Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20090518 APPROVED 8/18/2009 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING May 18, 2009 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Monday, May 18, 2009 at 7:00 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, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mike Nelson COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts 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, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Mark Marcoplos, Jeffrey L. Schmitt, Tommy McNeill, Pete Hallenbeck, and Earl McKee PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Judith Wegner, Dr. Larry Wright, Samantha Cabe, and Nathan Chambers A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Foushee called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. She called attention to the public charge. She turned the meeting over to Brian Crawford, Planning Board Chair. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: To receive public comment on proposed amendment(s) to Article Seven (7) Planned Development Section 7.2.8 Time Limit of Start of Construction of Planned Development of the Orange County Ordinance clarifying existing regulations governing the commencement of construction activities. Planner Michael Harvey made this presentation. AGENDA ITEM: C1 PUBLIC HEARING Proposal to amend Article Seven (7) Planned Development— Section 7.2.8 of the Zoning Ordinance Regarding PD/SUP construction activities Section 7.2.8 CURRENT ORDINANCE Planned Development (PD)/ Special Use Permit (SUP) Approval •Start construction within (12) months, •If construction is not within the stated time frame permit becomes null and void, •Request possible for a single six-month extension from the Board of County Commissioners, •Time extension approval; Based on evidence Permits have been pursued in a timely manner, Factors beyond the control of the applicant STAFF ANALYSIS: •Large scale `master planned' and multi-phased projects will have problems adhering to the twelve (12) month requirement •Local, State, and Federal permits. —Infrastructure, Roads, Utilities, Environmental processes are more lengthy. •North Carolina Department of Transportation and Interstate Federal government permits •Water and Sewer; Design, Permitting and Easements. •NO standards; extension approval or denial decision. •NO processes review extension requests •NO clear definition on what constitutes construction PROPOSAL: Staff is proposing to amend Section 7.2.8 as follows •Differentiate single-use and multi-use planned development projects, •Maintain single-use site specific projects to twelve (12) month construction, •Start multi-use projects approved under a master plan with a master plan within forty-eight (48) months pursuant to a Infrastructure /Construction Progress Plan •Secure permits from multiple local, State, and Federal agencies •Demonstrate progress with report, annual basis Detail Standards to be utilized to determine the approvability of an extension request for single use Special Use Permits •Continue to allow for a six (6) month extension for single-use site planned projects Staff Recommendations: •Receive the staff initiated zoning text amendment proposal including staff's report and presentation materials, •Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comments from all interested parties, •Refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned in time for the August 18, 2009 BOCC meeting, •Adjourn the Public Hearing until August 18, 2009 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation. Commissioner Hemminger asked how 48 months was selected and it was answered that permits would have to be obtained from NCDOT and easements would also have to be obtained. This is a reasonable amount of time for these things. Commissioner Yuhasz asked for clarity on whether major projects would have to come back every 12 months to show that they were proceeding. Commissioner Jacobs asked Michael Harvey to check and see how Chapel Hill and Carrboro do extensions and for the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board to see. He thinks that when there is an extension, then the applicant could stipulate how many months the extension should be. He thinks that the staff should monitor progress. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the first page and that the applicant can only request an extension from the Board of County Commissioners upon the favorable recommendation of the Planning Board. He thinks that this is wrong, and he would like to change this. He respects the Planning Board, but there might be other interests of the Board of County Commissioners that would make it important to have an extension. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the statement, "It should be noted that no extension request shall be approved if such request represents an alteration." He asked for a definition of an alteration. Michael Harvey pointed this definition out in the article. There was no public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned in time for the August 18, 2009 BOCC meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to Article Four (4) Establishment of Permitted Use Table and Schedule Section(s) 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to modify existing standards governing the acceptable level of non-residential zoned area permitted within Commercial activity, Rural Neighborhood, and Rural Community Activity Nodes. AGENDA ITEM: C2 PUBLIC HEARING Review of a proposal to amend Section(s) 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance to modify existing standards governing the acceptable level of non-residential zoning within Nodes ISSUE: •The Zoning Ordinance, specifically Section 4.2.8 and 4.2.9, establish limits on the total amount of non-residential zoning permitted within a Node, •The Ordinance would allow up to a total of nine (9) acres but only in instances where existing density within a given Node is similar to existing Transition Areas, •If density within the Nodes is not similar to existing Transition Areas, non-residential zoning is limited to five (5) acres, •The review of a recent rezoning petition during the November 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing brought these limitations under greater scrutiny, •Staff believes there is an opportunity to allow for the Nodes to be developed as originally intended by the County and provide greater opportunity for the County Commissioners to be more involved with the development process Example Node Boundaries: PROPOSAL: •Amend Section(s) 4.2.8 (b) (4) and 4.2.9 (b) (4) to increase the maximum allowable non- residential development within Rural Community Activity Nodes to ten (10) acres, •Limit non-residential development within other Nodes to five (5) acres (i.e. Five (5) acres of LC- 1 and NC-2 zoning), and •Include a provision allowing the possibility of additional non-residential development with the submission, review, and approval of a Planned Development (PD) application RATIONALE: •The Rural Community Activity Nodes were intended to allow for higher intensity non-residential development to eliminate the need for residents to commute to urbanizing areas. By increasing the cumulative amount of allowable non-residential zoning we accomplish this goal, •The remaining Nodes can still be developed at what staff has determined acceptable levels of intensity given their purpose as defined within the Comprehensive Plan •By adding new language relating to the possible allowance of additional non-residential zoning through the review of a Planned Development project, the County has the opportunity to address changing needs within the Nodes without having to continuously amend the Zoning Ordinance Staff Recommendations: •Receive the staff initiated zoning text amendment proposal including staff's report and presentation materials, •Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comments from all interested parties, •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, •Adjourn the Public Hearing until August 18, 2009 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation. Mark Marcoplos said that the Rural Neighborhood Node, which is close to where he lives, has a convenience store, a nursery, a horse feed/general hardware store, and other businesses, including a junk yard. He said that there is more activity in the rural neighborhood than in the Rural Community Activity Node. He said that the transfer station is supposed to go 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 3. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to Article Six (6) Application of Dimensional Requirements Section 6.23.1 Land Use Restrictions to modify existing regulations prohibiting non-residential development within the University Lake Critical and Protected, Cane Creek Critical, and Upper Eno Critical Watershed Protection Overlay Districts. AGENDA ITEM: C3 PUBLIC HEARING Review of a proposal to amend Section 6.23.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to modify existing regulations prohibiting non-residential development within certain Protected and Critical Watershed Overlay Districts ISSUE: Section 6.23.1 prohibits non-residential development within the University Protected and Critical, Cane Creek Critical, and Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay Districts, Staff has determined that the majority of the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node is located within the Upper Eno Critical Watershed Overlay District, •As a result the development potential of this Node is limited, Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node: STAFF COMMENT: Staff does not believe it was the intent of the County to outright prohibit non-residential developments within established Nodes when it adopted the Watershed Overlay Districts in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Staff believes that there is room for compromise that will allow for development within the Nodes while preserving the integrity of the watershed areas consistent with the various goals of the Comprehensive Plan. PROPOSAL: Staff is proposing to amend Section 6.23.1 by adding the following language (in bold): No commercial or industrial uses are permitted except within established Nodes as detailed within the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. •This amendment would only permit non-residential development within various protected and critical water sheds in instances where there is an established Node. RATIONALE: •As previously indicated, staff does not believe the County intended to restrict development within the various Nodes when it adopted watershed regulations, •This amendment would allow for a reasonable level of non-residential development within a Node even if it is located within a certain classification of protected or critical watershed, •This amendment would only impact the Cedar Grove Rural Community Activity Node Staff Recommendations: •Receive the staff initiated zoning text amendment proposal including staff's report and presentation materials, •Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comments from all interested parties, •Refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned in time for the September 1, 2009 BOCC meeting, •Adjourn the Public Hearing until September 1, 2009 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation. Orange County Planning Director Craig Benedict said that three quarters of the uses at the intersection of Efland-Cedar Grove Road and Carr Store Road are within the critical area. There has been some difficulty with historic buildings that want to continue commercial operation into the future. This amendment will enable that. Commissioner Gordon said that if there is a mechanism to expand outside this area, she would like some language to prevent expansion into the watershed. Michael Harvey said that the boundaries can only be changed through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He said that staff is trying to provide a scenario where the node could be utilized as it was originally intended. He said that Orange County was proactive in expanding and being stricter in the watershed. County Attorney John Roberts said that he would look into it and develop some language. There was no public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned in time for the September 1, 2009 BOCC meeting, and adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2009 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING BOCC CLOSED SESSION: A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to go into closed session at 8:15pm: "Pursuant to NCGS § 143-318.11(a)(6) to consider the qualifications, competence, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee" VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to reconvene into regular session at 11:00 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board