Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-19-2012 APPROVED 12/3/2012 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Dinner Meeting November 19, 2012 5:30 P.M. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a dinner meeting on Monday, November 19, 2012 at 5:30p.m. at the Link Government Services Center, Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners Alice Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Valerie Foushee, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Pam Hemminger COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Staff Attorney Sahana Ayers COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert, and Deputy Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff inembers will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Larry Wright, and Planning Board members Pete Hallenbeck, Andrea Rohrbacher, Maxecine Mitchell, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Alan Campbell, Johnny Randall, H.T. "Buddy" Hartley, Lisa Stuckey, Howard Statts PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Dawn Brezina and Tony Blake Tentative 2013 Planning / Planning Board Work Plan and Discussion 1) Openinq Remarks Introductions were made. Chair Pelissier said this was Commissioner Foushee and Commissioner Yuhasz's last meeting and Commissioner Hemminger's too, but Commissioner Hemminger was unable to attend. Larry Wright, Planning Board Chair, welcomed everyone and thanked the Commissioners for meeting with them. 2) 2011/12 Work Products Accomplishments Land Use, Zoning, UDO (Craig Benedict) Craig Benedict briefly reviewed the planning departments/planning board accomplishments this past year including the Hwy 57 area and their first usage there. Craig Benedict then mentioned the mid-section of Orange County, in the Mebane area and that the county has completed a 400 acre land use element with amendments, and also completed some Economic Development District (EDD) amendments as well in this area. He said this was the largest amount of amendments for this Small Area Plan process thus far. Craig Benedict said the Hillsborough Economic development zone is also coming to fruition and Hillsborough has a MOU with Board of County Commissioners and they hope to move forward on this soon. Craig Benedict said all of these products were a part of the Small Area Plan process and were brought about by collaboration between the Board of County Commissioners, the Orange County Planning Board and others. He said this was just an overview of initiatives that were brought forward last year to the Commissioners as part of the planning board's work plan. He said the Planning Board has had many new members over the past three years and though they adopted the UDO, since then, they have had a series of UDO amendments come forth and will now examine certain parts of those UDO plans in Phase II. 3) Onqoinq Planninq Initiatives (in pipeline) Economic Development Uses and Processes (Craig Benedict) Craig Benedict said Orange County passed the sales tax in 2012 and some of this funding is going toward economic development. Craig Benedict said they will be bringing forth some amendments next year in reference to SAPFO (as relates to a recent court case in another county) and may be tweaking it a bit. They have some projects in the pipeline already, and in order to plan ahead, they wanted to meet with Board of County Commissioners and see what their priorities were. Craig Benedict said when they created the UDO and Comprehensive Plan, there were some people that wanted to change everything at that point but staff said that this would come in time. The Planning Department has begun to implement some of these suggestions from those two processes now. 4) Comprehensive Plan, UDO Implementation Bridqe a. Planning Board Prioritization (Larry Wright, Pete Hallenbeck) Larry Wright said this planning board is a group of talented individuals with subject area expertise and he said he has taken great pleasure to see new members come on board and participate in this process. Pete Hallenbeck, Planning Board Vice Chair, said the UDO was supposed to be two phases and phase two was going to be everything they wanted to change from phase one, which will be the UDO implementation bridge. He said Phase 2 does not imply that there is an end to this process but will be constantly changing. Pete Hallenbeck said the planning board needs to figure out how to prioritize their list of projects and he said what drives it is to use the Planning staffs' knowledge and experience and utilize individual board members' areas of expertise in certain areas; and to be responsive to suggestions and guidance from Board of County Commissioners and other advisory boards. He said they will have planning board members look at the implementation bridge and come up with suggestions and then work with planning staff to figure out the order of their list of priorities. The list is not the just the "good stuff" but the procedures they plan to use for all that is coming at them and revise and prepare them and the information for what may be coming next. Chair Pelissier said it is great idea to coordinate with other advisory boards and to look at other boards' priorities and work plans to help inform them and the process. Commissioner Foushee said she agreed that this is a process that does not end and with the different phases, and she appreciated Mr. Hallenbeck's acknowledgement of this. Commissioner Yuhasz said Craig Benedict mentioned about streamlining two years ago and this needs to be a priority as they look at the UDO to streamline the process by which projects are considered and approved. He said to streamline the process by which both the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners' review projects and suggested changes. Commissioner Jacobs said having a simple and transparent process is vital and that some residents need something outside of the "planese" verbiage and more in laymen's terms. Commissioner Gordon arrived at 5:58PM. Commissioner Gordon said that whatever the Commissioners do they need to be transparent with the public. They need to have public hearings on items at a different meeting from the meeting at which they vote. She said that fast does not necessarily mean good. She said that they need to go at the right speed and get meaningful public participation and that outreach meetings are very helpful. She said they are a county that wants their citizens involved and that means they have to make it understandable and easy for the citizens to participate. b. Joint Advisory Board meeting to choreograph mutual interest projects? Craig Benedict said Orange County is proceeding toward a central permitting process and initiative. He said they have just hired a new staff person from the private sector to address this process. He said they are going to be sending out a letter to the joint advisory boards with mutual joint interests so that these boards can let the Planning Board/staff know what is percolating in the other advisory boards and where they all can collaborate. Pete Hallenbeck said they are hearing from the Board of Commissioners: to speed up the processes, transparency, clarification, take into account the end user and use the staff to shepherd the planning process. Chair Pelissier said there are two types of processes —one that does not involve the Board of County Commissioners or the Planning Board and that process needs to be quick; the other part are those items that come to them as the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Board and they need to use a transparent process and involve the citizens as much as possible. c. Staff Capacity Craig Benedict introduced the planning staff: Michael Harvey has been doing a lot of UDO text amendments. Perdita Holtz has recently been choreographing the Quarterly Public Hearings (QPH), working closely with the Planning Board and has also been updating UDO text amendments. One of her positions was lost this summer and that person worked on the UDO. Tom Altieri now oversees some intergovernmental projects and transportation planning. Craig Benedict said they have lost some talented transportation planners recently to other governmental entities after brief stints with the county and they are looking to stabilize this area in their department. Larry Wright said this planning board has been doing a greater job than it has ever done before and he contributed that to Frank Clifton, the County Manager. He said Mr. Clifton has permitted his staff to do the work they are supposed to do. Rachel Phelps Hawkins asked what obstacles the citizens/businesses are still finding so hard to overcome when they go through the planning process. Chair Pelissier said one of the obstacles is that in the EDD districts there has been no water and sewer infrastructure and that is what businesses need — infrastructure. Steve Brantley said the pieces are finally coming together with utilities and pre-zoning in some of these EDD areas but when they are competing with other counties, these other counties already have these in place, which leaves Orange County at a disadvantage. He said they are surrounded by communities with a very competitive product but Orange County is moving forward. Commissioner McKee said there has always been a perception that Orange County was not friendly to economic development in the past 20 years. He said that with the AKG expansion last year in Mebane, that this may have broken the ice on that perception. He said they need to continue down that road so that Orange County's perception is now that Orange County is "open for business". He does not envision our UDO cutting back to 77 pages from 700 pages like Alamance's UDO is/has, but we are moving forward. Pete Hallenbeck said with the mention of utilities, water and sewer, that they also need data in these EDD areas. Commissioner Jacobs said when the Planning Board meets with other county advisory boards to also include reaching out to other planning boards in the county that has Orange County reps on these boards and perhaps get some ideas that would be mutually beneficial. He also said that they to encourage people on the planning board who want to follow their own passions to work with staff closely on these assumptions. Commissioner Gordon said she appreciated what the Planning Board does since she used to be on this board and she appreciated their informative minutes. Chair Pelissier agreed. 5) BOCC Planninq Retreat 2013 Chair Pelissier said that the Commissioners' retreat is currently scheduled for February 1, 2013 and Board of County Commissioners' retreat representatives are Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner McKee and Commissioner-Elect Mark Dorosin, She asked Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Jacobs to elaborate on what the retreat may entail. Commissioner Jacobs said one some of the suggested topics include what comprises economic development in Orange County; reviewing BOCC goals and objectives with new board members; discussion on poverty in Orange County; and intergovernmental relationships and how to do a better job in this area. The meeting adjourned at 6:26 PM. APPROVED 1/24/2013 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING November 19, 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, November 19, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Central Orange Senior Center, Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and Commissioners Alice Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Valerie Foushee, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Pam Hemminger COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Sahana Ayer COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff inembers will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Larry Wright, and Planning Board members Pete Hallenbeck, Andrea Rohrbacher, Maxecine Mitchell, Tony Blake, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Alan Campbell, Johnny Randall, H.T. "Buddy" Hartley, Lisa Stuckey and Herman Staats PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Dawn Brezina Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 6:59PM. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Planning Board Chair Larry Wright said that the agenda items 1-3 will be joint items of the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners. Following item 3, the County Commissioners will be discussing educational facilities and ordinance amendments and the Planning Board will not be part of that discussion. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments and Zoning Atlas Amendments - To review government-initiated amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan and UDO and to the Zoning Atlas in order to establish two new zoning overlay districts in the Efland area. Planner Perdita Holtz introduced this item and made a PowerPoint presentation. Comprehensive Plan Text, Unified Development Ordinance Text, and Zoning Atlas Amendments for Two New Zoning Overlay Districts in the Efland Area Quarterly Public Hearing November 19, 2012 Item C.1 Basic Charge - Implement recommendations in the adopted Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan to establish design and site planning standards for this area of the county served by public (or quasi-public) water and sewer systems. - Amend plans and regulations as necessary in order to establish two new zoning overlay districts in the Efland area. What is a zoning overlay district? - Regulatory tools that create a special zoning district, placed over the existing base zones, which identifies special provisions in addition to, or in lieu of, those in the underlying base zone. - Purpose is to guide development within the specified area. - Overlay district regulations can be more restrictive or less restrictive than the regulations that apply to the underlying base zones. Zoning Atlas Amendment— map Future Land Use Map— map Relationship to Existing Efland-Cheeks Overlay District— map UDO Text Amendments - Amendments to several sections necessary to implement the new zoning overlay districts - Intent of the new districts: o Allow for a more urban style of development in the Efland Interstate Overlay District o Allow for an urban village style of development in the Efland Village Overlay District Why Necessary? - Different development regulations necessary in order to reflect the reality of smaller sized lots (both existing and anticipated) served by water and sewer. - Encourage high quality growth in an area of the county proposed for additional growth while protecting existing development and community character. - Ensure good planning practices related to site design, transportation, and architecture are achieved. General Information - Many of the proposed changes in the amendment packet contain footnotes explaining the reason/rationale for the proposed change. - Website contains more information o Questions and Answers o Synopsis of Proposed New Regulations and/or Differences from Existing Regulations o (Orange County, Planning Department, "Current Interest Projects") Exceptions and Existing Uses - Single-family detached residences (both existing and new) are not subject to the requirements of the overlay districts. - Other existing land uses are not required to come into conformance with the new regulations so long as the property continues to be used as it is currently being used. - The requirements of the Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District are not being altered. Synopsis of Changes (Applicable to Both Districts) - Side and rear setback can be less o Intent is to allow required buffer and minimum setback to be the same - Smaller (less wide) buffer between lots o In keeping with those required in the existing Efland Cheeks Overlay District along highway 70 - No more than 1 entrance/exit point, unless justified - Must provide intra-site accessibility - Requirements for driveways and shared access o Shared access only applicable if fronting on Mount Willing Road or Highway 70 Synopsis of Changes (Efland Interstate Overlay District only) - Site Planning must take into account need for connecting roadways shown on the adopted Access Management Plan for the area - Large projects must provide an internal pedestrian circulation system - Requires that national prototype architectural styles of chain businesses be altered as necessary to complement the surrounding area Synopsis of Changes (Efland Village Overlay District only) - Changes in front yard setback requirements o Minimum of 30-feet along Highway 70 o If not along Highway 70: front setback in keeping with adjoining uses - No fences in front yards unless a demonstrated need can be shown - No chain link or similar fencing - No outside storage of materials - Allows up to 15% of parking to be located in the front yard (setback area) - Encourages shared parking and puts a cap on parking - Limits signage to monument style signs that do not exceed 6-feet in height and prohibits pole signs - Does not permit modern corporate franchise building design - Principal building must face fronting street and have a functional doorway - Requires that buildings be designed to contribute to a "human scale" - Prohibits drive-throughs and mirrored glass Public Notification • Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO — Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks — Mailed notices to affected property owners — Mailed notices to property owners within 500-feet of affected properties — Posted 25 signs in strategic areas of the affected area Public Information Meeting - Held on November 14 at the Efland-Cheeks Community Center. Advisory Board Involvement - EMSAP Implementation Focus Group met on August 29 to review the proposal. - (Other meetings had taken place in early 2010) Recommendation • Receive the proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas. • Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the proposed amendment. • Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the February 5, 2013 BOCC regular meeting. • Adjourn the public hearing until February 5, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the Efland Cheeks Overlay District and the overall effort and who participated. This is on the eastern portion of a larger effort, and some people may not be aware of this. Perdita Holtz said that the overlay district is an effort to allow for the conversion of single- family homes along the highway to low-impact uses such as professional offices or beauty/barber shops. This is the green area. In the pink area, there is pre-designated commercial area, which is at the corner of Frazier Road and US 70 and westward. This allows for a bit more commercial use than what is being contemplated along US 70. The Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan Implementation Focus Group was involved in this effort. Tony Blake arrived at 7:20 PM. Perdita Holtz said that the group was made up of community members who were appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. There is also a representative from the Planning Board, Pete Hallenbeck. Commissioner Yuhasz asked if the Economic Development Director reviewed the architectural design standards in this overlay. Perdita Holtz said that the EDC department was included in the peer review effort. Chair Pelissier asked what it means that businesses "have to be altered to fit in with surrounding areas." Perdita Holtz said that it would be on a case by case basis through the site review process that if a national chain were to come in, that it would have to stay in keeping with the area. Andrea Rohrbacher left at 7:26 PM. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the "zoning district and the land use classification matrix." She wants to make sure that the 20-year transition means that it would not be urbanized for 20 years. Perdita Holtz said that the 20-year transition area has been in existence since 1981. The land use categories were not changed when the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2008. Commissioner McKee said that he has some reservations on several aspects of this, such as the prohibition on drive-throughs. Commissioner Jacobs said that there was a discussion on sidewalks and he wants to make it clear that this is a place where there could be higher density residential. He does not want to have higher density residential without sidewalks. Pete Hallenbeck said that the focus group was in total agreement that north of the railroad tracks they did not want fast food restaurants. There was agreement that south of the railroad tracks could have some things like that, with some limitations on the architecture. He said that when this comes to the Planning Board, he will address these concerns by the Board of County Commissioners. Johnny Randall made reference to the synopsis of changes and bullet number 5. He read, "allows up to 15% of parking to be located in the front yard." He asked if this means in a designated parking space or parking in the grass of the front yard of an establishment. Perdita Holtz said that it means in the required parking area, which is not grass. It would have to be a parking lot. Public Comment: Rita Needham asked if anything was going to happen north of McGowan Creek. Perdita Holtz said that nothing is being proposed north of McGowan Creek as part of this action. The Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan does contemplate more development in the planning area, which is all the way up to Lebanon Road. At this time, there is nothing happening in this area. Commissioner McKee said that his concern is that this action will cause buildings that are currently conforming uses to become non-conforming. Perdita Holtz said that this could potentially happen. There was more public comment. Ben Lloyd said that he lives in Efland on US 70. He said that there was the opening of the Efland-Cheeks Community Center and ten people showed up. He said that the people of Efland do not understand how this proposal will benefit the people of that area. He said that if there was more information and if some of the planners came to the Ruritan Club, people will come out to hear and ask questions. He said that he has some reservations about a lot of this proposal. He does not think it is in the best interest of the people of Efland. Warren Shankle lives in Efland along the interstate. He has 2 '/2 acres there. He said that he has water and sewer and there are no problems with it. He asked why it would benefit to put sewer here when there are no problems right now. Patricia Gattis lives in Efland on Greg Street off of Richmond Road, and her daughter has a shop near the fire station. She asked if this plan would affect that area. Perdita Holtz said that it does not appear that this property is in the overlay area. She is not sure which lot this is. She will look it up. Commissioner Jacobs asked that after the meeting that Perdita Holtz give Ms. Gattis a definitive answer. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the February 5, 2013 BOCC regular meeting and adjourn the public hearing until February 5, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment — To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO in order to modify and clarify existing regulations and definitions associated with the erection and use of outdoor lighting facilities. Michael Harvey presented this item and made a PowerPoint presentation. NOVEMBER 19, 2012 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM:C2 UDO TEXT AMENDMENT— OUTDOOR LIGHTING BACKGROUND: • During the initial development of UDO, several suggested modifications were received on changes to existing outdoor lighting regulations. • These suggestions were tabled for future consideration. Staff believes we have reached a point where these amendments can be incorporated into the UDO. • This amendment also seeks to address concern over height limitations on athletic field lights. Some believe existing height limits are too restrictive and create additional light pollution on adjoining properties rather than eliminate it. WHAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES: • Clarify existing regulations, including: — Modify Section 6.11.1 Purpose and Intent to include language referencing the County's interest is promoting nighttime visibility and curtailing light pollution. — Modify Section 6.11.1 (E) to include language identifying the County's intent to regulate outdoor lighting in an effort to `restore natural light cycles'. — Incorporate new formatting changes to ensure the regulations are consistent with the organizational rules of the UDO. — Eliminate references to `watts' of a light fixture and ensure proper use of terminology through the Section. WHAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES: • Add new definitions of light trespass, mercury vapor luminaire, light pollution, etc. to Article 10 as recommended during Phase 1 of the UDO. • Eliminate multiple definitions of the same term within Article 10 of the UDO. For example we currently have `lamp' defined twice within the UDO. There is no need for this duplication. • Address concerns expressed by Orange County Department of Environment Agriculture Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) over height restrictions for athletic field lights. ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHT ISSUE: • 2 poles aimed at same aiming point but note difference in impact of spill and glare on adjacent properties. Restricting mounting height aggravate, not improve, the impact of spill and glare light ORC COMMENTS: • Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) meets to review this item on September 5, 2012. • Made several recommendations with respect to modifying draft amendment package. • Modifications were incorporated into draft text amendment by staff. • ORC expressed concern over increasing outdoor athletic field light height limit but understood the problem. Asked BOCC and staff for guidance. STAFF COMMENTS: • Proposed amendments make existing regulations easier to follow. • Proposal addresses those items identified during initial development of the UDO. • Staff sees compromise with respect to increasing height limits of athletic field lights RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive the proposed amendments. 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the proposed amendments. 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the January 24, 2013 BOCC regular meeting. 4. Adjourn the public hearing until January 24, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Michael Harvey said that there was in-depth discussion when added height limits were considered originally. There was an understanding that there might be some non-conformities created that were legal at the time because there was not a height limit until two years ago. He thinks that the height limit should be reexamined and increased. Andrea Rohrbacher returned at 8:04 PM. Commissioner Jacobs said that he respects the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) staff analysis of the heights, but a simple way to eliminate the subject would be to consult several neighboring jurisdictions about lighting standards. He suggested looking at Durham and Chapel Hill's lighting standards to see if there is some consistency. He suggested that if and when the Board approves whatever it is going to approve, that staff communicate to the power companies that when bare bulb security lights are replaced that the County ordinances will encourage shielded fixtures. Commissioner Gordon made reference to pages 59-60. She said that she would be hesitant to increase the pole height. She is concerned about the effect of the light rural areas. She would like to see more empirical evidence presented in the information supporting the recommendations. Lisa Stuckey made reference to page 69 and the initial lumen. She asked why the light level after it is warmed up would not be used. Michael Harvey said that the initial lumen is an industry standard. There was no public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the January 24, 2013 BOCC regular meeting and adjourn the public hearing until January 24, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment(s) -To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO in order to make minor changes that have been suggested by the County's code vendor (MuniCode) as a result of MuniCode's legal review. Perdita Holtz introduced this item and made a PowerPoint presentation. Commissioner Foushee left at 8:14 PM. Maxicene Mitchel left at 8:14 PM. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments Resulting from MuniCode's Legal Review Quarterly Public Hearing November 19, 2012 Item C.3 Purpose - Incorporate changes to references to State Statutes/Rules as a result of MuniCode's legal review - Ensure requirements of the UDO are consistent with State Statutes Proposed Amendments - Numerous sections in Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10. - Packet includes the proposed amendments in "track changes" format with explanatory footnotes as needed. - In Section 6.16.4 (Environmental Impact Statements), language will clarify that the County may require an applicant to produce a copy of the EIS submitted to a Federal or State agency. Public Notification - Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO • Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks Recommendation • Receive the proposal to amend the Unified Development Ordinance. • Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the proposed amendment. • Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the January 24, 2013 BOCC regular meeting. • Adjourn the public hearing until January 24, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. Commissioner Yuhasz said that when the County Attorney first told the Board about these proposed changes, he said that he was not in complete agreement with Muni-code. He asked if this represented all of the changes that had been suggested or if there were still negotiations. Perdita Holtz said that Planning and Legal staff inet and only the changes agreed upon are being included, which is not all of the Muni-code changes. Commissioner Jacobs said that the Inventory of Natural Areas and the Orange County Environmental Impact Statement were both generated by the Planning Board in the 1980's and not by the staff. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the January 24, 2013 BOCC regular meeting and adjourn the public hearing until January 24, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS At this time, the Planning Board members left the meeting. 4. Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance Amendments - To review government- initiated amendments to the Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance in order to exempt from the required impact fee the relocation of an existing stick built, modular, or mobile home used for residential purposes onto a previously undeveloped parcel in certain circumstances. Staff Attorney Sahana Ayer introduced this item. In 2011 the BOCC directed the Attorney's office to investigate the feasibility of modifying the existing school impact fee ordinance to provide an exemption for residences relocated onto previously undeveloped property from having to pay an impact fee. After completing a review of existing language, and based on direction from the BOCC, the Attorney's office recommends adding language to the impact fee ordinance allowing for the waiving of school impact fees for a relocated residential structure in instances where: - The property where the structure is moved from is either: o Rezoned to a non-residential zoning designation where the development of a residential land use is prohibited or o The property is made voluntarily undevelopable for any use by other means including, but not limited to: recordation of a conservation easement, dedication of the property as permanent open space, etc. - The properties where the structure is moved from and to are located within the same school district - Movement of the structure is in compliance with the standards of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Commissioner Yuhasz said that he is troubled with this. He thought that the purpose was to provide that if someone moves a house from one lot to another lot that the impact fee would NOT be imposed. This says that the impact fee would not be imposed if the lot which is vacated is rendered unbuildable. He does not think that this was the intent. He does not think that this meets the County Commissioners' request. Discussion ensued on the impact fee from a relocated house. Michael Harvey said that the impact fee is a land use, land based ordinance. The ordinance is based on the notion of land use activity and it is not based on a structure. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that the impact stays with the existing lot. The request from the County Commissioners is to say that the impact goes with the house. The question is what happens with the vacated lot. He thinks that the solution is that the new house that comes onto the vacated lot would have to pay an impact fee. Chair Pelissier said that she thinks this was the intent when this came forward the first time. Commissioner Gordon said that the Board needs to understand the intricacies of this ordinance. Commissioner McKee said that this forces a previously developed piece of property to be undevelopable. He has a problem with this. Commissioner Jacobs said that this was initiated by someone who wanted to deconstruct a house and move it somewhere else on the road. He appreciates that the Attorney's office is trying to fix this issue within the laws. He thinks that logically it does not compute that he cannot move a building from one place to another and have to pay another impact fee and distinguish the development rights. Commissioner Jacobs suggested just cleaning up some of the language and he sent an email to this effect. Commissioner Gordon said that she would might send in something too. This item was deferred. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Bernadette Pelissier, Chair David Hunt Deputy Clerk to the Board