Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-21-2011APPROVED 1/24/2012 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Dinner Meeting November 21, 2011 5:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a dinner meeting on Monday, November 21, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. at the Link Government Services Center in Hillsborough, NC COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:. Pam Hemminger COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY ABSENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Alan Campbell, Pete Hallenbeck, Mark Marcoplos, and Larry Wright, H.T. "Buddy Hartley", Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Maxecine Mitchell, and Johnny Randall PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Brian Crawford and Planning Board members Lisa Stuckey, Andrea Rohrbacher, Judith Wegner Introductions were made. Chair Pelissier said that Commissioner Hemminger would be unable to attend this ,~ evening because she is tied up in traffic in Charlotte. She will try to attend the Quarterly Public Hearing. Tentative 2012 Planning /Planning Board Work Plan Discussion (Focus on Economic Development and Small Area Plan Implementation) Planning Director Craig Benedict reviewed the information below with maps: 1) Completed in 2011 • Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) adopted • Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendments in Bowman Road area (423 acres to Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node) and Efland (118 acres to Commercial- Industrial Transition Activity Node; 16 acres to 10-Year Transition) adopted • UDO Text Amendment for Office/Institutional (O/I) zoning district • Rezoning of 112 acres in Efland to O/I • Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan (scheduled for adoption on 11/15/11) • Interlocal Agreement with the City of Durham regarding water and sewer services in the Eno EDD area (already approved by Orange County; on City of Durham's 11/21/11 Council for consideration) 2) Upcoming Items • Tonight's Public Hearing Items -these items were prioritized last November through January. It is anticipated that each year that this time, the Planning Board will look at past accomplishments and things to be done in the future and take direction from the County Commissioners on prioritization. He said that tonight's QPH items were discussed about a year ago and staff is already planning on what will happen at the QPH next year. February 2012 QPH Items: o Authorized to commence work at November 1, 2011 BOCC meeting ^ UDO Text Amendment to add a new zoning district (EDB-3) or revise an existing district (EDB-1) and revise Section 5.1.4 to create additional development options within the areas of the county slated for water and wastewater services and targeted for development. ^ Zoning Atlas Amendment to pre-zone certain properties in the Buckhorn/Mebane Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Nodes (CITAN) to prepare the area for eventual non-residential development. ^ UDO Text Amendment (and possible Zoning Atlas Amendment) to add a new conditional zoning district -Rural Economic Development Area (REDA) -that would be applicable to the geographic area in the Highway 57 Small Area Plan. ^ UDO Text Amendment to add a new Section 6.20 that will require any new construction with a designated County sewer service area to use the public sewer system as its means of wastewater treatment and would require the sewer system as the only repair option for existing septic tanks that fail in the sewer service area. ^ Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Atlas Amendments to increase the size of the Eno Economic Development District to match the urban growth boundary of the City of Durham. May 2012 QPH Items o Currently Planned ^ UDO Text Amendment for design guidelines pertaining to the Efland "core area" (can now proceed since BOCC gave direction of the "sidewalk issue at the October 6, 2010 work session). ^ Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Text Amendment to add a Mixed Use land use category and to change the Efland Village from Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN) to Mixed Use. ^ UDO Text Amendment -Revisions to the Table of Permitted Uses for Economic Development zoning districts (Staff is currently evaluating scope). ^ UDO Text Amendment -new or revised general use zoning districts to promote economic activity in Commercial Transition Activity Nodes and CITAN (Staff is currently evaluating scope). August 2012 QPH Items o Currently Planned ^ UDO Text Amendment to include any necessary revisions resulting from a review of development approval processes (Staff plansto conduct a review beginning in early 2012). November 2012 QPH Items o Currently Planned 2 ^ UDO Text Amendment to add an Agricultural Support Enterprises zoning district (Staff of 4 departments are currently reviewing past work on this topic to determine necessary steps). 3) Comprehensive Strategy to Attract Economic Development Projects • Infrastructure (water, sewer, electric, communication, etc.) • Site "Ready-to-Go" o Land Use /Zoning /Regulations o Other Preparatory Aspects • Simplified planning brochures for development processes Craig Benedict said that Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director, has worked closely with the Planning department. He said that the complexion of the Planning Board has changed within the last couple of years, it has been very diligent with understanding the proposals and has moved forward with due speed. Planning Board Vice-Chair Larry Wright said that on item 3, Pete Hallenbeck has championed this cause -.Infrastructure (water, sewer, electric, communication, etc.). Pete Hallenbeck said that they do not need to build an economic development zone with 1960's technology. He said that data and coverage is really critical in these zones. The utilities must include this aspect. Craig Benedict said that in June of 1999 he brought a telecommunications map to the Board of County Commissioners end just recently the Board approved it within the past two years. Commissioner Gordon pointed out that Orange County is now being proactive in the area of economic development. There are still large tracts of land along two major interstates. Pete Hallenbeck said that the current Orange County zoning makes a distinction when a telecommunications tower hits 150 feet. He said that one of his suggestions into think about the FGC rules, which require lights on the tower over 200 feet. He suggested adjusting these 150 feet to about 190 feet. He said that 150 feet does not give enough antennas for the tower to be profitable. He made reference to the rule that only two people can work in a home if they are working from home and said that,-under those rules, Hewlett-Packard, Google, and other startups could not have been started. He said that the ordinances need to be revised to make Orange County more economic development friendly. Craig Benedict agreed that they need to reanalyze what can occur in the rural areas, but it will have to be reviewed and approved. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he is very interested in what Mr. Hallenbeck said about the height of the towers and this is worthy of rapid consideration. Frank Clifton asked Craig Benedict how long it would take to bring an ordinance amendment on this issue and Craig Benedict said 3-6 months. The Board agreed by consensus to move this suggestion forward. Commissioner Jacobs said that part of how they decided to regulate these towers was so that these would not be lighted. He asked how 150 feet was picked. Craig Benedict said that it was because of the lighting ordinance. Commissioner Gordon said that she wants to be sensitive to the neighboring communities if they choose to move forward on the height of the towers. The Board agreed to have the staff bring back the part of the ordinance regarding height limit of the telecommunication towers as soon as possible. 3 Commissioner Gordon said that Orange County is well-positioned for smart economic development and the county values development that is environmentally responsible. She would be interested in seeing things conducive to their economic development areas, but the quality of life and the environment are still very important, and that is true in siting cell towers. Commissioner McKee asked Craig Benedict if there was still interest from private individuals about pre-approving sites for towers. Craig Benedict said that ten years ago good wireless access was not a quality of life issue, but it is now. Regarding the interest, there have been starts and stops. AT&T has expressed interest in multiple towers in the County. Commissioner McKee asked if there was still interest from individual landowners. Craig Benedict said yes and there have been voluntary agricultural districts that have signed up. Frank Clifton said that in their current regulations, the Board only considers towers one time of year. He said that he has asked Craig Benedict to talk about this with the Planning Board. He said that he wanted Steve Brantley to talk to the Board about some of his contacts that may be interested in doing business in Orange County. Johnny Randall pointed out that-once lights are put on a tower, they become attractive to birds. Chair Pelissier said that the Board meant an unlighted tower under 200 feet. The Board will look to the Planning Board to come up with a precise recommendation to make this work. ., Steve Brantley said that he agreed with the addition of telecommunications in order to bring in businesses to Orange County. He is aware of 4-5 businesses that are interested in the EDD areas and he is encouraged to see this because that means Orange County is of interest to the business communities. He would like to meet with each of them to find out what they feel is an appropriate type of business as the right fit for Orange County. With respect to incubators, the County has been working with a particular group within the Department of Planning at UNC. He is interested in working with the County and UNC to see what a good fit would be. Craig Benedict said that staff is trying to get ready to be able to answer questions of perspective businesses. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Board was going to have a conversation about underlining the issue of joint planning that has been discussed previously with other governments. Craig Benedict said that as soon as Durham approves the Interlocal Utility Agreement, it has also expressed interest in Orange County implementing the NC 57 plan. In all three cases of tffie EDDs, the intergovernmental coordination is the foundation of it. The discussions with the other governments will continue. The City of Mebane has been talking about businesses that it is interested in also. Commissioner Jacobs said that the County was halfway through an agreement. Hillsborough and never finished it. He asked where this was in the queue. ~~ Craig Benedict said that there is a MOU with Hillsborough about proceeding. The Capital Improvement Program has monies for the future for working with Hillsborough on utilities expansion. The Mebane agreement will be expanded from 2004 to include some of new land use areas. Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that land use agreements with other governments go beyond economic development. He wants to keep that in mind. Chair Pelissier said that it would behoove them as a Board to have a discussion as to what types of businesses they want in Orange County. Larry Wright said that each member of the Planning Board does have a lot to say that is very valuable. Mark Marcoplos said that an hour a year is too small a time increment to discuss everything and maybe they should look at a two-hour meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 6:34 PM. 4 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board APPROVED 2/7/2012 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBL1C HEARING November 21, 2011 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, November 21, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at DSS Offices, Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners Valerie P. 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, Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert and Deputy Clerk to the David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Larry Wright, Alan Campbell, Pete Hallenbeck, Mark Marcoplos, H.T. "Buddy Hartley", Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Maxecine Mitchell, Johnny Randall and Andrea Rohrbacher PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Judith Wegner, Lisa Stuckey, A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Carolina Friends School petition to modify an existing Class A Special Use Permit to expand school operations at their facility at 4809 Friends School Road - To review adeveloper-initiated application to rezone several parcels to a Conditional Use Zoning classification and a Class A Special Use Permit application seeking to expand existing school operations. Planning Board Vice-Chair Larry Wright introduced the items. Item C-1 is a quasi- judicial hearing and those who want to speak must be sworn in. Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt swore in the speakers. Michael Harvey: This is an application for a proposal to extend conditional use zoning, as well as ask for the adoption of the Class A Special Use Permit concerning the operation of Carolina Friends School. The abstract for this item begins on page 1 and extends all the way to page __ 144. I am going to review portions of this abstract and the applicant has a brief presentation and will respond to any questions that may arise. The background is covered on page 1 and 2 of the abstract. The school was originally approved in the 1980's as a planned development. Previous modifications had been approved and authorized by the County Commissioners over the years with respect to the operation of the facility as well as the operation of the existing septic system on site. It needs to be remembered that this school was in existence-and began operation before the County adopted comprehensive regulations governing the development of school operations as are currently articulated in section 5.8.4 of the Unified Development Ordinance. As this is a new request seeking to expand and modify the County's original approval, the applicant is obligated to demonstrate compliance, not only with the provisions of Section 5.8.4, but also required to rezone portions of property to conditional use as the planned development zoning designation no longer exists. You all remember that the conditional use permit process took over the planned development permit. review process when the UDO was adopted in April of this year. The applicant's proposal is to abandon and re-locate the existing septic, the wastewater treatment system, out of an existing stream buffer. They are going to be developing a new performing arts center, which we are going to look at when we review the submitted site plan in a moment.- I'm going to call these particular issues out to you. They are looking to develop additional recreational fields. They are going to relocating, for example, an existing baseball field and developing alternative fields. They are going to do additions to existing school buildings. They are going to be installing a new access drive via Mt. Sinai Road, and they're going to be developing additional parking facilities. As I indicated previously, this involves a rezoning request. They are proposing the rezoning of parcels of property from existing Rural Buffer and Planning Development Housing Rural Buffer to Rural Buffer Conditional Use. The size of all potential parcels involved is about 40 acres of the existing school operation, which is already encumbered under old special use permits to allow for the operation of the school. This is a copy of the site plan, which you all have in your packet. I'd like to call your attention to several facets and elements of this project to get you oriented. (Pointing to map) This is Mt. Sinai Road here. This is Friend School Road here. This, denoted on the site plan, this black area here is the new performing arts center, which is right outside the stream buffer. The existing school buildings show dark areas where there are going to be additions. The old baseball field has been moved here. You will note here is the proposed new access road off of Mt. Sinai with additional parking here to support the performing arts center. We have tennis courts and other recreational areas down in here. We have a building proposed next to the existing soccer fields and athletic fields, and the wastewater treatment facility will be up in this general area. As the Board knows, this is a two-step approval process. You .are going to be taking action on a rezoning request and you're going to be taking action on a Class A Special Use Permit, which is aquasi-judicial hearing process according to the provisions of Section 2.7 and 2.9 of the UDO. You're going to be reviewing each of these applications simultaneously, but when you take action, you are going to be taking action on the legislative component first and the quasi judicial portion second. You need to bear in mind that the information in terms of whether or not you're going to approve or deny the quasi judicial component, i.e., the Special Use Permit, needs to be based on the evidence entered into the record during the various public hearings and the testimony offered herein. To review the provisions of the UDO, I'm going to call your attention to our abstract. I'm not going to review every independent section, but what I will stipulate to be that with respect to Section 5.8.4, staff has provided comments with respect to the applicant's compliance with the various submittal requirements and the various development standards. For example, within your package, there was correspondence between Orange County Planning Department and the Fire Marshal's Office, specifically Mr. David Sykes, who has indicated he has reviewed the proposal and determined that he can supply emergency services to the facility. As part of that review, the Eno Volunteer Fire Department was involved and does not express any concerns. This is specifically on page 3 of your abstract. We've also provided answers with. respect to the proposed wastewater treatment facility, the submittal of the biological inventory, which Orange County Planning staff and the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation have indicated that there are no issues with respect to the redevelopment of this site, with respect to potentially endangering significant habitats that have been located. The applicant submitted a very detailed biological inventory from the Catena Group as part of this development review process. The applicant has supplied the landscaping and buffering storm water management drainage and grading plan. Upon initial review, we deemed this to be consistent with the provisions of the UDO. A formal traffic impact study has been completed and is part of the packet for you to review indicating that the proposed increase in the number of students. on this site will not have a negative impact on local roadways. As also required by the provisions of the UDO, the applicant has provided the second means of ingress/egress as required. Planning staff has found, as stipulated and required by Section 5.8, 4-a, 3-n, that this site does not lend itself to the development of shared facilities with respect to a park and ride or other public transportation facilities due to its location. Staff, as we've indicated on page 5 of your abstract, is convinced that the size of the property is consistent with existing County and school board policy with respect to the size reliable for a school, and we further find that the applicant has complied with the submittal requirements for Section 5.8.4, the required Class A Special Use Permit findings for Section 2.7.3, and the required documentation for conditional use rezoning as articulated in Section 2.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Our recommendation is that you receive this application; you conduct the public hearing; accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comments; you refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for their February 21, 2012 regular meeting; and that you adjourn this public hearing to February 21, 2012 in order to receive the Planning Board's recommendation as well as any other additional comment. My closing remarks are as follows: Number one, we would like this abstract entered into the official record. This abstract contains the application packet as submitted, which contains a biological inventory, a site plan, a resource management plan, a letter from a realtor identifying her opinion with respect to the project's compliance with maintaining the value of adjacent property value, a detailed narrative by the applicant, renderings of the proposed new performance center and the new buildings, and all other submittal documentation, we have a property and vicinity map, which is Attachment 2, staff comments with respect to memorandum concerning the.. initial review of this application, a short description and note on the difference between legislative and quasi judicial proceedings, the neighborhood information meeting comments and notification materials and certification. Staff has not received any comments with respect to the approval or denial of this application, with the exception of the concern that has been expressed today over the development of the baseball field. -There is concern from the adjoining property owner over the proximity of the field to their property. That property owner is present at this meeting this evening. We have informed the applicant of the concern and the applicant is going to address that during their presentation, however, we have been led to believe that they are going to be meeting with this specific property owner to address that concern. The neighborhood information meeting, the -only comment staff received with respect to the development of this site was the question and concern about the erection of ball field lights and other lights around the athletic fields. You will note from the site plan that none are proposed. If the applicant wishes to add them, that would be from my standpoint a modification to this project, which would require therm to come back before the County Board of Commission through an SUP modification to add them at a later date. It is not something that I believe staff can approve administratively. So, for practical and technical purposes, none are being proposed, none can be installed until this Board takes action on the request. As I indicated, the applicant has their own presentation. Unless you have any immediate questions from me, I'm going to suggest the applicant come up and make their presentation to the Board. Joe Marian (Attorney for Carolina Friends School): Good evening, my name is Joe Marian, and I have been duly sworn. I am the attorney for Carolina Friends School and. have been so for almost 20 years. I have practiced in Durham and Orange County for more than 30 years. I'm going to try to say as little as possible and hand the ball as quickly as I can to the people that have done the work here. It has been a two to three-year process. We especially want to commend Michael Harvey for his time and efforts and patience and responsiveness to the many questions that have come up to get us to the point where we are today, because it certainly has been a give and take process, both within the school and determining what the needs were, and then with the County as to how to best implement those needs. As you will see in this much shorter packet that I think you have from Carolina Friends School, on the second page are the specific Special Use Permit Required Findings. Without belaboring those, I'm sure you're familiar with them, but we feel that we have addressed all four of those in the submissions that have been already submitted to the Board here as well as what follows when we give you specific details about the various plans on board. Who is here from the school and will speak, just so you know kind of what's coming, Mike Hanas is the Principal of the Carolina Friends School and has been for five or six years and before that was the Head Teacher. He is here very briefly to give you an idea of what triggered this process -what our needs are and what the Carolina Friends School is about. Then Ellen Weinstein, the architect and Tony Whitaker, the Civil Engineer, who really did the nuts and bolts of this proposal, are here to walk you through it to the extent you need any explanation as to the particulars.. We also have other officials and board members here. I would point out especially that Peter and Martha Hoffer are here, who are Carolina Friends School's benefactors. They started the school over 40 years- ago with a donation of land .and their donations of land and time and resources has continued for more than 40 years and they're here tonight in case there are any questions arising and in support of the school. There are special people at the school.. With that overview, I'll turn it over to Mike Hanas. Mike will give the brief description of our needs. Mike Hanas: Good evening, my name is -Mike Hanas. I do serve as Principal of the Carolina Friends School. I have been sworn in. }more often like to identify myself as the tallest student at Carolina Friends School. This process has been one of many good examples of learning. that has gone on for me as well as for members of my community. We are a school community fast approaching a 50'h anniversary. We were founded nearly 50 years ago by members of the Durham Friends meeting and the Chapel Hill Friends meeting who set out to establish an independent school with a deliberate policy of racial integration. We've tried to continue to bring that mission of educating students for action in the real world to life in all of our programs and practices. We currently serve about 500 students from the surrounding area, about 400 families. And they come to us for a number of reasons. They come to Carolina Friends School in part because they want their children to be in a school setting in which the classes are particularly small. They want their students to be seen and known, nudged and nurtured, applauded or kicked in the behind by a teacher who actually knows them particularly well. They also come to realize specific academic aspirations, for their students to participate in the arts as well as in athletics. But maybe, more importantly than all of those, they come for the sake of participating in a community of a particular set of values. They choose to come to Carolina Friends School knowing their students will be involved significantly in what we call service learning initiatives, classroom experiences that translate directly into action in their communities,. their local communities and communities far from here. They come because they are particularly interested in having their students. in a school setting that is committed to conflict resolution and anti-bullying efforts as our school. And they come because they want to participate in the process of building a community like Carolina Friends School. Stewardship is what brings us here today, really. Our entire community -staff, students, parents, teachers, alums, neighbors -are all participating in the question, `what's next?', `what would it take for this school community, which we have come to value, to not only endure, but perhaps even better serve the children and families of the surrounding area?'. I hope that kind of commitment to good stewardship is apparent in a number of the aspects of the program. Our commitment to relocating our wastewater treatment plant, our commitment to renovating existing structures wherever possible rather than tearing things down and building new structures. You'll hear more about those details from Ellen Weinstein. Thank you for your consideration. Ellen Weinstein: My name is Ellen Weinstein, I have been duly sworn in this evening. I'm architect for Carolina .Friends School. Two and a half years ago the Carolina Friends School Facilities Committee began discussions about how and where to expand the existing 38-acre campus. Avery generous land donation was being planned that would grow the campus to 87 acres. This_was the time to plan for both immediate needs and longer range hopes. Through a very thorough planning process, a two and a half year planning process, first we did a fairly extensive analysis of the existing site -vegetation, topography, soils, solar daylight access, pedestrian and vehicular circulation. I want to call your attention to one part of the analysis, which was these radii, walking radii. When we plotted these, the center building, very cleverly named because it is now at the center of the campus, we came from the Center Building out for a five-minute walking radius and drew this first circle. Then we came out for aten-minute walking radius-and drew that second circle. What we soon realized was that there was a great opportunity for new activities to move to the west part of the campus, the new land, and still be equidistant and just as close to the center and the heart of campus as the existing buildings: Moving campus activities to the western part, so this area right here that you've seen on our site plan, really provided an opportunity to incorporate and to protect the existing stream and make it apart of the campus, and that stream is right here. You'll see in later slides, that stream is now really considered the edge of campus and what this new plan does is really make it a focus of the campus experience. I'd like to point out some of the key elements of the proposed plan to orient you again. I apologize, we have turned north directly up, so the plans that you have, if you would move them counterclockwise: So north is directly up and existing campus is this area right here, with the thinner red line that comes around here. Then this bolder line is the proposed new campus. So the plan includes additions to the lower school, the middle school, the Quaker dome, and the early school. These are additions to all the existing buildings, and whenever possible, these additions create outdoor courtyards and rooms for learning. The second component is a new activity on the campus, a building that does not exist currently, which is a new performing arts center. That is located right here on the new western part of the campus. A pedestrian bridge is planned from campus across the stream to the performing arts center. This pedestrian bridge will bring everyone through the woods and across the stream to the new performing arts building. So, again, the stream that currently forms the edge of the campus now becomes a focal point of the daily life of campus, which we think is a really important learning opportunity. The existing spray field that's been mentioned is in this area right here currently. That wastewater system will be moved approximately into this rectangular area on the north part of the site. So the existing spray irrigation field will be removed and the new wastewater area will be developed in the northern portion of the campus, as I mentioned. This new system is a surface strip irrigation system that allows 90% of the existing tree canopy to remain. A minimum amount of parking is provided at the performing arts center for accessibility and of course emergency access. But the bulk of the parking remains on the main part of campus in the existing paved areas and again the idea is that people will park in those areas if they are coming to a performance and again walk through the woods and over the bridge. And students will of course do the same. The existing .road, which right now stops right here, is being rerouted a bit to make safer conditions for the early school and then is being extended as a loop road around the campus, again for accessibility to the new performing arts area. Also, the new driveway and new access point for Mt. Sinai way down here will come and join up with that new loop road. The new baseball field is proposed here on the west side of the site and an existing baseball field will be turned into the tennis court area. I'd like to just quickly share some initial sketches of the performing arts center with you. These are early on in the design process. This is a sketch approached from the bridge coming across the stream, moving toward the performing arts courtyard. Hopefully this will give you a sense of the character and the scale of the new buildings proposed. Then in this aerial drawing, I just wanted to give you a sense, we've taken what is a fairly large footprint - 20,000 square foot building with 300-350 seats, music space, dance, and theater classrooms -we've broken it down into basically four components so we've broken down the scale of the building and created this courtyard that you see. So, again, creating outdoor space, which at Friends School is every bit a classroom as much as any indoor space. The simple forms and materials that you see echo the existing buildings and the forms that have been used on the existing campus will transfer to the new campus. I'd like to now turn this over to Tony Whitaker and encourage you. to ask him all of the hard questions about all of the details of this plan. Tony Whitaker: Thank you, my name is Tony Whitaker, the Civil Engineer for the project, and I have been sworn in. I too would like to thank the staff for all the work that has gone in to getting us to this point. Quickly, and the staff has done a great job and Ellen has done a great job of stepping us through the site and some of the principles that have informed the site development. I wanted to make a comparison quickly because I think it's helpful for the existing special use permit condition, that is, the land area and density of the existing condition, you'll see is 38 acres, a floor area ratio of 6.6%, open space ratio about 94%, and impervious surface ratio of about 16%. Those are existing conditions. Compared to the proposed condition., you'll see the most dominant change is the additional land area of 87 acres now instead of 38. You'll see. the floor area ratio has dropped from 6.6 to 3.7 percent as a percentage of the gross land area of the parcel. Open space ratio has increased from 94% to 97% now, and the impervious ratio from 16% to 13.5%. So, by these measures and in this context we say that the proposed condition is less dense than the existing condition. I will mention something that you've heard already that came up today - a concern expressed by the adjacent property owner. On this slide, that property is in this area immediately west of the proposed baseball field. The concern, as we understand it -and we've had some conversation today and will have continuing conversation -the concern is regarding the proximity of the ball field to the property line. So we have looked at this issue today and do believe that there is an opportunity to take the ball field and to move it to the right, or in this -case, to the east to provide more separation between the ball field and the elements of the ball field like the batting cage and the dugout as a separation of the ball field to the property owner. So we believe there is that opportunity to work with this property owner to satisfy that concern. We eagerly embrace that opportunity.. In the next few weeks before the Planning Board meeting in January we expect to have those issues resolved and be able to report back. Thank you. I'll turn it back over to Joe Marian, who has a few concluding remarks. Joe Marian: I think Michael did introduce all of the written documents that have been supplied so far; but we would ask that the materials from the PowerPoint that you have as well as the testimony that has occurred or may yet occur be entered into the official record so that we have met those requirements. In closing, the only thing I will say is a little on a personal note. Both of my children went to Carolina Friends School and both went for 12 years. One is out of college and one is almost out of college. So I am here as a Friends School parent as well. I believe in their mission, and I believe in their results, and I believe that this expansion such as it is, even though it reduces density, is a wonderful opportunity for a wonderful school. So we appreciate your attention and I think we stand ready to answer questions from any source. Larry Wright: Commissioners, are there any comments? Board members? Mark Marcoplos: I'm curious about the baseball fields and the lights. Michael Harvey: As I have been informed and as I have testified to and as Mr. Whitaker has testified to, there are no proposals to erect outdoor sports field lights around the baseball field or any of the other athletic fields. I would consider that, if this is approved, a modification so that Carolina Friends School, if they ever wanted to erect such lights, they would have to come back before the Board and seek approval for those lights. As of right now, no, and there's also no plans for amplified PA system or any other similar announcement system around the ball field. Johnny Randall: I noticed in the information provided there were a number of what could be construed as invasive plant species on the site and there was some intention of removing these to the best extent possible. I wanted to contribute some information to the applicant concerning the property removal of such species (Mr. Randall handed the applicant a brochure). I'm familiar with a number of these plant,species, and sooner or later, some of these will take over the whole site. So perhaps eliminating these could become a service learning project for the local students. Andrea Rohrbacher: With respect to the footbridge to the performing arts center, are there adequate safety measures in place for an emergency evacuation? Tony Whitaker: Yes. The reason that we have the second entrance from Mt. Sinai Road is to provide that emergency/secondary access to the performing arts center in case something is needed on that side of the creek and emergency vehicles cannot otherwise get across the stream. That driveway will be 20 feet wide; it will meet fire department and state building code requirements for minimum width and surface conditions for means of access, means of emergency access. So that will be approved by the County Fire Marshal and Emergency Services and we believe that will be a very safe condition. Andrea Rohrbacher: I was thinking more along the lines of if the entire building needed #o be evacuated because of something like a tornado warning. Would the footbridge be adequate to get people to a safe place or would the building be safe? Tony Whitaker: In those circumstances, when that building would be occupied in a very full manner, it would be around some event, some performance event or some gathering preplanned. If those kinds of emergency weather conditions existed, the school would have operational control over the cancelling or delaying that kind of event in the first place: So that would be the first line of defense for that sort of thing. Larry Wright: Ok, we'd like to open it up now for the members of the public. I'd like to remind you that there's athree-minute limit on comments made. If you would step forward and state your name and state that you've been duly sworn in. John Roberts: In aquasi-judicial hearing, you cannot limit to three minutes. Marilyn Preyer: My name is Marilyn Preyer, and I have been duly sworn in this evening. I wanted to share with you briefly my long and wonderful history with the Carolina Friends School community. Our three children benefitted immensely by attending school there for a number of years. We in turn support them with our time and our activities and resources as well, so we have a very cordial and warm relationship. I regret very much that the Carolina Friends School community is hearing from me tonight for the first time on this issue. I truly was not aware of it, and I'm not sure where it fell through the cracks. I'm sure we were notified, but it did not get on my front burner, so for that I apologize to all of you that you are hearing from me in a public setting like this. Our main concern, our lot, we would not have had this opportunity to own this lot if it had not been for the graciousness of the Clopfer's. We did purchase the lot from them about ten years ago, and at that time we had intended to build it as our home site and our plans changed. So we then put this land on the market and there it has been sitting for quite awhile. As the economy turned in 2008, we just simply have not been able to sell it. Our concern is that here on out that with the baseball field so close to our edge, I think it would be within 90 feet of the property line, and with the parking lot, it will change the atmosphere of a perspective home site for somebody. So I would very much look forward to the opportunity to talk with Carolina Friends School and see if we can find a mutually agreeable alternative or something that will work for all parties concerned. I believe that I did hear that the baseball field would. be rented out. I would like to gather more information about that and find out what expectations might be for that. Having spent so much time with Carolina Friends School, I know what wonderful stewards they are, and I do not doubt for a minute that they will not do everything above and beyond their word and their plan, but I just very much would like to facilitate discussion so that everybody can be satisfied. Thank you. Margaret Campion: Good evening Commissioners. My name is Margaret Campion and I was sworn in earlier this evening. I currently serve on the board of Carolina Friends School. My son also graduated from Friends School some years ago. I also serve on the very long-standing Land and Facilities Committee and really it is just reiterating what has already been said. The length of time that we spent these two and a half years really is an .indication of the seriousness with which we took our various charges. We continuously held our stewardship of the school in the forefront of our minds. We tried to plan far a sustainable community; I believe we have, centered around Friends Creek, which now in the new plan runs through the center of the community. We are very lucky at Friends School with the land we were originally gifted from the Clopfers and then this new gift of land. We realize how lucky we are. We cherish it, as well as the surrounding community, and we hope that you too will agree that we have planned for another 50 years of concern about the environment, the kids that will be there, and I hope that whoever buys the property has kids and they can just run right across the street. Larry Wright: Is there anybody else that arrived late that would like to be duly sworn in and have a comment for the Commissioners? Hearing none, Chair Pelissier. Chair Pelissier: We have four recommendations from the Planning Director, and I will entertain a motion. Commissioner Jacobs: Before I say anything, I want to commend the Friends School community for their work that has been done, for the sensitivity to the land. Two and a half years working on this project compared to government is action is speedy indeed. I just had a couple of questions and I actually came here with a question about ball field lights, since that has been a sore point in other parts of the County. And I understand, Mr. Harvey, that you did say you would consider it a special use permit modification to add lights, but is there any reason that we wouldn't add as a condition that the addition of lights would constitute an automatic modification of the special use permit. Michael Harvey: If you wish to add that condition, that is obviously your purview. Commissioner Jacobs: I think I knew the law we would have to have the applicant agree. Michael Harvey: Correct, because it's a conditional use, but you can recommend. Commissioner Jacobs: It doesn't sound disagreeable, but I just wanted to raise that. I also had a question about the solid waste management plan submitted by the applicant. There's a reference on page 148, a memorandum from Solid Waste Management and one of the recommendations has to do with food waste and separating grease rendering. I just didn't see where that was followed through, and I looked at this, which we got separately, the Orange County Solid Waste Management Plan. I didn't see it, I probably just missed it, but how is that tracked? Michael Harvey: First I'm going to provide my answer to your question and let the applicant provide an answer obviously because it's their plan. What you have on page 128 is Jeff Scouten, who is with Orange County Solid Waste, his memorandum, which was dated 11/3/2011. We also have additional email traffic from Mr. Scouten concerning a second visit where some of his concerns were addressed. With respect to the separation of waste, I'm going to turn it over real quickly to Mr. Whitaker, but I believe most of Mr. Scouten, based on what I have read and what he and I have talked about, I believe most of his concerns have already been addressed and incorporated in the project. Tony Whitaker: There was considerable interchange between the Solid Waste staff: In doing the job that they do, they offer standard language that applies across the board to most facilities and then we sort through that and figure what is relevant to the facility that we're working on. We came to agreement with Mr. Scouten that the school does not have any cooking facilities. They don't have a cafeteria; they don't have those more conventional kinds of school cafeteria facilities, so there is no cooking in that regard. There is no generation of grease or those kinds of wastes. So, those standard provisions simply don't apply. Commissioner Jacobs: So you have no food waste to compost on campus, let alone cooking. Tony Whitaker: Regarding food waste, the kids generally bring their lunches. I do suppose that there is some waste from that. The school is very good about segregating all kinds of waste and very receptive to hearing about better ways to separate waste and collect. Composting is an active part of some of the things that go on campus. Those are in the operational protocols of the program already. Commissioner Jacobs: This memorandum that we got that's kind of separate for solid waste disposal and management practices, it may just be picking at words, but some of the requirements where it says, "recycle a scrap as an aggregate producer," sometimes it says, "if practical" and other times it says, "as practical." I would think "as practical" denotes more of a commitment to do it than "if practical." Tony Whitaker: I agree with you. I think the intent is as practical in every case. As the one who wrote those words, I don't believe I made such a fine point of distinction at the time of writing, but I do understand that as you speak of it, and I agree. The point is that certain things are practical and certain things are not. They'li become manifest in the moment or at the time. Sometimes there is a market for some kinds of material and sometimes there's not, depending on economic cycles. Those things can be sorted through with another solid waste management plan at the time of site plan approval for each facet of the work.: Your point is well taken. Commissioner Jacobs: So it will be reflected somewhere in the future. Tony Whitaker: Yes. And to the current standards at that time. Commissioner Jacobs: My last point, it is not really the Friends School's problem, but it is more of the County's problem. It must be already 15 years since Piney Mountain had its system failure. Piney Mountain is a subdivision not far from the Friends School that had a system that was supposed to be cutting edge, and in fact it didn't work. It was governed by the same entity that is now being designated to administer this system. We spent a number of years trying to come up with a mechanism to prevent reliance on DWQ to have the sole authority over regulating these kinds of systems in Orange County because it was such a mess to have to deal with when the Piney Mountain system failed, and Mr. Whitaker is nodding his head, he remembers. We had to come up with a special way to get water and sewer from Durham into the rural buffer. I don't know really that there's anything to say about this project other than I would like at least to put in the record the possibility that Environmental Health staff look at the possibility of adding an inspection per year beyond what the state requires so that there's some local oversight of the system. Because also what happened was the state was not following through on doing the number of inspections of the system, so they didn't even notice very quickly that it had failed. Of course the state has been cutting staff for these kinds of functions. I don't know that it's necessarily a big issue for you because you're already so far into the pipeline and to bring up now that there's a more global issue for the County is not really fair. I do think it's a more global issue for the County, especially if we ever want to do anything more creative in rural areas about having any other kind of system other than a well and septic tank. I would at least like to have Environmental Health look at whether or not there's a way to bolster the state's inspection. I don't know that it would be anything but redundant, but it might prevent something like what we had to go through before. Commissioner McKee: Going back to the issue of the ball field. I heard mention of moving the ball field to the east to take into account the adjacent property owners' concerns. If I might be so bold as to possibly ask that it be referred back to your property management committee to consider rotating the infield approximately 90 degrees, which would pull the infield with resulting bleacher sections and associated infrastructure even further away from the property line. That may have already been discussed. Tony Whitaker: I can add some color to that if you wish. Thank you for that comment. It is a consideration. I would say that in the discussions over the two and a half year period that you heard mentioned, a lot of talk surrounding the location of the ball field and the orientation of the ball field occurred. Essentially, the orientation that shows on the site plan now is the preferred orientation for dealing with sun issues, etc., and it is also the orientation that the current ball field on another part of the site enjoys. The school understands that orientation, they're used to it, and they know how to plan their activities regarding that ball field. So, it is important from the school's perspective to maintain that configuration. There are other meaningful ways to address this concern, and the school is absolutely committed to doing that. Chair Pelissier: There are four recommendations from the Planning Director. I'll entertain a motion. Commissioner Foushee: I move that we refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the February 21, 2012 BOCC regular meeting. Commissioner Hemminger seconded. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Pelissier: I believe we need another motion. Commissioner McKee: I move we adjourn the public hearing until February 21, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board recommendation and any submitted written comments. Commissioner Hemminger seconded. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map and Zoning Atlas Amendments - To review government-initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element map and to the Zoning Atlas to assign land use category classifications and to establish initial zoning for approximately 65 properties that will now be under Orange County's planning jurisdiction as the result of the realignment of the Orange/Alamance County Line as described within Session Law 2011-88 (commonly referred to as the 91% line) enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly on May 25, 2011. Michael Harvey introduced Jennifer Leaf, Planner I; and Rebecca Samy, Planning Technician. They were instrumental in making sure that the citizens' comments were addressed and they also conducted field inventory. He made a PowerPoint presentation. • November 21, 2011 AGENDA ITEM: C2 PUBLIC HEART.NG Comprehensive Land Use Element Map and Zoning Atlas Amendments -Orange Alamance Line BACKGROUND: • Orange Alamance County line issues resolved in spring of 2011, • Boundary line memorialized with the passing of Session Law 2011-88 on May 25, 2011 (commonly referred to the `91 %' line), • Properties now located within County planning jurisdiction with no or partial zoning or land use category assignment, • Staff initiated this process to address. PROPOSAL: Extend the Agricultural Residential Land Use Category over the impacted properties. This land use category is consistent with existing development trends in the area and is consistent with adjoining properties, Extend the Agricultural Residential (AR) general use zoning designation over impacted properties. This is also consistent with existing zoning in the area. Impacts 65 properties (approximately 221 acres involved) PUBLIC OUTREACH: • An open house was held on November 7, 2011 to allow impacted property owners to review staff's recommendation(s). Staff sent out letters informing impacted property owners of the open house on October 28, 2011, • Notification letters sent via first class mail on November 4, 2011 to impacted property owners prior informing them of quarterly public hearing, Postcards sent to all property owners within 500 feet of those parcels subject to rezoning informing them of the public hearing STAFF REVIEW: Area in question is predominately zoned Agricultural Residential (AR) and is located within the Agricultural Residential Land Use Category, Field inspections have been conducted verifying that there do not appear to be any existing land uses inconsistent with the aforementioned zoning or land use categories. Staff recommends approval of request RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive the proposal 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comments. 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board. Request recommendation be returned in time for the December 13, 2011 BOCC regular meeting. 4. Adjourn the public hearing until December 13, 2011 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the zoning on the Alamance County side and Michael Talbert said that there is no zoning in Alamance County. PUBLIC COMMENT Elizabeth Blankenship is a property owner in Orange County. She has 17.5 acres and her property was outlined on the map that was shown. She said that they have always been in Orange County and at one time she asked if part of the property could be released to Alamance County because part of the property is in Alamance, but it never came through. She said that she would like to be in Alamance County for part of her land and Orange County for the other part. Her concern is that her house will now lie in Alamance County. She asked that her property that is in Alamance County be released to Alamance County. Tammy Hart said that she is new to this part of the state. She said that her understanding was that this 91 % of the land that was already agreed upon was going to be on the southern side of I-85 and now the 9% is still up for debate. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that the 91 % is a linear measurement from Caswell County to Alamance County. North of I-85, the majority of the lands come into Orange County. South of I-85, the line diverges and the majority of the land (600+ acres) is going from Orange County into Alamance County. Tammy Hart asked what the parcels were in red on the map. Craig Benedict said that those are the parcels that had a small portion of the property that are now being shifted into Orange County. Tim Whitaker was in Alamance County and now he is in Orange County. He said that he was planning on doing some farming on his land and how this affects him. Michael Harvey said that Agricultural-Residential would encourage farming. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to refer the matter to the Planning Board and request that a recommendation be returned in time for the December 13, 2011 BOCC regular meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to adjourn the public hearing until December 13, 2011 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map Amendment - To review agovernment-initiated amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map to change the land use classification of approximately 47-acres near Efland and Brookhollow Road, along the south side of McGowan Creek from Agricultural Residential to 10-Year Transition. Commissioner Yuhasz said that this property owner is a surarey client of his. After consultation with the County Attorney, there is no direct personal benefit to -him for this action and he is required to vote on it. He has not discussed this proposed rezoning with his client at any time. Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Tom Altieri introduced this item. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map Amendment CP-2011-05 Efland Area Quarterly Public Hearing November 21, 2011 Item C.3 Proposed Actions . Land Use Element Map amendment - Efland Area, 47 acres From: Agricultural Residential To: 10-Year Transition Land Use Category Descriptions From: Agricultural Residential -Prevailing land uses are related to the land (agriculture, forestry) and appropriate for continuation of these uses. To: 10-Year Transition -Suitable for higher density residential where public water/sewer is planned or exists. - Amendment area is within the County's Primary Service Area - Public utilities to be planned consistent with Agreement. Key Amendment Points - Implements recommendations in the Efland/Mebane Small Area Plan. - Consistent with Land Use and Housing goals and objectives of Comprehensive Plan. - Consistent with adjacent land uses. - Consistent with WASMPBA. - Establishes consistency with County's Water & Sewer Policy. - No related developments are proposed. - Creates potential for rezoning to higher density residential districts. - Existing R-1 zoning to remain -any higher density residential development must go through rezoning and public hearing process. Public Notification - Completed in accordance with Section 2.3.6 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 signs in amendment areas Recommendation - Receive the proposed amendmerrts - Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public,. BOCC, and Planning Board comment - Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board- of County Commissioners in time for the February 7, 2012 BOCC regular meeting - Adjourn the public hearing until February 7, 201 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Commissioner Jacobs said that when the County did the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan, there was discussion about downtown Efland. He said that this will have a significant impact on downtown Efland. Tom Altieri said that this would create the potential to rezoning to higher density residential uses. Commissioner Jacobs said that there was a lot of conversation in that group about trying to get ahead of the way a single development could totally and forever transform the character of Efland if there was not a plan. He would like to raise the issue that this is a risk. The residents are concerned that the character of Efland will be affected. . Perdita Holtz said that the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan Implementation Focus Group convened and it started working on design guidelines for the core of Efland. Because of the UDO staffing changes, they had to stop working on that. There are plans to have design guidelines on the May Quarterly Public Hearing. It is not a forgotten project and it is on the front burner. Pete Hollenbeck said that this property is adjacent to his and he has no economic involvement. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the February 7, 2012 BOCC regular meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to adjourn the public hearing until February 7, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments - To review government-initiated amendments to the text of several sections of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the amendments is to correct many inconsistencies in the names of several land use categories/classifications and terms as they are used throughout the document, as well as to revise references to ordinances now incorporated in the adopted UDO. Shannon Berry introduced this item and made a PowerPoint presentation. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments Item C-4 Primary Purposes: - To correct inconsistencies in the names of land use categories/classifications and terms used throughout the document - To revise references to ordinances now incorporated in the adopted UDO Recommended For Deletion Chapter 5: Land Use Element Extractive Use Land designated to encompass operations designed primarily for the mining and quarrying of those substances which are legally removable from the ground and substrata. Agricultural Areas Land which is actively being used for farming and forestry purposes and which qualify for or are listed for, use value taxation purposes. ^ Amendments proposed to: • Chapters 1, 3 through 8 ^ Appendix F Appendix G Future Land Use Map (Title and legend only) Questions? Shannon Berry gave examples of the inconsistencies. The map will be referred to as the Future Land Use Map of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. She continued pointing out the proposed- amendments, which are incorporated by reference. Commissioner McKee said that these housekeeping changes will make this document a lot easier to understand. - Commissioner Gordon asked about the future land use map and pages 228 and 229. She asked what it means to change "plan" to "map." She thinks that it might be more restrictive.. She thinks that "plan" or "element" would be a broader term. She said that it is more than just cleaning up the terminology, but it is also narrowing the scope from the whole plan to the map. Shannon Berry said that the proposed amendment package is supposed to differentiate between the entire land use plan and the map. There are specific references to the map, and when you call it just a land use plan, it does not guide someone to the map and it is confusing. Commissioner Gordon said that her comment stands and there needs to be a careful differentiation. She also thinks it should be in the record why it is being changed to "future" land use map. Shannon Berry said that when you refer to a land use map, most people construe it as an existing land use map. Orange County does not have an existing land use map. Using the term, Future Land Use Map, should clarify that this is part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which is guiding development for the development. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the use of the term, "placement" and asked for clarification. Shannon Berry said that this was in reference to Appendix G, and placement is more of a locational criteria. It is more a matter of where it is and not what is there. She made reference to page 259, which says, "located in areas directly outside of transition and urban area"s." This is not really an existing land. use, but it is a place. Commissioner Jacobs asked about extractive use. Shannon Berry said that extractive use in agricultural areas is listed in Appendix G. This starts on page 263. Commissioner Jacobs asked how staff is proposing going forward to deal with extractive uses. Shannon Berry said that they are handled by the Unified Development Ordinance and are on the Table of Permitted Uses. It would be difficult to go back and apply the uses, which is why they are proposed to be deleted. Craig said that extractive uses are allowed in Agricultural-Residential land use. So they are just removing things that are not in effect in Orange County. Commissioner Jacobs said that this could be a more prominent issue shortly and he wants to be deliberate. Shannon Berry said that deleting these now does not impact the extractive uses that are existing. Future extractive uses would have to deal with all of the zoning and requirements of the UDO. Shannon Berry clarified that not every reference to land use plan was changed to "map". Only the references specifically referring to the map were changed. Commissioner Yuhasz suggested being consistent with the changes on the document as far as colors. On the next item, it is green for clean up and red for substantive. He said that most of these should be green for this item. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he understands Commissioner Cordon's point and he thinks that the County Commissioners should read through this and understand it. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 261 and asked that the land/slope criteria be investigated. Larry Wright suggested that the County Commissioners consider these things and then direct the Planning Board accordingly. Commissioner Yuhasz said that a distinction needs to be made between categories that are very narrow in their application, such. as nodes, and categories that are broad-based, such as rural buffer or rural residential. He suggested not going further than this at this point. He does not want staff spending a lot of time and reevaluating the criteria. Larry Wright said that this is a heroic effort and he applauds staff. A .motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to refer this matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the February 7, 2012 BOCC regular meeting. VOTE:- UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to adjourn the public hearing until February 7, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments - To review government- initiated amendments to the text of numerous sections of the UDO. The amendments relate primarily to processes and standards regarding economic development and also include minor changes necessary due to the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments proposed in #4 above. Perdita Holtz introduced this item and made a PowerPoint presentation. Planning Board member Rachel Phelps Hawkins left at 9:05 p.m. Unified Development Ordinance Proposed Text Amendments (UDO/Zoning 2011-06) November 21, 2011 Quarterly Pubic Hearing Item C.5 Task Propose amendments to the UDO that will: - More strongly encourage quality, non-residential development in the EDDs and other areas designated for non-residential growth while - Balancing any adverse impacts to adjacent properties and the environment. and - Ensure the amendments work within the overall framework of the UDO and how Orange County regulates development but Do not propose changes to the Table of Permitted Uses (Section 5.2) at this time. Amendment Types - Clean-up / "Housekeeping" (green) - Minor but more substantive than aclean-up (orange) - Substantive (red) - Each change footnoted with a rationale or reason for the change Significant Changes - Section 6.2.5 o Removes the requirement for a Class A Special Use Permit for projects in designated growth areas that have more than 1 principal use on a zoning. lot. - Section 6.2.6 o Would now allow more than one principal structure on anon-residential zoning lot greater than two acres in size if located in one of the designated growth areas. - Many of the changes in red on the Article 3 zoning district charts are a result of the proposed changes to these two sections. - Section 6.3 o Replacing the Site Volume Ratios with: o Floor Area Ratio o Open Space Ratio o Pedestrian/Landscape Ratio - Proposed new ratios are shown in each relevant chart for the ED zoning districts - Suggesting a slight increase in the allowed sound level limits. - Suggesting allowing breaks in the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) buffer - no more than 50% of the interstate highway frontage. - Suggesting requirements related to the landscaping and tree preservation plan for projects in the EDD be removed o Projects in EDDs to be held to same plan standards as projects located in other areas of the county (including CITANs) - Suggesting the Land Use Buffer Schedule for the EDDs be collapsed into far fewer categories. o In some instances, the required buffer width would be decreased Ratio Explanations/Examples Guiding Concept: - Do these changes allow for reasonable development while boosting Orange County's competitiveness in the region to attract non-residential development to the designated growth areas? Environment /Economic /Social It's All a Balance Recommendation 1. Receive the proposed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance as detailed in the abstract and attachments. 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the proposed. amendments. 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the February 7, 2012 BOCC regular meeting. 4. Adjourn the public hearing until February 7, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Questions /Public Comment Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the process for approving multi-building, multi-use development. Perdita Holtz said that very little land is zoned properly to allow for something like that. If zoned correctly, the limiting factors would be complying with all of the requirements of the UDO -stream buffers, landscaping, parking, etc. If there were amulti-building, multi-use and all of the requirements were met, the applicant would come in for a site plan approval, which is administrative. Commissioner Yuhasz asked if there was anything that regulated the appearance of structures. Perdita Holtz said that there is a section of the UDO that has architectural standards for the EDDs and those are not proposed to be changed. Discussion ensued about the height regulations. Planning Board member Alan Campbell left at 9:21 p.m. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 343 and 344 and said that he appreciates the chart on decibel levels. He thinks that the noise ordinance using decibels is a failure because there is no good way to judge the noise. He is very hesitant to raise decibel levels from what exists. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 352 and asked that information that was provided regarding Buckhorn Village and how much of a disturbance in the interstate buffer was reasonable be provided. He said that this seems larger to him. Commissioner Gordon said that she appreciated the color-coding. She made reference to page 310 and asked about the rationale for changing the requirements for something like a public interest district. Perdita Holtz said that Section 6.2.5 and 6.2.6 are going to be changed and will potentially affect many zoning districts. The way things are referenced are changed and the process is not changed at all. Commissioner Gordon flagged this for now because it was not clear. Commissioner Gordon asked several clarifying questions, which were answered by Perdita Holtz. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the February 7, 2012 BOCC regular meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to adjourn the public hearing until February 7, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to adjourn the meeting at 9:42 PM. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Bernadette Pelissier, Chair David Hunt, Deputy Clerk to the Board