HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-17-2010 1 APPROVED 11/4/2010
2
3 MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 BUDGET WORK SESSION
6 September 17, 2010
7 12:30 p.m.
8
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Friday,
11 September 17, 2010 at 12:30pm at the Link Government Services Center in Hillsborough, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee and Commissioners Alice
14 Gordon, Pam Hemminger, Barry Jacobs, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz.
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
16 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT:
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Clerk to the Board Donna S.
18 Baker (All other staff inembers will be identified appropriately below).
19
20 1. Continue Review/Comments on First Draft Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
21 Chair Foushee said that the Board agreed to begin the review at Section 6.
22
23 Planning Director Craig Benedict said that at the previous work session on the UDO, the
24 comments from the County Commissioners consisted of grammatical changes, minor content
25 changes, changes in Phase I, and possible changes for Phase II.
26
27
28 Planner Tom Altieri said that staff took all of the comments received last month and put it
29 in a spreadsheet for the Board. Donna Baker sent this to the County Commissioners via email.
30 As they move closer to the public hearing, then the staff will log those comments and whether
31 they have been addressed or not. Any changes will be in a different color in the UDO draft for
32 the public hearing.
33 Craig Benedict said that this is still in the informal phase and there has been some
34 outreach with community organizations. This will be ready for public viewing in early November
35 preparing for the November 22nd public hearing. After the public hearing, it will be referred back
36 to the Planning Board for final review before coming back to the Board of County
37 Commissioners for adoption.
38
39 Article 6
40
41 Commissioner Jacobs pointed out two spelling mistakes on 6.2.1. It should be "no
42 portion of a lot, used in connection."
43 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to 6.2.2 (A) (1) and why an additional foot of rear
44 setback is not included also.
45 The Board agreed by consensus to add an additional foot of rear setback for every two
46 feet of additional building height.
47 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there was a height limit to buildings and Craig Benedict
48 said that there is a maximum within each zoning district.
49 Michael Harvey said that there is not currently a cap on height in this ordinance.
50 Frank Clifton said that as building height goes up, the building code regulations change.
\
1 Commissioner Jacobs said to flag this for later review because if there is a loophole,
2 someone could try and exploit it.
3 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Section 6.3 and asked if there was a standard
4 definition of "custodial care." Craig Benedict said that in the past it has been for disabled and/or
5 senior citizens under the care of a family member.
6 Commissioner Gordon made reference to 6.2.5 (C) and the use of "unmanned". She
7 suggested that this say "unstaffed" so as to use gender neutral language.
8 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to 6.3.1 under the Applicability section. He read,
9 "standards established in this Section shall be applicable to those districts and uses subject to
10 the Land Use Intensity system." He said that he has not found anything in the ordinance that
11 says what districts and uses are subject to the Land Use Intensity System.
12 Shannon Berry said that it is scattered throughout the text. Certain districts clearly apply
13 and some residential districts have different land use intensity measures such as open space
14 and recreation requirements.
15 Commissioner Yuhasz said to refer to those specific articles where these apply to make
16 it clearer. Craig Benedict said that a specific section or a table could be used for that purpose.
17 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 6-10 and (D) where it says, "Land Use
18 Intensity Measures may apply," and said that it would be helpful to say where one could find out
19 whether they apply or not.
20 Craig Benedict said that everyone but the Hillsborough EDD area has these impervious
21 surface ratios. When the EDDs are readdressed, there will be recommendations about this.
22 Hillsborough does not have the site volume ratios and Eno and Buckhorn do. It is not too much
23 to add, "Impervious surface applies to all and the site volume ratios apply to two."
24
25 Commissioner Jacobs said that he found on 5-4.44 that it refers to, "necessity of direct
26 custodial care because of age or poor health." He suggested putting this in the glossary.
27
28 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 6-13 and the last paragraph on the
29 page, which talks about calculating the volume of new plant material. He asked at what stage of
30 maturity is the size of the tree calculated. Michael Harvey said that it is at maturity and
31 Commissioner Yuhasz said that it should say this.
32 Commissioner Gordon said that she is not ready to change this. She suggested flagging
33 this.
34 Commissioner Hemminger, Chair Foushee, and Commissioner Pelissier agreed to
35 adding "at maturity."
36 Craig Benedict said that he could still provide the impacts or differences.
37
38 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 6-21 (2) (a) (i) and said that there is a
39 missing `c' in "landscape."
40 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 6-39, Manufactured Homes, and asked if
41 this section means that new mobile homes would be allowed in the special flood hazard area.
42 Craig Benedict said that it is ok to put something in this area if it is at a proper elevation.
43 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he thought that no new construction was going to be allowed in
44 the floodplain.
45 Frank Clifton said that FEMA allows construction in the floodplain and not the flood way.
46 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he understands that FEMA allows it, but Orange County does
47 not.
48 Commissioner Gordon agreed with Commissioner Yuhasz and said that this is a change
49 because it used to read "replacement" but now it reads, "new or replacement."
50 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he does not want to eliminate all changes if they make
51 sense, but he wants to flag this (page 6-39 3-a).
\
1 Craig Benedict said that this could be reworded to prohibit new homes in this area.
2 Commissioner Jacobs said "flood hazard" is also not in the glossary and it should be
3 added.
4 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 6-61 (B)(2) and protecting measures for
5 existing landscapes. He said that this is a blanket statement that is overly broad. He thinks that
6 it should be applicable only where it is applicable and not be so broad.
7 Commissioner Jacobs said that there is also nothing about "tree protection area" in the
8 glossary.
9 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to #11 on the same page and said that there
10 may be cases where gravel could be used within the drop line of preserved trees and gravel is
11 considered impervious in Orange County.
12 Commissioner Jacobs suggested asking someone that has experience with trees.
13 The Board agreed to flag this.
14 Commissioner Jacobs pointed out #4 on the same page and Shannon Berry said that
15 they meant to strike this, but it was inadvertently left in.
16 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 6-62 (7) and said to list where one could
17 find the CPTED standards.
18 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 6-65 and said that he would rather not
19 prohibit a certain hedge variety.
20 Frank Clifton said that enforcing these regulations will be extremely difficult.
21 Commissioner Yuhasz suggested striking this reference altogether.
22
23 Commissioner Jacobs said that there are many places throughout the document where
24 numerals are not consistent. Shannon Berry said that one through ten will be written out and 11
25 up will be numbers.
26 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 6-66 (e) and said that the Planning
27 Department should not be inspecting the health of plants and requiring that plants must be
28 replanted.
29 Frank Thomas from The Homebuilders Association said that there should be a limit to
30 the bonding of landscaping and it should not exceed how long the developer is responsible for
31 the property.
32 Commissioner Gordon verified that the new changes would be in a different color.
33 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to #2 and said that it could be worded, "the
34 Planning Department may conduct inspections to monitor the health and status of the required
35 landscaping." This would indicate that they could make an inspection and it would not
36 necessarily be required.
37 Frank Clifton suggested having a time specific after the initial site plan approval.
38 Commissioner Gordon said that she would be content with letting the Planning staff
39 figure out a good way to do this. The Board agreed.
40 Commissioner Yuhasz pointed out that the question of trees' volume at maturity deals
41 only with the economic development districts. There can be different standards for economic
42 development districts than for residential development.
43 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 6-67 (E)(2) and the critical root zones of
44 trees within the buffer must be protected. He said that if there is a large tree right on the edge
45 of the buffer that might have a 30-40 foot root zone, then you cannot cut the tree down, but now
46 there is a 30-foot buffer and it is being turned into a 60-70 foot buffer around the tree. He said
47 that if there is a narrow lot, this could significantly impact the ability to do things on the lot.
48 Commissioner Gordon said that it would help to have a definition of "critical root zone."
49 Commissioner Jacobs suggested some wording in #2, after the last comma, "the
50 preference would be to extend the buffer to the edge of the critical root zone."
\
1 Craig Benedict made reference to landscaping and said that the County has had good
2 standards, but not good installation practices or maintenance. If there is a HOA buffer, then the
3 HOA would take responsibility for it.
4 Commissioner Gordon said that she appreciated Commissioner Yuhasz's careful
5 reading of this, but he has found some issues in the existing ordinance that are problematic. He
6 thinks that it is good to flag these, but she did not know if this was the primary purpose.
7 Chair Foushee said that it is ok to flag clarifying language.
8
9
10 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 6-69 and pointed out a number that was
11 not spelled out.
12
13 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 6-71 (i) — Under no circumstances may
14 any parking space be located more than 50 feet from the trunk of a canopy tree. He asked if
15 this was needed.
16 Shannon Berry said that they require canopy trees every ten spaces in a parking lot and
17 the 50 feet would be too small. This is inconsistent.
18 The Board agreed to flag this.
19
20 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 6-73, Section 6.8.10 (C)(1) and said that
21 if this was for a residential development, the developer would have no idea where proposed
22 structures, parking areas, fences, and walls would be. He said that this would not be
23 reasonable to ask for this. He would like to exempt major subdivisions from this requirement.
24 The same thing applies to #4 and the location of lighting fixtures. He said that the particularly
25 difficult thing is #5, "the location and species of existing trees with a dbh greater than four
26 inches."
27 Michael Harvey said that staff could change these and make them more reasonable.
28 Frank Clifton pointed out page 6-77(8) and said that this should be flagged as well
29 because it deals with the size of trees also.
30
31 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 6-83(D)(4) and the requirement that "all
32 handicapped accessible parking spaces shall be located..." He wonders if this is always
33 possible if there is a really big building with a lot of spaces. It was answered that this is an ADA
34 requirement.
35
36 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 6-102 and Prohibited Signs.
37 Discussion ensued about three-dimensional signs.
38 The Board agreed to see more language about three-dimensional signs.
39
40 Commissioner Hemminger asked what type of inquiries the Planning Department gets
41 about signs. Craig Benedict said that there are urban areas and rural areas and they have a
42 hard time trying to find some middle ground. The County has reduced some of the height
43 requirements more similar to Hillsborough's. Staff is trying to balance these two areas.
44 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 6-105(A) #4 and #9 and said that these
45 contradict each other. Shannon Berry said that this is a typographical error. Item #9 should be
46 under (B).
47 Chair Foushee made reference to page 6-111 and the two footnotes. Shannon Berry
48 said that this does not need to be in the document. It is an internal question.
49 Commissioner Yuhasz asked if it were possible to have different standards for the rural
50 areas and the urban areas and Craig Benedict said that the staff has been discussing this,
51 especially for lighting, traffic, signs, etc.
\
1 Commissioner Pelissier made reference to page 6-125(9) and asked about the natural
2 materials in greenways or hiking trails. Craig Benedict said that under the revised code, the
3 suggestion is that material can be put into the stream buffer, but it would have to be mulch or
4 some other material. It could not be paved or concrete.
5 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 6-168(B), Requirements of
6 Environmental Assessment. She said that this was lacking in detail and there should be more
7 description here about what should be in the document.
8 The Board agreed to flag this.
9 Commissioner Gordon asked that the first time a term is used that it should be spelled
10 out, then the abbreviation can be used.
11 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 6-121 (A)(2 and 3), and said that the
12 500-year floodplain is only a small horizontal distance away from the 100-year floodplain. This
13 is saying that if there is a floodplain, the buffer would be the 500-year floodplain. He wonders if
14 this is what they should do here.
15 Craig Benedict said that he would find out the justification for this.
16 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 6-185, Section 6.19.5(B), and said that
17 she would like the second sentence to read, "the rezoning of the property or approval of the
18 master plan shall provide no indication as to whether the CAPS will be issued. The application
19 for rezoning or master plan approval shall contain a statement to this effect."
20 John Roberts made reference to page 6-102 and said that he researched some of this
21 earlier and the size of political signs cannot be limited more than other types of signs. The 16
22 square feet would be unconstitutional. Also, the seven-day removal is unconstitutional.
23 The Board agreed to use 21 days for political sign removal.
24 Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the County Attorney get with the Planning staff
25 and come back with something reasonable for political signs in residential areas.
26
27 Article 7
28 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-1(A)(6) and said that it should say
29 "ensure" and not "insure." Also, it should say, "are safe" and not "be safe." Also, #1 should say
30 "ensure".
31 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-4 and asked what happened if an
32 existing subdivision were expanded and if the lots would count in the 21-40 lots or 21-79 lots.
33 Michael Harvey made reference to page 7-4, Section 7.2.2 and said that with a minor
34 subdivision, five lots could be created two times, and anything over 10 lots would require a
35 public road.
36 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-8 and said that Homeowners
37 Association should be without an apostrophe, but Property Owners' Association should be `s'
38 apostrophe.
39 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-11(C)(3) and "identified environmental
40 features." He asked if this was synonymous with "Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic,
41 Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange
42 County," which is spelled out on page 7-13. He said that if this is the first reference, then it
43 should be spelled out.
44 Craig Benedict said that he was not including cultural features or historic features in the
45 first statement, but only environmental features. He said that he would put new language in
46 there about "significant environmental and cultural features."
47 Commissioner Gordon said that environmental features and cultural features should not
48 be put together. Craig Benedict agreed.
49 Commissioner Yuhasz asked if these development agreements were intended to
50 maintain these requirements regardless of general changes to the zoning ordinance.
\
1 Michael Harvey said that his interpretation is that this agreement covers the
2 development of this project, and if the homeowner wants to amend the agreement, due to a
3 change in zoning, then they would have to go through a process to do so. The process would
4 be to come to staff to propose an amendment.
5 Commissioner Yuhasz said that there should be a formal process identified in order to
6 do this. He said that if there is a specific agreement within the development agreement that is
7 different in some way from the general zoning regulation, then it ought to carry forward; but if
8 the thing in the development agreement is only an agreement to abide by the general zoning
9 regulations, then as the general zoning regulations change, that agreement ought to change
10 along with it.
11 Discussion ensued on this topic.
12 Commissioner Yuhasz said that because this development agreement contains
13 specifically negotiated things and also generally applicable things, there needs to be
14 differentiation within the development agreement to specify which things change automatically
15 and which things do not.
16 Michael Harvey said that staff could handle this.
17 Commissioner Gordon suggested adding "cultural" to page 7-13(F)(2)(a) and replace
18 "man-made" with that.
19 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-18 and redesigning public roads. He
20 said that there was no mention about where you might move a road with significant natural
21 features. He would like this to be consistently mentioned as a criterion. This is also on page 7-
22 22.
23 Craig Benedict said that staff would bring back something in reference to this in Section
24 7.8.2 about how that it is a consideration during the road design.
25 Frank Clifton said that if the County is going to allow private roads, then the roads should
26 be required to be constructed to DOT standards, maybe with a lesser setback.
27 Chair Foushee said that the Board has had this discussion before and is generally not in
28 favor of making this requirement.
29 Commissioner Yuhasz said that at some point the Board needs to look at private road
30 standards.
31 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-36 and reservation of school sites and
32 said that there are almost no land use criteria. Even though the school systems have to pick a
33 site by law, the County has to approve it. Since the County possesses the expertise, it would be
34 good to offer some guidance.
35 Commissioner Gordon said that the language sounds like there has to be agreement
36 first anyway.
37 Craig Benedict said that he could put language about joint approval.
38 Frank Clifton said that one of the issues for schools is the availability of water and sewer.
39
40 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-41 and asked about private recreation
41 and if this counted as the total recreation. Craig Benedict said that the development must have
42 the minimum listed and private recreation is at least a minimum. He said that he would like to
43 rewrite this so that it is clearer.
44 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-42 under Cluster Developments, which
45 has "generally," and the County Commissioners talked about taking these out at the last work
46 session.
47 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-47(7) and said that it should say "low-
48 impact" and not "passive." Also, in listing all of the different purposes, it does not really mention
49 connectivity to open space on adjoining properties or wildlife corridors, but on the next page it
50 does list these.
\
1 Michael Harvey said that the existing standards were left alone. Craig Benedict said that
2 this could be added or flagged.
3 Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that wildlife corridors are not in the glossary.
4 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-49 and Planning for Open Space.
5 Later on it mentions relation to adjacent properties, but in here it does not. He thought that this
6 was one of the criteria for open space— adjacent to certain types of properties.
7 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-54(g) and Pedestrian Open Space
8 Area. He said that before this was a 30-foot wide corridor, and this is a 50-foot wide corridor.
9 He said that this is pretty wide.
10 Craig Benedict said that he remembers it being 30 feet as well.
11 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-61(C)(1)(b) and said that this seems
12 like a good place to mention that these systems need to be designed, planned, constructed, and
13 maintained based on the standards of the entity that is responsible for that area. It is spelled
14 out on 7-69 and 7.13.6-b and c.
15 Craig Benedict said that this is important and staff will pull the language out of the Water
16 and Sewer Agreement for this.
17 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-64 and Lots and Buildings, which has
18 the wrong font size.
19 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-73 and Forest Land/Natural Areas
20 Conservation and said that there is a concept that is not articulated in here — to minimize the
21 number of edges. The more edges that are created, the less it is a good place for wildlife.
22 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-78 and said that the plat drawings
23 should have the name of the preparer on them. Also, he said that item `j', all other required
24 relevant information, could be a huge hole in which the Planning staff could bury an applicant.
25 Craig Benedict said that the name could be "owner/agent" or"preparer."
26 Frank Clifton said that for item `j', the word "required" could be taken out.
27 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7-71 and asked if there was any place
28 that mentions shared driveways where driveway access on a road becomes a problem.
29 Commissioner Yuhasz said that there is a strong disincentive with property owners to
30 have shared driveways. If this is going to be requested, then a real need should be
31 demonstrated.
32 Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that shared driveways are not in the glossary.
33 Craig Benedict said that the goal is to keep the glossary and definitions as non-
34 regulatory as possible.
35
36 Article 8
37 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 8-5(B) and asked if his house burns
38 down and is not used for that specified amount of time, if he was out of luck. He asked what
39 constitutes "use."
40 Michael Harvey said that there are several court cases that have tried to determine this
41 question.
42 Craig Benedict said that the staff should work with the Attorney to define "use" so that it
43 is official.
44 The Board agreed.
45 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 8-6(C) and said that he has read this
46 several times and still cannot understand it. Michael Harvey said that he would reword this.
47
48 Article 9
49 None
50
51 Article 10
\
1 Commissioner Gordon added some definitions:
2 - Floating zone
3 - Residential uses
4 - Institutional uses
5 - Professional services
6 - Land uses: commercial, retail, office
7 - Conditional use district and conditional zone district—and define the differences
8
9 The Board agreed.
10
11 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier
12 to adjourn the meeting at 3:25 PM.
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
15 Valerie Foushee, Chair
16
17 Donna S. Baker, CMC
18 Clerk to the Board
19
20
21
\