Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20030825APPROVED 9/16/2003 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Joint Public Hearing Agenda August 2S, 2003 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session for a public hearing on Monday, August 25, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Margaret W. Brown, Alice M. Gardon, Stephen H. Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Moses Carey, Jr. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: S. Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Caunty Manager John M. Link, Jr., and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chair Hunter Schofield and members Crauford Goodwin, Barry Katz, Sam Lasris, Ted Triebel, Howard McAdams, and Renee Price PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Nicole Gooding-Ray, and members Rachel Preston, Maria Tadd, Noah Ranells and Jay Bryan NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE A. Opening Remarks from the Chair -Chair Brawn B. Public Charge The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. Public Hearing Items Orange County Planning Director Craig Benedict gave an introductory summary of the four items an agenda: 1. Zoning and subdivision amendments 2. EDD - Buckharn EDD -suggested changes to permitted uses 3. Additional standards needed for EDD - Buckharn 4. Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement and Map Concurrent Amendments to Oranae Countv Zonina Ordinance and Oranae Countv Subdivision Reaulations Reaardina Subdivision Size, Location, Process, and Standards a. Amend Article IV, VIII, and XXII of the Zoning Ordinance and Section II of the Subdivision Regulations to incorporate by reference, the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement Map adopted December 3, 2001. b. Amend Article VIII of the Zoning Ordinance and Section II and III of the Subdivision Regulations to create a special use permit process that sets special use standards and location criteria for subdivision size (number of lots) based on zoning district and service areas identified in the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement Map. Craig Benedict gave a PowerPoint presentation. He showed a map of the entire County. He said that in May 2042, the Planning Board expressed concern about the amount of development activity in the rural sections of the County. The existing regulations may not have been able to address the impacts upon the rural environment. The County Commissioners and the Planning Board asked the staff to investigate other manners of reviewing subdivisions in these areas that could address the impacts. Through a series of meetings, a special use process was discussed to review subdivisions. It has been suggested that subdivisions over a certain size would go through this special use process. He pointed out the areas on a map where growth would be promoted. In the urban areas of the County, subdivisions would follow a process based on the size, as follows: 6-19 lots would follow the same process that exists now; 20-40 lots would follow the process of a class A special use permit; 41-79 lats would require a more strict analysis; and 80+ lots would require a rezoning process (planned development}. In the rural areas of the County, there is a different threshold number. Again, 6-19 lots would follow the same major subdivision process. A class A special use permit would be needed far 20-40 lats, and planned development would be used far 41+ lots. Craig Benedict showed four different growth management options on different maps. Option four includes the greatest amount of land. If there were a planned development subdivision (40+ in the rural area or 80+ in the urban area}, then it would be presented at a quarterly public hearing with the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners would hear public input and refer it to the Planning Board, which would make a recommendation back to the County Commissioners far a decision. Commissioner Gardon made reference to the process and said that she is concerned that this approach seems to do two things at once -1} we are trying to improve the subdivision process sa that there is a higher standard of performance for larger developments and 2} we are basically changing the map. She said that it is not as logical as what she thought the process was supposed to be. She would like to leave the comprehensive plan and zoning plan alone, and focus on trying to improve the subdivision process. Commissioner Jacobs asked far information on subjective cut-off sizes for the different threshold sizes. He would like to see some real examples to see what impacts there actually are that led the staff to these numbers. He also asked about the current thinking of pursuing updating the comprehensive land use plan. Craig Benedict said that this is a procedural and standard process and these amendments do not have any linkage to comprehensive land use planning density changes. He said that they are suggesting an outreach proposal using a facilitation firm to propose some changes to the overall plan of the County. This will be coming back to the Board for approval soon. Regarding the threshold numbers, they did same research on existing subdivisions. They considered traffic, location, and impacts on water and sewer. Commissioner Gordon said that, as a practical matter, there is a land use plan map as part of the comprehensive plan and a zoning map, and Craig Benedict is suggesting another map. She submits that it makes a lot more sense to get the comprehensive plan straight and the rezoning map straight and then do this. Then there would not have to be the different options. She said that this is extremely confusing. Commissioner Gordon made some suggestions about the text language as follows: - page 23, section 3, Subdivision Regulations -reword this so it is clear - page 24, section 5, New Classifications - check on level 1 versus level 2 analysis - page 25, section c1, word it so that there is always a public utility handling it -page 26, Open Space Connectivity, section d, define "borrowed open space" - section a on the same page, "natural, man, and manmade resources" -she suggests "natural and constructed resources" (something gender neutral) - page 29, c1, define this better -page 30, d1 c, she asked if fenced rows should be included in the list, along with streams and other things, in terms of connectivity - page 31, e5, Nitrogen load contribution must be held to 3.6 pounds per acre, and she asked for a justification of this number - page 37, in the permitted use table, star is used two ways - page 38, explain what `S' means Renee Price asked about the various options and to make sure the planning process does not appease the developer but is not good for the County. She said that there were too many categories. She would like to focus more on the process and how much the citizens of Orange County understand where they are in the County. Barry Katz said that the land use element map and the zoning map do not harmonize and asked if the intent was to create a map that does harmonize. Craig Benedict said that R-1 zoning may have different densities in different sections of the County. The land use map does not differentiate between densities. They are adding another map to the land use plan - a water and sewer boundary map. He said that they were not suggesting four different options, but they wanted to show the most restrictive intersection of land use and water sewer boundaries to the mast liberal of intersecting water sewer boundaries in total. Chair Brown made reference to page one and the background on this issue when the Planning Board gave the Board of County Commissioners their concerns about residential development in the County. She remembers this and is glad that the Planning Board members came forward with their concerns. She said that this is a very good plan and long overdue and she understands it with great clarity. There was no public comment on this item. Commissioner Gordon agreed with Renee Price and said that the process and the map changes are hard for the public to understand. Hunter Scofield made reference to the background and said that the main issue is sustainability. He agreed with Commissioner Gordon and said that he sees this as a new subdivision overlay district. His concern is about where these lot number thresholds came from. He is also concerned about the unintended consequences of establishing certain thresholds at certain levels. Chair Brown asked that Jay Bryan's commentary letter be added to the public record. MOTION BY BOCC: A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to accept the Planning's Staff recommendation to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than October 1, 2403. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Text Amendments to Article 6.29.3 of the Orange County Zoning a. Change "Class A Special Use" to "Class B Special Use" when referring to special uses approved by the Board of Adjustment. b. Consider changes (including the addition or deletion of uses) to the Permitted Use Table and changes in process for approval of uses for the I-85/Buckhorn Road Primary Development Area. Craig Benedict made a PowerPoint presentation. The County put together Economic Development Districts in the design manual in 1995 and there has been little if any activity in some of these EDDs. The Buckhorn EDD is entirely a primary use area. Secondary uses could include residential. This item suggests amendments to the permitted use table to suggest new uses and to delete some uses. In this area, vocational schools are permitted, but not public schools. It is suggested to add public schools to this EDD as a special use class A permit. The uses that are being suggested to be deleted include motor freight terminals, storage and distribution of petroleum products, and motor vehicle repair and maintenance. Restaurants within enclosed buildings are acceptable as well as retail, finance, insurance, and real estate. Also, beauty and barbershops, doctors' offices, laboratories, computer programming, etc. These changes are for the Buckhorn EDD. Craig Benedict pointed out an error in the book that refers to class A special use permits going to the Board of Adjustment. Class B goes to the Board of Adjustment and class A goes to the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Board. Chair Brown asked why automotive uses were being eliminated. Craig Benedict said that this would only include paint and body repair activities. Vehicle maintenance would still be allowed. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 51 of the permitted use table which included vocational schools. She said that the reason we are considering these changes to the permitted uses is because of the desire to site a middle school in the economic development district. She would like the middle school to be in a secondary development area that did not have residential. She does not want to change the entire EDD primary area just to include schools here. She is concerned about all the other permitted uses that would be around a school (i.e., manufacturing) and their effect on the quality of the school. She would prefer having the schools in the secondary EDD area. Commissioner Halkiotis noted that the newest charter school was built at Meadowlands, in the heart of the industrial park in Hillsborough. It is important to Hate that we are going to have to build schools in urban areas. It is a new era. Commissioner Jacobs said that he thinks that we can refine this EDD just like the one in Hillsborough. He said that the Board has within its control the opportunity to design this in such a way that compatible uses are present and schools would not have to be close to the industrial area. Chair Brown said that it was a nice simple process to add schools to the permitted use table. This is an opportunity to make something really nice at the Buckhorn EDD. She pointed out that the two most recent elementary schools in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School district are located next to commercial areas. Commissioner Halkiotis said that this area is developing on its own in a wild fashion and something needs to be done quickly and done right. Renee Price said that there is a desire for schools to have more of a community feel. She said that the schools should have access to residential areas and should not be segregated from other parts of the community. Some children should be able to walk to school. Craufard Goodwin asked if air quality for the school areas has been examined. Craig Benedict said that they did consider this. NCDOT has said that they have just installed bypass system for the weigh station and mast trucks will be able to drive by the facility and not have to stop. Air quality is a valid concern and they are considering it in the deliberations. Barry Katz said that he is very interested in air pollution related to the highways. He asked Craig Benedict to talk to the Environmental Protection Agency. He is also concerned about the sewer capacity in this area. This could be a limiting factor. Hunter Schofield said that if a school does locate there and if children's health is a concern, then it is paradoxical to put the school in a more rural area that would generate more pollution with commuting and transportation times. Commissioner Halkiotis said that very few kids walk to school -they ride school buses or cars. There are many more children who walk to school in the CHCCS because of the urban setting. There was no public comment for this item. MOTION BY BOCC: A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to accept the Planning°s Staff recommendation to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than October 1, 2403. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Text Amendments to Article 8 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (Special Uses) a. Amend Article 8 to create special use standards for "Schools, elementary, middle, and high," that meets general standards as well as zoning district requirements in the I-$5/Buckhorn Road EDD. Craig Benedict said that if elementary, middle, and secondary schools are added as a class A special use, then special use standards are needed. Smart growth principles are suggested to be added. Commissioner Gordon asked if another public hearing would be necessary if smart growth principles were added. Craig Benedict said that it can be included in tonight's discussion and be incorporated into class A special use standards. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page four of the packet and the 15 criteria for a special use permit for schools. She suggested looking at pages 25-33 to examine the smart growth and other criteria listed there and see if the criteria are relevant for schools. In comparison to the school criteria, the criteria listed an those pages for subdivisions are much more detailed. Commissioner Jacobs said that we should incorporate these principles as noted by Commissioner Gordon in our smart growth design for all schools, including the new high school. Chair Brown said that there is a list that staff generated with many items that should be incorporated for smart growth with the schools. Commissioner Halkiatis said that the Board of County Commissioners paid far that list, sa it should be incorporated. There was no public comment for this item Motion: A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to accept the Planning Staff's recommendation to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than October 1, 2003. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. Amendment to the Land Use Element -Orange County Comprehensive Plan a. Incorporate by reference, the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement and Map adopted December 3, 2001. Craig Benedict showed the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement and map. By incorporating this into the land use document, there is another opportunity to help with the water and sewer policies. This agreement would set forth the urban service boundary. Commissioner Gordon said that she wonders about the effect of adopting this into the Comprehensive Plan. Craig Benedict said that this map would tell us what would be the maximum limits of water and sewer in the County. Commissioner Gordon said that it does not seem to do anything else for us by incorporating this into the comprehensive plan. Craig Benedict said that this helps in the decision making process and with rezoning regarding water and sewer. Chair Brown said that this is one of the most important documents created in the County. She said that this creates the responsibilities of developing property regarding water and sewer. This also addresses a very creative toolbox of remedies for people with septic systems. There was no public comment for this item. MOTION BY BOCC: A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to accept the Planning's Staff recommendation to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned no sooner than October 1, 2003. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Item for Discussion by the Board of County Commissioners -Meetings that are being considered for videotaping Chair Brown referred to the pink sheet at the Commissioners' places about the upcoming work sessions on APS and the potential school merger public hearings. She asked the County Commissioners if they want these meetings videotaped. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he would like to videotape public hearings. Chair Brown said that she would like to videotape the meetings on the APS and merger issues since these are the most emotionally involved. She thinks these should also be on cable. These meetings would include August 28t", September 1$t", October 16t", and October 23`d Commissioner Gordon wants to at least add the September 15t" work session for videotaping since this is the first time the school merger report will be presented. Commissioner Halkiotis supports the four meetings as mentioned by Chair Brown. Commissioner Jacobs supports videotaping the September 15`" work session. Commissioner Jacobs thinks we should send the bill to Time Warner. The Board agreed to videotape the following meetings -August 28t", September 15`" September 18t", October 16t", and October 23`d D. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Margaret Brown, Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board