Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2009-018-Zoning Ordinance Amendment Establishing Regulations for Drive Thru Facilitiesli ' ~ `SOD 9 ~isa~~rau~e~ 1. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 2, 2009 Action Agenda Item No. , S - ~ SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Establishinq Regulations for Drive-thru Facilities DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YlN) 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 hem 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 all 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. Deftnition 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 dr'nre-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 drNe-thru, or parking facilities, b. No menu board utilized as part of a drive-thru shall 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: i. 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, ii. 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. f. 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. 5 i. 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.) 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 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 Excerpt of Approved Minutes MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD APRIL 1, 2009 REGULAR MEETING Attachment 2 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large (Chair); Mary Bobbin-Cooke, Cheeks Township; Nathan Chambers, Cheeks Township At-Large; Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough Township; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township; Earl McKee, Little River Township; Mark Marcoplos; Bingham Township At-Large; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove Township At-Large; Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township At-Large MEMBERS ABSENT: Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township; Tommy McNeill, Eno Township STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director, Robert Davis, Planner III; Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator, Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II AGENDA ITEM 8: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -ARTICLE 6 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR DRNE-THRU FACILITIES ' To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding this item heard at the February 23, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing Presenter: Michael Harvey, Zoning Enforcement Officer Michael Harvey: Good Evening once again. As the Board may recall, at the February Quarterly Public Hearing we presented an ordinance amendment with two options on the possible regulation of drive-thrus and the use of drive-thrus in the County. The two options are as follows, we amend Article 6 to ban them or amend Article 6 to adopt some regulations to address the negative side impacts that are generated from their use. The County Commissioners, after conducting the Public Hearing;-were unable to come to any consensus to provide staff or the Planning Board any direction. We have provided you with both options: We are recommending that the Planning Board consider adopting regulations amending the operational characteristic of drive-thrus and we hope we've come up with some standards that would address the concerns that have been expressed by both Planning Board and County Commissioners over their development for the County. Attachment one is the proposed ordinance amendments for both options for this Board to consider, options one and two. Attachment two has several articles and/or web pages and general information dealing with drive-thrus. Brian Crawford: Michael, I would just like to take a moment to complement you on this abstract, there's some good information in here and I thought it was fairly balanced on pros and cons. Thank you good information. Are there any questions? Larry Wright: I would like to, first of all say that this is a very good package, I'm really concerned about the study of the Sierra Research. The first thing about the study is that they are comparing two different regions of California, one is in the high mountains and the other is lower California. There are two things they omitted here, the first is what really hits our pocketbook and that's ozone. We pay for that because 6 7 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 that is measured throughout the year. States that are not in compliance with the 1990 Title 2 Clean Air Act result in counties having to pay for added oxidations or oxidants in fuel and we pay for that at the pump. We pay for that and that is not in here. Also not in here is anything about particulates, emissions particulates, and they are not measuring that. So there are two parts of the study that are not really measured and the particulates are really of importance to small children, the elderly, asthmatics, and people with obstructive pulmonary disorders. I see some flaws in this study and I'm conflicted on this. It looks to me like you have this lobby group, California Business Properties Association that is paying for this study. I boked and California Business Properties Association are advocates for shopping centers and real estates firms. I'm not sure where I am on this whole thing but I just wanted to point some problems with that study. Jeff Schmitt: In the midst of the discussion, I would Pike to resurrect option one, (do nothing) handicapped people today this is going to create a significant issue for them when they go to use a drive-in facility. Parents with children who could previously go thru a facility with their children in the car safely in their seats 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. I'm not sure that we have enough of this in the County that it creates that big of an environmental issue and think this is somewhat of over reaction on the part of the Commissioners in bringing this forward. From my perspective the questions and how we look at this, I'd like to have that in a context to think about it. (Document "The Idle Free School Zone Projecf - 2006-2007" was passed out by staff from Planning Board Member Mary Bobbin-Cooke.J Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: If you remember at the Quarterly Hearing, I talked about what Forsyth County had done in terms of really kinking at places where there were a lot of particulates and bad air around children. They have initiated an idle free school zone project. Basically, it's an education project which is always a good way to reach out first before you start doing a lot of regulation. It educates the parents to turn the car off while they're waiting for their children to come out from school or when they are going to drop off. It has posters they send around and it helps parents transfer the behavior to other situations where if you're idling more than a minute you shut your car off and they understand how it affects children's asthma as well as the whole concept of air. I live close to Grady Brown and the High School and that's build right next to a highway. I think the parents in the grade schools in Orange County would be willing to listen to this. What. they did in Forsyth County was there is no policy, they negotiated with the principal and the school staff to put this in order.. They have a Triad air awareness.and emergency management program; all these groups came together and worked with the schools to put this into place. It has been adopted by all the grade schools and now they are moving into the middle schools. This is something we might want to ask the County Commissioners to do first. The second thing in Forsyth County was the county employees have been asked to turn their cars off. This is to model the kind of behavior they want all the residents in the County to follow. I am thinking I would like to add to JefPs~ proposal to resurrect option one, do nothing in terms of regulation but let's start working in the areas where our children are and two see if the County Manager would be willing to talk with the Forsyth County manager about this regulation and was it difficult to put in place. Maybe staff here might want to react to that, do you have one in place? Michael Harvey: We don't have one in place; I think the one in Forsyth GoUnty is a policy and a suggestion. It is unenforceable which is why it's not a regulation so we need to be careful with how we do that. Mary Bobbitt-Cooke: In terms of doing number one, do nothing in terms of regulation, I'm suggesting that we say, let's do no regulation but let's consider some education and outreach where we can have behavior 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 atizens 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, l 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 team 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 Buckhom 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 teamed 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 Schmift: 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 Eari 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. 1 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 Jeft's 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 22I 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, 1 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. 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 antiapate Z50 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 showefiead 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 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 team 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 MorioN 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 staffs 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 t make a friendly amendment? That in the midst of that the educational campaign would 300 go about for a specfic time period. Say a year or eighteen months. Auer 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 Ear! McKee: I've got one question, that amendment brings us back to either accepting option or optiori 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 !et's do it in the school season. Eighteen months is fine but there are 321 three months they are out so it shook! 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 MOTION 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 fail of 2009 and end in the spring of 331 2011. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt. 332 333 VOTE: 7-2 (Vllright, 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) prohibitor 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 MOTION made by Mark Marcoplos to recommend adopting regulations banning development andlor 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 MonoN 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 8 Excerpt of Approved Minutes Attachment~34 1 2 3 MINUTES 4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 5 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 6 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING 7 February 23, 2009 g 7:30 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, February 23, 2009 at 7:30 12 p.m. at the Central Orange Senior Center in Hillsborough, NC. 13 1~4 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners 15 Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve 16 Yuhasz 17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: 18 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geof Gledhill 19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Willie Best and Deputy Clerk to 20 the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) 21 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Jay Bryan, Mary 22 Bobbin Cooke, Judith Wegner, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Dr. Larry Wright, and Mark Marcoplos 23 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice-Chair Jeffrey L. Schmitt, Joel Fon'est 24 Knight, II, Samantha Cabe, Tommy McNeill, and Nathan Chambers 25 27 28 4. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: To receive public comment on proposed amendments to 29 Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance to establish regulations for drive-thtu faalities. 30 31 Michael Harvey summarized this information. This issue was brought up during the 32 review of a recent development project. Staff would like to seek direction from the Board about 33 what it would like to do as there are opportunities for economic development, specifically with 34 the Buckhorn Village project. 35 There are two options: 36 1. Adopt regulations banning the development andJor use of such facilities throughout 37 the County's planning jurisdiction, or 38 2. Adopt regulations designed to mitigate the impacts of such facilities through the 39 imposition of buffering and site design standards. 40 41 ~ Commissioner Nelson asked about the exemption of stand-alone ATMs. Michael 42 Harvey said that there are drive-up ATMs in a lot of the jurisdictions and these are very 43 beneficial. 44 Commissioner Nelson said that his interest in pursuing this is reducing greenhouse 45 gasses. He is fine with option 1. 46 Commissioner Yuhasz said that the County should not ban drive-throughs if it is trying to 47 promote itself as business-friendly. 48 Commissioner Pelissier echoed Commissioner Nelson's comments and argued that the 49 County should try and attract certain kinds of businesses. She would like to change people's 50 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 ~-a~~U9 ,~i5ci ®®~o d ~ Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 26 and the Transfer to Orange High Track and Football Field Project and said that he cannot find the other side of it that would correspond to the transfers. Donna Coffey said that this was done prior to the current year, and that is how project ordinances are set out. Commissioner Yuhasz said that it would be helpful if the project ordinances were somehow identified so that when they are referenced in another project ordinance that there be some code so that they could be tracked. Commissioner Yuhasz said that page 27 includes the CIP that was approved several weeks ago with the understanding that the specific items approved through this budget item would be held until the Board had an opportunity to consider the budget. The Board has not considered the budget yet. He said that this seems premature. Donna Coffey said that this was not her understanding at the May 5th meeting. Commissioner Jacobs said that his understanding was that the Board was approving page 27 in principle and then would finalize it when it approved the budget. He understood that the amounts were more placeholders and less than decisions. Donna Coffey said that these could be amended at anytime. Laura Blackmon said that some of these will come back in the context of bids or contracts. Commissioner Pelissier said that some of these amounts are presented differently than last time. She said that the Board needs consistent information. Donna Coffey said that last year the Board of County Commissioners approved project ordinances on May 1St and adjustments were made during the budget process. Commissioner Gordon pointed out the first page with the Project Authorized for April 2009 Debt Issuance. She asked why there was a discrepancy between the first page and page 27 for Office and Library. Donna Coffey said that a project ordinance amendment was done after the CIP was issued. Commissioner Gordon said that, to her, bringing back the Capital Project Ordinance is to reaffirm the CIP and not change it. She asked if there would be more changes if this is brought back. Donna Coffey said that if the Board approves this and then wants to amend it, then she will bring it back reflecting the changes. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve County and School Capital Project Ordinances as shown in the abstract. Commissioner Gordon asked to amend the motion to make it clear that it does not include the Lands Legacy project, Millhouse Road project, or the Twin Creeks project but that these items will be brought forward as soon as possible. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Public Hearings a. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Establishing Regulations for Drive-thru Facilities The Board received the Planning Board recommendation and considered 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 with the County. Orange County Planning Director Craig Benedict made a PowerPoint presentation. AGENDA ITEM: 5-A PUBLIC HEARING Review of a proposal to amend the Orange County Zoning Ordinance to establish regulations for drive-thru facilities ISSUE: •Concern has been expressed over the pollution generated by vehicles idling within adrive-thru lane and what effect- this would have on the environment as well as passing pedestrians, •There is also concern over the interaction between vehicles attempting to park versus those attempting to access the drive-thru, •Currently there are no regulations governing the development/use of drive-thru facilities, •Drive-thru facilities are banned within the Hillsborough Area Economic Development District and within the Efland Cheeks Overlay Zoning District (ECOD), which was adopted in 2008 PROPOSAL: Staff recommended adopting regulatory standards that would include the following standards: •Require a fifty (50) foot setback for such facilities from property lines, •Require atwenty-five (25) foot vegetative buffer separating the drive-thru lane from pedestrian and parking areas, •Require that menu boards utilized in connection with drive-thru facilities shall not be visible from external roadways, •Limit the overall number of drive-thru facilities that can be developed within amulti-use non- residential development to one (1) per ten (10) acres with a maximum cap of five (5) per project, •Require one hundred eighty (180) feet of drive isle to support drive-thru facilities, Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this item at their April 1, 2009 meeting where the following motion was made: •Recommend the County initiate a comprehensive and countywide awareness education program about idling and the contaminants it puts in our air, and •Recommend the BOCC disregard staff's 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). Administration Recommendation: •Receive the Planning Board recommendation, •If necessary, deliberate further on the proposed amendment, •Close the public hearing, and •Adopt Option Two (2) -specifically adopt the proposed regulations detailed within Attachment One (1) of the packet. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there are possibilities of a standalone drive-thru facility and Craig Benedict said yes. The existing regulations allow this. Commissioner Pelissier said that the Planning Board minutes seemed to be focused on emissions. She said that a lot of it is based on aesthetics of a drive-thru. She said that part of the goal is to encourage walkability and she does not understand why they would want up to five drive-thrus in a mixed-use area given the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Jacobs suggested tabling this item. He said that at the public hearing, he asked for information and the Planning Board got the information, but the Board of County Commissioners did not. He wants to see what other governmental entities have done. He said that one Planning Board member thought that the OUT Board had taken up this issue and he would like this information. He said that if the County is serious about an educational effort on emissions, then the school boards should be involved since families sit and wait for children to get out of schools or to drop them off. He would also like some data on whether it is better to turn off cars and then start them up again, or just keep them on. He would also like to know who is going to do the public awareness campaign and with what funds. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he supports Commissioner Jacobs' recommendation to table this item. He is opposed to an outright ban of drive-thrus. Commissioner Nelson said that he does not support Commissioner Jacobs' recommendation. He said that the Board often tables items and drags them out. He said that Carrboro and Hillsborough have already prohibited drive-thru windows. He said that the two issues are walkability and the need to deal with global warming. There was no public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to approve option 1: Adopt regulations banning the development and/or use of drive-thru facilities throughout the County's planning jurisdiction. VOTE: Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Nelson, and Commissioner Gordon); Nays, 4 Motion failed. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to table this item and wait for additional information that was originally requested, collaborate with the school boards for an awareness campaign to reduce idling, and receive information from the OUT Board regarding these issues. Craig Benedict said that if this is tabled, it would have to be re-advertised. Commissioner Hemminger said that tabling this will be sending a bad message. She does agree with the education campaign. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there is any data that shows that banning drive-thrus does not detract from business operations. Commissioner Nelson said that there is data in Carrboro and they have not been negatively impacted at all. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would entertain an amendment to the motion to include soliciting from Economic Development Directors of governments that have banned drive-thrus information about the impacts. Commissioner Yuhasz agreed with the amendment. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Hillsborough -Orange County Strategic Growth Plan -Phase II (Interlocal Agreement Initiative) ~~ ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT ...Meeting Date: February 23, 2009 Action Agenda Item No. C-4 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing regulations for drive-thru facilities DEPARTMENT:. Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Proposed Ordinance Amendment Name, Phone Number Options Craig Benedict 245-2592 2. Articles on drive-thru concerns Michael D. Harvey 245-2607 PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing on a staff initiated Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Article Six (6) Application of Dimensional Requiremenfs to establish regulations governing the development of drive-thru facilities within the County. BACKGROUND: During the review of a recent development project, there was a discussion on the need to regulate drive-thru facilities within the County. Concern was expressed over the pollution generated by vehicles idling within adrive-thru lane and what effect this would have on the environment as well as passing pedestrians. Since 2001 drive-thru facilities are prohibited within the Hillsborough Area Economic Development District and within the Efland Cheeks Overlay Zoning District (ECOD), which was adopted in 2008. Far all ~ other non-residential zoning districts, the .Orange County Zoning Ordinance does not contain specific development guidelines or standards for -the development and/or -use of such facilities. Staff currently interprets these facilities to be a customary accessory use to several non-residential land uses and would allow for their development consistent with an approved site plan. OPTIONS: Staff believes the County has the following options, with respect to addressing the development of drive-thru facilities: 1. Adopt regulations banning the development andJor 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. 2 While staff is requesting comments on each identified option from the BOCC and Planning Board, staff recommends the Board consider Option Two (2) and adopt comprehensive development regulations regulating the development of drive-thru facilities that are designed to: 1. Require additional setbacks, and specific orientation of, land uses utilizing such facilities, 2. Require additional landscaping along drive-thru access roads to absorb carbon-dioxide gas emitted from vehicles utilizing the service, 3. Require that menu boards utilized in connection with drive-thru facilities shall not be visible from external roadways, 4. Establish a limit on the overall number of drive-thru facilities that can be developed within a multi-use non-residential development to encourage mixed use development and discourage freestanding, out-parcel, land uses with multiple drive-thru facilities, 5. Reduce the amount of impervious surface area (i.e. parking) allowed/required for such land uses and require additional internal landscaped area, 6. Consider establishment of a system that requires annual payments to a carbon offset program or consider a system allowing for a partial payment in lieu for any required landscaping in the form of carbon credits. There have been requests for articles and other information offering context on the impact of drive-thru facilities. Please refer to Attachment Two (2) for this information. 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. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Zoning Officer recommends the Board: 1. Receive the proposed amendment submitted by staff, 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public comment on the two (2) proposed options, 3. Suggest a preference for review and further discussion on the proposed options, 4. 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, 2008 BOCC meeting, and 5. Adjourn the public hearing until June 2, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Attachment 1 g 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 all 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' 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 shall be visible from an external or internal roadway, c. There shall be a minimum twenty-five (25) foot 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. f. Entrances to drive-up lanes shall be at least 25 feet from driveways entering a public or private street or alley. g. The minimum width of each drive-through 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 is contiguous to residentially zoned or used,. property (s). If the site is separated within a larger non-residentiallmixed use zone by an intervening one acre or more site plan with building, then the wall and or restriction on hours of operation are not 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). 4. Development Guidelines a. A minimum of a 0.50+ acre site shall be provided for adrive- through facility within an existing shopping center and/or urban areas. b. "Franchise architecture" is strongly discouraged. c. Drive-through facilities shall be architecturally compatible with the best examples of nearby structures (i.e. intended for the zone) and compliment existing or ,planned streetscape elements. d. Building design, location and parking areas should be designed to provide pedestrian orientation and clearly identify areas for pedestrian access and limit pedestrian -drive through lane overlap. e. Windows provided for aesthetics in dining and entry areas should 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 is encouraged in zones approved for outside seating. g. A minimum of 20 percent of the site should 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, (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 properly with an ultimate cap of five (5) drive-thru units per development in total. The Facts about Car Idling The following information and recommendations are compiled from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (www.eua.gov). An idling car is one that is not being driven but whose engine is still running. Idling is often unavoidable in traffic, but voluntary idling occurs when cars are left running while parked, standing, or waiting in drive-through lines. People often don't realize that idling has several negative effects on health, the environment, and themselves: Air Pollution Voluntary idling increases the amount of preventable pollution released into our air. Cars produce. several air pollutants that contribute to environmental problems such as urban smog, air toxics, and climate change, and health problems such as asthma, respiratory and heart disease. Children are especially vulnerable to air pollution because they breathe twice as much as adults. • .Wasted Fuel and Money Idling wastes fuel and money. ALL cars, trucks, and SWs get 0 mpg while idling, regardless of their fuel efficiency while driving. Larger vehicles usually waste more fuel than smaller ones. • Engine Wear-and-Tear Idling for long periods, especially in cold weather, can actually cause excessive wear or even damage the engine. MYTH: Restarting the engine uses more gas and causes more pollution than idling. FACT: Modern engines require much less fuel at startup than most people think. Idling for only 30 seconds uses up more fuel than restarting the engine. If you expect to idle for more than 30 seconds, turn off the. engine and then restart (except in traffic, of course). You will save fuel and prevent pollution by avoiding long idles. For example, instead of idling in bank and restaurant drive-through lines, park your car and go inside. MYTH: Engines need to warm up with a long idle period, especially in cold weather. FACT: Modern cars need little warm-up time and are most efficient when being driven. Engines require no more than 30 seconds of warming-up, followed by driving at moderate speed for the first few minutes. In fact, idling in cold weather causes excessive wear on the engine. a,~3~o~ ~~ b. Rezone a 46,500 square foot portion of property, currently utilized to support a commercial landscaping operation, from AR to EC-5 3. 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 May 19, 2009 BOCC meeting, and 4. Adjourn the public hearing until May 19, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. PUBLIC COMMENT: Charles Helgevold said that he moved to this property in 1990, started the business, and found out that Cedar Grove was going to be zoned. He was available to answer questions. Kim Callemyrr said that she has been doing survey work for the Helgevold's, and she is happy for the cooperation of the County. She was available to answer questions. Sue Browning lives across the road from the applicant. She said that she was not aware that there was ever a rezoning for an EC section of 46,000 square feet. She said that the existing business is at the front, which is zoned AR. She said that this is a business in the middle of a residential section, and she never understood how this happened. Michael Harvey said that the landscaping operation began prior to the adoption of the comprehensive zoning of the Cedar Grove Township. In effect, the property was "unzoned." The County created the EC-5 zoning designation in townships where initial zoning was taking place in an effort to ensure that legal operations would not be made non-conforming during initial zoning. Regarding why the business cannot be moved, he said that the business is where it is and the EC-5 designation should have been located at the front portion of the property. If it were moved it would create additional problems and an access issue. The cleanest way to fix this problem is the recommendation. Richard Browning said that before the Helgevold's came to this property, there was not a business there. Michael Harvey explained the process again. Richard Browning said that there is a huge pile of mulch there most of the time. He does not see how the business was allowed to begin with because there has never been a business there. Kathryn Browning lives more than 500 feet away from the property and she can hear the noise from the business and the heavy loading equipment. She asked about future traffic flow as far as expansion of this with the rezoning. Michael Harvey said that the County has an existing noise ordinance enforced by the Sheriff's Department. Regarding expansion, once the area is rezoned, it will be limited to this portion of the property. There is a prohibition on expansion of existing EC-5. 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 May 19, 200 BOCC meeting, and adjourn the public hearing until May 19, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 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 gases. 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. 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-Cooke 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 are several aspects to think about, in addition to 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 Commissioner Jacobs asked that there be a longer microphone stem for the public on March 3`d. Also, he thinks that there should be a North Carolina and an American flag in this room. D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adjourn the meeting at 10:18 PM. Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board