Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20070827APPROVED 911 912 0 0 7 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING August 27, 2007 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing an Monday, August 27, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Barry Jacobs COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mike Nelson COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Brian Ferrell COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Jay Bryan and Members Craufurd Goodwin, Sam Lasris, Renee Price, Judith Wegner, Joel Knight, Michelle Kempinski, and Bernadette Pelissier PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Sandra Johnson-Quinn, Jeffrey Schmitt, Brian Crawford NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Carey called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. He announced that there would be no staff presentation on item 3, Conditional Uses, because the staff is not prepared to make this presentation yet. He invited anyone from the public to go ahead and make comments on this item, if they still wanted to. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Efland-Cheeks Overlay District: Text and map amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Atlas to add a new zoning overlay district entitled "Efland- Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District (ECOD)" and requirements for said district. These proposed actions are measures to implement same of the recommendations in the adapted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan. Orange County Planning Board Chair Jay Bryan presided over this item. Planner with Orange County Planning Department Perdita Holtz (staff member) made this PowerPoint presentation. She said that notification letters were mailed to affected and nearby property owners as required under State law and the local ordinance. A total of 456 letters were sent out on August 1 Ot", advising property owners of the proposal and public hearing date. The letter of certificate of the mailing are included in the agenda packet. Proposed Efland-Cheeks Highway 70 Corridor Overlay District {ECOD} Proposed ECOD • Implements one of the recommendations of the adopted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan. o Allow a mix of uses along the Highway 70 corridor while ensuring new non- residential uses are low-impact. Typical Steps for Planning Changes 1. Small Area Plan Adoption with Recommendations (adopted June 2006) 2. Land Use Element Text Amendments (adopted August 21) 3. Land Use Element Map Amendments (not applicable in this case} 4. Zoning Text Amendments (this proposal) 5. Zoning Atlas (map) Amendments (this proposal) 6. Petitioner Application (processed after Implementing Regulations are adopted) Proposed ECOD • Zoning Overlay District o Existing underlying zoning does not change -property owners in the ECOD area can continue to use their properties as they are now being used. Any existing non-conforming uses remain non-conforming. o The ECOD regulations are applied only if a property (or his/her agent) petitions to be able to use their property in accordance with the ECOD. • Delineate extend of ECOD on Zoning Atlas • Add 2 Sections to the Zoning Ordinance to regulate the ECOD • Amend Impervious Surface Limits (ISR) in Section 6.23.3 to increase permitted ISR for non-residential uses in 10-Year Transition areas within the Upper Eno or Back Creek Protected watersheds. Add Section 4.2.33 Statement of Intent 1. Protect existing single-family residential land uses, 2. Protect character of the area, 3. Enhance property values, 4. Maintain the economic viability and carrying capacity of the corridor, 5. Preserve open vistas whenever possible, 6. Encourage small businesses to locate in appropriate areas, and 7. Continue to promote and provide for the general welfare of local citizens and property owners. Add Section 4.2.33 • Applicability • Application Criteria • Location of non-residential development Add Section 6.25 Permitted Uses • Neighborhood Commercial 2 (NC-2) permitted and special uses allowed in the pre- designated commercial area • Non-residential uses within the Overlay District but outside of the pre-designated commercial area are limited to professional office and similar institutional uses o No more than 40°10 of the corridor outside of the pre-designated commercial area shall be permitted for non-residential use Add Section 6.25 • Approval Requirements • Site Plan Requirements • Non-residential Development Standards o Minimum Lot Width o Setbacks and Building Height o Floor Area Ration and Maximum Building Square Footage o Yard Encroachments o Ingress and Egress Add Section 6.25 • Outside Storage of Materials • Architectural Standards o Restriction of modern corporate franchise building design and drive-through facilities o Building materials to consist of brick, wood, stone, stucco, marble, and other similar materials o Conversion of existing single-family structure to anon-residential use permitted but exterior facade shall not be altered o Promote re-use of buildings elsewhere or deconstruction Add Section 6.25 • Stormwater retention requirements • Landscaping and buffering • Signage o Monument style signs o Cannot exceed 6 feet in height Add Section 6.25 • Site Design and Layout • Parking Lot Design o Parking at side or rear of building o Shared parking o Maximum parking o Interior Landscaping of parking lots Amend Section 6.23.3 Portion of Impervious Surface Ration (ISR) Chart Pertaining to Non-Residential uses in the Upper Eno and Back Creek Protected Watersheds: Allow up to a 40% ISR for all non-residential uses in 10-Year Transition areas with structural BMPs (Best Management Practices} if ISR > 12°~. Recommendations • Hear any public comments tonight • Refer the proposal to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC for consideration at the October 9, 2007 regular meeting. Perdita Holtz pointed out that three members of the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan Task Force were in attendance -Rabin Taylor-Hall, Tam Allison, and Noah Ranells. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 5, number 3, and asked how it is decided which 40% along Hwy 70 is permitted for non-residential uses. Perdita Holtz explained that it is calculated on a first come, first served basis. Commissioner Gordon said that there could be a checkerboard effect. Residential and non-residential uses might be located in a manner that could potentially have a negative impact on the residential uses. Commissioner Jacobs said that he also served on this task force. He made reference to pages 6-7 and asked why chain link fence would not be permitted an the lot of anon-residential use. For example, any kennel or a commercial swimming pool would have to have one of these. Perdita Holtz said that kennels were not a permitted use, but she would have to check on the swimming pool. Commissioner Jacobs said that he questions that this is overly restrictive for a commercial use. He made reference to page 7, Ingress and Egress, item `a', and read, "shall be granted at least one ingress and egress point per road front unless access can be provided through some internal means." He said that there are other places in the text where joint driveways are promoted. He suggested also saying, "ar by means of a shared driveway." Perdita Holtz said that the reason it is stated this way is so that people understand that they are granted one driveway, but sharing is encouraged. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 9 and pointed out that some items have punctuation at the end and some do not. He also asked why mirrored glass was prohibited. Perdita Holtz said that the thought was that it was not in keeping with the general community character. Commissioner Jacobs asked about number 7 an page 9 and why the windows on the frontage side of buildings would be limited to 40% of the total building fapade. Perdita Holtz said that she would look at this. He suggested adding, "no more than 40% of the total building facade, unless demonstratively related to the purpose of the business." Commissioner Jacobs said that he does not understand number $ on page 9, and why people would be precluded from having an entrance on the side. Perdita Holtz said that it has to do with urban design principles and making it look like the building is oriented to the main roadway instead of sideways on the lat. Commissioner Jacobs said that there might be a better way to phrase it. Sam Lasris asked if there was a distinction between commercial and non-residential. Perdita Holtz said that the only place she refers to commercial was in saying that the zoning district was Neighborhood Commercial-2, which is the official title. The reason that she uses the term non-residential is because a lot of people think that commercial means retail. She wants to make sure that people understand that it could be retail ar office. Renee Price made reference to page 3 and the statement "enhance property values." She is concerned that this would increase taxes for these property values, making them unaffordable. Perdita Holtz said that properly values are based on property appraisals, which depend on how much the property has sold far in the surrounding areas. Renee Price made reference to page 13 and the additional language that is underlined and asked about the designation of 10-Year Transition Area. Perdita Holtz said that it is defined as a 10-Year Transition Area because it is based on the land use categories, and this would be consistent. Commissioner Gordon asked that the Planning Board think about the way this will work in practice. She said that this 40% issue introduces uncertainty in the process and residents will not know what is coming next to them. She is concerned about the effect on residents living close to the non-residential areas. Public Comment: Anthony Corbett lives on 104 Frasier Road in Mebane. He said that he received the map in the mail, but it was not specific and did not identify his property. He would like an answer to this. Perdita Holtz said that she could not answer this with certainty since the PIN numbers are not on the map. She will get back to Mr. Corbett. Anthony Corbett said that he is also concerned about how this will affect him specifically, in terms of him being in apre-designated commercial area. Thomas Hebert has a business on 6815 US 70 West. He asked if this would be grandfathered in and Perdita Holtz said that any existing business gets to remain as is. Judy McAdoo Taylor lives on 122 Richmond Road. She asked haw much the ECOD would affect this portion. She said that there is a lot of traffic here with the activities of the school and park. She cannot see a lot of commercial activity coming into this area, unless it is right on US 70, which will bring in more traffic. She said that she is having problems with the activities at the school, because people turn around in her driveway. She has put up a fence, which was knocked down and she also put a sign, which is now gone. Perdita Holtz said that one of the intents is to try to have the non-residential uses coming in to be low-impact traffic generators. The development review process includes traffic analyses. Jay Bryan said that there would be more opportunities for public hearings. Commissioner Jacobs said that he got a call today from a gentleman who thought there was already too much business in the western part of the County. This gentleman will write to the County Commissioners anonymously. Commissioner Jacobs thanked the people who worked an this group, who worked really hard to try and balance some demand for converting homes to businesses, and some of the undeveloped lots that have the potential to take advantage of the proximity of US 70 and the interstate, with the very strong desire to preserve the neighborhoods. He said that there are prohibitions against things like franchised architecture, or even things that are very large, because all wanted to maintain a very nice part of Orange County. Perdita Holtz said that she failed to mention that Michelle Kempinski was a member of the task force also. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer the proposed Zoning Text and Atlas amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the County Board of Commissioners at the October 9, 2007 BOCC regular meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Comprehensive Plan Update Phase I: On October 3, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners approved a process for updating the County's Comprehensive Plan in two phases. Phase 1 includes development of Comprehensive Plan goals and the County Profile Element. a. Draft Goals: The following advisory boards have developed draft goals for the Comprehensive Plan: Affordable Housing Advisory Board, Agricultural Preservation Board, Commission for the Environment, Economic Development Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Orange Unified Transportation Board, Planning Board and Recreation and Parks Advisory Council. Draft goals will guide completion of Phase 2 of Comprehensive Plan. b. Draft County Profile (Data) Element: The County Profile (Data) Element is the primary reference point for basic information contained in the Comprehensive Plan. It will be the first of eight Plan elements to be completed and will be used to develop remaining elements as well as serving as a resource far future planning. Tom Altieri said that for this item there are two handouts in the packet -part A, Draft Goals, and part B, Draft County Profile Element. These two parts are to be addressed as one item. He made a PowerPoint presentation. August 27, 2007 Quarterly Public Hearing Agenda Item C.2 Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Comprehensive Plan Update, Phase I a. Draft goals b. Draft County Profile (Data} Element Presentation Includes: • Comprehensive Plan Purpose and Scope • Roles -Who's Involved? • Update Process and Timetable • What's aGoal/Objective? • Opportunities for Citizen Knowledge, Access, and Input • How was Draft Goals/County Profile Element Developed? • County Profile Element -Purpose and Content • Next Steps Comprehensive Plan Purpose • Framework far long-range decision making • A guide for growth and development • Sets goals and objectives to guide policy decisions • Serves as statutory basis far land use regulations Comprehensive Plan Scope • Planning period, 20+ years • Planning far Orange County's planning jurisdiction • Covers 8 major areas, known as Elements Each Element will detail existing conditions, project future needs and set objectives to reach goals Camprehensive Plan Elements County Profile (Data) Economic Development Housing Land Use Natural and Cultural Systems Recreation and Parks Services (Utilities) and Community Facilities Transportation Roles in General BOCC -Set stage; provide directions to advisory boards and staff; hear and consider public comments; adopt plan Advisory Boards - Direction to staff and consultants; provide input and feedback Consultants -Meeting facilitation; partner with staff and advisory boards to complete draft Plan County Staff -Partner with consultants; support boards Public -Attend meetings and hearings; provide input and feedback Element Lead Advisory Board Affordable Housing Advisory Board Agricultural Preservation Board Commission for the Environment Economic Development Commission Historic Preservation Commission Orange Unified Transportation Board Planning Board Recreation and Parks Advisory Council Update Process and Timetable Phase I (Oct. '06 -Sept. 07}: Goals County Profile {Data} Element Public Hearing (August 27tH) Phase I I (Oct. '07 -Aug. '08): Development of Comprehensive Plan Text for remaining 7 elements Objectives Public Hearing {May '08} Goal and Objective Defined Goal {Phase I) - A general direction setter, expressed as an ideal future end related to the public health, safety, or welfare. May not be quantifiable ortime-dependent. Obiective (Phase II) - A specific end, condition, or state that is an intermediate step toward reaching a goal. It should be achievable and, when passible, measurable and time-specific. Opportunities for Citizen Knowledge, Access, and Input Meetings: Meetings of 8 Element Lead Advisory Boards Countywide Public Information Meetings Open Houses Public Hearings Accessing Information: Meetings, staff, advisory board members, Internet, mailing lists, County libraries, and press releases Availability of Public Hearing Documents -Draft Goals and County Profile Element Website: www.co.arange.nc.us/planninglcompre cpupdate.asp • Handouts were available at July 31 Stand August 7th public input meetings • Copies have been available for public review at County's libraries and Planning Department • Limited copies available tonight Draft Goals • 37 draft goals addressing 8 elements (objectives to be developed for each Goal in Phase II) • Advisory boards prepared draft goals using the following documents for reference: 0 1981 Land Use Element (Plan} goals 0 1999 BOCC goals o Report on Sustainability Indicators for Orange County (2000} o Shaping Orange County's Future (Aug. 2003 newspaper insert} o BOCC Guiding Principles for the Comprehensive Plan (2004, amended 2007} BOCC Guiding Principles 1. Efficient and Fiscally Responsible Provision of Public Facilities and Services 2. Sustainable Growth and Development 3. Encouraging energy efficiency, lower energy consumption, and the use of non-polluting renewable energy resources while promoting both air quality protection and the development of an effective transportation system 4. Natural Area Resource Preservation 5. Preservation of rural land use patterns 6. Water Resource Preservation 7. Promotion of Economic Prosperity and Diversity 8. Preservation of Community Character Draft County Profile Element Purpose • Source of information far population statistics and key conditions in the County • Common data source to help guide development of remaining Elements • Not designed to be an exhaustive resource for all information • Updated regularly following Plan completion Draft County Profile Development 1. Planning Staff prepared draft Table of Contents (ToC) 2. ToC reviewed by Planning Board {PB) and Element Managers (EMs) and revised 3. 1St draft County Profile prepared from ToC, reviewed by Planning Board and EMs and revised 4 2nd draft County Profile reviewed by Element Lead Advisory Boards and EMs and revised 5. 3rd draft County Profile presented at public input meetings and Public Hearing Draft County Profile Element Contents • Charts, tables and graphs of Historic and Current Data for: Geographic Context . Population Housing EmploymentlEconomy . Environment Transportation Population Projections Reference and Informational Maps Appendix for: Definitions Methodologies Additional resources Next Steps -County Administration Recommending: Referral of draft goals and Profile Element to Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to BOCC no sooner than Sept. 19th. Planning Board will consider comments collected tonight; at July 31 Stand August 7t" public input meetings; and June 21St Joint Advisory Boards meeting. Important Note: BOCC will not be asked to formally adopt draft goals and County Profile Element during Phase I. Rather, the BOCC will be asked to consider formal adoption of these items during Phase II after the May 2008 Public Hearing. Jay Bryan thanked the staff and Planning Board members for this effort. Commissioner Jacobs thanked staff for the work on the Efland Cheeks Small Area Plan. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to B1.1 and Orange County Size, and said that this is really talking about Orange County Population. In the second paragraph, it lists the planning jurisdictions. He said that this would be an appropriate place to mention the rural buffer, which is a distinctive land use arrangement. Also, on pages D4 and D5 with the maps of North Carolina, he suggested putting an arrow on Orange County. Tom Altieri recognized Karen Markovics, Planner II, who was instrumental in the preparation of the County Profile Element. Michelle Kempinski asked about the adoption sequence. Tom Altieri said that the staff would not be asking the Board of County Commissioners to formally adopt the profile element and draft goals during phase I, but only to recognize them as generally acceptable to guide the completion of the remainder of the plan. He said that if the Board of County Commissioners formally adopted these iwo documents during phase I, it would further fragment the comprehensive plan. Also, during the preparation of the plan, there could be some minor adjustments to the goals if determined necessary by the advisory boards or County Commissioners. Craufurd Goodwin said that some of the goals should be reworded because there are a lot of incomplete sentences. Tom Altieri said that these goals have been taken to public hearings as they were submitted by each of the respective advisory boards. The advisory boards felt like it was important to hear public comment on the goals as the individual advisory boards prepared them. The Dispute Settlement Center and Clarion are recommending that action verbs not be included in the goals, and that the goals should be expressed as a desired end. Commissioner Gordon asked that the public signed up to speak tell where they live. Marty Mandell said that it is her opinion that sustainability should be the big, main goal. She said that this word is confusing because it means different things to different people. She said that sustainability is at the heart of survival and reflects how humans treat the earth and the values they place on preserving the earth's natural resources. She said that several years ago, Orange County made a sustainability commitment by creating a "green" infrastructure through the Lands Legacy Program. This was the first major step towards sustainability by a county in North Carolina, and it has received national recognition. She said that the next step should be to continue funding the Lands Legacy, but also to define just what sustainability means. She said that the Comprehensive Plan should describe the processes by which the basic needs of the citizens are provided and protected without depleting the quality of life. Some important issues are water supply, air quality, and supply of locally grown agricultural products. She said that this might be the last really goad chance to join the international concept of working together far a sustainable world. Robin Taylor-Hall is a citizen of Hillsborough. She represents the Simpson Efland heirs. She said that the heirs want to make sure that an issue is addressed on one of the properties (79.23 acres), north of I-85 and I-40. There is a huge watershed area at the bottom of this tract of land, and this was put there when the Seven Mile Creek Reservoir was planned. Since this is not being planned anymore, the request is that this be removed ar addressed in the comprehensive plan. She made reference to the letter written to her by the heirs and submitted to the County Commissioners and the Planning Board. Renee Price is from Hillsborough and is on the Historic Preservation Commission. She said that the Commission had two goals, and one got into an over-arching goal, and she is concerned about this. She proposes going back to two goals. She said that there is majority support of this from the HPC, although there was no vote on it. The goals are: preservation of the architectural and archaeological resources of Orange County and their associated landscapes; and awareness and appreciation of a diverse historical and cultural heritage of Orange County. Allen Rosen lives in Chapel Hill Township. He is a member of The Village Project as well as a member of the recently formed coalition that is paying a lot of attention to the Comprehensive Planning process. He thanked the County Commissioners for the forethought in moving towards the comprehensive process and planning far all eight elements simultaneously. He thanked the Planning Board and advisory boards for this substantial undertaking. He said that the website has been an invaluable aid. He thinks that the recommendation, to not adapt the draft goals at this stage, is very admirable. He thinks that there is a lot of room for improvement, refinement, and possibly some addition to the draft goals. He said that the Coalition includes members from the Inter-Faith Council and EmPOWERment, Inc. Tonight, there are also people from Community Action Network, Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, The Village Project, Homebuilders Association of Durham/OrangelChatham Counties, and Walkable Hillsborough. He thinks that value can been added to the process by encouraging individuals and groups to be involved. He distributed a copy of the Coalition statement. He said that the Coalition believes that the Comprehensive Plan Update should determine where new compact, walkable, mixed use, transit supported growth and development should occur within the planning jurisdiction. Ben Lloyd lives in Efland. He spoke about the issues of economic development in the Comprehensive Plan. He said that in December of 1982 he served on the Board of County Commissioners. When Ken Thompson arrived in town in 1981, there was not enough money to pay the bills from July to December, when the tax money came in. He said that Ken Thompson created an 11-point plan, which was nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul. He said that in 1983 when he served on the Board of County Commissioners, the County was still short of money to provide needs. At this time, he contacted the North Carolina Department of Commerce, and three people visited with him. He took the representatives around the County, and he was told that with US 7011-85/Southern Railway corridor through Orange County, that this was the most potential area in the State far goad, clean, low-water using, non-polluting, high-paying economic growth that would provide bath jobs and money for Orange County. He was also told that due to the lack of interest in cooperation from Orange County in the 15 years prior to that, when economic development interests came to Raleigh, that Orange County was marked off the list. He said that less than 90 days ago, he spoke with an individual involved in economic development in the State, who has been working in this position for about a year. When this individual took this job, he was told by his superiors not to waste his time in Orange County because they do not want anything there. He said that after four years since the Economic Development Commission was created, there has not been one brick laid within this economic development corridor. He owns property within this corridor. He said that two and a half years ago, the County Commissioners, along with the Economic Development Department, committed that by June 2010, 5,000 new commercial jobs and $45 million of new commercial tax base would be created. Nothing has happened yet. He said that it was reported in the State of the County meeting in the spring that there had been 915 new commercial jobs created and $45 million in new commercial tax base. He found out later that this was not true, but that it was referring to Meadowmont. He said that the developer of Meadowmont told him that Orange County had nothing to do with this growth. He said that I-85 runs through Durham, Orange, and Alamance Counties, and in the past 20 months, Durham County has created in excess of 2,500 new commercial jobs and has added $545 million of new commercial tax base. Alamance County has created some $200-300 million in new commercial tax base and hundreds of jobs. Orange County property tax has increased 524°~ in the last 20 years. The property tax has increased every year for 19 straight years. He said that Orange County has an image that has to be overcome. He asked the County Commissioners what they intended to do about it. Sam Lasris lives in Cedar Grove. He spoke on behalf of the Orange Unified Transportation Board. He said that it has come to the attention of the OUTB that the Durham/Chapel Hill/Carrboro MPO is going to release socioeconomic data and projections that will be used for regional transportation planning for the years 2005-2035. It is anticipated that this data will be released after the meeting on September 12`". He formally requested that this data be included in the profile element. James Carnahan lives on 122 Oak Street, Carrboro. He is a board member of The Village Project, but he said that the comments he was going to make were his own. He distributed a handout. The column on the right includes his suggested wording of the draft goals. He said that he is particularly interested in the concept of sustainability. He agreed with Marty Mandell that clarity of the sustainability goal is very important. He said that it is important to talk about the outcomes of growth and development rather than use a phrase like "sustainable growth" or "sustainable development". He thinks that the goal is that the outcome of all activities is ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable. He thinks that the language should reflect this and avoid the ambiguity of "sustainable growth" or "sustainable development". He said that a couple of the elements did not have over-arching goals, and he thought that it was important for consistency that they did, so he created them. He asked the County Commissioners to consider the amended language of the goals, which is in bald italics. Laura Blackmon made reference to the Economic Development overarching goal and said that the staff is looking at the definition of economic development. She would like for the Economic Development Commission to look at this again and perhaps broaden the definition. Patrick McDonough lives at 105 Fidelity Street, Carrboro. He said that he thinks that the fundamental question before the Board is where growth goes. He thinks that the County has been great at deciding where growth will not go, but not so great at deciding where it will go. He said that a lot of his friends are planning to move to Durham so that they can buy a house. He said that there are not enough homes that are affordable in Orange County. He said that it will be great to have all of the elements done at once far the Comprehensive Plan. Dolly Hunter lives in Bingham Township. She made reference to the stated goal of the County Profile Data Element, which states that it is to be "updated, useful, and relevant." She suggested adding the word "accurate". For example, the most recent water resource research is from 1981, and water resources govern the amount of growth that can occur. She also requested that there be accurate historic subdivision and lot size data and something to show that the number of minor and major subdivisions have gone down, and that primarily 10-acre lots have been created because it is so difficult to get subdivision approval. She said that the minimum lot size being created is closer to three acres and not the one or two-acre lot size minimum allowed. She said that the fact that minor and major subdivision approval is so difficult should be researched. The Land Use Element Goal #6 is to have the land use planning process be transparent, fair, open, efficient, and responsive. She said that it is the exact opposite of this. The data needs to shave mare accurately the rural population because there are too many graphs showing municipal growth. She wants to make sure that the data is accurate and relevant. Jay Bryan lives on Old NC 86 in Chapel Hill. He spoke to the County Commissioners about the idea of establishing another element in the Comprehensive Plan to address Planning Principle #8, Preservation of Community Character, which was adopted by the Board in 2004. Such an element could read as follows: Maintenance of community and preservation of community character. A possible goal for the element could read as follows: Establishment of community building principles regarding community issues and decision making to help citizens of Orange County work and live together in harmony. He said that when he was on the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, there were some policies and strategies promoted such as Carrboro Community Day, which has spun off into a music festival, film festival, Latino festival; rules for communication among members of the Board of Aldermen in public meetings; rules for effective communication at public hearings; an annual roundtable meeting for representatives from various subdivisions and neighborhoods in the Town; a mediation program to help address differences between citizens and differences between citizens and Town government; a program for inviting school children to observe and learn about local government to promote leadership opportunities; the use of mediation to resolve planning issues around development; and the use of facilitated meetings for gaining public input and trust. He said that as a result of the standing committee that he and Commissioner Gordon served on, the original 15-step proposal for the Shaping Orange County's Future Task Force references community building as one of the two tasks that were to be addressed by the task force. He said that a natural extension of this work would be to support at least in principle the idea of adding this additional element to the Comprehensive Plan. He asked the County Commissioners to consider forwarding the idea of such an element to the Planning Board far further discussion and consideration. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the BOCC no sooner than September 19, 2007. The Planning Board will provide specific recommendations for any additional changes to the draft goals and the County Profile Element that may be required in response to comments heard from the BOCC andlor public during the Hearing. The Planning Board will also consider comments collected at the June 21St Advisory Boards Meeting, July 31St Open House, and August 7t" Public Information Meeting. Additional changes to draft goals will be necessary to clarify a few of the goals and establish a consistent writing style among goals. Per the adopted Comprehensive Plan Update Process, the BOCC may also refer public hearing items to any of the other lead advisory boards that are involved: Affordable Housing Advisory Board, Agricultural Preservation Board, Commission for the Environment, Economic Development Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Orange Unified Transportation Board, and Recreation and Parks Advisory Council. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Conditional Uses: Text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan to address conditional uses. Note: This will not be a public hearing item at this time. The County Attorney's Office and Planning staff will provide additional detail concerning the status of conditional uses. There was no public comment on this item. D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Agricultural Support Enterprises Manual: Planning, Economic Development, and ERCD staff will provide an update on efforts to produce the first draft of a new Agricultural Support Enterprises (ASE) Manual. The ASE initiative has explored ways to add new farm-related uses to the zoning ordinance to provide farmers with opportunities to gain more revenue from their farms. The manual is designed to explain the new uses and their approval procedures in straightforward language. Assistant County Manager Willie Best recognized Christina Moon and Michael Harvey from the Planning Department and Dianne Reid, former Economic Development Director who put this information together. He summarized the information on the abstract. In May 2007 at the Joint BOCCIPIanning Board Work Session, as well as the June 12, 2007 regular BOCC meeting, staff presented the Board with an update on the ASE program and requested the Board's endorsement of three underlining concepts, specifically: 1) Begin drafting proposed amendments to the Land Use Element to establish support andlor consistency for the program within the Comprehensive Plan as well as proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to: a. Establish a list of permitted uses far the program including appropriate application and review processes, b. Establish implementation guidelines, and c. Develop the conditional district zoning review process, for review and comment by the BOCC and Planning Board, 2) Begin drafting clear performance standards, and 3} Create the ASE Manual for review and comment by BOCC, Planning Board, and other County advisory bodies. The Board authorized staff to notify joint planning partners of the project and solicit input, begin drafting clear performance standards for review and comment, and begin work on the proposed ASE Manual. Since June 12t", staff has completed the following: 1) Members of Economic Development, Planning, and ERCD have met twice with the County Attorney to review the program; 2} Presented an overview of the ASE program concept to the Agricultural Preservation Board and Soil and Water District Commission Board; 3} Distributed a draft ASE User Manual to various staff members for internal review and comment; 4) Sent a memorandum from the Manager's Office to the Joint Planning Partners informing them of the scope and intent of the ASE program and soliciting input. Staff will fallow up on the memorandum and request a meeting with planning representatives to discuss the implications of the program. He said that there is a process and a number of steps must be taken. The steps are as follows: 1) Multi-departmental ASE workgroup 2) Land Use Plan Text (pending) 3} Land Use Plan Map (pending) 4) Zoning Text (pending) 5} Zoning Atlas/Map (pending) 6) Petitioner Application (pending) The staff is asking the Board to charge the staff to continue with these efforts and complete work on the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance, as well as the ASE User Manual, far presentation at a later BOCC meeting. Commissioner Gordon said that the last time this was discussed with the Planning Board, the staff was working on a list of proposed uses along with some performance standards, and this was supposed to came back to the County Commissioners. She would like the proposed uses and standards to come back to the County Commissioners as soon as possible and not after everything else is completed. She would like to see what staff is proposing for the permitted uses. Michael Harvey said that this is the intent of the work group. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to see the concept on the Assembly of Governments meeting agenda as an informational item. He wants to keep partners informed. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to authorize staff to continue with their efforts to complete the ASE User Manual and bring it, with the list of proposed permitted uses and performance standards, back for presentation to the County Commissioners, and after that presentation is completed, also to authorize staff to continue with their efforts to complete work on the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance for presentation to the BOCC at a future meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. NC Hiahway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan: An update on the status of the Small Area plan will be presented. Michael Harvey made this PowerPoint presentation. This is an informational item only. Study Area • 38 parcels • 930 acres • Bisected by NC 57 • Located with the Little River Township • AR zoning with 2 EC-5 zoned parcels • Flat and Little River Watershed Overlay Zoning Six-Step Plan Adoption Process 1. Small Area Plan Approval -complete BOCC adopted plan an August 21, 2007 with recommended implementation strategies. 2. Land Use Text Amendment -upcoming a. Amend Land Use Element text to include reference to new process of allowing for rural economic development within previously identified areas of the County b. Anticipate submission of proposal far review at November 2007 Quarterly Public Hearing. 3. Land Use Map Amendment -upcoming a. Amend map to include reference to new development area b. Anticipate submission of proposal for review at November 2007 Quarterly Public Hearing 4. Zoning Text Amendment -upcoming a. Create a zoning construct to allow for rural economic development within the identified study area b. Will utilize Conditional Use Rezoning process c. Anticipate submission of proposal for review at November 2007 Quarterly Public Hearing 5. Zoning Map Amendment -upcoming a. Amend map to include reference to rural economic development area along Highway 57 b. Anticipate submission of proposal for review at November 2007 Quarterly Public Hearing 6. Petitioner Initiated Rezoning -Pending -the petitioner in this case can be a property owner if they wish to avail themselves of this planning program. If they chase not to participate, existing uses can remain, unchanged, as nonconforming land uses (i.e., Speedway) or as de facto permitted land uses (i.e., rock quarry operation has an existing Special Use Permit per Section 11.6 of the Zoning Ordinance) Conclusions: • We are still in the beginning stages of this process • There will be additional involvement by various advisory boards (i.e. Planning Board and Economic Development Commission}, Task Force members, local residents and property owners, and our planning partners (i.e. Durham and Person Counties} in drafting appropriate implementation methodologies. • This is still intended to be a voluntary process. No property owner will be required to participate in this program once it is implemented. • The Speedway can continue to operate as a legal nonconforming land use in accordance with Article Eleven Nonconformities of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. • The adoption of any implementation methodology for this program WILL NOT have Countywide implications unless authorized by the BOCC through a similar planning process. Commissioner Gordon asked if the land use plan and zoning amendments would be brought to the same hearing. Michael Harvey said yes. Commissioner Gordon said that Orange County usually separates land use planning from zoning, and she thinks that this is a very positive feature of Orange County. She said that she would be very uncomfortable with being asked to approve them both at the same time. She would like to see just the land use plan in November. Michael Harvey said that staff would address this concern. He said that he thinks that the County Commissioners should see at least what the zoning would look like in order to see how it could be implemented. Commissioner Gordon disagreed and said that considering land use changes and zoning amendments at the same time fundamentally changes the process. Commissioner Jacobs said that the Board could consider the items separately even if they are presented at the same time. Kim Foushee, Director of Operations of Orange County Speedway, spoke on behalf of the Speedway. She said that at this time the Speedway cannot economically go forward with conforming should this proposal go all the way through. She said that the Speedway still plans to be a good neighbor and continue to operate in a manner that it has during the past year. She asked if the nonconforming use designation applied to the entire property or only a part. She said that she has 118 acres, but it is not using all of this to support the racing activity. There are some agricultural activities that the Speedway has plans for on some of this property. She asked that this plan, after it is implemented, not manipulate the manner in which the activities have been operating. She said that the residential neighbors are concerned about being pushed out of their area with businesses coming in. 3. Transfer of Development Rights fTDR) Update: An update on the status of TDR will be presented. Planning Director Craig Benedict introduced UNC-Charlotte -Charlotte Urban Institute representative Vicki Bott and Lisa Murphy from Louis Berger Group. He said that there are existing regulations within the ordinances, such as density bonuses and receiving areas, and there may be a Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation Program as opposed to a TDR Program. He said that staff has been working diligently to look at the implementation mechanics of the program. Vicki Batt made a presentation. The Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation Program envisions three parts to the transactions: A voluntary extinguishment of development rights through a conservation easement on one property, in exchange for a density bonus awarded to another property in a designated growth area. The owners of the properties would have a private, contractual agreement. There are 3 phases: - Program and Administrative Design {90% complete -done by next month) - Implementation Plan (in process -done in October) - Public Hearing and Adoption (November) There is a draft Standard Easement Form, which was developed from the Lands Legacy documents. There is also a tracking mechanism or log for keeping up with who has expressed interest and a tracking log for transactions. Vicki Bott showed acolor-coded map showing potential conservation areas. Commissioner Gordon asked if the red areas were exactly the same as the County's existing boundaries for these nodes. Vicki Bott said that these are parcel based, so the red includes properties within a quarter mile of the center of the rural community nodes. Commissioner Gordon asked how this relates to the comprehensive planning process. Vicki Bott said that the land use plan is a policy guidance document, and this program will end up with ordinance implementations. There will be a zoning overlay that will describe the districts as a growth area overlay district or a conservation area district. Commissioner Gordon asked what would be done about utilities -water and sewer. Vicki Bott said that the eight units per acre is appropriate for the growth areas that are served by public water and sewer. She said that staff could look at there being a different density cap on the rural community nodes. Judith Wegner asked for clarification and if the County Commissioners have definitely decided that this is the way to go. She said that there are other options, such as the land transfer tax, to have more funds to purchase conservation easements. She said that this feels like a mechanical methodology. She would like to know what decisions have been made. She asked if this was really the best way because she thinks that this is so hyper-technical that it will be very difficult to understand. Renee Price said that her comment is similar on the process. She said that there is a lack of continuity and a lack of citizen participation. Bernadette Pellisier said that she agreed with Judith Wegner's questions and comments. She said that a lot of people have been talking about considering a TDR between the County and the towns. Michelle Kempinski said that the rural areas, such as Efland and Mebane, should be treated differently, if they are even considered at all, because there is no infrastructure to support density. Chair Carey said that everyone has made goad points and it may seem like it is moving at warp speed, however, this has been discussed for 20 years and nothing has been done up until the last few months, when it was discovered that it is possible to da something like this in Orange County. He said that the Board has not made a definitive decision, but only has determined that it is feasible and is considering how it might look. The public will be involved in this discussion. Commissioner Jacobs said that he served on the first and second groups. He thinks that it would be goad to create some kind of decision tree to show what decisions have been made and what decisions need to be made. He said that he questions changing the name because of confusion. Commissioner Gordon suggested taking into account what the Planning Board members have said, as well as Commissioner Jacobs, and that the next step is to bring a report back about the decisions, as well as answers to the questions, to the Board of County Commissioners before proceeding further. She does not think that the public hearing should be launched at this point. Vicki Bott said that this is the intent of the October meeting. Craig Benedict said that a decision tree is a good way to plot out what has happened. This will be brought back at the October meeting. Vicki Batt said that the process does include an informal public input session, but it will have to go back to the advisory board for input first. Craufurd Goodwin said that it seems like people in the receiving areas are going to pay the price with more dense development. He thinks that residents should be informed early on in the process. Vicki Bott said that there are designing guidelines that would make the increased density more acceptable and livable. The vision is to pursue sustainability and smart growth. Jay Bryan asked if the Planning Board could review the status before the October 16tH meeting. Craig Benedict said that the early October Planning Board meeting could include some discussion about this. E. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to address, the meeting was adjourned 10:22 p.m. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair David Hunt Deputy Clerk to the Board