HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-17-2012 - 6e � 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 17, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. (p - e
SUBJECT: Zoning Atlas Amendment- Buckhorn-Mebane Area
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Craig Benedict, Director, (919) 245-2575
Development Ordinance (UDO) Perdita Holtz, Planner III, (919) 245-2578
Amendment Outline Form (UDO/Zoning-
2012-05)
2. Current and Proposed Zoning Map and
Future Land Use Map
3. Ordinance Approving Rezoning
4. Draft Minutes- February 27, 2012
Quarterly Public Hearing
5. Draft Minutes- March 7, 2012 Planning
Board Meeting
6. Memo from Steve Brantley, Economic
Development Director on Marketing
Potential of Area
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board's recommendation, close the public hearing, and
make a decision on a County initiated rezoning of approximately 232 acres land in the
Buckhorn-Mebane area for properties currently zoned either Rural Residential (R-1) or
Agricultural Residential (AR) and proposed for the Office/Institutional (0/1) zoning district.
BACKGROUND: This rezoning proposal was heard at the February 27, 2012 Quarterly Public
Hearing. The form in Attachment 1 contains additional information and analysis regarding this
County initiated rezoning. The zoning map in Attachment 2 shows the location of the parcels,
the current zoning, and the extent of the proposed Office/Institutional zone. A 2030
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map of the general area is also included for reference
purposes. 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 (see Attachment 6 --
memorandum from Economic Development Director Steve Brantley).
The Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN) and owners of the affected parcels are as follows:
PIN Owner Acreage Current
Zoning
District
9824459890 W H Wilson Family Investment Group LLC 53.12 AR
9824460140 W H Wilson Family Investment Group LLC 1.79 AR
2
PIN Owner Acreage Current
Zoning
District
9824465282 W H Wilson Family Investment Group LLC 4.6 AR
9824467162 HawfieIds Presbyterian Church Inc Mebane NC
Presbyterian Church USA 1.35 AR
9824540748 1 Jane D Williams Trustee 56.481 AR
WESTERN SECTION - Subtotal 117.34 Acres
9824744824 Fraudie C Hunter Jr 13.44 AR
9824961908 Byrd Family Limited Partnership 8.9 R-1
9834058903 Margie S Lloyd 6.54 R-1
9834059397 Byrd Family Limited Partnership 0.82 R-1
9834069071 Byrd Family Limited Partnership 5.87 R-1
9834073088 Byrd Family Limited Partnership 27.89 R-1
9834152994 Margie S Lloyd 10.98 R-1
9834173345 Eunice E Carden, et al 5.02 R-1
9834257896 Charles Michael Bowman 3.81 R-1
9834261132 Charles M Bowman 28.02 R-1
9834351819 Piedmont Properties 1.9 R-1
9834354830 Piedmont Properties 0.55 R-1
9834354839 Piedmont Properties 0.58 R-1
9834354937 Piedmont Properties 0.57 1 R-1
EASTERN SECTION (near Petro) - Subtotal 114.89 Acres
GRAND TOTAL 232.23 ±
Public Hearing
The proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment was heard at the February 27, 2012 joint public hearing
(see Attachment 4 for Minutes). Three members of the public people spoke on the proposed
UDO amendments and one Planning Board member asked a question. The comments and
staff response is summarized as follows:
1. A Planning Board member asked if the sole parcel on Rock Quarry Road proposed for
rezoning would be considered spot zoning. The County Attorney responded that zoning
changes that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan are not considered spot zoning.
2. Two property owners stated they would prefer commercial or industrial rezoning and one of
these property owners stated the rezoning should be more extensive ("all the way out to
West Ten Road").
Staff Comment While the list of permitted uses for commercial and industrial zoning is more
extensive than the permitted uses for O/l, permitted uses are only one component of the
development regulations. The current Dimensional and Ratio Standards (zoning charts in
Article 3 of the UDO) for the commercial and industrial zones are not conducive to allowing a
site to be developed to a more urban intensity. Specifically, the maximum Floor Area Ratio
is low and the Required Open Space Ratio is high for areas to be developed at more urban
densities/intensities and served by water and sewer systems. These standards were
changed for the 0/1 district in June 2011. Staff believes that until the standards are modified
for the commercial and industrial districts, the 0/1 zoning district is the most appropriate
district. Staff has proposed bringing forward changes to the ratios discussed for areas to be
3
served by water and sewer; the authorization to move forward with the changes and place
them on the May Quarterly Public Hearing agenda was approved at the March 13 BOCC
meeting.
3. A property owner asked about the tax situation. The Planning Director explained that
properties in Use Value taxation would remain in this category as long as they are eligible
(e.g., farmed) and that the Tax Administrator has indicated that a change in the zoning
district would not impact land values because land values are based on market activities
(e.g., sales and listings) of similarly situated properties.
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 March 7, 2012
Planning Board meeting.
Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of this
rezoning based on the following:
A. Th a rezoning is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan which designates the
parcels as Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node.
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 and economic development in this overall area.
Attachment 3 contains the proposed Ordinance approving the rezoning.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board considered this item at its March 7,
2012 meeting. The Planning Board unanimously voted to recommend approval of this item.
The draft Planning Board Minutes are included in Attachment 5.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Section C.3 of Attachment 1.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation of approval;
2. Close the public hearing; and
3. Decide accordingly and/or adopt the ordinance contained in Attachment 3 which
approves the rezoning.
Attachment 1
4 ►
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENT OUTLINE
UDO /Zoning-2012-05
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
❑ Land Use Element Map:
From: -- -
To: -- -
® Zoning Map:
From: AR (Agricultural Residential),R=1 (Rural Residential) -
To: 0/1 (Office/Institutional) - -
❑ Other:
Text Amendments
❑ Comprehensive Plan Text:
Section(s):
❑ UDO Text:
❑UDO General Text Changes
❑UDO Development Standards
❑UDO Development Approval Processes
....... _...__....._..............................._.............._._............._._..._......................_ ....._....._..-_.-..........._._..__..._..................__._..........._.......... _........ . .. ....... ._ .........
Section(s):
................._...............I....... ......._................__....... -__.............._......................_................_.._. _.........................._......._........ ......_ ..... __. _. . .._.... . .... .
❑ _...............-...._...........................-_...................--....._._...__._..........._........_._.............._......._....................._._..._.__...._.........-_...................-......__..__............._......__..........__....._.._...._......_..........._....._-...._..._............._..._...._.........._..-._......................
Other:
B. RATIONALE
1. Purpose/Mission
In accordance with:
• the BOCC directive to focus staff efforts on economic development and small
area plan implementation-related issues, and
• the provisions of Section 2.8 (Zoning Atlas and Unified Development
Ordinance Amendments) of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning
Director has initiated text an amendment to the Zoning Atlas to rezone
1
..................._.......I......._..... ................ ............................................ ...............
approximately 232 acres land in the Buckhorn-Mebane area. The parcels are
located in a Commercial-industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN) and the
rezoning is being proposed to prepare the area for eventual non-residential
development.
2. 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 directed 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 proposed rezoning further carries out Orange County actions over the past
two years which included amendments to the Water and Sewer Management,
Planning, and Boundary Agreement to designate this area as "Primary Service
Area" and which changed the land use classification of a portion of this area to
Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN). (Note: a portion of this
area has been designated CITAN on the Future land Use Map for many years).
3. The request for the amendment has been deemed complete in accordance with
the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
4. This area of the county is located within Orange County's "Primary Service Area
as designated in the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary
Agreement (WASMPBA). The County is currently working with the City of
Mebane on a revised interlocal agreement to provide water and sewer services
to this area. In addition, sewer infrastructure planning for this area is well
underway.
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 LIDO). 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 approved or 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.
Access to the Interstate is currently via an interchange at.Buckhom Road;
however, the construction of an interchange at Mattress Factory Road is part of
an ongoing study by the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization
(BGMPO). This study is the first step on potentially adding an interchange to
state transportation improvement plans. Additionally, a future interchange............ . ..... _qe at
2
6 r
Mattress Factory Road is depicted on the Access Management Plan for the area
which was adopted by the BOCC in Fall 2011.
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Obiectives)
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.
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 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.
4. New Statutes and Rules
_.._...._....--.. _.._......_...................._...__._.._._._..-- ........._...................... . .. ....._. .........._.... ..... . .. ._.. .. _._....._. ...._._..._.._ _ .... ..._-..._..
N/A
C. PROCESS
1. TIM EFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES
a. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
November 1, 2011
b. Quarterly Public Hearing
February 27, 2012
c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints
..................................._..._.............._............_...._..........._.........._.........._..........._................_......_................._.... ... .....
February 7, 2012 —approval of legal ad
d. Other
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission/Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and
3
7
Orange County ordinance requirements. Planning Department staff has conducted
several area property owner meetings in 2011 to discuss future development in the
area (including water and sewer infrastructure).
a. Planning Board Review:
March 7, 2012 (recommendation)
b. Advisory Boards:
N/A
c. Local Government Review:
N/A
d. Notice Requirements
Legal ad was published on February 15 and 22, 2012.
Mailed notification to affected and adjacent property owners (as defined in UDO)
were mailed on February 10, 2012.
Signs were posted on affected properties on February 17, 2012.
e. Outreach:
_..._...............-_.._....._........__..._._....._ .._ _.. ........_..._. ._._.
® General Public: 'Consistent with NC State Statutes and Orange County
ordinance requirements.
_...._...__.._..._.............._.........._.................---..._... -....__ .._ . ...............__. . ....._...._....._ ....._..........._........- ..._.._........_............._....;
❑ Small Area Plan Workgroup .._.._.._. .__............._._._._.
_._...__._.._.._..._._..__.._........._..........
❑ Other:
3. FISCAL IMPACT
....._..............---......._ ........_....._...._.._........._........ .._.._..._.._..........._.........__............. -................--._.._..._..__...-........ _...................__......._..._....._._...._.._..........._._...._................-_........._......... .. .....
Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding for the I
provision of County services. There may be increased pressure to install water and
sewer service in the area in order to provide viable economic development site.
Expenditures for this rezoning project have been paid using Departmental funds
budgeted for this activity. Expenditures included the legal ad and notification
letters/postcards. Planning staff repurposed signs the Department kept after
previous projects that required signs. Existing Planning staff included in the
Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work required to process this
amendment.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
Pre-zoning an area will eliminate the need for a project applicant to go through a
rezoning process when a project is proposed (assuming the proposed use is permitted
4
. 8
by right). A site plan review process for projects permitted by right is conducted by
Planning staff in accordance with Section 2.5 of the UDO. All relevant development
standards contained in the UDO must be met by the applicant in order to receive site
plan approval.
Property owners are sometimes concerned about the property tax implications of a
rezoning. The County's Tax Administrator has indicated to Planning staff that until land
sales of similarly situated (and zoned) properties happen or taxable building activities
take place, the appraised value of a parcel would not be affected solely because of the
rezoning.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
Not applicable for a Zoning Atlas amendment.
Primary Staff Contact:
Perdita Holtz, Planner III
Planning Department
(919) 245-2578
pholtz @co.orange.nc.us
5
bucKfiorn EUD Area - Current and Proposed Zoning
J'A
11111 �'
111 C
�C
1111111
/11111111\
'j'Q _ _ _INDUSTRIAL DR
nM
ONTRY =LN art f
U1 40 IP
y
U
Z..
DANNY_D.R
EST
Y•
w Creek
ted Waters
Proposed OI Zone =AR
City Limits F-I EC5
0 ETJ ® EDB -2
Watersheds 0 NC2
Major Transportation Corridor = R1
D
v
3
cD
10V
1 inch = 1,100 feet
vv 0 300 600
u Feet
Orange County
co
Planning and Inspections Department
GIS Map
Prepared by Brian Carson. 1/27/2012
D
v
3
cD
10V
. � . �
. ,
• � , • ' � � � • . �
;���,.� '.-. .i���..,1l,ini1i�, � . ��I :' �1111 w'�I� .�,�
� . ' ` /:�
� ,, ��... 1 ��/ii���i��11'.,�Illl ..: �„' w�.
��IIIL. ;�;;�.� � , =�... _
_ .. .. , �..� ,-.,�11►.;1t�-=- ����'� - �
`��?. ;,•,:�o^•`�', `� t ;I�►i�:�=,�.�=-� :`,,III,� • \
� � �,�
. . ,,� �
�,����/ •.,►,. .■ �..► ri�.-�,�■�.=-= �'`r= '"'�■
� � ,� p�. �,�'-, � � ..� r.��`�`
�_■ � '�� ` r � � � � �S_�;;..•,�-�� r�,\
�.� � � ��/ �■ � � i /�.�, a�r r� 1 � �.� .
���,� �� • ��'��.� /!-. .�rr'�' :. �1 . ■� � .
...� ,�• •,,�I •�,ri�_ •__ �°� '',�;�, �'�ir�"�'"' :
-° r �=�- � �
,\��� �I � ,���j •. � 7=�=��� ���� �
�, .� , ��� �� _�_.__r__ . .s _�,� ..
� =�� �/J �.�'!�� ,,, '�' :►:�%�/ -�'►;.� � • `i p��: •,� ,�
: � ; \��\II . � °i °��'� ' ���r''� _==
1 � � -: i� ,1 ° '---
•_ .��. ����ii1►►i.�',,.��w.��i� _ �. �� ►
■ ' p • ' 1i�. �r •, - , _� � _ r�i\��i���, r����
■� �1� ��`�u•�'����I�,��i�u,�� � (�II�-� _ _ �l �
' '� ���������
�� �' ��i����ij' ,��rii�illl ► � , ,��.1��� __ 1 _���il!
' _,� ..,��I , � -�..�:-_-., ...,,- __.�.,Iu�i :
i �■ ,,,u� � ��r�� ---_���;�I��
� ,,: •,� 11�
■.,�.... �1� ��1/ -
' ��.. .. . �... _ 1�
' / � � r��
1 �� �ii-�� �'�a . °"�.,.�;.�
, �\ f��� � �
�a .. w�,.:� ��, ,, �
► ...-�-, °-•��•� "� -
� ,��4 -�
i �
I �a,���«-/- 1 � � �... �^�
� '
;i
' ..• 1' \��.. � ►,1-;1re.�
���� � ie� . � ..A_
1''/•�Ir i
� 1 ^ �
���������������
��-, 11�1\/��� � .
� �� �.���'�C +' , , ,�I
\II►\==//\�
�11 �nwi��iuw j:
.� � m� t ` � '
��p uullU►�� , �
„�� 1111///��� �.�. �_ �`i
j��I IIl Ij�ij��/I� �� � •':, � �
�I� ��i��qj � ..->��., .. � _ ..I _ ..__ ---
1 J �����t��s_
IIIi,. i�.�.�- . ..I �
.,,.-`�� •� - .
,� 1` •
' � ' ' _ I •�,
-� r,,�. :/
�r ��, �
� � �
� �.. �ri� =��►■ .� /
` r ,/�!�! I�"' �` •.,``
�. �
/ -�- / � � \ /�,�
��" .. 1 � ��► ,�.-
,��� � ��r �
. .
� „ -, � , ,,. ' �
� .. ,,:
� •, ��I F���r�� �
, � • � ,� �- 1 111 111 �� ..
��
�
1�1 -
_Ordinance#: a Q 1 �'' 0 IBC , 1 1
Attachment 3
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS
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 approximately 232 acres of land located south of Interstates 85/40, east of Ben Wilson
Road, north of Bowman Road / West Ten Road, .and west of Buckhorn Road from Rural
Residential (R-1) and Agricultural Residential (AR) to Office/Institutional (0/1), and
WHEREAS, the parcels are identified as follows:
PIN Acreage. Current
Zoning
District
9824459890 53.12 AR
9824460140 1.79 AR
9824465282 4.6 AR
9824467162 1.35 AR
9824540748 56.48 AR
9824744824 13.44 AR
9824961908 8.9 R-1
9834058903 6.54 R-1
9834059397 0.82 R-1
9834069071 5.87 R-1
9834073088 27.89 R-1
9834152994 10.98 R-1
9834173345 5.02 R-1
9834257896 3.81 R-1
9834261132 28.02 R-1
9834351819 1.9 R-1
9834354830 0.55 R-1
9834354839 0.58 R-1
9834354937 0.57 R-1
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:
1
12
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 both 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. 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.
f. Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density
residential 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.
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 approximately 232 acres of land described above to
Office/Institutional (0/1).
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 , 2012.
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 , 2012 as relates in any way to the
Excerpt of Draft Minutes Attachment 4 14
1
2 DRAFT MINUTES
3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
5 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
6 February 27, 2012
7 7:00 P.M.
8
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
11 met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, February 27, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at DSS Offices,
12 Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C.
13
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners
15 Valerie P. Foushee, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee and Steve Yuhasz
16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:Alice M. Gordon
17 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager
19 Michael Talbert and Deputy Clerk to the David Hunt(All other staff members will be identified
20 appropriately below)
21 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Vice Chair Larry Wright,
22 Pete Hallenbeck, Mark Marcoplos, H.T. "Buddy Hartley", Johnny Randall, Andrea Rohrbacher,
23 Lisa Stuckey
24 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Judith Wegner, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Maxecine
25 Mitchell, Alan Campbell
26
27 Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 7:07 PM.
28
29 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
30
31 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
32 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
33
34 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
35 Planning Board Chair Brian Crawford announced the agenda and read the public charge.
36
38 3. Zoning Atlas Amendments - To review a government-initiated amendments to the Zoning
39 Atlas to rezone approximately 232 acres from Agricultural Residential (AR) and Rural
40 Residential (R-1) to Office-Institutional (0-1). The properties are located south of Interstate
41 85/40,west of West Ten Road, north of Bowman Road, and east of Ben Wilson Road.
42
43 Craig Benedict said that this has to do with zoning changes and no land use changes.
44 Zoning Atlas Amendment
45 Buckhorn-Mebane Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN)
46 UDO/ZONING 2012-05
47 Quarterly Public Hearing
48 February 27, 2012
49 Item C.3
13
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 ,
2012.
SEAL
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
15
1
2 Proposed Action:
3 Rezone 232 acres to Office/Institutional
4
5 Current zoning:
6 • AR (Agricultural Residential) in western portion
7 • R-1 (Rural Residential) in eastern portion
8
9 Future Land Use Map
10 • Commercial— Industrial Transition Activity Node
11 Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement(WASMPBA)
12 • Area proposed for rezoning is within the County's Primary Service Area
13 Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan
14 • Consistent with intent of plan which calls for Mixed Use and Economic Development in
15 this area
16 • A project is not proposed at this time
17 — Pre-zoning the area for potential economic development projects to reduce the
18 overall time frame of the approval process
19 — Development standards and requirements contained in the Unified Development
20 Ordinance still apply
21 Office/Institutional Permitted Uses
22 Section 5.2 of LIDO—Table of Permitted Uses
23 — Currently 34 permitted uses
24 — 10 Special Uses.(Class A or B)
25 Examples of Permitted Uses in 0/1
26 Child Care Facility
27 • Library
28 • Dance, Art& Music Schools
29 • Universities, Colleges, and Institutes
30 • Offices and Personal Services
31 • Storage and Warehousing (Inside a Building)
32 • Wholesale Trade
33 Governmental Facilities and Office Buildings
34 • Animal Hospital and Veterinarians
35 • Health Services Under 10,000 sq. ft.
36 • Hospitals
37 • Multiple Family Dwelling
38 • Community Center
39 • Research Facility
40
41 Public Notification
42 Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
43 — Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks
44 — Mailed notices to affected property owners
45 — Mailed notices to property owners within 500-feet of affected properties
46 — Posted 11 signs in strategic areas of the affected area
16
1 Recommendation
2 • Receive the proposal to amend the Zoning Atlas.
3 • Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
4 the proposed amendment.
5 • Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
6 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the April 17, 2012 BOCC
7 regular meeting.
8 • Adjourn the public hearing until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the
9 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
10
11 Craig Benedict said that no projects are proposed at this time.
12
13 PUBLIC COMMENT
14 Wayne Doby said that if the County is going to change the zoning, he would prefer that it go
15 to either commercial or industrial. He asked if it would make sense to bring it all the way out to West
16 Ten Road.
17 Craig Benedict said that staff could discuss this further.
18 Charles Bowman said that he has 33 acres and asked about the tax status.
19 Craig Benedict said that when property is rezoned the tax status does not automatically
20 change. The tax administrator has put a rough draft together in writing about this issue.
21
22 Tom Damell said that he has four pieces of property on Buckhorn Road and has owned them
23 for about 30 years. Since the 30 years, he has been told that it is going to be commercial. Everyone
24 he knows on that road wants to sell their property for commercial. He said that there is no O or 1
25 within ten miles of this area. He wants to see high-density commercial. He said that he could not
26 market his property unless it was zoned commercial.
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to
29 refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
30 Board of County Commissioners in time for the April 17, 2012 BOCC regular meeting and adjourn
31 the public hearing until April 17, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's
32 recommendation and any submitted written comments.
33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
34 � � **
DRAFT 17
1 MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
3 Excerpt of Draft Minutes MARCH 7,2012 Attachment 5
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6
7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Crawford (Chair), Eno Township Representative; Larry Wright (Vice-Chair), At-Large, Cedar
8 Grove Township; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township
9 Representative; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township
10 Representative; Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township Representative; Maxecine Mitchell,At-Large Bingham Township;
11
12
13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Johnny Randall,At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Judith Wegner, Bingham Township Representative;
14 Mark Marcoplos,At-Large, Bingham Township;Andrea Rohrbacher,At-Large Chapel Hill Township;
15
16
17 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director,Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator,Michael Harvey, Current
18 Planning Supervisor; Shannon Berry, Special Projects Planner, Terry Hackett, Stormwater Resource Officer,Deb ra
19 Graham,Administrative Assistant II
20
21
22 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
23
24
25
26 AGENDA ITEM 7: Zoning Atlas Amendments-To make a recommendation to the BOCC on a government-initiated
27 amendments to the Zoning Atlas to rezone approximately 232 acres from Agricultural Residential
28 (AR) and Rural Residential (R-1) to Office-Institutional (0-1). The properties are located south of
29 Interstate 85/40, west of West Ten Road, north of Bowman Road, and east of Ben Wilson Road.
30 This item was heard at the February 27,2012 quarterly public hearing.
31 Presenter. Craig Benedict, Planning Director
32
33 NOTE inserted by staff for April 17, 2012 BOCC meeting: In the full set of Minutes, discussion took place at this
34 point of the meeting about an unrelated action heard at the quarterly public hearing— the proposed changes in
35 the Eno EDD Area—staff has removed this unrelated discussion from these excerpted Minutes so that only the
36 relevant portion of the Minutes appears below.
37
38
39
40 Craig Benedict: Item number 7. Reviewed abstract-both of the areas where there are zoning amendments are within
41 these two land use areas that are shown as Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node. Discussed items on map.
42
43 Larry Wright: How did that get into the City of Mebane?
44
45 Craig Benedict: This was known as a satellite annexation in 1998 or 1999 when I got here. A city can annex not adjacent
46 to their boundary and they have limitations on how far they can go out. This was voluntary by Petro to do that. They did
47 the Petro area plus this 13 acre area behind.
48
49 Brian Crawford: The City of Mebane has a lot of strange rules. They have ETJs in their city limits.
50
51 Craig Benedict: North of 1-85 is part of Mebane's ETJ. The areas we are speaking about tonight are these with the
52 squiggles. On our zoning map, you don't see the Resource Protection Areas because they are shown on the Land Use
53 Map. The areas under consideration for rezoning from R1 to Office/Institutional which allows office and distribution and a
54 lot of those uses. Since then,there have been others adjacent to this property that are interested in cooperating because
1
DRAFT 18 ►
55 they see what is occurring in the area. As it stands, Office/Institutional will be a reasonable zoning category to put on this
56 property so the property owners can market their property accordingly. Discussion continued on the map. We heard
57 comments on this item from the.public. The owners were present and had no comments and want to proceed so staff
58 recommendation is that we continue with the rezoning of the parcels as shown and send it back to the Commissioners for
59 their April 17 meeting with a positive recommendation.
60
61 Brian Crawford: Were any of these properties part of the comment from the gentleman who said he did not want Office
62 Industrial but Commercial?
63
64 Craig Benedict: There are four very small parcels. Staff cannot amend the action to move it to a different category that
65 what was advertised and discussed in the public hearing. You can pull it out and say no. Staff is concerned there are a
66 variety of parcels along the frontage of Buckhom Road and if it was retail outright,we might get a one acre,one acre,type
67 of proposal to come forward versus having it Office/Institutional which might lend itself more to some sort of office park or
68 job based industry. As more properties in this area to come forward, we might be able to look at what retail opportunities
69 are at this interchange. Across the road is the infamous flea market,jockey lot, Buckhom Village. Retail,if at all, in any of
70 these zones,probably the closer you get to the intersection,the more appropriate for retail. One item on tonight's meeting
71 is creating a retail zoning district. We are describing what rules we would have.
72
73 Pete Hallenbeck: You pointed to the area between Rock Quarry and Ben Wilson and said that since it is not next to the
74 interstate it would be less likely to have retail there but is there not a long term plan and meeting with DOT about another
75 interchange on 1-85?
76
77 Craig Benedict: Yes. This is the Mattress Factory potential interchange. It is probably eight to ten years out. Within these
78 areas, if someone wanted to request a specific commercial endeavor,we do have the conditional use process.
79
80 Pete Hallenbeck: Your statement is on the retail off Buckhom is a planning for now and when the future interchange
81 comes,there is already the ability in the zoning rules to do something with it and it can be revisited in 10 years.
82
83 Larry Wright: Is there some sort of wiggle room for mixed use where having worked in RTP about 11:00am,you can see a
84 big flood of people heading toward restaurants. I guess they will be going to Mebane. If we had some sort of mixed use
85 situation here where people would not be going to Mebane to eat,you would have less traffic,congestion,etc.
86
87 Craig Benedict: We definitely are looking for employment, etc. in this area and I think the Buckhorn area could be that
88 destination of restaurants and other retail services to mix with that. We do allow some mixed use opportunities in our
89 Economic Development Zones.
90
91 Buddy Hartley:What about the property between Petro and the new zoning area of Mr.Darnell?
92
93 Craig Benedict: Orange County can do two things. You can zone people's property without their approval but they are
94 really ambivalent. Now that people are coming forward,they may see what is happening and it may be a larger area.
95
96 Lisa Stuckey: If Mr. Darnell wanted to request conditional use to put up a McDonald's,he could do that?
97
98 Craig Benedict: Yes.
99
100 Lisa Stuckey: On the other end, if offices were built, does the zoning permit a little restaurant or cafe to go in? Or they
101 would go through another process?
102
103 Craig Benedict: Yes. The Office/Institutional zone offers a certain list permitted by right. To my knowledge, retail is not
104 allowed in that.
105
106 Shannon Berry: It is not.
107
108 Lisa Stuckey: So they will have to drive off to get something to eat?
2
DRAFT 19
109
110 Craig Benedict: Eventually,if someone comes forward with a large project or office buildings and would like to propose a
111 restaurant,they will be able to proceed with the office on 90%and ask for 10%to be retail would be considered.
112
113 Brian Crawford: Most of the property owners are okay with Office/Institutional. Going back to Mr. Darnell, his comment
114 was that he wants to be able to market it as'commercial. Right now,the area is marketed as Office/Institutional. He wants
115 to be able to say this is commercially zoned and we don't have to go through any hoops. Philosophically, why does staff
116 feel that one little exemption should not be carved out in that area?
117
118 Craig Benedict: When you have small parcels and if they can be developed retail, they would develop McDonalds by
119 McDonalds and that is not the best pattern. The Economic Development Director is concerned that the front face of all
120 these properties may be tarnished by fast food as frontage.
121
122 Perdita Holtz: A lot of people don't understand development regulations things like floor area ratio. The floor ratio
123 currently for the Commercial and Industrial zones is quite low because it is based on not being on water and sewer so they
124 may think they can do a lot but cannot because of the low floor area ratio. We are planning to amend the floor area ratio
125 that pertains to the Commercial and Industrial for those areas that will be on water and sewer for the May Public Hearing.
126 1 would guess he doesn't understand he probably can't do what he thinks he can.
127
128 MOTION made by Larry Wright to endorse staffs recommendation and pass it back to the Commissioners. Pete
129 Hallenbeck seconded.
130 VOTE: Unanimous
131
132
3
Attachment 6
20,
MEMORANDUM
To: Frank Clifton
Orange County Manager
Cc: Craig.Benedict
Orange County Planning Department—Director
From: Steve Brantley
Orange County Economic Development—Director
Date: April 9, 2012
Subj: April 17th's BOCC Meeting&Public Hearing—Zoning Atlas Amendment regarding the
Buckhorn-Mebane EDD
Regarding the Board of County Commissioners' upcoming April 17th Public Hearing to discuss the
Buckhorn-Mebane EDD(Zoning Atlas Amendment), I would like to strongly endorse our Planning
Department's efforts in this regard. The rezoning of the various properties listed in Planning's Abstract
will enable Orange County Economic Development to have viable sites that are pre-zoned and ready to
show to prospective business investors. This will increase Orange County's inventory of competitive
sites in our portfolio of properties that we will be able to market to office,distribution and light
industrial prospects.
At present,the Orange County Economic Development office is attracting qualified business
prospects and site selection consultants who are visiting here,and we are attempting to show Orange
County's many advantages to them. However, in terms of overall site options that these prospects are
able to see in adjacent,competing counties, Orange County remains at a competitive disadvantage in
terms of our very limited site inventory. We are missing out on opportunities.
For example, last week I could only show one property to an international world-class food
processor that visited the Mebane area of Orange County. That prospective firm then departed to scout
additional sites in other parts of the Triangle region. All of those competing sites are also served by
direct interstate access, have excellent topography and required utilities and zoning, and are
competitively priced. That international business would fit well with Orange County's effort to diversify
our local economy,and at the same time, support the County's commitment to attract sustainable food
related and agricultural businesses. With more developed business sites in Orange County that are
shovel-ready,which is the kind of sites these prospects seek,we will be able to pursue such desirable
business investors with greater confidence.
Regards.