HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-05-2012 - 6bORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: UDO Text Amendment(s) — Rural Economic Development Area Conditional
Zoning District
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
Amendment Outline Form (UDO /Zoning-
2012-06)
2. Ordinance Amendments
3. Comparison Chart of Various Approval
Processes - Requested at the November
1, 2011 BOCC Meeting
4. February 27, 2012 Approved Quarterly
Public Hearing Minutes
5. Site Assessments for the Speedway
6. Site Assessment of the Go -Kart Facility
7. Noise Wall Examples
8. April 4, 2012 Approved Planning Board
Minutes
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Glenn Bowles, Planner 11,245 -2577
Michael Harvey, Planner III, 245 -2597
Craig Benedict, Director, 245 2575
PURPOSE: To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and
make a decision on a Planning Director initiated Unified Development Ordinance (hereafter
'UDO') text amendment relating to the creation of the Rural Economic Development Area
Conditional Zoning District (REDA- CZ -1).
BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the February 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing.
Minutes from the hearing are contained within Attachment 4.
Proposed amendments include:
1. Creation of a new Conditional Zoning District, REDA -CZ -1, applicable only to those
properties identified within the adopted NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan,
2. Establishing a list of permitted uses within the aforementioned district, and
3. Establishing development criteria for certain uses.
Attachment 1 contains additional information and analysis regarding this amendment.
Planning Board Discussion: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its April 4, 2012 regular
meeting. A synopsis of the discussion is as follows:
• A Board member posed the following questions related to landscape management: 2
o In those cases where there appears to be concrete located within the
proposed land use buffer for motorized racetracks what would happen to
that existing land use?
o How would you achieve a buffer where concrete appears to be located?
Concern was expressed that wording within the proposed text amendment did not
appear to be forceful enough to deal with close -by residences and long -term
management of the vegetative canopy.
Staff Comment. Where existing activities and structures would violate the proposed 50-
foot buffer along public road rights -of -way (Section 5.7.5 (C) of proposed text in
Attachment 2), the applicant/developer will be required to remove or re- locate such
buildings or activities or create an enhanced vegetated buffer.
The landscaped buffer is intended to abate noise, provide a visual buffer, formalize
entryways and on -site circulation, and naturalize the perimeter of the more intensive use
areas. There are numerous ways to attain the purposes of the 50 -foot buffer.
In an effort to address the concern, staff added the following text to Section 5.7.5 (D):
The entire forest canopy shall be actively maintained and managed at all
height levels as a semi - opaque, intermittent visual buffer. Land use
buffers may be modified to improve their appearance, functions and
overall condition. Permitted modifications may include reforestation,
woodland management, landscape enhancement, or stream buffer
protection.
• A Board member asked to what extent did the Small Area Plan participants define what
type of uses they wanted in their neighborhood and why was this seemingly such a big
issue if they had been through a small area plan.
Staff Comment. The neighbors were more concerned about the negative impacts they
were experiencing with the quarry and the speedway than general land uses. The more
prevalent negative impacts were traffic from the racetrack, noise from the quarry and
racetrack, trash from the racetrack and odor from the now defunct asphalt batch plant on
the quarry property. Specific development standards contained within the proposed
REDA -CZ -1 zoning district are an attempt to address these concerns.
During a meeting with former members of the Small Area Plan Workgroup on November
3, 2011, the specific development standards were discussed and the group was
comfortable with the wording. (Please refer to Attachments 1 and 2.)
• A Board member expressed concern if local residents would be happy with the level of
light, noise and traffic resulting from additional non - residential development within the
area.
Staff Comment. The neighbors would appreciate an attempt to abate the racetrack noise
and night lighting glare.
The main point that resonates throughout all of these Planning Board discussions is that
the proposed district attempts to provide a public process to either bring existing, legal,
non - conforming activities into compliance or, in the alternative, provide a template for
new non - residential activities to establish themselves without disrupting the fabric of the
rural community.
3
• A Board member observed the go -kart track had not been used for years, they had
maybe five races in its lifetime and you have a speedway that at maximum would have
ten races a year. Most of the people in that area that have lived there knew the
racetrack was there. The racetrack could be a possible place for different uses.
Upgrading the facility would cost a lot of money.
Staff Comment Any attempt to re- develop or revitalize the various non - conforming uses
will cost money. Staff would hope that a prospective entrepreneur would have done
marketing and due diligence prior submitting a rezoning and site plan application. When
the re- development costs exceed anticipated costs, an opportunity for economic
development grants may present itself.
• A Board member asked if someone bought the go -kart track property, which is currently
for sale, and the new owners chose to re- develop the site into some new land use, what
would happen.
Staff Comment: Any prospective developer would have up to three choices. The first
would be to select a use permitted in the AR zoning district, either by right or through a
special use permit, and submit the appropriate application. Pre - application conferences
are strongly recommended.
Another option is to apply for a REDA -CZ -1 rezoning. Again, the pre - application
conference will allow staff to communicate to the applicant the process and issues that
may influence the specific re- development design for either another vehicle racing facility
or an entirely new use.
The third option would be to apply for Conditional Use zoning.
As stated in an earlier comment, the REDA -CZ -1 construct is to bring existing legal, non-
conforming activities into compliance. However, the REDA is not confined only to re-
development of a motor vehicle racing facility. It also provides a template for new, non-
residential activities that conform to the general restrictions listed in the proposed REDA-
CZ-1 Specific Development Standards.
• A Board member asked if existing noise standards and proposed abatement measures
were realistic.
Staff Comment: Most of the recent racetrack noise abatement programs that staff have
researched in California, Virginia, and in the Charlotte area are premised on an 80-
decibel level at the property line. Orange County's standard is 70 decibels ( "A" Scale).
While Planning staff members and the Sheriffs Department have received noise
complaints regarding the Speedway, no detailed noise analysis of either the Speedway
or the go -kart facilities has been conducted. It is certainly possible a retrofitted
Speedway or other redevelopment project could comply with Orange County noise
standards utilizing prescribed noise abatement techniques.
• A Board member suggested that proposed language within Section 5.7.5 (D) to maintain
vegetation that provides a semi - opaque, intermittent visual buffer be deleted and revised
to allow for management.
Staff Comment The sentence in Section 5.7.5 (D) has been amended to delete some
proposed text and add new text reflective of the Planning Board members' motion.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the REDA -CZ -1 UDO text amendment, subject to the staff incorporating all the
4
Planning Board's comments and revisions and documenting those revisions for review by the
BOCC. Please refer to Section C.2 (a) of Attachment 1 for additional information.
Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends that the BOCC
accept the Planning Board's recommendation to approve the REDA -CZ -1 UDO text
amendments because the amendments:
1. Are necessary to begin implementing recommendations of the NC Highway 57 Speedway
Area Small Area Plan, and
2. Achieve the stated purposes and goals of the adopted Small Area Plan and the Orange
County Comprehensive Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Please refer to Section C.3 of Attachment 1.
RECOMMENDATION: The Manager recommends the Board:
1. Receive the Planning Board recommendation of approval;
2. Discuss the item as necessary;
3. Close the public hearing; and
4. Adopt the Ordinance of Approval for the UDO text amendments contained within
Attachment 2.
Attachment 1 5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /LAND USE ELEMENT MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENTOUTLINE
UDO / Zoning- 2012 -06
NC Highway 57 Rural Economic Development Area (REDA)
Conditional Zoning District
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
❑ Land Use Element Map:
From:
To:
❑ Zoning Map:
From:
To:
❑ Other:
Text Amendments
❑ Comprehensive Plan Text:
® UDO Text:
®UDO General Text Changes
®UDO Development Standards
❑UDO Development Approval Processes
Sections: Section 3.8.3 — Districts Established — NC Highway 57 REDA. This
amendment will create a new zoning district, specifically the NC
Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area
Conditional Zoning (REDA- CZ -1), and a NC Highway 57 Speedway
Area Rural Economic Development Area Condition Zoning (REDA -
CZ -1) chart with a map.
Article 5 — Uses. This amendment will create another column
(REDA -CZ -1) in Section 5.2.3 Table of Permitted Uses.
Section 5.7 Standards for Recreational Uses, this amendment will
create a new Sub - section 5.7.5 Race Track (Motorized, etc.) and Go-
1
Kart Track Facilities.
Other:
......................... _......... _...
B. RATIONALE
1. Purpose /Mission
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 Zoning Atlas and Unified
Development Ordinance Amendments of the UDO, the Planning Director has
initiated an amendment to the UDO to establish a new conditional zoning district —
NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area (REDA- CZ -1).
The REDA concept was first advocated in the NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small
Area Plan as an alternative to traditional zoning. The BOCC adopted the Small Area
Plan Report on August 21, 2007. The Plan stated that:
. certain unique circumstances that arise when a general zoning district
designation would not be appropriate for a certain property, but a specific use
permitted under the district would be consistent with the policies of this ordinance.
The conditional use process can accommodate these unique situations... Using the
conditional district approach, the BOCC could allow some commercial ventures to
occur in the rural parts of the county, based on the suitability of the use to the
particular community.'
The proposed text amendments would develop the necessary assurances for
compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and the requisite small area plan. While
the initiative comes from the NC Highway 57 Small Area Plan, additional REDA
conditional zoning districts could be adopted in the future for specific geographic
areas within the rural portions of the county where a small area plan, enacted and
adopted by the BOCC, are in effect.
2. Analysis
Planning staff has been charged with bringing UDO amendments forward, which will
implement adopted small area plans. These proposed UDO text amendments are
derived from the recommendations of the NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small
Area Plan. Planning staff suggests that the amendment is appropriate to allow.
additional non - residential development and necessary to address existing zoning
non - residential, non - conforming uses within Rural Economic Development Area
identified in the aforementioned plan.
This is all being done within the context of the stated Planning Principles of the NC
Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan to:
1. Preserve and protect the rural character and nature of the area;
2. Minimize negative impacts to natural systems /environmentally sensitive areas,
3. Restrict growth and development so that it complements the rural character and
2
lifestyles and
7
4. Maintain present service levels for existing infrastructure.
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkaqe (i.e. Princinles_ Gnalc and nhin,-fi.,n�%
The Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan creates a mechanism through a
small area planning process to update and re- evaluate the document. Several
adopted small area plans have been adopted by the BOCC, including:
1. The 1991 Efland Area Study,
2. Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan,
3. Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan, and
4. NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan.
Small area plans allow the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan to be
focused on a specific area or neighborhood. This process provides a foundation for
improving the Comprehensive Plan to facilitate needed changes, such as with the NC
Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan report putting forth the construct of
Rural Economic Development Area conditional zoning.
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.
Land Use Goal 9: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth,
consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of
life.
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.
Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on -site environmental
conditions and features, and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and
community character.
Obiective LU 2.4: Evaluate the development potential in rural crossroads
communities to identify whether current regulations permit appropriate development
that is in character with these communities, and whether potential development in
these areas would require significant expansions or cause depletions of public
services.
Economic Development Goal 2• Infrastructure that supports desired development.
Obiective ED -25: Identify lands suitable to accommodate the expansion and growth
of commercial and industrial uses in the County.
Obiective ED -2.7: Select industrial sites in Economic Development Areas based on
present and planned supporting systems, such as public water and sewer, access to
adequate highway, rail, or public transportation infrastructures, and minimize
detrimental environmental or negative social outcomes.
Transportation Goal 3: Integrated land use planning and transportation planning
that serves existing development, supports future development, and is consistent
with the County's land use plans which include provisions for preserving the natural
environment and community character.
NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan
To evaluate the Small Area Plan with the context of the overall County
Comprehensive Plan, Planning Principles were established within the report to
include:
1. Preservation and protection of the rural character and nature of the area,
2. Minimization of negative impacts to natural systems /environmentally sensitive
areas,
3. Restrict growth and development so that it complements the rural character
and lifestyles, and
4. Maintenance of present service levels for existing infrastructure.
The following Goals were put forward to implement these Planning Principles:
1. The Study Area is located in a rural portion of the County where local
residents have chosen to reside in an effort to escape the congestion and
hectic pace of urban areas. Any additional development within the area shall
augment or enhance, rather than detract from, the rural character and nature
of the area.
2. The Study Area represents a 'gateway' into the County that establishes an
entry corridor where travelers form opinions as to the quality of life within the
area as a whole. To that end, steps should be taken to address design
elements within the Study Area to aesthetically enhance this entranceway into
Orange County.
3. The lack of reliable, consistent potable water supplies and poor soil conditions
for septic drain fields limit development opportunities within the Study Area.
Future development proposals should not adversely impact existing
groundwater supplies and should be reviewed and approved with this factor in
mind.
4. Stormwater runoff shall be maintained on site in conformity with existing
standards and policies regardless of the age or approval date of the project.
5. Air quality issues shall be an intricate part of any future permit reviewed within
the Study Area.
6. Existing non - residential, non-conforming land uses should be made into
conforming uses of property through amendments to the Zoning Ordinance 9
and Comprehensive Plan and should then be brought into compliance with
existing, or proposed, development criteria to address off -site impacts.
7. With respect to the quarry operation, the land use is already considered to be
a conforming use of property, as per Section 11.6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Task Force believes that the County should take appropriate action to
address the off -site impacts of the quarry while limiting the potential for
operational expansion beyond what is described in the existing end use plan.
Further, the end use plan for the stone quarry calls for a 100 -acre reservoir
and outdoor recreational activities on both the Durham and Orange County
portions of the property. The time horizon for the development of such a
public asset is twenty to fifty years off, depending on aggregate rock market
conditions. The creation of additional parkland within the Study Area shall be
encouraged.
8. Each existing non - residential land use should be held to specific
development/re- development criteria if they choose to take advantage of the
sanctioned approval process for becoming conforming land uses. Any
improvements to the existing raceway facilities or the stone quarry site should
take the existing community character and form into consideration.
9. Infrastructure management is an important component to allowing for
additional development within the Study Area. No new development should
be allowed that negatively impacts existing infrastructure (i.e. groundwater,
traffic generation, etc.) unless an appropriate and viable solution has been
approved by the County to mitigate these conditions.
4. New Statutes and Rules
............
of applicable.
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 — BOCC approval of Quarterly Public Hearing legal
advertisement
• Staff responses to Quarterly Public Hearing comments
o A BOCC member stated that during the development of the NC Highway 57
Speedway Area Small Area Plan, the redevelopment of the quarry was discussed.
It was alluded to that this might involve the development of a park with a reservoir
water feature. A certain portion of these future benefits should flow to Orange
5
10
County citizens. Further, the BOCC member indicated asphalt plants should be
prohibited within the area.
STAFF COMMENT: While the Small Area Plan did not specifically state how the
future reservoir park on the quarry properties should be developed, forty percent
(40 %) of the quarry is within Orange County.
With respect to the asphalt plan, staff indicated a recent application proposing the
development of an asphalt plant on the Hanson Aggregate quarry property was
denied. Staff has determined such uses are not a customary accessory use to a
quarry.
o A BOCC member suggested that Item (J) of the proposed new Section 5.7.5
Race Track (Motorized, etc. and Go -Kart Track Facilities should include wording
to address both litter collection and recycling.
STAFF COMMENT: Item (J) text has been amended to include the new wording.
o BOCC and Planning Board members suggested that Item (K) of the proposed
new Section 5.7.5 Race Track (Motorized, etc. and Go -Kart Track Facilities
should be revised. As proposed it would be a strong deterrent to any
redevelopment initiative.
STAFF COMMENT: Item (K) text has been revised to make it clear that several
different noise reduction measures may be employed to reduce noise levels, such as
mufflers, noise baffles, or other innovative reduction techniques. Research into new
noise abatement at new or existing racing facilities in California and Virginia indicate
that berming, lowering the grade of the racetrack surface, noise walls, and
grandstand design separately or in combination do abate high levels of vehicle noise.
Attachment 7 provides additional discussions regarding noise walls.
o A BOCC member asked if the lighting standards in Item (M) will cause a problem.
STAFF COMMENT: The UDO lighting standards require that fixtures be designed to
direct light down to the facility surface The Small Area Plan steering committee and
local residents expressed their concerns that racetrack lighting glare often does
impact off -site properties.
LIDO Section 6.11 requires full cut off fixtures directing light only onto the racing and
parking surfaces. Compliance with these regulations should address off -site glare
issues, voiced during the small area plan process
o Both BOCC and Planning Board members stated that some existing parking and
other structures encroach into the proposed 200 -foot (or 50 -foot) buffer. In these
areas we need language to clarify planting activities and to possible enhance or
make more robust the landscape plantings in these areas. Attachment 5 and
Attachment 6 focus on these buffer encroachments.
STAFF COMMENT: Language has been added to Item (D) to address these
concerns. Attachment 5 and Attachment 6 detail the 200 -foot landscape buffer
n
. ......... .
around the perimeter of both the speedway and go -kart facilities and a 50 -foot buffer
from NC Highway 57 and Bacon Road public rights -or -way. They also identify areas
where existing parking and /or facilities encroach into these buffers.
Staff would suggest that in these areas of encroachment, the density of landscaping
normally required in UDO Section 6.8.6 be concentrated into the open area outside of
the encroachment. Walls and berms may also be of benefit.
• June 5, 2012 — Receive Planning Board recommendation
d. Other
............_.._ ....._.........
............_ ..._.........
...._ ...._ _........... _ .............
..._ ........._ _. ..
......_ ............. _.....
........... ...._._.. .
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
Mission/Scope: Public Hearin
. _ ._........
g process consistent with North Carolina State
Statutes and UDO Sub - sections 2.8.6 and 2.8.7 requirements.
a. Planning Board Review:
...... ...
..
.............. .....__........
December 7, 2011 Ordinance Review Committee discussed noise and
enforcement of the noise ordinance, and petroleum tanks on the Raceway
property, legal non - conformities. Board members requested some clarification on
the definition of semi - opaque buffers and questioned the need for military
installations. The Board members would like to build on the historic nature of the
area and deal with unique commercial enterprises already in existence. Board
members present did not express any reservations about moving forward with
these amendments
April 4, 2012 review and recommendation
.. ... ...
__
b. Advisory Boards:
An informational meeting with the
former NC Highway 57 Speedway
SAP Workgroup was held on
November 3, 2011
Presentation at the Durham /Orange/
Chapel Hill Transportation
Coordinating Workgroup — December
13, 2011.
c. Local Government Review:
Durham City County Planning and
Person County as partners in the
Small Area Plan process. Ordinance
was mailed out during the week of
October 25, 2011.
Coincidently with County Peer
Review.
The group reviewed proposed
Ordinance amendment package and
felt that it was adequate.
The map found in the Applicability
section of the REDA -CZ -1 form was
presented with no ensuing
discussion.
No comments have been received.
7
11
d. Notice requirements
12
Legal ad will be published on February 15 and 22, 2012.
e. Outreach:
® General Public: ;Consistent with North Carolina State Statutes and Orange
.County ordinance requirements.
® Small Area Plan Workgroup: NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area
Plan workgroup on November 3, 2011.
® Other: I Development Advisory Committee (DAC) resentation on Nov. 17
:2011 p '
Peer Review, including the County Attorney and Economic
Development from October 25 to November 15 2011.
3. FISCAL IMPACT
Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding for the
provision of County services. Costs for the required legal advertisement will be paid
from Fiscal Year 2011 -12 Departmental funds budgeted for this purpose. Existing
Planning staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work
required to process this amendment.
D. AMENDMENT INTENDED OUTCOMES
The intended outcome is to implement recommendations of the NC Highway 57
Speedway Area Small Area Plan and to achieve the stated purposed and goals of the
adopted Small Area Plan.
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
Please refer Attachment 2 for UDO text and development standards amendments.
Primary Staff Contact:
Glenn Bowles, Planner II
Planning and Inspections Department
919 245 2577
g bowies @co. orange. nc. us
Ordinance #: 001 ,9- na Attachment
f3
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF ORANGE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners appointed a NC
Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan work group to bring forward
recommendations for the study area; and
WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners adopted the NC
Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan report on August 21, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Small Area Plan report strongly encourages additional, compatible,
and unique non - residential development opportunities in the area as denoted in the
adopted NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan while balancing any adverse
impacts to adjacent properties and the environment, and
WHEREAS, the requirements of Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance
have been deemed complete, and
WHEREAS, the County has found the proposed text amendments to be reasonably
necessary to promote public health, safety and general welfare and to achieve the
purposes of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 153A -341 and Section 1.1.7 of
the Unified Development Ordinance, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County
has found the proposed text amendments to be consistent with the goals and policies of
the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Unified
Development Ordinance of Orange County is hereby amended as depicted in the
attached pages.
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
Commissioner
day of
, seconded by
the foregoing ordinance was adopted this
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 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
14
15
UDO AMENDMENT PACKET NOTES
The following packet details staff's proposed modifications to existing regulations and
new standards governing the proposed Rural Economic Development Area Conditional
Use (REDA-CZ-1) District. These amendments are based on comments/direction
received by BOCC, Planning Board, and the Small Area Plan Work Group members at
the November 1, 2012 BOCC meeting when the authorization to proceed was given, the
November 3, 2012 Small Area Plan Work Group meeting, the December 7, 2012
Ordinance Review Committee meeting with the Planning Board, the February 27, 2012
Quarterly Public Hearing, and the April 4, 2012 Planning Board meeting.
Staff has divided the proposed amendments into the following color coded
Classifications:
• Red lettering denotes additions/modifications to the existing text.
• Rod stFikethrGugh lettering denotes suggested deletions to the existing text.
• Red underlined lettering denotes revisions stemming from Quarterly Public
Hearing comments or from the April 4, 2012 Planning Board meeting.
Only those pages of the UDO impacted by the proposed modifications have been
included within this packet.
Please note that the page numbers in this amendment packet may or may not
necessarily correspond to the page numbers in the adopted UDO because the adding
text may shift all of the text/sections downward.
16
3.8.3 Districts Established
(A) Conditional Zoning Districts
(1) Conditional Zoning (CZ) Districts are floating zoning districts, permitted within
most land use designations allowing for the development of specific land uses, in
accordance with established standards.
(2) A CZ requires the approval of a rezoning by the Board of County Commissioners,
approval of a site plan or Master Plan, and may include agreed-upon conditions
of development.
(3) The following CZ districts are hereby established:
(a) Mobile Home Park (MHP-CZ)
(b) Master Plan Development(MPD-CZ)
(c) NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic Development Area
(REDA-CZ-1)
1 • 1 -
Tract size, min. (acres) none
` ' • •
Tract Front Setback No requirement[1]
from ROW,min.(feet)
Tract Side Setback, No requirement[1]
min. (feet)
The purpose of the NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Rural Economic
Development Area Conditional Zoning (REDA-CZ-1) District is to
encourage additional, compatible, and unique non-residential
development opportunities in a predefined area of the County as
identified within the adopted NC Highway 57 Small Area Plan.
Further, this district is intended to provide existing non-conforming land
uses an opportunity to become conforming through a development
review process so that property owners can upgrade their existing
business to address changing needs while recognizing, and being
consistent with, local land use regulations.
APPLICABILITY Tract Rear Setback,
min. feet No requirement[1]
Height, max. (feet) No requirement[1]
This district shall be located consistent with the parcels designated as
"Rural Economic Development Area" within the aforementioned Small
Area Plan, a map of which is provided herein for illustrative purposes maxt Floor Area Ratio, No requirement[1j
only:
Required Open Space No requirement[I
Ratio, min.
17
rl
fiat R War
Protected 1
i
9�C+
Lf
D.N.Ca.nfi
1
1
1
yI
�I
j
1
i
i.:tlCa 1
River�m
Protected 1
A-,
(. 1 tFEl X1'_1
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS NOTES: Required Livability
[1] The REDA-CZ-1 district is intended to allow for flexibility in Space Ratio, min. No requirement[1]
dimensional standards. The overall development will be evaluated to
ensure compatibility with surrounding properties and with the adopted Required Recreation No requirement[1]
goal statements, policies, and action statements of the Small Area Space Ratio,min.
Plan and with the policies and objectives of this Ordinance. Specific
site design standards shall be incorporated into the Planning Required Pedestrian/ No requirement[1]
Department-approved Site Plan. Landscape Ratio,min.
D•-CZ-1 DISTRICT SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
1. Applications for the REDA-CZ-1 district shall be accepted only for parcels delineated as being suitable for non-residential
development within the NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan adopted by the BOCC on August 21, 2007.
2. Potential uses shall be restricted to those listed as permitted for the REDA-CZ-1 District in Section 5.2 3.
3. Specific uses shall be limited to those approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Additionally, non-residential uses
are restricted based on the Watershed Protection Overlay District in which the property is located. Refer to Section 4.2.3
for land use restrictions.
4. Allowable impervious surface area is based on the Watershed Protection Overlay District in which the property is located.
Refer to Section 4.2.6 for a breakdown of the allowable impervious surface area.
5. Development within the conditional zoning district shall be subject to all applicable use standards detailed in Articles 5 and 6
of this Ordinance or provide creative alternatives that meet the intent and spirit of the regulations.
6. Applicants shall complete a comprehensive groundwater study to anticipate future usage to determine the appropriateness
of a proposed land use. Such a study shall detail how much water is anticipated to be consumed,what amount of
groundwater withdrawal is safe and sustainable in the immediate vicinity of the use,and if other wells will be affected by
such withdrawals.
7. All new development shall limit groundwater withdrawals to not more than 240 gallons per day per acre.
8. No new development having a significant negative impact on existing roadways,traffic patterns or surface drainage
patterns shall be permitted, unless an appropriate and viable solution has been approved to mitigate these conditions.
I
18
CONDITIONAL EXCERPT FROM TABLE OF PERMITTED USES— .
CONDITIONAL PERMITTED USE
DISTRICTS
USE TYPE REDA-CZ-11
NOTE:Applications for Conditional Zoning Districts must list specific uses for consideration/approval
AGRICULTURAL USES
Agricultural Services Uses
Commercial Feeder Operation
Farm Equipment&Sales
Feed, Seed, Storage& Processing
Stockyards
CHILD CARE&EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
Center in a Residence for 3 to 12 Children
Child Care Facilities
Libraries '
Non-Profit Educational Cooperative
Schools: Dance,Art&Music
Schools: Elementary, Middle&Secondary
Schools. Vocational
Universities, Colleges&Institutes
COMMERCIAL USES
Banks&Financial Institutions
Beauty&Barber Shops
Bed&Breakfast
Bed&Breakfast Inn
Construction(Sector 23)
Contractors, Building&Trade
Country Inn
Finance&Insurance(Sector 52)
Funeral Homes
Garden Center(On Premises Sales)
Greenhouses(No On Premises Sales)
Greenhouses(On Premises Sales)
Hotels&Motels
Insurance Carriers&Agents
Junkyards
Kennels, Class I
Kennels, Class 11/Riding Stables
19
ExcERPT FROM TABLE OF PERMITTED USES—CONDITIONAL
CONDITIONAL PERMITTED USE
.
USE TYPE
NOTE:Applications for Conditional Zoning Districts must list specific uses for consideration/approval
Laundry&Dry Cleaning Services
Management of Companies&Enterprises(Sector 53)
Massage, Business of
Nightclubs, Bars, Pubs
Offices&Personal Services, Class 1
Offices&Personal Services, Class 2
Offices&Personal Services, Class 3
Professional, Scientific&Technical Services(Sector 54)
Real Estate Agents&Brokers
Repair Service Electronic&Appliance
Restaurants: Carry Out
Restaurants: Drive In
Restaurants: General
Retail, Class 1
Retail, Class 2
Retail, Class 3
Storage of Goods, Outdoor
Storage or Warehousing: Inside Building
Studio(Art)
Theater, Indoor or Outdoor(including Drive-ins)
Tourist Home
Wholesale Trade
EXTRACTIVE USES
Extraction of Earth Products
GOVERNMENTAL USES
Governmental Facilities&Office Buildings
Governmental Protective Services(Police&Fire Stations)Rescue
Squads,Volunteer Fire Departments
Military Installations(National Guard&Reserve Armory)
Public Administration(Sector 92)
MANUFACTURING,PROCESSING&ASSEMBLY
Assembly and Packaging Operations Including Mail Order
Houses, But Excluding On-Premises Retail Outlets
Industrial, Heavy
Industrial, Light
Industrial, Medium
i
Manufacturing (Sector 31-33)
Pharmaceutical Products
20
EXCERPT FROM TABLE OF PERMITTED USES—CONDITIONAL
CONDITIONAL*=PERMITTED USE
USE TYPE DISTRICTS
NOTE:Applications for Conditional Zoning Districts must list specific uses for consideration/approval
Printing&Lithography
Sawmills
MEDICAL USES
Animal Hospitals;Veterinarians
Health Services Over 10,000 Sq. Ft.
Health Services. Under 10,000 Sq. Ft
Hospitals
RECREATIONAL USES
Arts, Entertainment&Recreation (Sector 71)
Botanical Gardens&Arboretums
Camp/Retreat Center
Golf Driving and Practice Ranges
Parks, Public&Non-Profit
Recreational Facilities(Non-Profit)
Recreational Facilities(Profit)
Golf Course
Race Track(Motorized,etc.)and Go-Kart Track Facilities)
RESIDENTIAL USES
Dwelling; Mobile Home
Dwelling; Multiple Family
Dwelling;Single-Family
Dwelling;Two-Family
Family Care Home
Group Care Facility
Rehabilitative Care Facility
Residential Hotel(Fraternities, Sororities, and Dormitories)
Rooming House
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Telecommunication Tower—Stealth (75 feet or shorter)
Telecommunication Towers(150 feet in height or shorter)
Telecommunication Towers(greater than 150 in height)
TEMPORARY USES
Buildings, Portable
Temporary Mobile Home(Custodial Care)
Temporary Mobile Home(Use during construction/installation of
permanent residential unit and for 30 days following issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy
21
ExCERPT FROM OF . USES—CONDITIONAL ZONING
CONDITIONAL PERMITTED USE
DISTRICTS
USE TYPE REDA-CZ-1
NOTE:Applications for Conditional Zoning Districts must list specific uses for consideration/approval
AU TOMOTIvEITRANSPORTATION
Bus Passenger Shelter
Bus Terminals&Garages
Motor Freight Terminals
Motor Vehicle Maintenance&Repair
(Body Shop)
Motor Vehicle Repair Garage
Motor Vehicle Sales Rental
New&Used
Motor Vehicle Services Stations
Parking As Principle Use, Surface or Structure
Petroleum Products: Storage&Distribution
Postal&Parcel Delivery Services
Utilities
Elevated Water Storage Tanks
Public Utility Stations &Sub-Stations, Switching Stations,
Telephone Exchanges,Water&Sewage Treatment Plants
Transmission Lines
Water&Sanitary Sewer Pumping
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Landfills(2 Acres or More)
Landfills(Less Than 2 Acres)
Waste Management Facility; Hazardous&Toxic
MISCELLANEOUS
Accessory Uses
Airports, General Aviation, Heliports,S.T.O.L.
Assembly Facility Greater Than 300 Occupants
Assembly Facility Less Than 300 Occupants
Cemetery
Church
Clubs or Lodges; Social; Fraternal or Union Clubhouses
Community Center
Crematoria(4)
Historic Sites Non-Residential/Mixed Use
Information(Sector 51)
Research Facility
Research Lands&Installations, Non-profit
22
�I
5.7.5. Race Track(Motorized,etc.) and Go-Kart Track Facilities
(A) A formal site plan shall be submitted showing the current and proposed conditions of the
property, including:
(1) Existing impervious surface calculations,
(2) Location of stormwater retention sites,
(3)The location of all structures and their distance from all property lines,
(4) The location of the septic field and repair areas,
(5)The location of petroleum storage containers and re-fueling areas,
(6) The location of all existing vegetation and buffer areas,
(7)All parking areas including internal traffic circulation patterns for the property, and
(8)All other required information outlined within Section 2.5 of this Ordinance.
(B) Prior to any land disturbing activity on the property, including the expansion of any
existing uses, the property shall be brought into compliance with Section 6.15 of this
Ordinance.
(C) A 530-foot wide landscaped buffer shall be installed along the public road frontage
according to the provisions of Section 6.8 of this Ordinance to form a semi-opaque
intermittent visual buffer. In those portions of the facility where existinq structures or
vehicular use areas already encroach into the landscaped buffer, an enhanced landscape
standard which will condense the required plantings density into the un-encroached
buffer area or prescribe other innovative solutions to capture the intended purpose of the
buffer requirement.
With respect for existing facilities,the landscaped buffer is intended to:
(1) Provide noise attenuation,
(2)Shield the direct view of the activities from surrounding residential uses.
(3)Provide formal entries to the parking and facility, and
(4) Generally naturalize the perimeter of the more intensive use areas.
(D) A 200-foot landscape and conservation buffer/easement shall be established along the all
other property perimeters. Ne vegetation v.4thi„ this area shall be dirt Fbed The entire
forest canopy shall be actively maintained and managed at all height levels as a semi-
opaque, intermittent visual buffer. Land use buffers may be modified to improve their
appearance, functions and overall condition. Permitted modifications may include
reforestation, woodland management, landscape enhancement, or stream buffer
protection.
23
(E) Existing and proposed signage shall comply with Section 6.12 of this Ordinance.
(F) The facility owner shall demonstrate compliance with Section 6.9 of this Ordinance and,
specifically, complete the following:
(1) Properly define and delineate the parking and travel lanes on the property, and
(2). Define and delineate emergency vehicle access points and fire lanes on the property.
(G) The facility owner shall work with NCDOT to complete a traffic intersection analysis for
access points along any state-maintained road or highway to determine need for access
improvements such as left turn lanes or deceleration lanes.
(H) The facility owner shall work with NCDOT, the State Highway Patrol, and County officials
to address traffic management issues to coordinate acceleration and deceleration lanes
at approved entrance and exit points on the property during major events.
(I) The facility owner shall work with NCDOT and County officials to post proper signage on
the property directing traffic through a one-way ingress and egress location.
(J) A litter collection and recycling systems shall be developed throughout the grounds and
at all points of egress. During events facility employees shall remove trash from the
receptacles in a timely manner.
(K) In order to become compatible with the County Noise Ordinance, the property
owner/managers shall provide a noise baffliR9 abatement system so constructed as to
reduce sustained noise levels at the property lines to the prescribed levels. The
owners/managers have the options of employ singly or in combination any one of the
following:
1. Requiring all competition vehicles to have functional noise mufflers attached at all
times;
2. Installing a system of noise baffles, berms, or walls on the perimeter of the racetrack
facility incorporated into the design and placement of any lighting system and viewing
stands, and/or
4. Depressinq the elevation of the raceway track surface, or
3. Some other innovative noise abatement baffling system.
Noise measurements confirming compliance with the County Noise Ordinance shall be
conducted by a qualified acoustical engineer.
(L) Limits on racing activities shall be such that no race shall extend beyond 11:00 p.m. on
Friday and Saturday nights, or beyond 9:00 p.m. on other evenings. Practice activities
shall not commence before 10:00 a.m. on any day and shall cease by 9:00 p.m.
(M) All external lighting fixtures shall comply with Orange County lighting standards (Section
6.11).
(N) No storage of hazardous materials shall be permitted, except for racing fuel and
lubricants. Such material storage areas shall be enclosed and posted and the Orange
County Fire Marshal shall approve a pollution incident prevention plan for the storage
facility prior to final occupancy permits.
(0) If additional or accessory land uses are desired, the facility owner shall cause a new site
plan to be created outlining the location and nature of the proposed new land use,
demonstrating compliance with this Ordinance.
(P) The County shall approve a construction schedule to complete the items listed above.
Comparison of REDA-CZ to General Use Rezoning, Special Use Permits and Conditional Use Zoning
Zoning
Construct Process Advantages Disadvantages
General Use • Zoning Atlas Amendment Application • Known Process • Allows a General Use That May Not
Non-Residential • Quarterly Public Hearing • Traditional Be Acceptable for a Specific
Zoning • Planning Board Recommendation • Select from a List of General Permitted Uses Location
• BOCC Final Action • Must be Compatible with Comprehensive Plan • No Site Plan is Required
Special Use • Special Use Permit Application • Known Process • If Application Meets All Findings of
Permit (Class A) • Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval • Traditional Fact,the Use Must Be Approved
• Public Hearing Required • Only for Uses Specified in the Applicable Zoning District • All Conditions of Approval Must be
• Planning Board Recommendation • Conditions of Approval Listed Mutually Agreed To
• BOCC Final Action • Must be Compatible with Comprehensive Plan
• Conditions of Approval Recorded
Special Use • Special Use Permit Application • Known Process • If Application Meets All Findings of
Permit (Class B) • Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval • Traditional Fact,the Use Must Be Approved
• Public Hearing Required • Only for Uses Specified in the Applicable Zoning District • All Conditions of Approval Must be
• Board of Adjustment Final Action • Conditions of Approval Listed Mutually Agreed To
• Conditions of Approval Recorded • Must be Compatible with Comprehensive Plan
Conditional Use • Zoning Atlas Amendment Application,and • Neighborhood Meeting Required •All Conditions of Approval Must be
District (CUD) • Special Use Permit Application • Conditions of Approval Listed Mutually Agreed To in Writing.
• Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval • Very Similar to the Former Planned Development(PD) • Requires Zoning Atlas Amendment,
• Quarterly Public Hearing Zoning Class A Special Use Permit,and Site
• Site Plan is Part of the Total Application • Must be Compatible with Comprehensive Plan Plan Approval.
• Planning Board Recommendation • District Specific Design Standards
• BOCC Final Action
• Conditions of Approval Recorded
Conditional • Zoning Atlas Amendment Application • Uses may be Ideal for the Site • All Conditions of Approval Must be
Zoning—(REDA- • Site Plan Part of Zoning Atlas Amendment • Specific Use(s)Only Allowed Mutually Agreed To In Writing D
CZ) • Quarterly Public Hearing • More Than One Principal Use May Be Allowed o-
• Planning Board Recommendation • Planning Staff Approves Detailed Site Plan, Based on 3
• BOCC Final Action BOCC Final Action Conditions,if any. m
• Must be Compatible with Comprehensive Plan ca
• District Specific Design Standards
N
-P
Attachment 4 5
APPROVED 3/22/2012
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
February 27, 2012
7:00 P.M.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board
met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, February 27, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at DSS Offices,
Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners
Valerie P. Foushee, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee and Steve Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Alice M. Gordon
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: Chair Brian L. Crawford, Vice Chair Larry Wright,
Pete Hallenbeck, Mark Marcoplos, H.T. "Buddy Hartley ", Johnny Randall, Andrea Rohrbacher,
Lisa Stuckey
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Judith Wegner, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Maxecine
Mitchell, Alan Campbell
Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 7:07 PM.
A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
B. PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Planning Board Chair Brian Crawford announced the agenda and read the public charge.
1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments - To review government -
initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to add a conditional zoning district (REDA -
CZ-1) that would be applicable to the geographic area addressed in the NC Highway
57 /Speedway Area Small Area Plan and other necessary amendments to implement
recommendations made in the small area plan.
Planner Glenn Bowles made a PowerPoint presentation.
Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments
NC Highway 57 Rural Economic Development Area (REDA)
Conditional Use (REDA -CZ -1) District
• Encourage compatible, non - residential development,
W
• Address existing non - conforming uses,
• Facilitate unique economic development opportunities, and
• Allow non - conforming uses to become conforming.
Rural Economic Development Area
• Adopted Plan REDA (map)
• Proposed UDO REDA (map)
REDA -CZ -1 -- SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
1. Only to non - residential development.
2. Only uses listed in REDA -CZ -1 (Section 5.2.3).
3. Specific uses only with BOCC approval.
4. Impervious surface restrictions.
5. Follow UDO standards or creative alternatives.
6. Comprehensive groundwater study
7. Groundwater use not > 240 gallons /day /acre.
8. No negative impacts without mitigation.
REDA -CZ -1 Permitted Uses
• Libraries,
• Beauty & Barber Shops,
• Contractors, Building & Trade,
• Office & Personal Services, Class 1,
• Real Estate Agents & Brokers,
• Storage of Goods, Outside,
• Storage or Warehousing: Inside Building,
• Studio (Art),
• Theater, Indoor or Outdoor (including Drive -ins),
• Race Track (Motorized, etc.) and Go -Kart Track Facilities,
• Postal & Parcel Delivery Services,
• Accessory Uses, and
• Assembly Facility Less Than 300 Occupants.
Brian Crawford said that he was informed by the County Attorney that all 7 members of
the Planning Board must be present for the meeting to continue. The seventh member was on
his way. The boards agreed to move to item 10, which does not require the Planning Board.
The boards moved on to item C -10 and then recessed until the seventh member arrived.
Chair Pelissier called the meeting back to order at 7:32 PM.
Glenn Bowles went through the PowerPoint again.
Larry Wright made reference to page 17, item D and the 250 -foot landscape buffer
where it says, "no vegetation in this area shall be disturbed." He asked what happens as the
limbs die off and what might be done for mitigation for decibel levels. He asked if anyone has
looked into this.
Glenn Bowles said that they look at this at the site approval stage and if the buffer looks
inadequate or that it need beefing up, they will deal with it at that time.
27
Larry Wright said that he is concerned that if someone wants to infiltrate and put some
sort of vegetation or buffer to protect a neighbor. Glenn Bowles said that this would be
permitted.
Commissioner Foushee asked that clarification be added regarding the vegetation that
could be added. Glenn Bowles said that clarification would be added.
Commissioner McKee asked if there were any facilities on the racetrack property in
which part of the facilities themselves is less than 200 feet from the property line. It was
answered yes.
Commissioner McKee asked how this would be mitigated. Glenn Bowles said that they
would be innovative with the developer to see what could be done.
Commissioner McKee said that he wants to address this issue. Glenn Bowles said that
he would bring something forward.
Commissioner McKee made reference to the requirement of mufflers and said that this
would be very restrictive to this site. He said that Orange County sometimes makes it so hard
for other uses that it will be a hindrance to economic development.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he worked on this plan and the group worked very hard
to strike a balance between development and rural life.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to item J and a litter collection system. He
suggested it say, "a litter and recycling collection system."
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7 and the goals that were put forward.
Goal #7 says, "the creation of additional parkland within the study area shall be encouraged."
He said that that he recalls that the proposal from the Atica Company was that all of the facilities
would be given to Durham. The recommendation was specifically that it be negotiated that
Orange County have an equal part of those facilities and that is not reflected here. He said that
there was also a conversation that the County specifically did not want an asphalt plant. That
does not seem to be indicated here.
Glenn Bowles said that any new development would need to meet air quality standards,
which would inhibit an asphalt plant. Regarding the parkland, he said that the goal was to get a
placeholder there and work out the percentages later.
Michael Harvey said that this additional zoning district is intended to provide existing
non - conforming land uses a pathway to compliance.
The additional Planning Board member arrived — Johnny Randall.
Michael Harvey said that what he is hearing from the Board is that it wants the staff to
take the proposed regulations, apply it to the speedway and ascertain whether there are
problematic areas and identify potential solutions, and allow the Board to see the impact. Also,
to identify where there could be methods where we could modify what is being proposed to
address a real life scenario and at the same time, encourage any new development to insure it
will not have a negative impact on adjacent property.
The Board agreed.
Discussion ensued on whether the property owners were notified of this meeting.
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner
Hemminger to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
returned to the BOCC in time for the May 1, 2012 BOCC regular meeting.
An amendment was made by Commissioner McKee to include Michael Harvey's
comments:
28
Take the proposed regulations, apply it to the speedway and ascertain whether there are
problematic areas and identify potential solutions to allow the Board to see the pro and con
impact. Also, identify where there could be methods where we could modify what is being
proposed to address a real life scenario and at the same time, encourage any new development
to insure it will not have a negative impact on adjacent property.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
(Later, after item C -2 the Board returned to vote on an additional portion of C -1)
A motion was made by Chair Pellissier, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to adjourn
the public hearing until May 1, 2012 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's
recommendation and any submitted written comments.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
29
Flat River Attachment 5
Protected Watershed w;
ar Area of Buffer Encroachment
w .
• . EC5
BACON RD
Possible Noise Abatement Applications
4
Area of Buffer Encroachment
r
' AR
Little River.
''�°� Protected Watershed
30
tt h •,
A ac ment 6
r � y
.v f41
r {
t
#nA
i t Amp
i
,
y4
Possible Noise Abatement Applications
m
,
t
4 t
w
* 1�.•�}^/ , , Flat River
�'
Ai
Protected1Watershed
Area of Buffer Encroachment
<i
�• � f -3 .. � ��'�� �_-./fin'/' ,�
4,. f
` , a'f
LittloRiv-
4a,X . ' Protected , c•
' ted W a
\_� Lj
31
Attachment 7
Noise walls have been used to abate noise in many racetracks in recent years. Three
examples are provided for discussion purposes. Like the examples of walls constructed
along federal interstate highways, their intent is to dissipate noise volumes by blocking
its direct path to the surrounding residences, reflecting the noise waves, and dissipating
their energy levels. The upper left image is from a raceway facility in Concord, North
Carolina.
Some can be decorative and serve multiple functions. Viewing stands can act as a
noise wall if they are of solid construction with no structural gaps.
IT f
a
}
a
a3
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
APRIL 4, 2012
REGULAR MEETING
Approved May 2, 2012
Attachment 8
ua
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Wright (Vice- Chair), At- Large, Cedar Grove Township;
Peter Hallenbeck, Cheeks Township Representative; Buddy Hartley, Little River
Township Representative; Alan Campbell, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Lisa
Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Rachel Hawkins, Hillsborough Township
Representative; Mark Marcoplos, At- Large, Bingham Township; Andrea Rohrbacher, At-
Large Chapel Hill Township; Maxecine Mitchell, At -Large Bingham Township; Tony
Blake, Bingham Township Representative
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Crawford (Chair), Eno Township Representative; Johnny
Randall, At -Large Chapel Hill Township;
STAFF PRESENT: Shannon Berry, Special Projects Planner; Michael Harvey, Current
Planning Supervisor; Kevin Lindley, Staff Engineer; Glenn Bowles, Planner II; Tina
Love Administrative Assistant II
OTHERS PRESENT: Ed Kielty
Handouts- staff handed out a copy of the PowerPoint presentation of the photos used
for Item 8
Agenda Item 8: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments - To
make a recommendation to the BOCC on government- initiated amendments to the text
of the UDO to add a conditional zoning district (REDA -CZ -1) that would be applicable to
the geographic area addressed in the NC Highway /Speedway Area Small Area Plan
and other necessary amendments to implement recommendations made in the small
area plan. This item was heard at the February 27, 2012 quarterly public hearing.
Presenter: Glenn Bowles, Planner II
Larry Wright: We are on Item 8, Mr. Bowles.
33
Glenn Bowles: I have a house keeping item. There a number of attachments in your
handouts. There are some draft minutes from the quarterly public hearing, if your
recollection of those discussions are a little different than what is shown please get
those comments to myself or Michael so we can pass them up to the appropriate
people.
Larry Wright: First of all I would like to, I don't know what page is on but on staff
comment, there is a grammatical error. Page 22, it is the last staff comment, and I think
you want to say 'they also identified....'. Go ahead.
Glenn Bowles: The discussion at the quarterly public hearing gave us a number of good
comments, we thought...
Larry Wright: I didn't see where you took the comments, and I think it's on page 44, and
would like to know how staff responds to this, now you're talking about comments.
This is addressing Section 5.7.7 Raised Track Motorized and Go Kart facilities and
addressing item D under there, 'no vegetation with this area shall be disturbed'. I think
raised the issue about what happens when the buffer.....
Glenn Bowles: We will get to that because I have several slides here that talk directly to
that. The...
Larry Wright: Yes, but I don't see a correction in here.
Glenn Bowles: We'll get to that sir. The 200 foot buffer, there was a little
miscommunication, I am going to get to that as to where the 200 foot buffer was and
where the road side buffer.. We'll get to that.
Larry Wright: Yes you will.
Glenn Bowles: I will show that and if I don't do it well enough then we can talk some
more.
Glenn Bowles: Reviewed abstract.
Lisa Stuckey: Where there appears to be concrete what would happen? How would
you achieve a buffer where there seems to be currently concrete.?
Glenn Bowles: The intent for the perimeter buffer was one for naturalizing...
Lisa Stuckey: So you would put plants in there?
Glenn Bowles: We would hope to see something like that. These folks don't have to do
anything right now. They are existing, non - conforming. They can continue but if they
wanted to upgrade or change their use in some way or add additional uses then we
34
would ask that they come forward with something. We are suggesting, without
designing it for them, why we would want to — how we would want to naturalize the area
and also formalize the entryways. We want to do some type of visual buffering and
some noise buffering. We realize some plants out there aren't going to do much for
noise buffering.
Mark Marcoplos: Having not been part of a small area plan, and hoping that someday
White Cross area will have a small area plan, I know that this community went through a
small area plan process so I wonder to what extent they define what type of uses they
want in their neighborhood and why was this seemingly such a big issue if they had
been through a small area plan.
Glenn Bowles: They were more specific about the negative impacts they were
experiencing with the quarry and the speedway. There were traffic, noise and smell
issues.
Mark Marcoplos: How does this fit in with that? They have dealt with all the issues.
Glenn Bowles: They thought the type of use they would like to see there would not
generate a lot of traffic, quiet, would not use a lot of water.
Michael Harvey: The Highway 57 Small Area Plan process was conceived to do three
things. First, the small area plan was conceived as a means to identify potential
processes that could allow existing non - conforming land uses within the area a potential
path to conformity, specifically the speedway and the go -kart track. The second
purpose of the plan was that we wanted to know the local resident's input on the overall
growth pattern in the area. There was a general consensus that this area might be right
for additional non - residential development given the nature of existing development. A
map denoting the project area on page 34 of your packet in the proposed REDA -CZ -1
district standards. The small area planning group did not come up with a specific list of
permitted uses. They wanted to identify a process that would allow some flexibility
where the county would work with the property owners to determine the
appropriateness of a proposed use. The specific recommendation at the time was for
the county to adopt a conditional zoning construct which is what we did in the UDO.
REDA is being proposed as a condition zoning district for a specified area coinciding
with the NC Highway 57 small area plan study area. We are trying to establish
reasonable standards governing the redevelopment of two existing uses so they would
have a path to normalcy as well as standards governing the uses in general. Those
include landscape buffer to mitigate noise. We have Mr. Darryl Chandler as an example
who owns property in this area and wants to do a mini storage facility. That project will
probably be presented at the November Quarterly Public Hearing. The whole guise
around REDA was to gauge local residents' reactions to existing development, what
35
they would like to see in their area and try to identify a process the county could work
with to bring everything to fruition. The 57 Plan was essentially the genesis for the
conditional use process from a zoning standpoint. The old process is not referenced
anywhere in the North Carolina General Statutes. We essentially replaced the existing
PD standard to ensure we were not missing the state law.
Mark Marcoplos: Do you think people would be happy with the level of light, noise and
traffic?
Michael Harvey: It would be fair to say they would like to see the go -kart facility and the
speedway adapt the sites to bring them into greater conformity with the code while at
the same time be allowed to exist. We attempted to establish a cooperative
environment where if the speedway owner chose to expand or add additional uses to
their property they come through the County Commissioners through the conditional
use process in an effort to negotiate the resolution of either long standing or community
based issues to try to achieve a symbiotic relationship where everyone can coexist as
best as possible.
Glenn Bowles: There is also the possibility that this asphalt plant is not going to be
there forever. There may be some type of recreational opportunity.
Buddy Hartley: The go -kart track has not been used for years, they had maybe five
races in its lifetime and you have a speedway that at maximum would have ten races a
year. Most of the people in that area that have lived there, like myself, knew the
racetrack was there. I could see the racetrack itself as a possible place for different
uses also.
Glenn Bowles: We have encouraged the manager to come forward with something.
Tony Blake: I was going to ask what the land owner think? This is based on future
expansion that probably won't happen.
Larry Wright: Excuse me Buddy had the floor. I would like to hear more about this
because you are from that township. So what would you like to see Buddy?
Buddy Hartley: I would like to see better uses around the speedway. If we think about
what a speedway is, it is for racing cars so you will have noise and people but it is a
short period of time.
Larry Wright: You think we should find some use for all ....
Buddy Hartley: It's a spot that could be used for other things, they did use it for Relay
for Life.
36
Tony Blake: That's exactly what I was thinking is that is the kind of thing you, music
or....
Buddy Hartley: Now, could it be upgraded, sure but that would cost a lot of money.
That's the thing.
Maxecine Mitchell: The 200 foot buffer, it's not currently there right? Is that something
the owner would have to bring up to code?
Glenn Bowles: Correct. If they want to upgrade the facility or if they want to sell it to
use for something else, then we will have a discussion.
Michael Harvey: One of the reasons we provided these attachments was at the
quarterly public hearing both Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Jacobs brought
this concern to light. Staff had proposed buffer and parking requirements, etc. Both
Commissioners wanted to see the practical application of the proposed standards on
the existing sites so we provided the planning board these aerial photos to see the
impacts for discussion and feedback.
Glenn Bowles: Continued reviewing abstract and slides.
Larry Wright: We are talking about a go -cart track that has not been used in a
considerable timeframe and a speedway that is for eight or ten races. Now you have
taken us through these conditions that need to be met. I see a discrepancy in that is in
incongruent with the amount of money coming and how these people are going to find
money to deal with the stands, lights and building a new track, etc. We've listened to
this for about 15, 20 minutes and I don't, it seems incongruent to me.
Glenn Bowles: We are trying to develop a process to bring them forward into
conformance should they choose to on a voluntary basis.
Larry Wright: I don't see where we are going with this.
Michael Harvey: There are limitations on what non - conforming land uses can do in a
given calendar year and over its lifetime to continue to maintain and upgrade their
facilities. It is limited, according to the UDO by year and dollar amount. There are
severe limitations. This process is twofold. We have recommendations in a small area
plan to develop a rural economic development zoning construct. We also had to
establish regulations governing what would happen if a new go -kart track, motorized
track or speedway would come into this area so we could address identified issues that
local residents have expressed concern. In the specific example of the go -kart track
and speedway, if the individual owners wish to keep the existing facility as is, they can
do that. If they choose to expand the facility, they now have a process if the REDA
zoning designation is adopted, they can come before the County Commissioners to
37
make modifications to this site to address some of the offsite impacts but also allow for
purposeful expansion. This amendment allows for additional non - residential
development in this area consistent with a recommendation from the small area plan
through a process of a public hearing, the uses have to be consistent with the findings
of the adopted small area plan and the County Commissioners have to make findings
that are consistent with plan and furthers the goal for this area which is defined on page
33. The second thing it provides, which we were directed as part of the steering
committee for the Highway 57 Small Area Plan, was to identify a potential process the
speedway, the go -kart owner could go through to memorialize their site and allow for
potential expansion either of the existing race facility or alternative uses that would
augment and allow for the facility to continue to exist. The recommendation of the small
area plan was that a rural economic development district be established. The planning
staff has recommended that because of the LIDO established a conditional zoning
district construct here the County Commissioners will be reviewing and approving a site
plan and working with the applicant and adjacent property owners that it was a give -take
process where, yes they had to meet standards or offer design alternatives to meet the
same goal. It promoted the goals of the small area plan while still allowing the County
Commissioners to negotiate settlements.
Tony Blake: Get the full benefits of the input of the local residents. That sounds like the
most reasonable proposal. Again, what do the owners of the property feel about that?
Have any of the residents commented on this at all?
Michael Harvey: We reached out to the members of the small area plan......
Larry Wright: Is he (Glenn) going to cover that? Are you going to cover that?
Glenn Bowles: A little bit.
Rachel Hawkins: I know the go -kart track is for sale. If someone wants to buy it and
they don't make it a go -kart track, what happens?
Glenn Bowles: There would be a mutual understanding that we would have
development standards for that use.
Michael Harvey: We have to remember that we are not amending the zoning atlas to
establish rural economic development on any of these properties only if someone brings
forward a Conditional Use Rezoning application.
Lisa Stuckey: When I look at this, it seems good. I see lots of "no requirements" which
means sort of a negotiated thing so basically we are saying that not too much happens
here but if someone wanted to make it go, then we would have to do stuff to mitigate. In
other areas, that will be basically a negotiated basis....
38
Larry Wright: On pages 35 -38, these are options available for things to come into that
area.
Tony Blake: What is the occupancy?
Glenn Bowles: There may be 1,500 to 2,000 seats.
Tony Blake: There is nothing in the ordinance that says you can only have a certain
amount of people.
Michael Harvey: You have to remember that you have to comply with all the provisions
and codes.
Glenn Bowles: Continued abstract review.
Larry Wright: Let's go back to the speedway, where do you have the 200 foot buffer
there? And where do you have a residence?
Glenn Bowles: In this area, we asked them to come forward with a new plan...
Larry Wright: I understand that. What was the issue that is on the minutes on page 44.
Commissioner Foushee and I both had comments and you said you would address that.
What is staff's opinion on our recommendations on let me quote "no vegetation with this
area shall be disturbed." We had issues with that.
Glenn Bowles: Except for this area where it has already been removed a long time ago,
all this buffer area is .....
Larry Wright: What was our argument?
Glenn Bowles: That area was to remain vegetated and undisturbed.
Larry Wright: Our argument is that trees age and the lower limbs drop off so your buffer
is reduced as your canopy goes up; it prohibits light from lower level understory plants.
Ok, so you have a 200 foot buffer; DOT recommends a 200 foot buffer. This is what
said at the quarterly public hearing if you remember correctly. Now, you have a
maturing buffer, over time, you have a resident by 57, Commissioner Foushee
understood what I said, and she followed up on it. If you have a maturing canopy, you
lose understory protection from the resident of 57 from noise. I said, what my issue
was, no vegetation with this area shall be disturbed. If I was that resident and I went
online and I saw this, this would be an ordinance, and there was nothing I could do.
You said 'we would work with them'. Well, how would they know this? You completely
missed this. Commissioner Foushee followed up on it and she said that she would like
to see this changed. I would too because I think we need to protect these people on the
other side. Yes there should be a maintenance of this 200 ft buffer. Again, I am going
39
to say, as trees mature the canopy thickens, you lose understory plants and limbs die
off.
Glenn Bowles: Well....
Larry Wright: Excuse me, I still have the floor. I believe this should be changed and I
think that Commissioner Foushee wanted, you wanted us to talk about the buffers
u
wanted to show us this. This was not changed, two people at quarterly public hearing
raised this issue and what is staff's comment?
Mark Marcoplos: It would be a relatively easy change.
Larry Wright: I know.
Glenn Bowles: What do you want changed? We will gladly put it in for you.
Larry Wright: Vegetation shall be maintained for understory plants. I am not the staff,
you come up with something.
Alan Campbell left meeting
Glenn Bowles: Part of your statement just isn't true that under story does grow.
Larry Wright: I totally disagree with you and I can point to photographs of my woods
over time.
Mark Marcoplos: You could simply say that if it gets degraded over time that you could
replenish them.
Larry Wright: I think this is a very hard statement to put in there, it is very easy to
change.
Glenn Bowles: So you want it to say as the over story matures over time
Larry Wright: All you have to say is that buffer has to be maintained, to say no
vegetation in this area shall be disturbed is just has to go the way it is.
Lisa Stuckey: Larry, are you suggesting that you would say, a 200 foot landscaping
conservation buffer easement shall be established and maintained along all the other
property perimeters? So strike the no vegetation sentence. You might want to say
maintain such that the semi - opaque, intermittent visual buffer is maintained.
Larry Wright: I think staff can make up something because once this comes to quarterly
public hearing again, I am going to be looking at this very closely.
Buddy Hartley: Right now there is nothing to maintain.
40
Larry Wright: Let's move to "K ". If you have a speedway, is this realistic.
Glenn Bowles: Some of the new racetracks that have NASCAR sanction are talking
about it.
Larry Wright: Once it gets to noise and decibels, I have a hard time. I think you have a
grammatical error on "K ".
Mark Marcoplos: Basically these issues will be further addressed when someone came
forward with a specific proposal.
Larry Wright: What else do you need from us?
Glenn Bowles: I have your comments, at this point in time, you can take another
meeting and discuss our revisions further or you can make recommendations tonight,
either one is acceptable to staff as to going forward or table the motion to make
recommendation to the board or you could do that tonight with the specifics you just
talked about.
Larry Wright: So we can table this and discuss it again or we can take the comments
that we have and integrate those because as I understand it the Commissioners wanted
us to take a look at this with these rendering and the discussions and here our
comments on that and then to pass those comments as in the notes on to the Board of
Commissioners.
MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to recommend approval subject to the staff
incorporating all the Planning Board's comments made and all required revisions and
documenting those revisions reviewed at the County Commissioners next meeting.
Tony Blake seconded.
VOTE: Unanimous
Mark Marcoplos: I want to say that I am pleased that the people involved in the small
area plan who were most involved and want to come back and came to the meeting to
support this. That is the key thing that the people in the neighborhood that were part of
the process as it moved forward. That's one of the key reasons I feel good about it.
Larry Wright: I would like to make a comment too. I have been to countless quarterly
public hearings and I am so happy to hear that the Chandlers are moving forward or at
least they are part of this because they have been frustrated for so many years.
Michael Harvey: I think that without the adoption of REDA it would be difficult for them
to get approval.