Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-21-2011 - 7eORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 21, 2011 Action Agenda Item No. -]- e SUBJECT• Zoning Atlas Amendment -Efland Area DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Land Use And Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendment Outline Form 2. Subject Parcels and Current and Proposed Zoning Maps 3. Ordinance Approving Rezoning 4. Draft Minutes -May 23, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing 5. Draft Minutes -June 1, 2011 Planning Board Meeting INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict, Director, 245-2592 PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board's recommendation, close the public hearing, and make a decision on aCounty-initiated rezoning of 112.35 acres of undeveloped land in the Efland area. The properties are currently zoned either Rural Residential (R-1) or Agricultural Residential (AR), and the proposed zoning district is Office/Institutional (O/I). BACKGROUND: This rezoning proposal was heard at the May 23, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing. The form in Attachment 1 contains additional information and analysis regarding this County-initiated rezoning. From: R-1 and AR To: O/I The maps in Attachment 2 show the location of the parcels, the current zoning, and the extent of the proposed Office/Institutional zone. No project is proposed at this time. This `general use' rezoning is proposed in order to `pre-zone' the area for potential economic development projects. It should be noted that the actual parcel acreage totals 112.35 acres, but the zoning line extends to the center of adjacent rights-of-way (road or railroad), as is the practice in Orange County. The Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) and owners of the five parcels are as follows: 2 Parcel Identification Number PIN) Acres Owner 9854-07-4304 6.1 John Lindsa Efland III 9854-16-1576 90.73 Efland Sim son Heirs 9854-36-1253 2.02 Andrew B. Llo d, Jr. 9854-05-1970 4.58 De artment of Trans ortation 9854-46-6706 (partial) 8.92 of 206.38 acre arcel Andrew B. Lloyd, Jr. This proposed rezoning is related to aCounty-initiated Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map amendment to change the land use category in a portion of this area from Agricultural Residential to Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node (also heard at the May 23, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing). The area subject to the Land Use Element Map amendment was formerly part of the Upper Eno Watershed Critical Area but was removed from critical area designation in 2010. The surrounding area is zoned as shown on the map in Attachment 2. There is existing LC-1 (Local Commercial), NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial), EC-5 (Existing Commercial), and I-2 (Medium Industrial) in the immediate vicinity as well as R-1 (Rural Residential) and AR (Agricultural Residential) zoning. Public Hearing: At the public hearing, two of the affected property owners and a representative for an additional property owner spoke in favor of the rezoning. An adjacent property owner questioned whether his existing mobile home park would "transition" into something else. A Board member questioned whether rezoning the parcel owned by the Department of Transportation (DOT) would enable direct access onto the Interstate access road. The draft minutes for the May 23, 2011 Quarterly Public Hearing are included in Attachment 4. Staff response: Existing adjacent and nearby uses will not be changed by this rezoning. The existing mobile home park can continue as a mobile home park under the terms contained in the Unified Development Ordinance and the current zoning of the mobile home park is not affected by this proposed rezoning. Because the mobile home park in question pre-dates the adoption of zoning regulations, it cannot be expanded without obtaining the approvals required for mobile home parks. The DOT parcel is included in the rezoning proposal because it is Orange County zoning practice to extend zoning boundaries to the centerlines of adjacent roadways. Changing the zoning of parcels owned by DOT does not change DOT policies regarding roadway or driveway access to public streets. The narrow parcel does not meet any standards for development. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of this rezoning based on the following: A. Th a rezoning is consistent, or will be consistent, with the adopted Comprehensive Plan which designates the parcels as Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node. If the associated Land Use Element map amendment is not approved by the BOCC, this rezoning will not be acted upon by the BOCC as scheduled because it would not be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. B. Th a rezoning is consistent with various Principles, Goals, and Objectives, of the adopted Comprehensive Plan (see section B of Attachment 1). C. The rezoning is consistent with the intent of the adopted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan which calls for mixed use in this overall area. Attachment 3 contains the proposed Ordinance approving the rezoning. Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board considered this item at its June 1, 2011 meeting. The Planning Board unanimously voted to recommend approval of this item. The draft Planning Board Minutes are included in Attachment 5. Public Hearing Procedural Information: In accordance with Section 2.8.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance, any evidence not presented at the public hearing must be submitted in writing prior to the Planning Board's recommendation. Additional oral evidence may be considered by the Planning Board only if it is for the purpose of presenting information also submitted in writing. Section 2.8.9(8) requires that the BOCC consider all relevant evidence presented at the public hearing and any submitted written evidence that was considered by the Planning Board in making its recommendation. The public hearing is held open to a date certain for the purpose of the BOCC receiving the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. No written comments were received prior to the June 1, 2011 Planning Board meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact is addressed in Section C.3 of Attachment 1. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation of approval; 2. Close the public hearing; and 3. Adopt the ordinance contained in Attachment 3 which approves the rezoning. Attachment 1 4 LAND USE AND UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) AMENDMENT OUTLINE UDO/ZONING 2011-02 A. AMENDMENT TOPIC -VARIOUS CATEGORIES 1. Land Use and/or Zoning (Map and/or Text) 1.a Land Use Text 1.b Land Use Map From: To: 1.c Zoning Text 1.d Zoning Map From• Rural Residential (R-1) and Agricultural Residential (AR) To• Office/Institutional (O/I) (See Map in Attachment 2) 2. UDO Development Standards 3. UDO Development Approval Processes 1. UDOMinorTextChanges B. RATIONALE • Purpose/Mission In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director has initiated an amendment to the Zoning Atlas to rezone all undeveloped parcels of property north of Interstates 85/40, east of Mt. Willing Road south of the railroad right-of-way, and west of the US 70 Connector. Four undeveloped parcels and a portion of a fifth parcel totaling 112.35 acres are proposed to be rezoned. • Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives) Principle 7: Promotion of Economic Prosperity and Diversity Economic DevElopment (ED) Overarching. Goal: Viable and sustainable economic development that contributes to both property and sales tax revenues, and enhances high-quality employment opportunities for County residents. Objective ED-2.5: Identify lands suitable to accommodate the expansion and growth of commercial and industrial uses. Objective ED-2.9: Consider industrial sites in Agricultural-Residential areas along the U.S. 70/I-85 highway and rail corridor. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern and designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange County's population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives. Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity /high density residential Page 1 of 4 5 and non-residential development with existing or planned locations of public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-speed Internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. Objective LU-3.6: Establish consistency between the Land Use Plan and the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement and Map. Objective LU-3.9: Create new zoning district(s) which allow for a mixing of commercial and residential uses, a mixing of housing types, and creates a more pedestrian friendly development pattern. New districts should be applied in areas where public services exist or are planned for in the future, in areas that promote higher intensity and high density uses on the Land Use Plan map. • New Statutes and Rules N/A C. PROCESS C.1 TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES a. Setting of a Quarterly Public Hearing date May 23, 2011 b. BOCC updates/checkpoints April 14, 2011 - BOCC work session April 26, 2011 -Chair /Vice-Chair /Manager review May 3, 2011 -Request for Legal Advertisement May 17, 2011 - BOCC approval to proceed C.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM Mission/Scope Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and Orange County ordinance requirements. a. Planning Board Review May 4, 2011 Briefing June 1, 2011 (for recommendation) b. Advisory Board Input Economic Development Commission would be an appropriate advisory board for this type of action when an board is reinstated c. Local Government Invitation N/A Page 2 of 4 6 d. Outreach d.1 General Public Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and Orange County ordinance requirements d.2 Small Area Plan Workgroup An a-mail was sent to the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan Implementation Focus Group (EMSAP IFG) with a link to the item's materials on the website when the materials were posted (morning of May 16, 2011): C.3 FISCAL IMPACT Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding for the provision of County services. Expenditures for this project have been paid using Departmental funds budgeted for the specific activity. Expenditures include: • Legal Ad: approximately $287 for this item's portion of the entire legal ad • Signs: $345 • Notification letters and postcards (postage and supplies): $38 Existing Planning staff included in the Departmental staffing budget accomplished the work required to process this amendment. D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS Analysis As required under- Section 2.8.5 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director is required to: 'cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners'. In analyzing this proposal, the following information is offered: 1. Staff has been authorized by the Board of County Commissioners to pursue small area plan implementation with a focus on economic development priorities. This proposed rezoning conforms to the intent of the adopted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan which recommends this area for non-residential and mixed use development. 2. The request for the amendment has been deemed complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance. 3. The properties subject to this rezoning are currently located within the Commercial- Industrial Transition Activity Node land use category and Agricultural Residential land use category as denoted on the Land Use Element Map of the Comprehensive Plan. The portion of the parcels currently designated Agricultural Residential land use is proposed Page 3 of 4 7 to be amended to be designated Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node land use by separate action. 4. This area of the county is served by the Orange-Alamance Water System and is slated for public sewer service in the future. Both Services are consistent with the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA). Attracting a non- residential user(s) to the area bypre-zoning the area could greatly assist with financing sewer improvements. 5. 'Pre-zoning' an area designates a specific general use zoning district to a parcel. Uses must be consistent with those allowed for the zoning district in the Table of Permitted Uses (Section 5.2 of the UDO). By pre-zoning an area, property owners can proceed with development without a lengthy rezoning process but must still be in compliance with the standards required for the specific zoning district, any additional specific Use Standards (Article 5 of the UDO), the general development regulations required in Article 6 of the UDO, and the requirements for the specific Watershed Protection Overlay Zone (Section 4.2 of the UDO} in which the parcel is located. Divergence from the adopted development regulations cannot be required unless an applicant wishes to submit to a conditional district rezoning process. 6. The area proposed for rezoning is adjacent to the Interstate 85/40 corridor and US 70/1- 85 Connector which is a four-lane road. Mt. Willing Road has an exit on the Interstate and will be on a transportation plan to be widened to an appropriate cross-section. E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE N/A for a Zoning Atlas Amendment Page 4 of 4 ~~ bled Pa~ets +.,,-.J ~ Prop°Sed Zonin g Map Amendmen - t subJect Parcels a ~ang~ CpJI1n, Pla.~ ~ °x`$26 Rop 0 ~ Fop ©~ ~ z ti ~+ 7 ""~ U1 ~. .~.yll -k y1« ' .. l I .r _.. ~.. . :r ~. _ g MT WiLLING~RD m { € ~~ ~} ~~ .~~.~~N v O ~. ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~w " ~~.~ ~ ~~ ~ T~ h. y ` _ w '~ ~" ~ CD ?. .. r . .. c ~ ~. ,j ~'~ ~~ tia~ max. 0 -a 8s R 1. r m.R ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ f ~ r ~s Vin. ,M s a~ _~, v ' ./Oyj -.~,'~- ; ~ . T ~ ap~,y "µ y 7 5 ~~ ~~ v, ..K. ~'4 „N„ O may, f } x "'"'~'k' ~~;,~'~ 3 ~ ~ ~ } - ~~,++ ~ S $ ~ e S m -'l.« '{-~ t~'n ~ ~^ ~ `' ~ `}7~.~~y~.~ ~ 4 .. 1 '~'4 Y,...,w 3~;~ "y'e+' .# ~~" ~j ~, y; i ~~ ~ k. j ^ ~ 'C yP' Y" r+ S.J!` .S ; f t 'o 'h .~ ~~ ~~V _ ..' 'Tyi'~, " . . x `at ] Y J' 4 Y 6 ~ - - - var,~.t - "~ 2~ 1 Ordinance #: ~O~ ~ -' ~ ~ `~ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS Attachment 3 1 0 WHEREAS, Orange County initiated an amendment to the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), to rezone 11.2.35 acres of undeveloped real property located north of Interstates 85/40, east of Mt. Willing Road, south of the railroad right-of-way, and west of the US 70 Connector from Rural Residential One (R-1) and Agricultural Residential (AR) to Office/Institutional (O/I), and WHEREAS, the parcels are identified as follows: Parcel Identification Number PIN Acres 9854-07-4304 6.1 9854-16-1576 90.73 9854-36-1253 2.02 9854-05-1970 4.58 9854-46-6706 (partial) 8.92 of 206.38 acre arcel and WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance {UDO) have been deemed complete, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 1.1.5 and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section- 153A-341 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Board finds that the rezoning will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan and the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following: a. The Land Use Element Map. b. Principle 7: Promotion of Economic Prosperity and Diversity. c. Economic Development (ED) Overarching Goal: Viable and sustainable economic development that contributes to bo#h property and sales tax revenues, and enhances high-quality employment opportunities for County residents.. d. Objective ED-2.5: Identify lands suitable to accommodate the expansion and growth of commercial and industrial uses. e. Obiective ED-2.9: Consider industrial sites in Agricultural-Residential areas along the U.S. 70/I-85 highway and rail corridor. f. Land Use Overarching Goal: Coordination of the amount, location, pattern and designation of future land uses, with availability of County services and facilities sufficient to meet the needs of Orange. County's population and economy consistent with other Comprehensive Plan element goals and objectives. g. Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity /high density residential and non-residential development with existing or planned locations of 11 public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-speed Internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. h. Objective LU-3.6: Establish consistency between the Land Use Plan and the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement and Map. i. Objective LU-3.9: Create new zoning district(s) which allow for a mixing of commercial and residential uses, a mixing of housing types, and creates a more pedestrian friendly development pattern. New districts should be applied in areas where public services exist or are planned for in the future, in areas that promote higher intensity and high density uses on the Land Use Plan map. and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone 112.35 acres of undeveloped land described above to Office/Institutional (O/I). BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. 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 DRAFT EXCERPT from 5/23/2011 QPH Minutes Attachment 4 1 OVERVIEW - PLANNIING CONSTRUCT 2 Craig Benedict provided an overview. He said that this is the government-initiated aspect of the 3 public hearing. _This is regarding a land use text or map or a zoning text or map. 4 - Difference between Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element/Map and Zoning 5 - Zoning is primary implementation tool to achieve vision reflected in Land Use Element/Map 6 Overview-Agenda Items 7 - Tonight's public hearings on proposed: 8 o Land Use Element text amendment 9 o Land use Element map amendment (2 items) 10 o Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Zoning text amendment 11 o Zoning map amendment 12 13 7. Zoning Atlas Amendment - To review a government-initiated amendment to rezone all 14 undeveloped parcels of property north of Interstates 85/40, east of Mt. Willing Road, south of 15 the railroad right-of--way, and west of the US 70 Connector from Rural. Residential (R-1) and 16 Agricultural Residential (AR) to Office/Institutional (O/I). Four undeveloped parcels and a 17 portion of a fifth parcel totaling 112.35 acres are proposed to be rezoned. No project is 18 proposed at this time. This rezoning is proposed in order to 'pre-zone' the area for potential 19 economic development projects. 20 Craig Benedict made this PowerPoint presentation. 21 Zoning- Atlas Amendment 22 Efland Area 23 UDO/ZONING 2011-02 24 25 Proposed Action 26 - Rezone 112.35 acres to Office/Institutional 27 Current zoning: 28 - R-1 (Rural Residential) in western portion- 29 - AR (Agricultural Residential) in eastern portion 30 o Eastern portion formerly designated a watershed critical area 31 32 Current Land Use Categories 33 - Commercial -Industrial Transition Activity Node (northern portion) 34 - Agricultural Residential (formerly part of watershed critical area) 35 36 Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary (WASMPBA) 37 - Area proposed for rezoning is within the County's Primary Service Area 12 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 DRAFT EXCERPT from 5/23/2011 QPH Minutes Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan - Consistent with intent of plan which calls for Mixed Use in this overall area and former watershed critical area - A project is not proposed at this time o Pre-zoning the area for potential economic development projects and reduces the overall timeframe ofthe approval process o Developmen# standards and requirements contained in the Unified Development Ordinance still apply Office/Institutional Permitted Uses Section 5.2 of UDO -Table of Permitted Uses Currently 33 permitted uses 4 additional uses and 3 deletions proposed in separate item heard tonight 10 Special Uses (Class A or B) Examples of Permitted Uses in O/I Child Care Facility Wholesale Trade Library Government Facilities and Office Buildings Dance, Art, & Music Schools Animal Hospital and Veterinarians Universities, Colleges, and Institutes Health services Under 10,000 sq. ft. Offices and Personal Services Hospitals Storage and Warehousing (inside a building) Multiple Family Dwelling Community Center Research Facility Public Notification Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks Mailed notices to affected property owners Mailed notices to property owners within 500-feet of affected properties Posted 10 signs in strategic areas of the affected area Recommendation 13 DRAFT EXCERPT from 5/23/2011 QPH Minutes 1 - Receive the proposal to amend the Zoning atlas 2 - Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the 3 ~ proposed amendment 4 - Refer the matter to the Planning Board- with a request that a recommendation be returned to 5 the Board of County Commissioners in time for the-June 21, 2011 BOCC regular meeting. 6 - Adjourn the public hearing until June 21, 2011 in order to receive and accept the Planning 7 Board's recommendation and-any submitted written comments. 8 9 Commissioner Jacobs asked about the line and where it should be in relation to the access 10 road. It was answered that this is a DOT parcel that is very narrow. 11 Commissioner Jacobs asked why the County would want to rezone it if it would strip out the 12 access road. It is a high-speed entrance to the interstate. Craig Benedict said that this parcel did not 13 include the access ramp. If it is being used as DOT right of-way, then it will be removed from the 14 amendment process. 15 Commissioner Jacobs asked that this be clarified. 16 Commissioner McKee said that if there is some small amount of property #hat is not within the 17 right-of--way, he would not want to exclude the rezoning of that small piece of property, because it 18 would create an inconsistency. 19 20 Public Comment 21 Ben Lloyd said that he has been waiting for 30 years to hear what he has been hearing 22 tonight. In 1983, he was a new member of the Board of County Commissioners and one of the first 23 things he found out was that the County did not have any moneyto pay the bills. The Manager at 24 that time put a freeze on everything but essential and emergency spending. All capital expenditures 25 were frozen too. He said that he called the State Department of Commerce and three people came 26 to visit with him. He said that he was told that Orange County had the most potential to attract good, 27 clean, high-paying, low water sing, non-polluting growth. But due to the lack of interest and 28 cooperation from Orange County government over the last 15 years prior to that, no one considers it. 29 He said that Orange County has had a no growth policy for 30 years. He -said that this proposal 30 should have been done 25 years ago. He supports this proposal 200%. 31 B. B. Windham said that he put in a mobile home park and- he still manages it. He said that 32 the residents are waiting on some economic improvements in the County. He concurred with Ben 33 Lloyd. He is concerned about the talk about transition. He would like some clarification. He does not 34 want to lose his mobile home park. 35 Robin Taylor-Hall of Taylor-Hall properties said that she represents the Susan Efland heirs. 36 They own- 79.23 acres. Ann Efland wrote a letter that was given to the County Commissioners. She 37 said that the heirs are supportive of the project. The homeplace has been vacant for 10 years and 38 someone has approached the family to buy just the house. She asked that the three acres that 39 adjoins the 79.23 acres be included in the rezoning. 40 Frank Clifton said that this portion is not in the proposed area. 41 Craig Benedict said that he has to proceed with the advertised section. He can continue to 42 dialogue with the homeplace representatives and amendments can be made in the future. 43 14 DRAFT EXCERPT from 5/23/2011 QPH Minutes 1 Lindsey Efland said that he has been involved with the planning process in Orange County 2 since the time that it was expanded out into the County. He commended the Planning Board, 3 Planning staff, and County Commissioners for getting the County to this point. He supports this 4 proposal. 5 6 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to 7 receive the proposal to amend the Zoning_Atlas; refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request 8 that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the June 21, 9 2011 BOCC regular meeting; and adjourn the public hearing until June 21, 2011 in order to receive 10 and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. 11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 12 13 14 15 Excerpt of Draft Planning Board Attachment 5 Minutes D R A F ~' 1 MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING-BOARD 3 JUNE 1, 2010 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford (Chair), At-Large, Eno Township] Larry Wright (Vice-Chair), At-Large, Cedar Grove 8 Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township Representative; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative; Alan 9 Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel 10 Hilf Township- Representative; Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham 11 Township; 12 13 14 MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Marcoplos, At-Large, Bingham Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Vacant- 15 Eno Township Representative; 16 17 18 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtz, Planning. Systems Coordinator; Shannon Berry, Special 19 Projects Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 20 21 22 (Documents handed out: O~ceAnstitutional (O/I) UDO Text Amendments and Orange County Municipaldies; Unified 23 Development Ordinance (UDO) Implementation Bridge) 24 26 27 AGENDA ITEM 11: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT: 28 To make a recommendation to the B6CC on this item to rezone 112.35 acres of property plus the 29 adjacent rights-of--way (to the center line) from Rural Residential (R-1) and Agricultural Residential (AR) 30 to Office/Institutional (0/I). The properties are located north of Interstates 85/40, east of Mt. Willing 31 Road, south of the railroad right-of--way, and- west of the US 70 Connector in the Efland area, as heard 32 at the May 23, 2011 quarterly public hearing 33 Craig Benedict, Planning Director 34 35 Craig Benedict: In the Efland area this is a roughly 112 acre area as shown on the map. (reviewed abstract and map) 36 37 Judith Wegner: Why the cutouts of the other parcels because I thought one of the people commenting wasn't she speaking 38 about one of the other parcels? 39 40 Craig Benedict: She was speaking about the homestead place in Efland... 41 42 Judith Wegner: You said it had not been noticed but it would seem peculiar if you were one of the other owners not to be given 43 the same ..... 44 45 Larry Wright: I agree. 46 47 Craig Benedict: We said if the government initiates this zoning we would have been turning that house into anon-conforming 48 use. We will begin the dialogue with the mob~e home park and all these parcels in here. We think this is a dominant use 49 potential and people maybe considering their options. 50 51 Larry Wright: This is an agenda item to make this whole area, not the cutouts, zoned the same? 52 53 Craig Benedict: Yes. We have 112 acre area that will be pre-zoned. It will have an Office/Institutional district given to them 54 then all they have to do is look at the permitted uses table and there are more uses. We are beginning a dialogue with some 55 large properties over here that want to rezone their property. We are also hiring someone to help us with conceptual plans. 56 Once we meet with DOT and say there should be intersections in these areas. 57 58 Judith Wegner: Since we are being asked to recommend rezoning, could one of you run us through the range of things that fall 59 within this classification. 60 16 DRAFT ~~ 61 Perdita Holtz: There are 44 various uses plus 13 additional special uses. Things like childcare facilities, library, school, 62 vocational schools, colleges and universities, offices, personal services, internal warehousing, government facilities and office 63 facilities, animal hospitals, health services under 10,000 square feet, hospitals, botanical gardens, public and non-profit parks. 64 65 Judith Wegner: Thank you. 66 67 Craig Benedict: Some of the new uses, office and personal uses, class 1 which is very low scale, assembling and packaging 68 operations on premise, multi family is still a residential higher density and we have in our land use definition that we don't want 69 all of these areas to be 100% residential but a mixed use component, postal services. 70 71 Judith Wegner: Thinking back to Buckhorn, the whole debate about theaters and reta~ when initially that had been thought of 72 as an economic development area and when the proposal came in it had to be more retail and more theaters and hotels and 73 things in my mind isn't what we are talking about here. 74 75 Craig Benedict: This does not have a retail component. 76 77 Judith Wegner: If someone wanted that they would have to rezone. 78 79 Craig Benedict: Some sort of conditional use rezoning. 80 81 Peter Hallenbeck: One thing that is coming out of all these changes we are discussing is that we have a significant amount of 82 land along the interstate. It was just the EDD, a small part of that gotwater and sewer now it is bigger. So you are saying there 83 is finally enough to work with that you really can buy an area for warehouse, retail; light industrial and all these uses without 84 upsetting anyone because you have enough land to work with. 85 86 Craig Benedict: That is very accurate. Access is an important criteria as far as what guides you toward a heavy traffic use 87 versus a lighter traffic use. 88 89 Peter Hallenbeck: It is interesting that what we are doing here with this big parcel we are talking about, you might have a two 90 month permit to break ground but that area has a huge obstacle of getting water and sewer. Whereas area A is interesting that 91 will have a longer time to do permitting but today it has water and a sewer line going through it. One area is ready to go but 92 harder to permit and the other doesn't have permitting requirements but someone has to come up with a million to a million and a 93 half dollars to bring water and sewer. 94 95 Craig Benedict: It is important that when the Commissioners, last year in some difficult times, still put $200,000 dollars towards 96 a master infrastructure plan for this entire zone from Efland back to Mebane. We need to see the big picture. Presently Efland 97 sewer and Efland Phase II sewer that will go under construction later this year, flows back to Hillsborough. We may reverse that 98 flow and send it in a different direction. 99 100 Brian Crawford: On the parcel map, in your discussions with the current parcel owners, were they clear on the type of 101 development that could go there? You may have owners who think it is more flexible that it really is. 102 103 Craig Benedict: We did speak with the primary property owner's representative for the Sim Efland Heirs. They said is this the 104 most liberal zoning district that allows everything? I said no so retail is not a big part of this. 105 106 MorioN made by Judith Wegner that the Zoning Atlas Amendment be adopted based on staff recommendation and discussion. 107 Larry Wright seconded. 10$ VoTE:_ Unanimous 109 110 2