concern that this amendment could allow for additional non-
residential development within certain protected and critical watershed overlay districts.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its June 3, 2009
regular meeting.
There was extensive discussion on the need to begin reviewing each individual Node and begin
the Small Area Plan process to identify acceptable non-residential land uses for each. Some
Board members expressed concern over the proposed amendment without first initiating the
Small Area Plan process. In the end, the Board determined that the proposed amendment was
essential to address a long standing problem within the Rural Community Activity Nodes, most
notably the White Cross Node, and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
proposed amendment.
STAFF COMMENT: In addressing the various comments made by the BOCC and Planning
Board, staff would like to offer the following:
1. Staff agrees with both Boards that a comprehensive study needs to be initiated to identify
the acceptable non-residential land uses permitted within the Nodes but believes that this
amendment is essential to address an existing conflict within the Ordinance.
2. Staff understands the concern over potentially allowing additional non-residential
development, through the Planned Development process, above and beyond any
established limit within the Nodes. It is out opinion, however, that the proposed provision
will not result in a dramatic increase in non-residential development within the Nodes and
that the existing review process will allow for sufficient public involvement and comment
to address any and all local concerns that might arise.
3. Staff is uncomfortable with exempting septic and repair area from any established
acreage limitation give the fact that this land area is a crucial component in determining a
given non-residential development projects sustainability. In staff's mind there is no
difference between the area of property encumbered by the septic system and the
parking lot that is necessary to support a proposed non-residential land use.
4. This amendment will only increase the existing non-residential acreage limitation within
Rural Community Activity Nodes from five (5) acres of Local Commercial One (LC-1) and
Neighborhood Commercial Two (2) to ten (10) acres for each district. This amendment
will not allow for non-residential development to occur within any protected or critical
watershed overlay district where such development is currently prohibited.
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 the Ordinance amendment as detailed within Attachment One (1 ).
Attachment 1
oRD-aoo9-o3o Q
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, there has been heightened scrutiny over existing limitations imposed
on the cumulative level of non-residential development permitted within Rural
Community Activity Nodes, and
WHEREAS, the current language within the Zoning Ordinance is ambiguous and
had resulted in multiple interpretations as to the acceptable levels of non-residential
development within the Rural Community Activity Nodes, and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment establishes a definable limit on the
amount of non-residential development within the various Rural Community Activity
Nodes that removes any potential ambiguity for local residents and staff.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, hereby amends the Orange County Zoning Ordinance
by adding (indicated by double underlined language) and deleting (indicated by stricken
through language) as follows:
PART I: That Section 4.2.8 (b) (4) be amended as follows:
4. The maximum amount of land zoned LC-1 within Rural
Community Activity Nodes shall be limited to ten (10) acres with a
five (5) acre limitation imposed within other Nodes, specifically
Rural Neighborhood and Rural Industrial Nodes, as defined within
the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Additional rezoning may
be possible through the submittal, processing, and approval of a
Planned Development in accordance with the provisions of Article
Seven (7) of the Ordinance in situations where a Node has reached
capacity. Acreage limitations shall not apply to property zoned
Existing Commercial-V (EC-5) or planned developments.
PART II: That Section 4.2.9 (b) (4) be amended as follows:
4. The maximum amount of land zoned NC-2 within Rural
Community Activity Nodes shall be limited to ten (10) acres with a
five (5) acre limitation imposed within other Nodes, specifically
Rural Neighborhood and Rural Industrial Nodes, as defined within
the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. Additional rezoning may
be possible through the submittal, processing, and approval of a
Planned Development in accordance with the provisions of Article
Seven (7) of the Ordinance in situations where a Node has reached
capacity. Acreage limitations shall not apply to property zoned
Existing Commercial-V (EC-5) or planned developments.
Upon motion of Commissioner
Commissioner
Ordinance amendments were adopted this the
2009 and shall become effective upon adoption.
seconded by
the foregoing Zoning
day of
Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners
Attachment 2
1 Minutes
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 JUNE 3, 2009
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large (Chair); Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheek Township Representative;
7 Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township At-Large; Mark Marcoplos, Bingham Township At-Large; Earl McKee, Little River Township
8 Representative; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove
9 Township At-Large; Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough Representative; Tommy McNeill, Eno Township Representative
10
11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township At-Large; Vacant, At-Large
12
13 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator; Robert Davis, Planner III;
14 Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer; Eddie Kirk, Planner II; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II;
15
16 OTHERS PRESENT: Kimberly Lewis; Margaret Lewis; Alvon Lewis; Lucy Fearrington; Joseph Fearrington; Noah Hams; Ola Harris;
17 Kirstin Frescoln; Louis Kingsland; Vicky Hendel; Walter Whitlock; David Holdaway; Kent Wiles; Tom Holt; Andrew Nobel; Lee
18 Lambert; Steve Prakken; Sheyko & Nichole Sergey; Ann Waller; Greg Forest; Jay Harris; Derek Harris; Jon, Cheryl, Katlyn &
19 Kegan Edwards; Clementine Self; Johanne Gisledth
20
21 **~.***~*,*,**,.*,.****,~,*,.***.~~..~,*******,~,**„*.~****„
22
23 AGENDA ITEM 9: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: Article four (4) Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule
24 Section(s) 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 to modify existing standards governing the acceptable level of non-residential
25 zoned area permitted within Commercial activity, Rural Neighborhood, and Rural Community Activity
26 Nodes.
27 To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding this item heard at the May 18, 2009 Quarterly
28 Public Hearing.
29
30 Presenter: Michael Harvey
31
32 Michael Harvey: The item relates to a proposed amendment is to Section 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance seeking to
33 revise existing development limitations within the various Nodes within Orange County. The Board will recall from a recent
34 zoning atlas amendment petition we have limitations within each of the existing Nodes on how much non-residential
35 development can occur. Right now the Ordinance says that non-residential development shall be limited to 5 acres.
36
37 Judith Wegner: Could you explain nodes?
38
39 Michael Harvey: Anode is a geographic area of the County defined within the Comprehensive Plan and denoted on the Land
40 Use Element Map as having potential for allowing non-residential development activities. Nodes are normally located at road
41 intersections or strategic points of the County. One of the justifications for the nodes was to try to encourage non-residential
42 development in rural areas of the County that would satisfy some of the basic needs of the surrounding property owners without
43 requiring them to commute long distances to urbanizing areas of the County. There are five rural community activity nodes.
44 There are also subcategories of nodes with the same essential purpose and function although when you read the
45 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5, their purpose is not as grandiose as the rural community nodes. Ultimately, nodes are located
46 in an effort to try to take advantage of major rural roadway intersections throughout the County to allow for reasonable
47 commercial or non-residential development. The Ordinance currently limits how much development can go within in these
48 Nodes. What staff purposed is to increase the amount of acreage allowed for non-residential development. We brought this to
49 the Planning Board as an information item and the Planning Board. The Planning Board recommended a course of action that
50 would have seen an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance specifically geared to addressing non-residential development limits
51 within the White Cross Rural Community Activity Node. The problem staff had with that recommendation was it singled out one
52 Node to allow for heightened level of development. The Comprehensive Plan does not treat the Nodes differently and as a result
53 we cannot, from a Zoning standpoint, adopt an amendment that treats one node differently from the others. Its all or nothing for
54 us. That would take a Comprehensive Plan amendment. That's an even longer process. So the compromise we have put
55 forward was to recommend that non-residential development within all rural community activity nodes would be raised to 10
56 acres for both Local Commercial One and Neighborhood Commercial Two development projects. We also put in a provision
57 stipulating that there was a possibility you could get more if you went through the planned development process. There were a
58 lot of comments at the Quarterly Public Hearing and they were across the board with no real consensus with what should
59 happen.
60
0
61 Judith Wegner: You said there were other subcategories in the Comprehensive Plan and it seems that having an across the
62 board approach when we know these are different in character, is questionable. I also am not sure what we should do with this
63 so none of those listing items seems very satisfactory at this point without getting into it more. How does the small area plan fit
64 into this?
65
66 Michael Harvey: From staffs prospective, we go to the Board of County Commissioners and they authorize the development of
67 the small area plan, the Board sanctions the process, we begin the process. Then they took a few months to review and
68 approve.
69
70 Judith Wegner: I really don't understand why we go through extensive planning and then we sit around before we have an
71 official stance. I am confused by that.
72
73 Michael Harvey: That is a question you will have to ask the elected officials.
74
75 Judith Wegner: How can we sit in our 6:30 sessions what we want to learn about, I wonder if we get an overview of the different
76 small area plan processes that have been worked on in recent memory and I would really like to know how we set priorities
77 about what is going to happen.. I know White Cross Development has not been dealt with yet. I can see a maturation process
78 that you are a rural node until you are certified for a small area plan and at that time, you finish that up and that's kind of the
79 cycle where you deal with some of this. I think those are all important plans that people did a lot of work on and I would think that
80 would be hard to have us understand it so we're all working together around it .
81
82 Craig Benedict: At the August 24 Quarterly Public Hearing, we will have information items will be what we do with existing small
83 area plans we have not implemented yet and we will add the context you asked for tonight, how does something get in queue to
84 start a small area plan and how can we get it implemented in a better timeframe. Some of the small area plans we've done have
85 languished because they have waited for the Comprehensive Plan update to be adopted.
86
87 Judith Wegner: I could see, hypothetically, the speedway areas I remember, we talked about what might go there and I could
88 see that could be a good framework when talking about conditional use zoning. You might make more headway if we took each
89 of those examples and saw what was in it could really give us some idea about what aspects you could build into a unified
90 development ordinance.
91
92 Craig Benedict: We may have something at the August Planning Board meeting as a precursor as to what would be discussed
93 at the August 24 Quarterly Public Hearing.
94
95 Judith Wegner: Is there a reason not to do it in July.
96
97 Craig Benedict: Staff will have a meeting on Friday about exactly what you are talking about. I will talk about it with them.
98
99 Judith Wegner: Are there other things in line?
100
101 Brian Crawford: Craig, when we get together to discuss the agenda, let's talk about these issues and I will talk to Judith.
102
103 Perdita Holtz: It sounds like what you are looking for is just to inform the new Planning Board members what is in the plans not
104 that you are expecting us to come in July with how we will implement those plan.
105
106 Brian Crawford: Mark Marcoplos suggested to me that before we make any motions that I give everyone on the Planning Board
107 a chance to speak so before we make a motion, let's make sure every speaks.
108
109 Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: Thank you for thinking about what we need to know as far as all the different types of nodes and all the
110 different planning those different groups have done at different times in the County. I am wondering if this Ordinance has to be
111 tied to that. I am looking back at our history with this and the one thing about the White Cross area with the store that has
112 trouble with the septic field has a long history. There was supposed to be an evaluation and it wasn't done. This person has a
113 long history of waiting. I understand there is a fabulous restaurant that would like the ability to expand to meet the customer
114 .demand. This is recommending that each of the rural community activity nodes be limited to 10 acres with a five acre limitation
115 and if they need additional property or rezoning that they submit a rezoning plan.
116
117 MorioN made Mary Bobbitt-Cooke to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners amend the Orange County Zoning
118 Ordinance as presented to the Planning Board by the staff. Seconded by Larry Wright.
119 Vore: Unanimous
Excerpt of Draft Minutes
Attachment 3
O
1 DRAFT
2
3 MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
6 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
7 May 18, 2009
8 7:00 p.m.
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
11 met for a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Monday, May 18, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
12 at the Central Orange Senior Center in Hillsborough, NC.
13
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners
15 Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz
16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mike Nelson
17 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Willie Best and Deputy Clerk to
19 the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
20 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Rachel Phelps
21 Hawkins, Mark Marcoplos, Jeffrey L. Schmitt, Tommy McNeill, Pete Hallenbeck, and Earl
22 McKee
23 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Judith Wegner, Dr.
24 Larry Wright, Samantha Cabe, and Nathan Chambers
25
26 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
27 Chair Foushee called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. She called attention to the public
28 charge. She turned the meeting over to Brian Crawford, Planning Board Chair.
29
30 *************************************************************
31
32 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
33
34
35 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to
36 Article Four (4) Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule Section(s) 4.2.8 and
37 4.2.9 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to modify existing standards governing the
38 acceptable level of non-residential zoned area permitted within Commercial activity, Rural
39 Neighborhood, and Rural Community Activity Nodes.
40
41 AGENDA ITEM: C2
42 PUBLIC HEARING
43 Review of a proposal to amend
44 Section(s) 4.2.8 and 4.2.9
45 of the Zoning Ordinance
46 to modify existing standards governing the acceptable level of non-residential zoning within
47 Nodes
48
49 ISSUE:
Excerpt of Craft Minutes
1 •The Zoning Ordinance, specifically Section 4.2.8 and 4.2.9, establish limits on the total amount
2 of non-residential zoning permitted within a Node,
3 •The Ordinance would allow up to a total of nine (9) acres but only in instances where existing
4 density within a given Node is similar to existing Transition Areas,
5 •If density within the Nodes is not similar to existing Transition Areas, non-residential zoning is
6 limited to five (5) acres,
7 •The review of a recent rezoning petition during the November 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing
8 brought these limitations under greater scrutiny,
9 •Staff believes there is an opportunity to allow for the Nodes to be developed as originally
10 intended by the County and provide greater opportunity for the County Commissioners to be
11 more involved with the development process
12
13 Example Node Boundaries:
14 PROPOSAL:
15 •Amend Section(s) 4.2.8 (b) (4) and 4.2.9 (b) (4) to increase the maximum allowable non-
16 residential development within Rural Community Activity Nodes to ten (10) acres,
17 •Limit non-residential development within other Nodes to five (5) acres (i.e. Five (5) acres of LC-
18 1 and NC-2 zoning), and
19 •Include a provision allowing the possibility of additional non-residential development with the
20 submission, review, and approval of a Planned Development (PD) application
21
22 RATIONALE:
23 •The Rural Community Activity Nodes were intended to allow for higher intensity non-residential
24 development to eliminate the need for residents to commute to urbanizing areas. By increasing
25 the cumulative amount of allowable non-residential zoning we accomplish this goal,
26 •The remaining Nodes can still be developed at what staff has determined acceptable levels of
27 intensity given their purpose as defined within the Comprehensive Plan
28 •By adding new language relating to the possible allowance of additional non-residential zoning
29 through the review of a Planned Development project, the County has the opportunity to
30 address changing needs within the Nodes without having to continuously amend the Zoning
31 Ordinance
32
33 Staff Recommendations:
34 •Receive the staff initiated zoning text amendment proposal including staff's report and
35 presentation materials,
36 •Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comments from all interested parties,
37 •Refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the County
38 Board of Commissioners in time for the August 18, 2009 BOCC meeting,
39 •Adjourn the Public Hearing until August 18, 2009 in order to receive the Planning Board's
40 recommendation.
41
42
43 Mark Marcoplos said that the Rural Neighborhood Node, which is close to where he
44 lives, has a convenience store, a nursery, a horse feed/general hardware store, and other
45 businesses, including a junk yard. He said that there is more activity in the rural neighborhood
46 than in the Rural Community Activity Node. He said that the transfer station is supposed to go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Excerpt of draft Minutes
in the Rural Neighborhood Node. He said that there is a UNC Animal Testing Facility here and
there is a huge amount of expansion in this area. He said that the map does not really
communicate the activity that is going on and it is confusing.
Commissioner Gordon said that there is some uncertainty about boundaries and she is
concerned about this. She said that the boundary should be certain, and if the boundary has to
be modified, then it can be amended.
Michael Harvey said that one of the reasons for the planned development is so that
there can be some non-residential uses.
Commissioner Pelissier said that it seems that this is a response to a particular request
for rezoning. She said that, if the County is going to implement the Revised Comprehensive
Plan, then this seems piece meal and not looking at the big picture.
There was no public comment.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon
refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the County Board
of Commissioners in time for the August 18, 2009 BOCC meeting and adjourn the public
hearing until August 18, 2009 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS