Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19860224 53 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JOINT QUARTERLY MEETING WITH THE PLANNING BOARD FEBRUARY 24, 1986 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met in joint session on February 24, 1986, 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Don Willhoit and Commissioners Shirley Marshall, Moses Carey, Ben Lloyd and Norman Walker. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and members Chris Best, Alice Gordon, Steve Kizer, Betty Margison, Sharlene Pilkey, David Shanklin, Carl Walters, and Steve Yuhasz, ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Kenneth R. Thompson, Assistant County Managers William Laws and Albert Kittrell, Director of Planning Marvin Collins, Planner Susan Smith, and Executive Secretary Stephanie Snipes. A. ITEM FOR DECISION REVISIONS TO EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE (A copy of the approved revisions are in the official Ordinance Book in the office of the Clerk to the Board) . Erosion Control Officer Warren Faircloth presented for consideration the proposed revisions to the Orange County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. He explained that on July 24, 1985, the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission notified the Commissioners of required revisions to bring the local Ordinance into compliance with changes to the State's Model Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. The Erosion Control Division of the Planning Department prepared these revisions and sent copies to the State for their review and comment. The approval process proceeded with no negative comment from the Commission. Upon review of the approved amendments, dated December 6, 1985, the Commission staff requested that other revisions be made to the Ordinance. The requested changes include correction of typographical errors, and the addition or substitution of words and phases to make the Ordinance consistent with defined terms. A public hearing for changes to the Erosion Control Ordinance is not required by statute, but as a matter of policy has been held whenever substantial changes are to be made to the Ordinance. The proposed revisions to the Erosion Control Ordinance will have no effect on the administration or enforcement of the Ordinance or affect land disturbances that are not now covered by the Ordinance. These changes will make the Ordinance technically correct and address legal points important in enforcement of the Ordinance. Commissioner Marshall made reference to Section 17a and 17a3 which states the requirement of approval and permit issuance for sites 20, 000 square feet and larger and suggested that the County may want to consider those instances in which erosion control plans may be required for areas smaller than 20, 000 square feet as provided in Section 6. 1. Warren Faircloth indicated no changes were made because the State only suggested revisions to the amendments that were already made. A 54 54 change of this type would be considered a major change and would require a public hearing. There are plans to make revisions to these sections at a later date. Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the proposed revisions to the Orange County Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance subject to the approval of the County Attorney. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Z-2-86 ORANGE COUNTY INVESTORS - R-1 to GC-IV PRESENTATION BY STAFF (A copy of the impact statement is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) Planner Susan Smith presented for receipt of public comment the rezoning request submitted by Orange County Investors. Orange County Investors is requesting a general rezoning of property located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Buckhorn Road and Interstate 85 in Cheeks Township. The parcel contains 19. 5 acres or 849, 420 square feet. The property is located within an area designated Twenty Year Transition and Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node in the West Orange Area Plan amendment to the Orange County Land Use Plan adopted in 1984 . The present zoning of the property is Residential-1 (R-1) . The property is also subject to the Protected Watershed-II (PW- 2) and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) overlay zoning districts' standards. The applicant is requesting a general rezoning to General Commercial-IV (GC-4) . A general rezoning to GC-4 for 75. 1 acres was denied on January 7, 1985. Susan Smith referred to the impact statement with reference to water and wastewater systems, roads/traffic, police, fire and rescue services, relationship between the land use plan and zoning ordinance and a list of the permitted uses in GC- IV districts. She added that the rezoning of 19.5 acres provides for expansion of the existing use. Alternatively, the size of the parcel may allow for subdivision of the property into individual acre lots for development dependent on the suitability of the soils for on-site wastewater facilities. Both expansion of the existing facility or development of other principle uses on individual lots must comply with applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, including the land use intensity system (floor area, open space, etc. ) landscaping and screening, parking, signage and the Major Transportation Corridor and Protected Watershed II overlay zoning districts. She noted that the applicant has satisfied all the findings required by the Zoning Ordinance for an application for this district. The Health Department only commented on the existing functioning wastewater system and did not comment on the availability of the area on the site to serve for expansion of the system or additional systems. Susan Smith referred to a letter dated February 17, 1986 from the North Carolina Department of Agriculture indicating a need for space for the sale of produce and other farm products to the general public. 55 The Planning Staff recommends denial of the general rezoning request. The Staff further suggested that the site only be developed upon submittal and approval of a planned development rezoning request which is preferable to a general rezoning request given recognized existing and potential traffic impacts resulting from the current and expanded use of the site, the location of the site within a designated protected water supply watershed and the desire to provide as much protection to the quality of local water supply in the site development process, and County policies (MTC district) directed at the the establishment of and compliance with aesthetic standards along major entranceways into the County within the County' s planning jurisdiction. BOARD COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING Planning Board member Steve Kizer suggested delaying the decision on this item since GC-4 is not presently permitted in Cheeks Township. He objected to considering this item at the same time that a change is being considered in the Zoning Ordinance to permit GC-4 in Cheeks Township. Planner Susan Smith explained that the staff had considered this point and felt that a precedent had been set previously where changes in the Zoning Ordinance were tied to specific development projects and were heard at the Public Hearing at the same time. Dr. Gordon indicated she wrote and requested the Board of Commissioners consider a policy statement for when there is a change in the Zoning Ordinance that is directly tied to a development project which is under consideration at the same time. No policy has been set. Kizer pointed out that evidence will be heard on the advisability of such a change and the Board does not know, at the present time, if the criteria submitted for the proposed rezoning will be applicable. Attorney Geoff Gledhill noted that the property cannot be rezoned GC-4 until such a zone exists in that township. Holding the public hearing for the rezoning at the same time the change is being considered is not illegal. Chair Willhoit requested that a policy be considered on the next agenda to address this concern. Kizer reiterated that it is unappropriate that evidence will be heard for proposed changes that are not yet enacted. The item should not have been considered for public hearing because GC-4 is not approved in Cheeks Township and the project could not have fulfilled the requirements. Commissioner Marshall stressed that those things for which evidence is given may not be appropriate when the time comes to make a decision. PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT David McClellion, one of the owners of Orange County Investors, indicated he is not familiar with the zoning ordinance. At the time he purchased the property there was no zoning. The project was started before zoning was approved. There is a problem of security on the property because of the lack of providing a place for someone to live and secure the place. Another problem is signage. At the present time the business is a nonconforming use and no signs can be erected. He would prefer a general rezoning. He feels he has the 56 expertise whereby a planned development is not necessary. He stated the company does not plan to have a salvage lot. He referred to two letters from the North Carolina Forestry Division in which they suggested that the lot be clearcut and that it be planted in loblolly pines. He indicated he had obtained 650 signatures from residents of the area asking that they be allowed to rezone and erect signs. If the road needs improved, he would pay for such improvements that are necessary. He stated his intended use for the property would include a cattle barn where sales would take place when the flea market is not open. He pledged cooperation with whatever needs to be done to obtain the rezoning. Planner Susan Smith explained that the current Buckhorn Road is at level of Service "C" which is a stable flow. It would be estimated that the road, if this property is rezoned, would be at the level of service "D" which is unstable flow. McClellion commented that the property is best suited as far as access from I-85. Planning Board member Sharlene Pilkey asked how much of the land perked and McMillion commented that most of the land does perk and that no problems exist with the septic system. Sharlene Pilkey made reference to the letter from the Health Department for upgrading the septic system. McMillion indicated he received no such letter. He understands that the Health Department would have the final say on the upgrading of the system that would be needed. Sharlene Pilkey asked if the water line to the property is also one inch on Buckhorn Road and McMillion indicated the flea market is served by a well. There is a six-inch line immediately across the Interstate. He would run a 12-inch line in order to utilize a sprinkler system. Commissioner Marshall questioned the 12-inch water line being brought into an area which does not have sewer and does not perk very well. McMillion indicated the water would be reserved in case of a fire. Commissioner Marshall indicated that with a planned development, a stipulation could be attached that would require a 12-inch water line and stipulate its use. A planned development brings into a legal aspect those things that are verbally promised. Sharlene Pilkey asked why the trees were removed and McMillion explained that the trees were Virginia Pines and the forester suggested that another type of pine be planted. The forester at University of North Carolina suggested they clearcut what was originally there and plant another kind. Commissioner Marshall emphasized it was the responsibility of the owners of the property to know what the Ordinance requires as far as regulations in the MTC. The recommendation of the forester does not supercede the Zoning Ordinance. McMillion stated he felt he had a legal right to clearcut the property. If he did violate the law he did it not knowing what the law was. Commissioner Walker noted that the land is classified as forest land and was not zoned at the time the development was built. He suggested that the rezoning request be considered as a separate item and not penalize McMillion for whatever happened before Cheeks was zoned. Susan Smith indicated that the previous rezoning request from 57 Orange County Investors was denied because there was no error found in the zoning atlas as alledged by the applicants. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS REDMON OAKLEY, resident of Alamance County spoke as a merchant from the standpoint of free enterprise, and what it takes to make a living in a system which, in some cases, does not quite allow it. He sees all the major problems brought out by this rezoning request as minor and technical. He feels the flea market offers opportunities to those who have the initiative and the need to take advantage of the free enterprise system. He feels the opportunities should be made available. TOMMY ELLISON, one of the partners in Orange County Investors, indicated that the property was bought with the understanding there would be no problem in using the property as they wanted. He reviewed the procedures he followed in obtaining permits to build. He stated that most of the trees in the area that were clearcut were dead or rotten. All of this was done before Cheeks was zoned. WITH NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. This item was referred to the Planning Board for their recommendation. 2 . HOMESTEAD HIGHLANDS - R-1 to R-2 PRESENTATION BY STAFF (A copy of the impact statement is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) . Planner Susan Smith presented for receipt of public comment the rezoning request submitted by Piedmont Atlantic, Inc. Piedmont Atlantic Inc. is requesting a general rezoning of property located north of Homestead Road and 400 feet west of the intersection of Homestead Road and Rogers Road in Chapel Hill Township. The parcel contains 49. 17 acres or 2, 141, 845. 2 square feet. It is located within an area designated Ten Year and Twenty year Transition areas. Approximately 15% of the property is located within the Ten Year Transition Area. The present zoning of the property is Residential-1 (R-1) . The proposed Joint Planning Area Plan designates this area as Suburban Residential which corresponds to residential densities of two to five dwelling units per acre. Rezoning of the property would allow the development of the property in half-acre single family residential lots. Susan Smith made reference to the impact statement with regard to water and wastewater systems, roads/traffic, police, fire and rescue services, schools, and permitted uses. The Planning Staff found that the applicant complied with all the applicable regulations and standards for a R-2 district and recommends approval of the general rezoning request. PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT Buzz Lloyd, Secretary of Piedmont Atlantic Corporation, made reference to a letter from Carrboro. In that letter they referred to "steep slopes" . He stated that 10% of the tract has slopes in excess of 15%. A lot of the land is wooded and suited for residential homes. There is a need for this type 58 of housing in the Chapel Hill area and they would like to address that need. He cited the location of this tract of land as a definite asset. The housing will range from $125, 000 to $200, 000 price range. Chair Willhoit cited problems associated with the development of the land use plan for that area. This area is in the Carrboro Joint Planning Area and yet it is remote from the city limits. He asked for comments on a possible scenario if this request is approved and the subdivision built. Would it be voluntarily annexed by Carrboro or would it be annexed by Chapel Hill? Buzz Lloyd indicated his choice of a scenario would be where the County would grant the zoning, the development would be built and they would not be involved with seeking annexation. Planning Board member Chris Best asked about the school the children from this area would attend and was told they would attend Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools. He questioned if the developer was concerned that the schools were already operating at capacity and Buzz Lloyd indicated that the development is not gaged by the schools but that by the time more schools will be necessary they will be built. Chair Willhoit outlined the costs involved for providing school space for additional children that this development would generate. More classrooms will be needed which means taxes will need to be raised or a bond issue will be necessary to build new schools or seek authority to charge an impact fee to accumulate capital for new schools. Commissioner Marshall noted that Carrboro is one of the few municipalities which has gained enabling legislation to levy impact fees. Because of these fees, they can move toward a higher density development because the developers will be able to help pay for the services. This will have an impact upon the services that must be provided by county governments. She agrees with the developer that it is the responsibility of the county to build the schools as necessary but the complications of when and how to get the money needs to be recognized at all times. Commissioner Carey asked how far the sewer lines were from the project and Buzz Lloyd indicated 4, 000 to 5, 000 feet. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS JIM FURMAN, owner of one of the lots adjacent to the proposed project expressed concern about the density and the slope of the area which may lead to increased runoff and flooding in that area. Larry Reid, resident close to the new development, expressed concern about the density and inquired about the necessity for one-half acre lots when the lots in that area are R-1. Buzz Lloyd indicated that the value of the land and economics would dictate a density of R-2 . Mary Jullian questioned the difference in the acreage as shown on the tax map and what the applicant is requesting to be rezoned. Susan Smith indicated the applicant is only requesting that a portion of the tax lot be rezoned and pointed out that area on the map. Chair Willhoit indicated he spoke with Mayor Porto and there 59 is concern about this project because of the fact that it is in the Carrboro Joint Planning area but that all the details have not been worked out on how Joint Planning is going to be administered and specifically the implications dealing with annexation. Because of the location of this parcel, Chair Willhoit suggested that the public hearing be continued to March 18 to provide an opportunity to address the issue of annexation. He expanded on the problems created for fire protection services and the implications of annexation. Steve Kizer asked Chair Willhoit to outline what Mr. Lloyd must do to have the rezoning approved. Chair Willhoit reiterated that an understanding needs to be reached with Carrboro and Chapel Hill on how this area will be handled. The towns will be contacted and requested to respond prior to March 18 . He explained that the County is in a process of working out a Joint Planning arrangement and a new land use plan. Part of that process will outline how development requests will be handled in the future including fire police protection, sewer service, water supplies, etc. This parcel is in Carrboro' s Joint Planning area, but actually closer to the present corporate limits of Chapel Hill and it would be likely that Chapel Hill would be in a position to annex before Carrboro. Commissioner Walker questioned the importance of which town would annex this parcel. Chair Willhoit noted it is important that proper planning be done and annexation is part of that process. Commissioner Marshall emphasized that good planning at this time will help eliminate problems for the developer and the people who will live in that area. She emphasized that the lack of a response from Chapel Hill would not hold up the public hearing beyond March 18. Motion was made by Chair Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to continue the public hearing until March 18, 1986. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. VERNON P. DAVIS AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL - 2 PRESENTATION BY STAFF (The impact statement is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's Office) . Planner Susan Smith presented for the receipt of public comment a proposed rezoning request submitted by Vernon P. Davis for one (1) acre located on the south side of NC Highway 54, east of the Gulf Station/Store and west of Larry' s Alignment Shop in Bingham Township. The site has direct access onto NC Highway 54. The road is designated as an arterial in the Land Use Plan. The property is currently designated as A-R and as Rural Community Activity Node in the Orange County Land Use Plan. The present zoning classification of the property is A-R. The applicant is requesting the lot be rezoned to NC-2 . Approval of the request would allow for limited commercial development use 60 at this location. The property is presently located in an area designated as Rural Community Transition Activity Node in the Land Use Plan with property immediately to the east and west zoned A-R. Susan Smith made reference to the impact statement regarding water and wastewater services, roads/traffic, police, fire and rescue services, relationship between Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and permitted uses. The applicant has complied with all the criteria for rezoning and the staff recommends approval of the request. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD Dr. Kizer questioned the total amount of land zoned commercial in the activity node. He stated that the requested rezoning would exceed the five acres limit specified for the district and the node. He questioned the amount of acreage included in the zoning request and noted a discrepancy. PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT Vernon Davis indicated that a larger rezoning request 1-1/2 years ago was denied because in the business node there was only so much commercial acreage allowed so the acreage requested for rezoning was reduced to meet the requirements. WITH NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. 4 . ALLEN AND DORIS TURNER REZONING Barry Jacobs announced that this request was withdrawn. 5. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS (A copy of the proposed text amendments is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk' s office) . a. ARTICLE 20 - AMENDMENTS - 30 DAY REVIEW PERIOD) Planner Susan Smith summarized the proposed amendments to Article 20 as identified on the agenda as item 5a. NO COMMENTS b. ARTICLE 4 - PERMITTED USES - ADD "MASSAGE BUSINESS" C. ARTICLE 4 - PERMITTED USES - DELETE "ADULT USES" d. ARTICLE 6 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS - REQUIREMENTS FOR MASSAGE BUSINESSES e. ARTICLE 8 - SPECIAL USES - DELETE "ADULT USES" f. ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS - DELETE "ADULT USE" DEFINITIONS AND ADD "MASSAGE BUSINESS" DEFINITIONS Planner Susan Smith indicated that the proposed amendments as identified in the agenda as 5b through 5f were developed in response to the adoption of the Massage Business Ordinance to assure consistency between the ordinances. NO COMMENTS Cf. ARTICLE 4 - PERMITTED USES - MOBILE HOMES AS ACCESSORY USES h. ARTICLE 6 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS - MOBILE HOMES AS ACCESSORY USES i. ARTICLE 6 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS - STANDARDS FOR MOBILE HOMES AND MOBILE HOME PARKS � . ARTICLE 7 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS - MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRICT k. ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS - STANDARDS FOR MOBILE HOME PARKS 1. ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS - MOBILE-HOMES/PARKS 61 Planner Susan Smith summarized the proposed zoning ordinance text amendments as identified in the agenda as items 5g through 51. These amendments are in response to the concerns raised during the last year regarding mobile homes and mobile home parks. NO COMMENTS M. ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS - PEDESTRIAN AND LANDSCAPE AREA RATIOS n. ARTICLE 22 - DEFINITIONS - PEDESTRIAN/LANDSCAPE RATIO With reference to items 5m and 5n, Ms. Smith indicated that the ordinance currently provides for pedestrian and landscape ratios to be applied to floor area. Application of all other ratios listed in the Land Use Intensity table is determined on the basis of gross land area. The proposed amendment would apply minimum pedestrian access and landscaped area requirements in non-residential developments to gross land area. Planning Board member Steve Yuhasz made reference to the table illustrating the application of the current and proposed landscape/- pedestrian ratios and asked how the figures were determined in column A and what the figures represented. Smith noted that Column A represents the resulting landscape/pedestrian area derived from applying the ratio specified in the current ordinance to the maximum floor area allowed in a district. The second column represents the resulting area derived from applying the proposed ratio to the gross land area. The proposed ratios were determined on the basis of specifying 25% of the total open space as landscaped area. NO COMMENTS t�. ARTICLE 4 - PERMITTED USES - ZONING DISTRICT APPLICATION CRITERIA Cl. ARTICLE 4 - PERMITTED USES - ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS With reference to items 5p, and 5q of the agenda, Susan Smith noted the amendments would specifically delete from the zoning district application criteria the references to specific townships and joint planning areas. The amendments further exempt those uses permitted on a special use permit basis or zoned Existing Commercial-V from inclusion in the calculation of maximum acreage requirements specified for the LC- 1, NC-2 and CC-3 zoning districts within a given activity node. Planning Board member Steve Kizer commented that one of the reasons for not putting GC-4 in all the townships is that, for example, in Bingham Township there are not appropriate areas for GC-4 districts and uses. This amendment has some significant impacts on what will be set out for the other townships. He voiced opposition to the EC-5 exemption in calculating the amount of commercial land in a specific area. The design criteria describe a local commercial node intended for uses equivalent to a "Mom and Pop" store or a local service station. The problem with EC-5 is that, as was done in some areas, certain nodes were designated which include the EC-5 designation to try to take into account the fact that the existing businesses were already there. Some of these businesses can be quite large and, by the time you add those and if you raise the maximum again for LC-1, you have eighteen acres plus whatever was already there and the node is no longer a small commercial node in a rural area. By doing this, the intent of the nodes is changed. To not 62 calculate all the commercial uses when assessing the character of the node and to allow exemptions can result in quite a large commercial area. r. ARTICLE 4 - PERMITTED USES - ASSEMBLY/PACKAGING OPERATIONS S. ARTICLE 8 - SPECIAL USES - ASSEMBLY/PACKAGING OPERATIONS t. ARTICLE T - ARTICLE 20 - DEFINITIONS - ASSEMBLY/PACKAGING OPERATIONS Planner Susan Smith continued with items 5r through 5t as identified in the agenda. With reference to Article 4 - Establishment of Permitted Use Table, Article 8-Special Use Permits and Article 22- Definitions, Smith indicated these amendments would provide specifically for assembly and packaging operations, including mail order houses. Amendments to Article 4 would specify where those uses would be permitted, the amendment to Article 8 would specify the standards to evaluate those requests for a Special Use Permit, and Article 22 would define such uses. Steve Kizer indicated that some of the same comments he made above would apply to these proposed amendments. These amendments are in reaction to the fact that the Zoning Ordinance actually worked with respect to the request for P & S Sales. The problem is that a simple packaging plant has an awful lot of input that comes to it and is not a minor operation. The parking lot at P & S sales has about 100 cars and is a major operation. The whole point of these smaller nodes was to make sure that large enterprises that would be out of character with the surrounding community are not placed there. A commercial development in a rural node could be quite large and not in keeping with the idea that these are supposed to be small commercial operations. This adjustment should not be made until it is assured that the intent of the land use plan fits in very neatly with the development regulations. U. ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISMS - PLANNING BOARD TENURE Planner Susan Smith referred to agenda item 5u - Article 2 - Administrative Mechanisms for the Planning Board Tenure and indicated this amendment would clarify that new members appointed to fill unexpired terms will be eligible for two additional full terms and to specify that one-third of the Board membership will expire in February of each year. Chair Willhoit asked that "calendar year" be changed to read twelve (12) months. o. ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS RECREATION SPACE RATIO 6. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS (A copy of the complete narrative is in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk' s office) . a. SECTION IV-B-7 SITES FOR PUBLIC USE - RECREATION/SCHOOL SITES b. SECTION V - IMPROVEMENTS - HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION BY STAFF Director of Planning Marvin Collins referred to agenda items 5o and 6a and 6b. Article 5. 1. 1 is the schedule for residential development and refers to the required minimum recreation space ratio. The proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations would require the dedication (or provision) of recreation facilities or a payment in lieu. The proposed amendment contains a formula for the computation of required recreation and/or open space area. The reason for the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text is that in the AR, R- 63 1, R-2 , R-3 , and R-4 zoning districts there are no recreational space requirements. There are recreational space ratios for planned development. Recreational space ratios have also been added for non residential uses in residential areas. These were based on the ratios that already exist in the zoning ordinance. Marvin Collins summarized the proposed changes that would provide for recreation space and school sites in new subdivisions and the established guidelines for the creation of homeowners' associations. The determination to accept payment-in-lieu would depend upon the existing recreation area in the area in which the subdivision is to be built. If there are already activities within an area, then the payment in lieu may be advisable. However, if the subdivision was of substantial size, then recreational improvements may be required within that development. If the development was not of substantial size, then the option of payment-in-lieu would be available. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Walker indicated he understood these amendments would only apply to multifamily dwellings. Collins responded the proposed amendments would be applicable to all subdivisions. Steve Kizer noted that basically the amendment is to levy a recreational tax as a way to equally distribute between all new dwellings and indicated there must be an easier formula to apply. He asked if it had been considered for the tax office to determine the value and set the rate accordingly. Marvin Collins indicated this a possibility. Commissioner Marshall asked for clarification on when the Board would be requested to make the decision on whether it would be payment in lieu or dedication or if the developer would always have that choice. Marvin Collins indicated the decision would be made by the Board of Commissioners. Planning Board member Carl Walters asked about the relationship to property values and Collins indicated if there is any at all it would be based on location. A person in Chapel Hill or Carrboro may be making a larger payment in lieu than someone in a rural area. Walters feels that mobile homes should be placed under the same regulations. Commissioner Marshall noted that the developer should be able to decide on the payment in lieu or dedication choice. Director of Recreation and Parks Mary Anne Black asked for additional time for the Recreation and Parks Council to consider these proposed amendments and have an opportunity for further comments. 7 . FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS a. ARTICLE 4 - FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION - FLOOR ELEVATIONS b. ARTICLE 4 - FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION - NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE CERTIFICATION C. ARTICLE 4 - FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION - ANCHORING AND ELEVATION REQUIREMENTS (A complete narrative of the proposed amendments is on file in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office) . Planner Susan Smith noted these changes are in response to changes in federal criteria from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Certain provisions are not included in 4 the existing ordinance. The proposed amendments must be made and submitted to the FEMA Regional Office by July 1, 1986. The proposed text amendments, if approved, would bring the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance into compliance with changes in Federal regulations. Susan Smith summarized the proposed changes. NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS Motion was made by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to refer the Subdivision Regulations text amendments, the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance amendments and the Zoning Ordinance text amendments, with the exception of the Subdivision regulations for recreation space, to the Planning Board for their recommendation. The public hearing on the amendment to the Subdivision regulations for requirements for recreation and open space will be continued to March 5, 1986 at 7 : 30. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, Chair Willhoit adjourned the meeting. The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 5, 1986, 7 : 30 p.m. in the Commissioners' Room, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Don Willhoit, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk