Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-17-2011- 7aORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 17, 2011 Action Agenda Item No. 7- (,~ SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment Petition DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Copy of Legal Ad 2. Proposed Ordinance Amendment 3. Minutes from February 28, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing 4. Minutes from April 6, 2011 Planning Board Meeting INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael D. Harvey, Planner III, 245-2597 Craig Benedict, Director, 245-2592 PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation on a text amendment petition submitted by Mr. Ben Lloyd amending the Table of Permitted Uses to allow the Motor Vehicle Sales & Rental (New and Used) use category within the Neighborhood Commercial (NC-2) general use zoning district as a permitted use. BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the February 28, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing where staff recommended denial based on the proposal's inconsistency with the intent of the NC-2 general use zoning district and over potential conflicts with such a use being developed within the Rural Neighborhood and Rural Community Activity Nodes. During .the hearing BOCC members proposed modifications to the petition, which were accepted by the applicant, which only allowed for the development of the aforementioned use on NC-2 zoned property located within Commercial Transition or Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Nodes, limiting the number of cars stored/displayed to no more than 11, and requiring that the site have direct access onto a State maintained roadway. The proposed ordinance amendment, Attachment 2, includes these modifications. Planning Board: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its April 6, 2011 regular meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval. Board members indicated that the proposal, as amended, was reasonable and would allow for a use of property consistent with the intent of the Commercial Transition and Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Nodes. While supportive of the revised amendment, staff believes there are other options available to allow for the proposed use that are more appropriate, specifically: 1. The rezoning of the specific property to a general use zoning category that allows for the aforementioned use. Under this scenario the property owner will be required, at a later date, to submit a site plan to staff for review and approval prior to establishing the proposed land use as prescribed within the Ordinance. OR 2. The submittal of an application for Conditional Use District rezoning and Special Use Permit approval, which would require the submittal of a site specific development plan that would show how the property would be developed for this specific land use. Text amendment applications should be approved or denied based on their merits and consistency with adopted plans. 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: The Manager recommends the Board 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. Approve the Ordinance amendment contained within Attachment 2 if the Board concurs with the request. ATTACHMENT 1 3 NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD A joint public hearing will be held at the Department of Social Services, Hillsborough Commons, 113 Mayo St., Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Monday, February 28, 2011, at 7:00 PM for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: A. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) -Continuation of November 22, 2010 public hearing: The November 22, 2010 public hearing was continued to February 28, 2011 to give the public more time to review the proposed document.. The public hearing draft of the UDO is available on the Planning Department's website at: http://www.co.orange.nc.us/planning/UDO.asp Purpose: To receive additional citizen comment on the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). 2. Master Telecommunications Plan Map: In accordance with the provisions of Section 6.18 Telecommunication Towers and Equipment and Section 6.18.5 Master Telecommunication Plan of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, the County proposes the adoption of the Master Telecommunications Plan (MTP) Map. The purpose of the MTP is to identify potential properties where telecommunication providers are encouraged to develop, redevelop, modify, or expand telecommunication facilities. The plan is further intended to illustrate an efficient distribution of telecommunication facilities that will benefit the public at large. The MTP Map, once adopted, may be modified on an annual basis at the February Quarterly Public Hearing. Properties identified on the MTP Map may include: • Public sites (i.e. County or government owned property), • Quasi-publicly owned property (i.e. volunteer fire departments, public utilities, etc), and • Private property where current owners have expressed a formal interest to the County in locating telecommunication towers. The draft MTP Map is available on the Plannino Department's web site at http://bvww.co.oranQe.nc.us/planninglndex.asp. There are cu-rently ten proposed properties located on the MTP Map. Current owners may make a request to have their properties added to the map by submitting a formal application to the Planning Department. A submittal will be followed by apre-application meeting, submittal of requisite technical design plans before an application is found to be complete. The proposed MTP Map identifies potential location(s) for telecommunications facilities including locations that serve, or may be required to serve, the public safety and information technology telecommunications network. 4 Approval of the MTP Map only pre-identifies potential telecommunication sites. It does not formally approve a specific application for the shown properties allowing for the development of telecommunication towers nor does it exempt providers from obtaining all required permit approvals consistent with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance mayor may not require the issuance of a special use permit. For towers 150 feet in height or less on County property irrespective of being included on the MTP Map means that the towers are approved administratively rather than requiring a Class B Special Use Permit, as per section 6.18.1. Private sites, to be eligible for administrative approval, must be less than 150 feet in height and either lease the tower to the public for public safety purposes or allow the public to collocate antennas on the tower at no charge No formal applications proposing the development of telecommunication facilities have been received or will be approved through this scheduled public hearing. Purpose: To review the item and receive citizen comment on the Master Telecommunications Plan Map. 3. Zoning Ordinance or Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment: In accordance with Article Twenty (20) of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (Section 2.8 of the proposed UDO), Mr. Ben Lloyd has submitted a zoning text amendment petition to amend Section 4.3 Table of Permitted Uses of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 5.2 of the UDO) modifying the Motor Vehicle Sales & Rental (New and Used) use category to allow the sale and rental of motor vehicles in the Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2) zoning district as a permitted use. Within his application, Mr. Lloyd is proposing to cap the allowable number of automobiles displayed/stored on NC-2 zoned property to twelve (12). If approved, the proposed text amendment will be incorporated into either Section 4.3 Table of Permitted Uses of the Zoning Ordinance or Section 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses of the UDO (whichever document is in effect at the time of approval). Purpose: To review the item and receive citizen comment on the proposed text amendment. Accommodations for individuals with physical disabilities can be provided if the request is made to the Director of Planning at least 48 hours prior to the Public Hearing by calling the one of the phone numbers below. The full text of the public hearing items may be obtained after February 18, 2011 from the Planning Department (Note: the UDO is available only digitally via the Department's website or a CD containing a PDF file of the document may be obtained from the Department). The agenda abstract and attachments may also be obtained at the County website www.co.orange.nc.us at the Meeting Agendas link prior to the meeting. Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located on the second floor of the County Office Building at 131 West Margaret Lane, Suite 201, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call (919) 245-2575 or 245-2585 and you will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. PUBLISH: News of Orange Chapel Hitl Herald February 16, 2011 February 16, 2011 February 23, 2011 February 23, 2011 n n /~ ATTACHMENT 2 Ordinance #: ~ t~ D D~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ "1 6 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY WHEREAS, there is a need to review and, as necessary, revise existing land use regulations over time, and WHEREAS, the public is permitted and encouraged to submit petitions to amend existing land use regulations, and WHEREAS, a valid amendment petition has been submitted to permit the Motor Vehicle Sales /Rental (New & Used) use within the NC-2 general use zoning district, and WHEREAS, the County has held the required public hearing and has found the proposed text amendment is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. BE lT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Unified Development Ordinance of Orange County is hereby amended as follows: RED =Proposed Text ~t~ilEet#reug# =Deleted Text Section ~. Amend Section 5.2 `Table of Permitted Uses' to read as follows: TABLE OF PERMITTED USES -GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS (excerpt) * =PERMITTED USE A = CLASS A SPECIAL USE B = CLASS B SPECIAL USE ~ =Subject to Special Standards GENERAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS LC1 NC2 CC3 GC4 EC5 OI AS EI 11 12 13 PID Automotive I Transportation Bus Passenger Shelter '` Bus Terminals 8~ Garages Motor Frei ht TerminalsX Motor Vehicle Maintenance & Re air Bod Sho '~ Motor Vehicle Re air Gara e'` Motor Vehicle Sales /Rental (New & Used ~ ~ Motor Vehicle Services Stations Parking As Principle Use, Surface or Structure Petroleum Products: Storage & Distribution Postal & Parcel Delivery Services See Section 5.14.1 for special standards 7 Section 2. Replace Section 5.14 `Standards for Miscellaneous Uses' with new Section 5.14 `Standards for Automotive /Transportation Related Uses', as follows: SECTION 5.14 STANDARDS FOR AUTOMOTIVE / TRANSPORTATION RELATED USES 5.14.1 Motor Vehicle Sates /Rental iNew & Used) in the NC-2 Zoning District (A) Standards for the NC-2 Zoning District (1) This use shall only be permitted within the Commercial Transition Activity or Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node land use classifications, as designated on the Land Use Element Map of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. (2) The site shat! have direct access onto a State maintained roadway. (3) A maximum of 11 cars may be stored or displayed on- site. Section 3. Create new Section 5.15 `Standards for Miscellaneous Uses' with entire text from former Section 5.14, as follows: SECTION 5.15 STANDARDS FOR MISCELLANEOUS USES 5.15.1 Churches (A) General Standards... 5.15.2 Community Center (A) Standards for Class B Special Use Permit... Add all text from former Section 5.14 `Standards for Miscellaneous Uses'] Section 4. That this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances. Section 5. This ordinance is effective upon its adoption. 8 NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that ... Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner ,the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of , 2011. I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on 2011 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of 2011. SEAL Clerk to the Board of Commissioners APPROVED 4/5/2011 ATTACHMENT 3 g MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING February 28, 2011 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing meeting on Monday, February 28, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS Building, Hillsborough Commons, in Hillsborough, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford and members Pete Hallenbeck, Larry Wright, Mark Marcoplos, Judith Wegner, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Andrea Rohrbacher, Alan Campbell, and Tommy McNeill. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: May Becker and Samantha Cabe C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2. Zoning Ordinance or Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment To review acitizen-initiated text amendment to add a permitted use to the NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial - 2) zoning district and to receive citizen comment on the proposed text amendment. Michael Harvey made a PowerPoint presentation. February 28, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing AGENDA ITEM: C2 PUBLIC HEARING Petition for a ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT Section 4.3 Table of Permitted Uses to allow motor vehicle sales as a permitted use within the Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2) Zoning District APPLICATION SPECIFICS: Applicant: Ben Lloyd Proposal: Allow the Motor Vehicle Sales & Rental (New and Used) as a permitted use within the Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2) Zoning District with a 12 vehicle limit; 10 Currently Allowed: General Commercial Four (GC-4), Existing Commercial Five (EC-5), Existing Industrial (EI), Low, Medium, and Heavy Industrial (I-1, I-2, and I-3), and Eno EDD Primary. Also allowed in Buckhorn EDD with a Planned Development (PD) approval Impact: If approved, this amendment would allow the use on all current, and future zoned, NC- 2 zoned properties throughout the County NC-2 -FACTS: Intent of the NC-2 district is to allow for the development of commercial uses serving neighborhood and rural populations with convenience goods and personal services. District is allowed within the following land use categories: Commercial Transition Activity Node Rural Community Activity Node Rural Neighborhood Activity Node Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node Zoning Officer Analysis: Text amendments and rezoning petitions are reviewed under a legislative decision making process (i.e. no required findings of fact) Amendment appears inconsistent with the intent of the NC-2 district as the use has a broader market area than currently envisioned Amendment would allow for a land use that is inconsistent with several nodes/land use categories where the NC-2 district is allowed Zoning Officer Analysis (continued): Amendment creates potential enforcement problem by requiring staff to constantly inspect property to ensure no more than 12 cars are present Staff recommends denial of petition due to the aforementioned reasons There are potential conditions that could be imposed on the adoption of the amendment that would address the majority of staffs concerns Staff Recommendations: Receive the zoning text amendment petition, Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public comment(s) on the petition, 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 June 21, 2011 BOCC regular meeting, and Adjourn the public hearing until June 21, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. 11 Ben Lloyd said that late today some changes were made to the recommendations and he approves of the new amendment. He said that the property in question was purchased in 1958. In 1960, he built a building that has always been used as automotive repair. In 2010, he had several offers from people to rent this property for automotive repair. He said that he is very particular about what goes on there and he was not impressed by the people that had approached him that wanted to rent the building. He does not want vehicles sitting around the property. In the fall of 2010, someone else approached him that wanted to lease this property who is an elderly car dealer. He rented his property to this gentleman and everything was fine until he went to the County office to get his permit. He was told that auto sales were not allowed on the property. He said that this property has always been used for automotive repair, but it is much more acceptable to him and the community to have automobile sales. He said that the building has been vacant long enough and must produce an income. This is the most acceptable use that he has found for it. He read his petition that was signed by every adjoining property owner. "To Whom It May Concern: Re: Text Amendment change on Ben Lloyd commercial property at 3228 US 70 W, Efland, NC. We, the undersigned owners or controllers of property adjoining the Ben Lloyd property at 3228 US 70 W in Efland do hereby offer no objection to and support the text amendment change to allow automobile sales on this property as is being requested. We feel that the service provided by this business would be very beneficial to the residents of our community." PUBLIC COMMENT: Robbie Riley said that he is right across from this property and he and his wife do not have a problem with car sales in this area. He supports this text amendment. Loren Peters said that he supports this text amendment. He lives directly across from this building. Benny Cecil said that he supported this text amendment and a comer of his land adjoins this proposed shop. He said that a car lot would be better for this property. Commissioner Jacobs asked Michael Harvey to revisit his comments about the commercial transition activity node and commercial industrial transition activity node and what he would recommend as zoning. Michael Harvey said that a condition was discussed between himself and the applicant. This has been discussed for about a year. The easiest option is to use a text amendment. Regarding the activity nodes, the definitions are more geared to allow this type of development. He said that the rural community activity and the rural neighborhood activity node are not intended to have this type of development. As a compromise, this text amendment was suggested. Michael Harvey said that if this is approved, it is a countywide amendment. There are broader implications. Discussion ensued and Michael Harvey further clarified the recommendation. Commissioner McKee said that he is glad to see discussion on this. He said that this is the area in his mind where accommodations need to be made in order to bring in some more economic development. He is glad that there is some accommodation. Michael Harvey made reference to page 345 and said that there are two rural community activity nodes and he pointed these out on a map. 12 Commissioner McKee said that he was concerned about the time that it takes to move these projects along. Commissioner Yuhasz asked if the Planning Board staff could move this forward in the schedule. Michael Harvey said that this would not be able to come to the meeting in April, so it would have to be the first or second meeting in May. Commissioner Foushee said that it seems that the Planning staff and the applicant have worked out accommodation and this should move forward. Ben Lloyd said that this has been sitting with the Planning Board for six months and this needs to be put on a fast track. Brian Crawford asked if this could be added to the next agenda. Michael Harvey said that this is the prerogative of the Planning Board Chair. He said that his problem is that the agenda has already gone out for March. Brian Crawford said that there is an option to do add-ons. Michael Harvey said that he does not think it is practical to add this on with all of the UDO work on the Planning Board agenda in March. Commissioner Jacobs suggested approving the staff recommendation and encourage it to be brought back sooner if feasible. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to: • Receive the zoning text amendment petition, • Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public comment(s) on the petition, • 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 second meeting in May, 2011 BOCC regular meeting, and • Adjourn the public hearing until the second meeting in May, 2011 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Approved May 4, 2011 Attachment 4 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD APRIL 6, 2011 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford (Chair), At-Large, Eno Township; Larry Wright (Vice-Chair), At-Large, Cedar Grove Township; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Mark Marcoplos, At-Large, Bingham Township; Andrea Rohrbacher Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; MEMBERS ABSENT: Judith Wegner, Bingham Township Representative; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative; Vacant- Eno Township Representative; STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor (Planner III); Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator (Planner III); Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor (Planner III); Shannon Berry, Special Projects Planner (Planner II); Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II OTHERS PRESENT: Ben Lloyd, Dolly Hunter AGENDA ITEM 8: ZONING ORDINANCE OR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT CHANGE: To make a recommendation to the BOCC on acitizen-initiated text amendment to add a permitted use to the NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial - 2) zoning district, as heard at the February 28, 2011 quarterly public hearing. Presenter Michael Harvey, Planner III Michael Harvey: The purpose of this item is for the Planning Board to make a recommendation on a text amendment petition submitted by Mr. Ben Lloyd amending the Table of Permitted Uses to allow the Motor Vehicle Sales & Rental (New and Used) use category within the Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2) general use zoning district as a permitted use. You will find at your places a revised resolution of approval completed by Ms. Holtz and Ms. Berry concerning this amendment request. As you are all aware the UDO was adopted last night. As a result, Mr. Lloyd's text amendment will need to be incorporated into the UDO. This revised resolution accomplishes this task. If it is your intent to recommend approval I ask that you reference this revised resolution in your motion. As the Board is already aware, this item was reviewed at the February 28, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing where staff had recommended the petition be denied based on the proposal's inconsistency with the intent of the NC-2 general use zoning district and the potential conflicts with such a use being developed within the Rural Neighborhood Activity and Rural Community Activity Nodes. Several BOCC members proposed modifications to the petition, which were accepted by the applicant, which would only allow for the development of the use on NC-2 zoned property that is located within Commercial Transition Activity or Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Nodes. Mr. Lloyd is here this evening and can confirm his acceptance of the modifications if necessary. Staff can recommend approval of the revised petition as the use would be limited to appropriate areas of the County. We do note in our abstract, however, that this should not be viewed as the most prudent way of addressing this type of problem in the future. Mark Marcoplos: I wasn't at the public hearing so this is my first experience hearing about this request. Near where I live, in the White Cross area there is an existing commercial operation that has been a used car lot. This property used to be a garage. Aren't there are certain standards that businesses have to meet in terms of how they handle cars or display cars. Michael Harvey: The ordinance establishes standards addressing adjacent property impact with landscaping, setbacks, etc. This proposal looks at, and establishes regulations dealing with, the number of cars that can be stored or displayed on the property. There are also DMV regulations governing the sale and display of automobiles, which we are required to ensure the property owner adheres to in coordination with DMV officials. 13 Mark Marcoplos: It seems likely it wouldn't really get out of hand. If it got sloppy, that someone would curtail it. Approved May 4, 2011 Michaei Harvey: The best way to answer that question is there is a proposal to limit the number of cars and in this particular instance, which I believe is acceptable. Craig Benedict: There will be a site plan approval required allowing for this type of development within the NC-2 zoning district as for any non-residential development. If this text amendment goes through, the use will become a permitted use at this leve4 in that area and they will have to come in with a site plan prior to commencing operations. Mark Marcoplos: I am comfortable with this proposal Larry Wright: I welcome this. I am against sprawl but we do live in a county where when you rank a{I the counties together, probably has the top 10% of the mean economic. As far as tax revenue, we are probably in the bottom five or ten. We have got to do more of this and if we can do it in the Economic Development Zone and the Economic Districts. This is the way we need to think about this. I would like to see more of this. Peter Hallenbeck: Mr. Lloyd's property is adjacent to mine. I know the location they are talking about. It certainly fits in with the character and community in Efland. That area is being designated as a place to bring in more businesses for all those reasons and the economy being the way it is any kind of business is good. This process has been underway for a while and I am concern that this application was stuck during the UDO wars but would this be a good example of how to use a conditional use zoning, should we just change the zoning. I don't think it is fair to the applicant to have that long period of time because we are doing other things. Mark Marcoplos: On point which is unrelated so we can deal with this issue after we deal with the motion or not but I was curious as to the reference of sitting with the Planning Board for six months to get a general idea of how it did get slowed down and if that is an accurate statement. Michael Harvey: That is not an accurate statement. The application was submitted by the applicant in December. February is the first Quarterly Public Hearing that this proposal could be scheduled for a review in accordance with our existing processes. MoTiow made by Alan Campbell to approve the item as per staffs recommendation. Seconded by Mark Marcoplos. VOTE: Unanimous Craig Benedict: As a post note, unrelated to this application. As was noted in the agenda packet there are two different ways to do things. On is to change the text that is not necessarily specific to any person's property and the other way is in the future, the new UDO we have, allows an applicant a specific property and a specific applicant to say I think I have an appropriately placed business and it works with the neighborhood and I am going to say on my property i am going to do something like this. That will be another avenue that you will have in the future. We now have another way to achieve the same goals and be specific to the needs of a neighborhood or individual. That was one area that needed to be corrected. 14 2