Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-02-1994-IX-E � s ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 2. 1994 Agenda Abstract Item # I%E SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE - MAY 23, 1994 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Legal Notice Planning Director X2592 Proposed Public Hearing Items PHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 Durham 688.7331 Chapel Hill 967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider the legal notice and items for discussion at the regular quarterly public hearing scheduled for May 23, 1994. BACKGROUND: The Board of Commissioners reviews proposals scheduled for public hearing for consistency with general County policy and presentation format. Items to be considered at the May 23, 1994 public hearing are listed below by ordinance or plan. The attached draft public hearing notice presents the items by type as well as topic. 1. Sustainable Community Principles (Page 9) 2. Historic Preservation Ordinance Teat Amendment (Page 11) a. Article 4 (New) - Procedures for Reviewing Proposed Nominations to the National Register of Historic Places 3. Comprehensive Plan May Amendments (Page 15) a. CP-4-94 I-85/U.S. 70 Economic Development District 4. Comprehensive Plan Teat Amendments a. Section 3.4 - Locational Criteria (Economic Development Activity Nodes) (Page 36) b. Section 4.1 - Overview of Implementation Strategies [Land Use Element Categories-Zoning District Matrix (Open Space Development Zoning District)] (Page 17) 5. Zoning Atlas Amendments a. Z-2-94 Orange Water& Sewer Authority (Page 21) b. Z-3-94 Bobby Kirk (Page 29) C. Z-4-94 I-85/U.S. 70 Economic Development District (Page 33) 6. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments a. Article 4.2.6 Open Space Development(OSD)District(Page 97) b. Article 4.2.19 District Statements of Intent and Application Criteria (Economic Development District) (Page 45) 2 C. Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table (Open Space Development District) (Page 98) d. Article 5.1.1 Dimensional Requirements for Residential Development (Open Space Development District) (Page 99) e. Article 6.29 Development Standards for Economic Development Districts (1) Article 6.29.2 Design Review Process (Minor/Major Developments) (Page 43) (2) Article 6.29.3 Design Standards (Minor Wording Changes) (Page 39) E Article 6.30 Development Standards for Open Space Development (OSD) Districts (Page 99) g. Article 7.2.1 and 7.21 Planned Developments (Planned Development-Economic Development District) (Page 42) h. Article 8.8.28 Special Uses (Economic Development District Site Plans) (Page 40) i. Article 14.3 Site Plan Review (Major Developments) (Page 43) j. Article 20.6 Public Hearing Notice (Page 81) k. Article 22 Definitions (Open Space Development Area) (Page 102) 7. Subdivision Regulations Teat Amendments a. Section H Definitions (Minor Subdivisions) (Page 93) b. Section III-B Classification of Subdivisions (Economic Development Districts/Public Roads) (Pages 41/93) C. Section N-B-3-d Private Road Justification Criteria(Page 87) CL Section IV-B-12 Open Space Developments (Page 102) e. Section III-C-4 Action Subsequent to Approval (Public Road Dedication) (Page 93) f. Section IV-C Interim Development Standards (Renumber to Section IV-D) (Page 41) g. Section IV-C Economic Development Standards (Page 41) Approval of the notice by the Board of Commissioners will enable staff to advertise the public hearing May 11 and 18, 1994 as required the N.C. General Statutes. The proposed Comprehensive Plan map amendment and Zoning Atlas amendments will require notification of individual property owners. The notice must be mailed on or before May 8, 1994. Copies of the proposals are provided as an attachment to the abstract. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the notice of public hearing. r = 3 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 rl NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING ATLAS, ZONING ORDINANCE,AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina,Chapter 153A,Section 240,323 and 343, and Articles 20.5, 20.6, 2.2.12 and 2.2.13 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, and Section VIII of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations,notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse (New), 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough,North Carolina,on Monday,May 23,1994 at 7:30 p.m.for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY PRINCIPLES A sustainable community is one which uses and protects its human and natural resources to meet current needs while insuring that community assets are available for future generations.A policy is proposed for inclusion in the Board of Commissioners Policy Manual which outlines sustainable community principles which should be used to evaluate local programs and policies. HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The proposed amendment would add a new Article 4 to establish procedures for local review of nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. The current Article 4 (Certificate of Appropriateness) and Article 5 (Remedies and Legal Status Provisions) would be renumbered to Articles 5 and 6, respectively. REZONING REQUESTS The proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Atlas are as follows: 1. Z-2-94 Orange Water and Sewer Authority The applicant proposes to rezone approximately 68.4 acres from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Agricultural Services(AS). The subject property is located northwest of the intersection of Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) and NC 54, dying approximately 2000 feet from both State Roads and accessed by two private roads across property also owned by OWASA. The property is more specifically described as Lot 8, Tax Map 26, of Bingham Township. 2. Z-3-94 Bobby Kirk The applicant proposes to rezone approximately five (5) acres from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC-2). The subject property is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) and Bradshaw Quarry Road (SR 1115), and is more specifically described as part of Lot 4,Tax Map 11, of Bingham Township. The property is located in the Cane Creek Protected Watershed. = r 4 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS A number of amendments are proposed which involve the recently adopted Economic Development Districts. The first two items are related to boundary or map adjustments requested by property owners in the I.85/U.S.70 Economic Development District.Neat,a series of items are to be considered which offer a variety of approval options for projects in Economic Development Districts. Finally, changes to the locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and application criteria in the Zoning Ordinance are proposed. 1. Comurehensive Plan Mau Amendments a. CP-4-94 I-851U.S.70 Economic Development District When the I.85/U.S.70 Economic Development District was approved on March 15, 1994, several properties were split by the Economic Development District Land Use Plan designation. During the public hearings concerning the district proposals, the owners requested that all of their property be included in the Economic Development District category. Adjustments proposed to move the Land Use Plan designation boundaries to property lines are as follows: Current Proposed Townshiu Tax Mau.Block.Lot Acreage Designation Designation Eno 5.25..9013 2.86 Commercial Economic Eno 5.25..91 1.79 Activity Development Eno 5.25..102 0.80 Node Activity Eno 5.25..102A 1.01 Node 2. Zoning Atlas (MAP) Amendments a. Z-4.94 I.85/U.S.70 Economic Development District When the I-85/U.S.70 Economic Development District was approved on March 15, 1994, several properties were split by either the"zoning district"boundary or by a"development area" boundary identified in the Economic Development Districts Design Manual (Article 6.29 of the Zoning Ordinance). During the public hearings concerning the district proposals, the owners requested that all of their property be included in the Economic Development District(EDD) zoning district.The owners also requested that adjustments be made in the Primary and Secondary Development Area designations to include all of their property. Adjustments proposed to move the zoning district boundaries to property lines are as follows: Current Proposed Townshiu Tax Mau.Block.Lot Acreage Zonin Zonin Eno 5.25..90B 2.86 R-1 EDD Eno 5.25..91 1.79 R-1 EDD Eno 5.25..102 0.80 R-1 EDD Eno 5.25..102A 1.01 R-1 EDD 5 Adjustments proposed to the development area boundaries described in the Economic Development Districts Design Manual (Article 6.29 of the Zoning Ordinance) are as follows: Current Proposed Development Development Township Tax Map.Blockj.,ot Acre Area Area Eno 5.25..90B 2.86 None Primary 7.18 Secondary Primary Eno 5.25..91 1.79 None Primary 5.21 Secondary Primary Eno 5.25..102 0.80 None Secondary Eno 5.25..102A 1.01 None Secondary Eno 5.25..103 0.76 Secondary Primary Eno 5.25..59 1.99 Secondary Primary Eno 5.25..54A 4.73 Secondary Primary 3. Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Ordinance/Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments a. Approval Procedures (1) Special Use Permit:The first option involves amendments to Article 8-Special Uses and Article 6.29 - Development Standards for Economic Development Districts of the Zoning Ordinance. Under this option, "minor developments" or those with building areas of less than 20,000 sq.ft. and which disturb less than 40,000 sq.ft.of land area would be approved by the Planning Staff.Projects which exceeded these thresholds would be considered "major developments" and must have a Special Use Permit approved by the Board of Commissioners.This process would involve a public hearing before the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. Also proposed as part of amendments to Article 6.29 are the elimination of references to"man-made" so as to provide gender neutral text. (2) Site Plan Approval: This option involves an amendment to Article 14.3 - Site Plan Review of the Zoning Ordinance. Under this option, the same thresholds as outlined in (1) above would apply, but only site plan approval by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners would be required. No public hearing would be involved in this process. (3) Subdivision Approval:This option involves amendments to Sections II, III-B, and IV-C of the Subdivision Regulations. Under this option, both "minor" and "major" subdivisions must receive approval by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners, but no public hearing would be involved The amendments also incorporate the design criteria and performance standards applicable in Economic Development Districts by reference. (4) Planned Development Approval:This option involves amendments to Article 7-Planned Developments of the Zoning Ordinance.Under the current provisions, certain permitted uses and projects which exceed water usage thresholds must obtain approval as a planned development by the Board of Commissioners following a public hearing.This option specifically involves the elimination of such provisions from Article 7 if Options (1) or (2) above are adopted b. IAmtional Criteria (1) Comprehensive Plan: Changes are proposed to the wording of the criteria contained in Section 3.4 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. * r 6 The criteria are used to determine appropriate locations for various types of land uses and are also used to evaluate requests for changes to the Land Use Plan Map.These criteria include land slope, hydrology,flora and fauna,soil conditions, public services/utilities, transportation systems, energy use existing land use agriculture and forestry, population density, and historic and cultural resources. (2) Zonina Ordinance:Related to changes to the locational criteria are revisions to the "Application Criteria" contained in Article 4.2.19 of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically,criteria pertaining to the type of utility service are to be considered; e.g.,public water and sewer service only,or the option of extending public utilities where available or using acceptable alternatives (wells and septic systems). OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT AREAS Proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan have been presented at public hearing which seek to create a new"Open Space Development Area"land use plan category.The following amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations are proposed through which to implement the intent of the new category. 1. Intent/AmBeation Criteria: This proposal involves an amendment to Article 4.2 - District Statements of Intent and Application Criteria - of the Zoning Ordinance. Under the proposed Article 4.2.6, a new zoning district, OSD - Open Space Development Area, would be created, including a statement of intent and criteria applicable to the proposed new district. 2. Permitted Uses:This proposal involves an amendment to Article 4.3-Table of Permitted Uses- of the Zoning Ordinance to provide a list of permitted uses in the OSD-Open Space Development District. 3. Dimensional Requirements: This proposal involves an amendment to Article 5.1.2 - Establishment of Dimensional Requirements (Schedule for Residential Development) - of the Zoning Ordinance to provide a notation that open space development projects are subject to the design standards contained in Article 6.30 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Develovment Standards: This proposal involves an amendment to Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance and would add a new Article 6.30 - Development Standards for Open Space Development (OSD) Districts to establish a set of development standards which all projects in an Open Space Development District must comply. 5. Planned Developments: This proposal involves an amendment to Article 7.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to include the PD-H-OSD Planned Development-Housing-Open Space Development District as a permitted Planned Development District. 6. Def9nitlons: This proposal involves an amendment to Article 22 - Definitions - of the Zoning Ordinance and would add a definition of"Open Space Development Area". 7. Subdivision Aut)roval:This proposal involves an amendment to Section IV-Required Minimum Design Standards-of the Subdivision Regulations.The proposal would add a new Section IV-B-12, requiring subdivisions proposed within an Open Space Development zoning district to adhere to the development standards proposed under #4 above. OTHER ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS In addition to the text amendments proposed above,one additional change to the Zoning Ordinance is to be considered. It involves the following provision: 1. Public Hearin¢Notice:This proposal involves an amendment to Article 20.6 Public Hearing and a 0 Notice Thereof to allow actions which involve the rezoning of more than 640 acres, the rezoning of 50 or more parcels, amendment to the teat of the zoning ordinance, and/or adoption of a watershed protection program to be advertised through a 1/2 page newspaper advertisement in a local newspaper instead of notification by mail to all affected property owners,pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 153A-342. OTHER SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS In addition to the teat amendments proposed above, other changes to the Subdivision Regulations are to be considered. They involve the following provisions: 1. Private Roads:The proposed amendment to Section IV-B-3-d-1 Roads(Private Road Justification Criteria) is for the purpose of including,as justification for a private road,the preservation of site features which preserve or enhance special or unique characteristics of the immediate area surrounding a proposed subdivision. 2. Minor Subdivisions:The proposed amendments to Section II Definitions (Subdivision, Minor) and Section III-B Classification of Subdivision would allow a subdivision which involves the dedication or improvement of a new public road to be classified as a Minor Subdivision, provided that the remaining criteria of the definition are met. 3. Preliminary Plan Approval:The amendment to Section III-C-4 Action Subsequent to Approval (Preliminary Plan)would require that the offer of dedication of a public road in an approved Minor Subdivision be presented to and accepted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners on behalf of the public. Copies of the proposed teat and atlas amendments as described in this notice are available for public inspection at the Orange County Planning Department. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be received during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in the Planning and Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.Monday through Friday. You may also call 732-8181 (Hillsborough), 688- 7331(Durham),967-9251(Chapel Hill-Carrboro)or 227-2031(Mebane/Graham). Please ask for extension 2575 or 2585. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. Marvin Collins, Planning Director PUBLISH: May 11, 1994 May 18, 1994 Cl PROPOSED POLICY - BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS POLICY MANUAL MEETING DATE: NUMBER: EFFECTIVE DATE: REVISIONS: POLICY: Toward a Sustainable Community Orange County is committed to the concept of a sustainable community. A sustainable community uses and protects its human and natural resources to meet the current needs while insuring that enhanced community assets are available for future generations. It seeks improved public health, an informed citizenry, and a better quality of life for all of its residents while promoting efficiency, conservation, pollution prevention, and developing local resources to strengthen the local economy. Sustainable Community Principles Sustainability is a fundamental organizing concept against which to evaluate proposed programs and policies in the areas of land use planning, environmental protection, economic development, housing, transportation, solid waste management, health and social services, and public safety. Such programs and policies should therefore be prepared in a manner which addresses the following principles of sustainability: Interdependence: Integrate long-term economic, environmental, and social considerations into all decisions to reflect their inherent interdependence. Partnership: Invite cooperation and unify efforts between governments, business, environmentalists, non-profit organizations, citizens, and others to address interdependence. Stewardship: Balance resource use and conservation between present and future generations so that future generations are not compromised. Diversity: Maintain diverse biological, economic, and social systems. Prevention: Anticipate and prevent social, economic, and environmental problems rather than attempt to solve them after the fact. Equity: Insure all community members equal opportunities to contribute to the economy, enjoy the environment, and participate in decisions that affect them. Responsibility: Ask all community members to take responsibility for sustaining their community and environment. � a 10 p.C��SE� 4-13-9 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (DRAFT] REFERENCE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE ARTICLE 4 . (NEW) Procedures for Reviewing Proposed Nominations to the National Register of Historic Places ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _ X_ Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 23, 1993 Purpose of Amendment: The amendments proposed are technical in nature and include procedures for review of proposed nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. Impacts/Issues: In March 1993, Orange County's application for Certified Local Government status was approved by the State Historic Preservation Office. Subsequently the County entered into a Certification Agreement with the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources (See attachment) . The Agreement sets forth the responsibilities of each agency in the operation of Orange County as a Certified Local Government. Part II of the Agreement describes how the County and the State Historic Preservation Office review proposed nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. Much of the language of the proposed amendment follows that of Part II of the Certification Agreement. The current Historic Preservation Ordinance includes procedures for designating historic districts and landmarks. The requirements proposed for the notification and public hearing on National Register nominations are the same as those adopted for districts and landmarks. The existing Articles 4 and 5 will be renumbered for consistency. EXISTING ORDINANCE TEXT: None. PROPOSED TEXT: Article 4. Procedures for Reviewing Proposed Nominations to the National Register of Historic Places Nominations to the National Register of Historic Places must be reviewed by the North Carolina National Register Advisory Committee with final approval by the National Park Service. The procedures contained in this Article must be followed by Orange %a County before a proposed nomination may be forwarded to the State. Section 4.1 Study List Status Required Before a formal nomination to the National Register may be presented, the North Carolina National Register Advisory Committee must determine if a site or district is potentially eligible and place it on the Study List. Once a site is on the Study List, a nomination may be prepared in the form prescribed by the National Park Service under the supervision of the State Historic Preservation Office. Section 4.2 Review of Proposed National Register Nominations Once the nomination is determined to be complete and accurate by the State Historic Preservation Office, the County will be notified by the State within thirty (30) days of acceptance of the nomination and at least sixty (60) days prior to consideration of the nomination by the North Carolina National Register Advisory Committee. Within sixty (60) days of receipt of the notice and the nomination, the Board of County Commissioners and the Historic Preservation Commission shall each notify the State Historic Preservation Office and the applicant of its opinion concerning the nomination. Failure to notify the State within sixty (60) days shall constitute an approval of the nomination. Section 4.3 Public Hearing and Notice Thereof During the 60-day review period, the Historic Preservation Commission shall implement the following measures to provide reasonable opportunity for public comment: 1. The Historic Preservation Commission shall hold a public hearing. 2 . Notice of the public hearing shall be published once a week for two successive calendar weeks. The notice shall give the date, time, and place of the public hearing. It shall be published the first time not less than 10 days nor more than 25 days before the date set for the hearing. In computing such period, the day of publication is not to be included; however, the day of the hearing shall be included. 3 . Written notice shall be sent by certified mail to the affected property owner(s) and all adjacent owners not less than 15 days before the hearing date. Adjacent property owners are those whose names and addresses are currently listed in the Orange County tax records and whose property is within 500 feet of the affected property(ies) . a © gip 4 . Comments shall also be solicited from other interested local groups and individuals. Section 4.4 Commission Action Subsequent to Public Hearing Following the close of the public hearing on the proposed nomination, the Commission shall 1. Forward a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners concerning the nomination; 2. Notify the applicant and the State Historic Preservation Office regarding its recommendation. If the Commission finds that the nominated resource does meet the National Register criteria for listing, it must state in writing the reasons why the site or district should not be nominated; and 3. Submit to the State Historic Preservation Office a record of the measures taken to notify the public and the comments received. Section 4.5 Board Action on the Nomination Within the 60-day deadline prescribed in Section 4 .2, the Board of Commissioners shall receive the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission regarding the nomination. The Board shall either: 1. Find that the nominated resource does meet the National Register Criteria for listing; 2. Find that the nominated site or district does not meet said criteria and state the reason(s) why the resource should not be nominated; or 3. Take no action, which constitutes an approval. The Board shall notify the applicant and the State Historic Preservation Office regarding its action on the nomination. Section 4.6 State Action on the Nomination If both the Board of County Commissioners and the Historic Preservation Commission agree that the property is eligible and should be nominated, or if only one makes a negative finding on the nomination, the State Historic Preservation Officer will place the nomination before the North Carolina National Register Advisory Committee for consideration at the earliest possible quarterly meeting. If both the County Commissioners and the Historic Preservation Commission make negative findings on the nomination, the nomination materials shall be returned to the State. The State shall take no further action unless, within thirty (30) days of the return of the �4 nomination, a written appeal is filed with the State Historic Preservation Office by any interested third party. If such an appeal is filed, the State Historic Preservation Officer shall place the nomination before the National Register Advisory Committee at the earliest possible quarterly meeting. After a nomination is recommended by the National Register Advisory Committee and signed by the State Historic Preservation Officer, the nomination shall be transmitted it to the National Register. The State shall include with its recommendation the comments and opinions of the Board of County Commissioners and the Historic Preservation Commission, together with any appeal which may have been filed. Article 4 5. Certificate of Appropriateness Article 3 6. Remedies and Legal Status Provisions HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION: 3/23/94 BOCC: I14 IIAC��4-j !e. --- ---7-- i f 43 I S 65 7: 7= 5C Tj ASS.t 81 c p 4 an lob sA0 *1 OUZ R t • 3350 2 417 1527 AC.QC 26 a ,M 5 A 14 213AC. o AC 54) 2105AC TOW N 632 000 1134 40 0140mlic 129 AC� TI -L=,r 30A 7,r,r 05070 1 0�5 t4T IN p 7675i Z 21 193 AC 4 64 177$ 11 6 62 746 AC (4:;) 147AC.CAL 2579 52 ta-s 6 C 76 LJV 601 (1 33 5420 8-1 X P--'134! V -A, 4m-43s$�C 0 3 -- 632 AC.. Due - -104L2 -335 ;S7 AC CAI. .0 CA 1. I�A 147 I'L CA .1 A 517j-- 56 c "!3 T 64 7139 0233 39* -z- A E i f) I M- PK E' 071 a 3.23 A CAI:. 69 57 -.1) (14 WACIS) (5 4 O 90A 3AG.7041 go c 01 047 1.1 45 2.2 AC 7 1.72 011WE 2614 $lots 5,7 IOC24 of"ll 5207 1 010� 3 Is 10 04 Ac 92 95 12A 439 '05 23 AC *1 4.29',AC. IF 91BAC ' / (.(,� 153 • 10 2254 00 2 1639) 90 2 "0.960s 96 1.34 AC 13 140 2 112 7 to Jec.) 5 f,Ac c%t sea Ito (J 09 vo 115 00 116 4 4 AC ...................................... 0 I 2.47A 173 L4 5 REVISED AC -�--TOWNSHIP TOWNSHIP 39-124 2.57 AL;CAL 4u-142 ELIZARETHA HICKS 60-141 ;1,1.10 ORANGEWOOD YR OUTFACE 9-92 ?I-RRN a NANCY WHITAKER 50-166 .1 JOtM A SC-ViLETT 152-106 KATHY r , 3 Il-W. NIA. 'LIF#iY 47-il F? . w:: — MIRK 1 DUKE P(,wt,i 4 4 )s ,v 33 LEGEND 0802 Qf Of-10A0— 6460 Lo,ftftft., i ORANGE COUNTY N.C. :Cr 011"AC1L'ft—jWX - ow - ---- DATE.VAP &Aj,11 "4010 No 400 Y60 0-w1sio" 0 V LIM —OWNISHIP MAR-2L SUVAL kaCm crsjsaArK% Ic"11,10L 1,011" ENO I """ MOP05� DIS TR ICT EIMMSIM4 l� 17 PROPOSED ORDINANCE/PLAN AMENDMENT ORDINANCE/PLAN: Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan REFERENCE: Section 4.1 Overview of Implementation Strategies ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _X_Staff Planning Board BOCC Citizen Other: PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _X_High Middle Low PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 23, 1994 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT This amendment would add language to the text of the Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to include a proposed new plan category entitled"Open Space Development Area"to the "Land Use Element Categories - Zoning District Matrix". EMIPACTS/ISSUES Proposed amendments to the text of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan are being presented at public hearing on May 5, 1994. The amendments seek to create a new "Open Space Development Area"land use plan category and are based on the following: 1.The provisions of the Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Agreement; 2.The work of the University Station Planning Group; and 3.On similar amendments presented at public hearing in 1992. On the same date,consideration will be given to applying the new classification to the University Station property. If the amendments are approved, the developers of the project could apply for rezoning and planned development approval.However, staff has identified the lack of specific standards in the Zoning Ordinance through which to implement the intent of the Open Space Development Area land use category. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which seek to correct this problem are being presented at the May 23, 1994 public hearing. This proposal is related to the Zoning Ordinance amendments in that it will provide the linkage between the"Open Space Development Area" land use plan category and the "Open Space Development (OSD)" zoning district. FIXT G ORDINANCE/PLAN PROVISIONS (No changes to existing text proposed) PROPOSED ORDINANCE/PLAN PROVISIONS The proposed changes to the text of the Land Use Element are as follows: Section 4.1 - Overview of Imiplementation Strategies Proposed Chance: Add Open-Space Development Area row to"Land Use Element Categories- Zoning District Matrix" (between Rural Residential and County Residential Transition)and create a new"Zoning District"column entitled"OSD"(see attached table). Proposed Chance: Add a new section before existing description of RURAL BUFFER, as shown below: i$ OPEN-SPACE DEVELOPMENTAREA.Identifies areas adjacent to Urban or Transition areas which are generally non-urban in character and which will remain as such. Lend in this category will generally contain low-density residential uses(e.g.,no more than two units per acre)which may be served by individual wells and septic tanks or by public water and sewer. Public water and sewer would be an option available to large-scale developments, or a combination of small developments. All open space residential development with density greater than one unit per two scree would be required to set aside and preserve significant amounts of open space (e.g., at least 30 percent of the total project acreage or, another option under consideration,at least 30 percent of the developable area of the project after certain undevelopable open space areas such as wetlands and steep slopes are excluded).The applied zoning district would be OSD (Open Space Development). rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrsrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REVIEW: LAND USE ELEMENT CATEGORIES-ZONING DISTRICT MAIM - LAND USE ZONING DISTRICTS ELEMENT R2 R5 p P CATEGORIES R3 RS S I RB AR Rl R4 R13 D LC1 NC2 CC3 I GC3 EC6 0/I I-1 I-2 I-3 EI ED AS D Rural Buffer !Ir Agricultural !1 +k Residential Rural Residential it qPs" space B . envelopment Area County Residential Transition chapel sill Permit Administration by Municipalities under the provisions of the Joint Planning Agreement- Contact Transition appropriate Municipality for applicable Zoning Standards. C.arrboro Transition Public Interest Area Rural Neighborhood * +k activit Rode Rural Community activity Node County Commercial Activity Node Rural Industrial Activity Node County Industrial Activity Node County Commercial- * * * * a Industrial Activity Node tooncaic Development Activity Rode .D 20 21 Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jones OWASAI P.O. Box 366 Ferry Road Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 App 4, 1994 Hand Delivered j l Mr. James R. Hinkley, AICP ► Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road ilk Hillsborough, NC 27278 SUBJECT: REQUEST TO REZONE PARCEL 6.26..8 FRO Dear Mr. Hinkley: Attached are the following materials in application for the Authority's rezoning request: • Completed Application for Change of Zoning District (with two-page Attachment). • Completed Rezoning Request Checklist. • Fully dimensioned map (1 inch=100 feet) of parcel 6.26..8. • Copy of Warranty Deed with legal description of subject property. • Check for $502 application fee. Although the near term use for which the rezoning is requested (construction of a biolsolids storage facility to support OWASA's Agricultural Nutrients Recycling Program) will require only a few acres, we may desire to use remaining portions of the tract to accommodate biolsolids composting facilities that the Authority might develop in the future. It is our understanding that such use would require AS zoning. It is for this long term option that we request the entire 68.4 acre parcel be rezoned to AS rather than just a smaller zoning lot. As noted in the application, construction of the biosolids storage facility will not otherwise alter OWASA's present Agricultural Nutrients Recycling Program. Fully treated wastewater biosolids will continue to be used as a soil and nutrient supplement for farmland in Orange and Chatham Counties. Please let me know if you need further information. Yours very truly, t Edward A. Holland, AICP Director of Planning and Development cc: Everett Billingsley An Equal Opportunity Employer ,RANGE COUNTY, NCRTH CAROL:-.A 22 APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT Date : AErit 4�199i.. TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested . 1 . The property is Located on the side of S .R . 1 f Street/Rood) between S .R . i and :See S .R . It is known as - Lotts) Block of Attached) Orange County Tax Map �— Township . It has a. frontage of feet and a depth of A , feeto and contains square feet or acres . Z. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from AR I to AS 3 .- The •folt.cwing Information has besn _ attached . .in__• support of the application for changing the Zoning AtLes ('° — required on all app Lications) . (See •a. A fully dimensioned wwp at a seats of not leas then one (il inch squats ane—hundred (1001 fast nor mars then one (1) inch squall Attached) tesntf 1201 feet ' showirjp••-tAS Land wheOtt is proposed to be rezoned. •�. A Legal description of the land proposed to be rezoned. at. A statement of Juetifieation addressing one or more of the to t to wi nip (1l The attaged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which would be corrected by the proposed smsndment with a detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and detailed reasons how the proposed smandeent will correct the arror. (2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County geamrstly, which make the proposed amendment reasonably necessary to the promation of the public haslth, safety and general welfare. 'I3) The manner in which the proposed amendment Witt carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Land use plan or part thereof. e(4) ALL other circumsteness, feetdrs eng reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including, but not Limited to, documentation froa service agencies (e.g. fire, patios, rescue and utilities aganalas] assuring services provision capability to the dsveLop■ent. d. A List of all individuate, firma or corporations owning property edJoining or within five hundred (300) fast of the property so4 h794 op rezoning is ettaehe`. The List is eurrent so of Oats) I certify that eLL information furnished in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge . • App Licant (s) :Orance Water 6 Sewer Authority Address : P.O. Box 366 Everet t Bil a Exec tiye D rector Carrboro, NC 21510 _ Phone : (919) 968-4421 f Orc,-- ' .off � � .....� r ;,G rL BRA Lvws ,-.,Cr6ssmads/ ' mx ��� cons Ilf I 1100 . 0 4/ TEER RD-" Oaks ------- 0 54 J0 MAC ■ 0 W its 1960 lAf.c. VC-54 0 � .�� 1 _ _ 54 f I MLL RD. I\khte Cr��, ■ 19 7 T5 1005 GREENSOM RD. 1005 0 2004 RD. s U..r Now a mon—ft 'o b,' low 01�. ■0 ■ 40100■MAIN g XO nm r I fieCues'�' Chatham i 1 1 2� f� SEE MAP 26A (HEADWATERS) �88 08 N 748 OC �— 0924 74 9?59 L„ /rr i i 8A .�;;Q,+i.i •.A� i c 8 AC 1 .I _ ''�::ir:it i;;: '::':�.:�;:7;'::�:'r.;�:�:'�:.:rc i:;i'?,:itr%�';::�r i:�;'r::�r;'. • 3x46 Q� Ih V I I 7K..►K � RL 8 �V 06 15 � 7 9 a ` + 3.64 7 38 1 AC. 7360 1 to u�iuYS-I�nq t� s AC. "as 3.02AC I7 6593 �oe��� 6$ .3534 / 17A 8TBAC. / 4.16 AC• I 09 AC. I ? ,7200 w( .3203 I J 78�7 4.16 AC.I I Q 1. / 6E\1 I 6A V i 11 ( 1961 _ i 4 07aC. 3759 Z � AC 42 99 AC CIA 64.58 AC 6C /1.687 = 04 3 3°_ACt 0360 ail t.5 Z / GU 12 1 3S2 54 .69 AC ---_ G o -I +aA 4 AC 3 y4.Z2 IS8 3a7+ ' r 1 R AC I SEE \\CROf� MAP 30 IOVJS, G"4 �� t 25 Orange County, North Carolina Application for Change of Zoning District A TTACF ?�'T 1. The property is located approximately 2,000 feet north of Highway 54, and is accessed via private road off Highway 54, approximately 2,000 feet west of Orange Grove Road. This private road crosses other property owned by the applicant. The lot requested for rezoning is 68.4 acres in area and contains no public road frontage. Its Orange County tax map designation is 6.26..8 (PIN 9739-86-4820). 2. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Agricultural Services (AS). 3. a. [See accompanying site map] b. [Legal description of property is included in attached copy of Warranty Deed] c(1). [Not applicable] 42). The rezoning is requested to accommodate the constriction of a wastewater biolsolids (sludge) storage facility. In order to provide municipal wastewater treatment capacity to the growing population of southern Orange County, the applicant has requested from the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management a one million gallon per day capacity uprating at the Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant located in Chapel Hill, In order to receive this uprating, OWASA must comply with new state regulations that require storage capacity for up to 30 days' biosolids production. Except for construction of this facility, the Authority's Agricultural Nutrients Recycling Program will remain unchanged. The wastewater biosolids will continue to be used as an agricultural soil and nutrient supplement to farmland in Orange and Chatham Counties. Although the storage facility will occupy only a small portion of the site, the applicant requests that the entire 68.4 acre lot be rezoned in order to accommodate its possible future use for biosolids composting facilities. c(3). The requested rezoning will thus allow present and potential future activities that are especially supportive of several of the Land Use Goals expressed in Orange County's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Specific examples include; Goal 1. The conservation and protection of Orange County's natural and cultural environments by means which are equitable to all citizens of the County. Goal 2. The conservation of natural resources in Orange County. ' 2�0 Orange Water and Sewer Authority Rezoning Application to Orange County April 4, 1994 Page 2 of Attachment Goal 7. The continued use of agricultural land and the maintenance of the fanning way of life in rural areas as a viable part of the County's economy. Goal 11. Adequate and appropriate sewer disposal facilities for all current and future residents. d. All land within 500 feet of the property requested to be rezoned is owned by the applicant except for two adjacent parcels, both of which are owned by Robert Burnice and Grace P. Sparrow, 3014 Eubanks Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27514. These parcels are designated 6.26..9 (PIN 9739-85-6736) and parcel 6.26..10 (PIN 9739-85-8635). REZONING REQUEST CHECKLIST OWNER'S NME ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY ADDRESS P.O. BOX 366, CARRBORO, NC 27510 Current zoning AR Total number of acres 68.4 Current land use VACANT, RURAL Type of rezoning requested AS Proposed land use AGRICULTURAL NUTRIENTS RECYCLING STORAGE FACILITY LOT Tax map # 26 -Bi=k # 8 Number of lots 1 Proposed Water Supply: Public NONE Community NONE Individual NONE Proposed Sewage Treatment: Public NONE Community NONE Individual septic tank NONE Access onto state road # HWY 54 Average daily traffic count on the state road 4100 Describe existing critical areas: Flood prone areas NONE Poorly drained areas NONE COLLINS CREEK FLOWS ALONG Streams EASTERN LOT LINE Other sensitive areas NONE Describe land uses in: General Area Primarily agricultural; scattered SF residences. Adjacent parcels of land Active agriculture on fields to N, S, and E of lot; forest to the W; two homesites on lot adjacent to SE corner of property. $ 8 I of N f � 2Z 29 _.1ANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLI. DO APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT Date : 4 -11 - 94 TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested . (ooh 1 . The property is located on the �'�w eo2tlEe s,4.d- of S .R . f"I S Street/Reed) between S .R . # and S .R . f . It is known as Lot ( a ) P/o� Block of Orange County Tex Map I L- Township . It has a frontage of 451) feet and a dep h of 484 feet , end contains square feet or S acres . 2. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from AV-/01WE- PW to /,!!A Nie-P1N S .- The ..folLowing information has been _ attached in support of the application for changing the Zoning Atlas (* - required on all eppli cat ionsJ . •a. A fully dimensioned map at a scale of not Lass then one (1) inch _ equals one—hundred (100) fast nor more than one (1) inch equals. twenty' 1201 feet--$howing•-the land which is proposed to be rezoned. •b. A legal description of the land proposed to be rezoned. •c. A statement of Justification addressing one or more of the following: --- ----- (1) The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the error. `'(2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which asks the proposed amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare. -0(3) The wanner in which the proposed amend mant will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use plan or part thereof. 0(4) All other circumstances, factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including, but not limited to, documentation from service •panties (e.g. fire, police, rescue and utilities agencies) assuring services provision capability to the development. d. A List of all individuals, fires or corporations owning property adjoining or within five hundred (500) feat of the property sought for rezoning 12 attached. The list is current as of (Data) `I certify that all information furnished in this application is accurete to the best of my knowledge Applicent ( s) • Address : -43(0 E5 Phone : FM PD• 4--(l- •9 ¢ t 85.00 MC PT 1 Cb�P --k- So Pn- 1 C,-ul, I 1 1,1'! - - - -W-�t- p V Lrt ,il 4-ct— 94 REZONING REQUEST CHECKLIST OWNER'S NAW" l.. . 6ieK S—TR, ADDRESS 431D J5EA25RAW 0 Ur4P�`( RPM �t=Lt1iUD,M ',,� Current zoning Q/—/emoNotal number of acres Q/ Current land use Type of rezoning re(juested WF_LQJ480EjAW 7 COHH. Proposed land use IZETAIL - SE2VIL'E Tax map #�_I3lock 0 Number of lots Proposed Water Supply: Public Community Individual 1/ Proposed Sewage Treatment: Public Community Individual septic tank Access onto state road 0 (i ! 6- Average daily traffic count on the state road Describe existing critical areas: Flood prone areas Poorly drained areas Streams Other sensitive areas Describe land uses in: General Area R.E5(DEKW%A L_ A.4mc–ULTop-4L� Adjacent parcels of land Ll W i s f - - - - - - - 10.0! LOR I DRIVE - - - RI - 6D-- -10.57AC._ // 8309 ` � - - — ——— — R RiDGT 9b - - - 16.0$ AC. 9161 0 PRiv? �Fi 151,414AM TOWW--A It r r -jZrAj-r Agr--PW EH �OPOSEp 7-011111q 15.85 AC• �/ 977 t 2 .8 A! 10.13 AC. to �1 8� 3 /f - �1 15.35 AC- 2 N, 6232 4251 dY 9109 W O7.67 AC. 66 48 31.Ver AC. e2%qAC- a �f 8749 3803 r / 5.074 AC /f 8.8407AC 6577 f f s 3.0282438 w -RA _—— QUARRY 0 / AC — MtNUts 1 1 . ow 1 12C 0281 '� 14240 O I f • 7.43 AC. 19F t� 4.33 AC• 1914 II 14 6658 e 1 y 1 135183 AC. z ` 10. 96 AC 16.2391AC 9.82 AC. I 5422 11 0387 f !A I Oil 11 66 ft1 12 96 �46 1 i ' : 1' 40 9C J PL 46 6 11- - / 27 4625 1 AC 210.3607 A C. Z-4-94 60 41C 11 OCOMOD t SLOP - 3 Y- as/d 74D I Mgmric -IFIL-F-K , lime 'r t P%4 S 1.AC. ry A35*9 0i;50 U36 10 lea it 41b cac 128 02 TOW .820 AC Ac. In k44 IL via? 21-193 AC. 64 63 146 Ac, C4-!) -%4 62 P• ON 60, 106 147ACCAL 1,leas 85 6420 58 52. AC -404L?.. 60 JACCAL all 632 Ac. 4 A4 V t4iW — 04AC 57 Elie) 7M-.FK 87 3.2 3 JAW. 89 (53) -1.-t •Tom 2 Ac. 21 2 10 2 95 to AG P*,C L2 13 AC 1-1 4.291 K�tl 13 l P's Ac. Vi3a 42 'Al so tea• 96 -34 Ac -kovuG __ - ; a 14. It 7260,, 6C I 6-i AC'.'C'At. 'It 110 ["� 2j,; Cot Ip 115 4.4 22 11,11r HIP 2.41AC 3 9l TONNSHIP Y)- 24 Z57 ALXAL ELIZABETHA HICK5. ..60-141 iffl Is 4u- 42 kill AMMICY WHITAKER-58-1 6 6 XAIHV LU14f,'6f 41 A JOIN A 9CMILLETT 6.2 DUKE Pt,Wi-.A W1.19 lolum VF 4��jl 9.92 -106 U I UTT - "63 T T !•!-44 41 LOARICSI'MIP MICH. 51-113 A.W-REW of, imms m In LEGEND 0602.1 - We UK fammd ORANGE COUNTY N.C. Its 0 UK a--, ,., �_ � ' � IA"9%94 J•Al CM M"4 #:W;d @ 25 34 35 PROPOSED ORDINANCE/PLAN AjaNDMENT ORDINANCE/PLAN Land Use Element- Comprehensive Plan Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Regulations RSFE?RNCK See "Existing/Proposed Ordinance/Plan Revisions"below. ORIGIN OFAMENDAIEN ..� Staff Planning Board X BOCC Citizen Other: STAFF PRIORITYRECOJa MDATION.• X High Middle Low EXPECT&D PUBLIC 1MARING DATE:May 23, 1994 PURPOSK To consider amending the adopted Economic Development District proposals to reflect proposals recommended by members of the Board of Commissioners. IWACTSIISSUES: When the Board of Commissioners approved the Economic Development District proposals on March 2, changes or amendments to the Economic Development Districts proposals were discussed and continued to its March 15 meeting. The discussion focused on two mgjor policy questions. 1. Location of Commercial,Commercial-Industrial,Economic Development, and similar non-residential activity nodes, and 2. Board of Commissioners review of economic development proposals. The Board of Commissioners approved a recommendation that proposals suggested by Commissioners Gordon and Insko be referred to the Planning Board for view with the understanding that: 1. The Planning Board's recommendation to the Commissioners will be made in time for the amendments to be heard at the May 23 quarterly public hearing; and 2. The Planning Board will consider a variety of approval options; i.e., Staff, Planning Board, and Commissioners. At its March 21, 1994 meeting, the Planning Board referred proposed amendments to the adopted Economic Development Districts to the Ordinance Review Committee with instructions to provide a recommendation to the Planning Board by its April 18 meeting. Proposed amendments were provided to the Ordinance Review Committee for review/discussion on March 29, 1994. Subsequent to that meeting, the report of the Ordinance Review Committee was presented to the Planning Board at its April 12 meeting. The proposals are presented below, including all options considered by the Ordinance Review Committee. Sections of the Land Use Element and/or Zoning Ordinance which were not proposed for change have been eliminated as have amendments related to the proposed I.40101d N.C.86 District were deleted. The • r 3� Commissioners are to establish a process to address concerns related to that proposal. E%ISTING/PROPO►SED ORDINANCEIPLAN REVISIONS PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEg'I'AMMMEENTS ASSOCIATED WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS 1. Amend Section 3.4-Locational Criteria by amending the criteria by which to evaluate the location of Economic Development Activity Nodes [Transition]. Provided on the following pages is a table summarizing the proposed changes to the adopted locational criteria PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE/SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEZT AMENDMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS When the Board of Commissioners referred the Economic Development District proposals to the Planning Board for consideration, a specific request was to consider various approval options;i.e., staff, Planning Board, and/or Board of Commissioners. Listed below are the options which the Ordinance Review Committee considered. OPTION#1 -SPECIAL USE APPROACH(CONCEPT PROPOSED BY COl®QSSIONER GORDON) This option would establish a threshold for individual projects, below which,staff would approve development plans, and, above which, an applicant would have to secure approval of a Special Use Permit by the Board of Commissioners. 1. Amend Article 6 by changing Article 6.29-Development Standards for Economic Development (ED) Districts to read as follows: 6.29 Development Standards for Economic Development (ED) Districts 6.29.1 Plumose Goal Six of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan is the promotion of economic development which emphasizes local employment needs while preserving the character of communities and protecting the natural environment. To that end, these provisions are established to create review procedures and appropriate design standards for application within portions of the county targeted for economic development activities; e.g., Economic Development Districts. COMPARISON OF PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN LOCATIONAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRANSITION ACTIVITY NODE The principal differences in the proposals of Commissioner Gordon are related to whether the locational criteria of the Commercial-Industrial Activity Node or the Economic Development Activity Node land use plan categories are used. In generaL the(hd;no nee Review re,.,...:t4„ce rocco men"3e.: retaining the criteria adopted on March 2 by the Board of Commissioners.In some instances,the Committee recommended changes to strengthen the adopted language. Such changes are highlighted in BOLDFACE CAPITAL. Locatfonal Commissioner Gordon Ordinance Review Committee Recommendation Criteria Proposal Located on land with slopes of less than 15`b grade. Land Slope Located on land with slopes of less than 15% slope. Where slopes of 15% or greater are present, protection MUST be provided through proper site design and construction practices. Located outside of areas where 100-year flood-prone Hydrology Located outside of areas where 100 year flood prone areas areas and wetlands are present. Where flood prone and wetlands are present. areas and wetlands exist, protection MUST be provided through proper site design and construction practices. Located AWAY FROM SITES THAT WOULD, IF DEVELOPED, CREATE A THREAT TO UNIQUE OR Located away from sites that would, if developed, create a ENDANGERED SPECIES AS IDENTIFIED BY THE local, Flora and Fauna threat to unique or endangered species as identified by the State or FEDERAL GOVERNMONT. Wildlife habitats and State or federal government. corridors MUST be protected through proper site design and construction practices. Located in areas where general soil conditions are suitable for urban development because of good drainage characteristics and Soil Conditions load bearing capacity for site development. Located generally in areas which are or could be reasonably and effectively served by public services and facilities. When located Public Services Located in areas which are or could reasonably be served by in areas where such services and facilities are not present or and Utilities centralized public services and utilities. planned, general soil conditions must be suitable for on-site sewage disposal systems. Transportation Located in areas adjacent to interstate and major arterial highways, particularly those with the potential for providing access to System public transit facilities. Located within 10 minutes commuting time from an Urban area and designed so that business uses provided within Energy Use developments limit the number of short distance commutes for goods and services. W Existing Land Located in designated Ten or Twenty-Year Transition Areas. Use COMPARISON OF PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN LOCATIONAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRANSITION ACTIVITY NODE The principal differences in the proposals of Commissioner Gordon are related to whether the locational criteria of the Commercial-Industrial Activity Node or the Economic Development Activity Node land use plan categories are used. In general, the Ordinance Review Committee recommended retaining the criteria adopted on March 2 by the Board of Commissioners. In some instances, the Committee recommended changes to strengthen the adopted language. Such changes are highlighted in BOLDFACE CAPITAL. notational Commissioner Gordon Ordinance Review Committee Recommendation Criteria Propolud Located away from areas where development would have a Agriculture and Located away from areas where development would have a detrimental impact upon productive agricultural uses and Forestry detrimental impact upon productive agricultural uses and managed forest land. Existing landscape character MUST be managed forest land. maintained through proper site design and construction practices. Population Located in areas with moderate to high population densities. Located in areas with, or planned for, moderate to high Density, population densities. Located in areas where detrimental development impacts on Historic and Located in areas where development would have a local, State or federally-acknowledged historic, cultural and/or Cultural detrimental impact on State or federally-acknowledged archaeological sites, or County-designated Public Interest Areas historic-cultural sites, or County identified Public Interest DO not exist or ARE mitigated through proper site design and Areas. construction practices. 00 3q 6.29JI Design Review Process a) Minor Developments A 'minor development is defined as a Principal use when the Haar area of the pnopored dan&W rent is less than 20,000 srluan feed,and the area of disba bed land; i.G, nmilting in a change in the natural cover or topography, is leas than 40,000 square feet. Before any new-m6e 'minor development may be undertaken in an Economic Development District, a site plan must be approved and a zoning compliance permit issued in accordance with the provisions of Article 14(Site Plan Approval Procedures) of this Ordinance. Prior to submission of an application for site plan approval, applicants will be required to meet with representatives of the Planning and Inspections,and Economic Development Departments to identify policies,procedures, regulations, and fees applicable to development proposals. Plans for development proposals in an Economic Development District will be reviewed by the Planning and Inspections Department staff for compliance with the standards contained in the following section. Such review will also be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Article 14.3 (Site Plan Review) of this ordinance. In addition to the submittal requirements contained in Article 14.2.2, a complete application shall also include: 1) Building elevation drawings for each proposed structure; and 2) A minimum of two (2) drawings of sections through the site illustrating existing and proposed grades, as well as the relationship of different site features. Failure to meet the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3, to address agency comments solicited during the plan review process, and/or to adhere to the design standards applicable within Economic Development Districts will result in denial of a development application. In such cases, the development plans will be returned to the applicant with a written explanation of the reasons for denial and the changes required for the application to be approved. An applicant shall have the option of revising the development plans to comply with the site plan and design criteria.As an alternative,the applicant may also submit the plans for the review and approval of the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners in accordance with the provisions of Artiste !; PI—an-s-ed-Deve-lopmefit late Andick 8-Special Usm b) h[ayor Diaacloprnaitr A 'mayor development* is defined as a principal use where the floor area of the pnVawd daxlopment is 20,000 square feet or mare, and the area of diabvbed 1an4 i.e-,resulting in a change in the natrvnl cover or topography,is 40,000 square feet or mar+a Before any 'mayor developmenf vmW be unda*zken in an Economic Development Disbic4 a Special Use Pbmit must be approved by the Board of Cwuniasioners in accordance with the provisions of Article 8(Special Uses)of this Ordinance. 6.29.3 Design Standards The design standards applicable within Economic Development Districts are shown on the r t 40 following pages and are divided into two categories, Performance Standards and Design Criteria. The Performance Standards establish "land use intensity ratios', or ratios of mea b+�wew-name construction to natural features as well as standards to eliminate or mitigate nuisances and undesirable impacts on the environment. a diush The Design Criteria the establish standards for landscape and architectural features,parking and circulation, service and storage,and signs and lighting,i.e., how the use"fits"the site and how it relates to the surrounding area- (The Ordinance Review Committee recommended eliminating "human" and "artificial" references as well as"manmade" to address the gender neutrality concern.) 2. Amend Article 8 by adding a new Article 8.8.28-Economic Development District Site Plans to read as follows: 8.8.88 Economic Development District Site Plans 8.8.381 Additional Information In additions to the u4br�mation r+equend in Subsections 82 and 8.8, the fallowing shall be supplied as part of the application: a) A ehensive side development plan,including all plans and documents required by Article 629 and Article 14.3 of this Ordinance. 8.8282 Standards of Evaluation The following standods shall be used in deciding on an application for this use: a) The site plan meets the crit+er is for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3; b) The applicant has addressed agency comments solicited during the site plan review process;and/or c) The ante plan adheres to the performance standads and design criteria applicable to Economic D�Districts as set forth in Arri&6.29 of this ordinance or the applicant has proposed a design solution which is equal to or better disc could be obtained through the application of the criteria and standards contained in the Design Manual. Discussion and questions related to the above proposals are identified below. a. Does the "special use"or"site plan approval"option satisfy the original intent of the economic development districts,• i.e.. to pre-zone property for nonresidential purposes and simplify the approval process? A concern voiced by EDC members as well as individual citizens is that simply zoning the property for economic development purposes does not carry out the intent of simplifying the process when one public hearing, i.e., special use, is substituted for another, i.e., rezoning. The concerns voiced by Commissioner Gordon are"accountability"and what avenue is available through which to address the concerns of the public. The Ordinance Review Committee did not support a Special Use approval process, since it would be perpetuating a lengthy process; i.e., substituting one public hearing for another. b. What are probable impacts of inclusion of"maior"and"minor' development definitions? The definitions suggested by Commissioner Gordon are essentially the same as those contained in the Town of Chapel Hill Development Ordinance. One concern of the Planning and EDC staffs, as well as individual citizens,is that developers will submit projects which fall below the 20,000140,000 threshold to avoid a public hearing. Related to this concern is one voiced by Commissioner Willhoit, that the net effect of approval of many small projects by staff j`'would be the same as the approval of one large project by the Commissioners. 41 A final concern is the 20,000140,000 rule and its relation to water usage thresholds and permitted uses. As an excvnple,some uses,such as individual convenience stores and fast food establishments,are permitted only after approval of a Special Use Permit through the Planned Development process. Projects which exceed specified thresholds for water usage are also required to secure approval through the same process. With the addition of the 20,000140,000 rule, it has beeen pointed out that almost all potential uses would be required to secure a Special Use Permit.If that is the intent, the 20,000140,000 rule should be eliminated and all uses made subject to the Special Use provisions. As noted above, the Ordinance Review Committee did not support a Special Use approval process. The Committee did not support the 20,000 140,000 rule either, noting that it concurred with Commissioner Willhoit's assessment. C. Are there variations of or alternatives to the 20 000/40 000 rule? One option is eliminate the water usage and use category thresholds completely and rely solely on the 20,0001140,000 rule. If there are still concerns about convenience stores and fast food restaurants, they should be alkrwed 2ahh as part of a multi-occupancy building. Anoth.-r option is to use the provisions of Article 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance as a threshold instead of the 20,000/40,000 rule. As applied to the Economic Development zoning district, no more than one principal structure (containing or one or more uses) would be permitted by right on any lot greater than two acres in size. Otherwise, a Class A Special Use Permit and Site Plan must be approved by the Board of Commissioners. A final option is simply to establish a site plan approval procedure involving only the Planning Board. Although the Ordinance Review Committee did not support such an option, one is presented as Option #4 below. d. What lime frames are involved in staff Planniar Board and Commissioner approval options? Staff h,as developed a specific step-by-step approach to securing site plan approval. The total time involved in such an approval would be 33 calendar days.Approval through a Special Use Permit process would take 85 calendar days.An abbreviated process,i.e., site plan approval by the Planning Board would take 40 days. These times represent the fastest that an application would be approved and are illustrated on the attached calendars.) OP77ON#2-SUBDIVISION APPROACH(RECOA®IFNDED BY ORDINANCE REVIEW COAW TEE) The option recommended by the Ordinance Review Committee is to amend the Subdivision Regulations to provide for Planning Board and Commissioner involvement in project approval. This could be accomplished as follows: 1. Amend Section H:Definitions and Section III-B:Classification of Subdivisions to change the definition of"minor subdivision" to read as follows: Subdivision, Minor - A division of a tract of land that is not located in an Eoonamic Development zoning district`and that does not: The addition of the boldface italics wording would require that all subdivisions in an Economic Development zoning district be approved as"major"subdivisions,thus requiring Planning Board and Commissioners approval. 2. Amend Section IV-C: Interim Development Standards by changing the Section number to Section IV-D. 3. Add a new Section IV-C: Economic Development Standards to read as follows: IV-C- Economic DaxlWamat Standards In nummmng subdivision proposals far land located in an Economic Devek pment zoning district the Planning Staff and Planning Board shall consider the overall design of the proposal in terns of compliance with 42 oppficabfe perfwrnwwe standards and deign criteria contained in Article 629 of the Zoning Ordinance - DaxIqw=W Standards fir Economic Development(ED)Districts.All such proposals shall include the entire parcel or lot of record as of , 1994, the 47betive state of this amendment: The simplicity of this option is that it utilizes an existing procedure.Since many parcels in the Economic Development zoning districts are large, a developer would be subject to subdivision approval. While site plans for each site would not be required,the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners could address broader issues such as access points, traffic impacts and circulation, utility service, etc.By requiring that the entire panel be included in the subdivision, piecemeal development of larger tracts would be avoided. Conditions could be included in the Resolution of Approval, providing the parameters for staff to use in approving individual site plans and for the developer in terms of determining when plan amendments were necessary. OPTION#3-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT(RECOJEWENDED BY ORDINANCE REVIEW COACW TER) This option is nothing more than the existing language adopted on March 2 by the Board of Commissioners. Optional wording has been provided(in bakybee italics)in the event that the Board of Commissioners wishes to amend Article 7. 1. Amend Article 7 by revising Article 7.2.1 to include (eliminate)the PD-ED Planned Development-Economic Development District as a permitted Planned Development District as follows: 7.2.1 Establishment of the Planned Development Districts Planned Development districts that correspond to the following districts authorized in Article 4 are hereby created: R-13 - PD-H - R-13 R-8 - PD-H - R-8 R-5 - PD-H - R-5 R-4 - PD-H - R-4 R-2 - PD-H-R-2 R-1 - PD-H - R-1 RB - PD-H - RB LC-1 - PD-C - LC-1 NC-2 - PD-C-NC-2 CC-3 - PD-C - CC-3 GC-4 - PD-C - GC-4 0I.1 - PD - OI-1 I-1 - PD - I-1 I.2 - PD - I-2 I-3 - PD - I.3 ED - PD - ED PW-I - PD - PW-I PD - MU PD - R PD - MHP 2. Amend Article 7 by adding(eliminating)Article 7.21 -PD-ED Planned Development-Economic Development District which reads as follows: 7.21 PD-ED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT The following regulations and requirements apply to PD-ED Planned Development-Economic Development Districts. 7.21.1 PD-ED District: Definition and Intent PD-ED districts may be established in accordance with the general procedures and 43 requirements set forth in Articles 7.1 through 7.9 and with the intensities and in locations in accordance with the Comprehensive plan and the Zoning Ordinance and Atlas. The purpose of this district is to provide for properly located and planned non.residential development consistent with Orange County's Strategic Plan for Economic Development. SPY, this district is intended to provide an opportunity for development plans, submitted under the provisions of Article 6.29 [Development Standards for Economic Development (ED)Districts] of this ordinance,to be considered for approval when such plans do not: 1. Meet the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3; 2. Address agency comments solicited during the site plan review process; and/or 3. Adhere to the design standards applicable within Economic Development Districts as set forth in Article 6.29 of this ordinance; and which propose a design solution which is equal to or better than could be obtained through the application of the criteria and standards contained in the Design Manual. In such cases, application for and approval of a Planned Development District shall be governed by the general and specific standards and procedures for the issuance of a Planned Development Permit as set forth in this Article. Both Special Erse and Planned Development processes take the same amount of time. The only difference in the two is that the site would be rezoned to a"PD-ED"classification under the Planned Development process. The Ordinance Review Committee felt that with the addition of the subdivision approval provisions, the Planned Development approach abov?, and the thresholds on water usage and permitted uses, sufficient controls were in place. OPTION#4-SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCADURS This option would establish a threshold for individual projects, below which,staff would approve developmentplans, and, above which, an applicant would have to secure Site Plan approval by the Board of Commissioners. 1. Amend Article 6 by changing Article 6.29-Development Standards for Economic Development (ED) Districts to read as follows: 6.28 Development Standards for Economic Development (ED) Districts 6.28.1 Purpolse Goal Six of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan is the promotion of economic development which emphasizes local employment needs while preserving the character of communities and protecting the natural environment. To that end, these provisions are established to create review procedures and appropriate design standards for application within portions of the county targeted for economic development activities; e.g., Economic Development Districts. 6.29.2 Design Review Process a) Minor Daulopmaess A 'minor dsvelopmenP is defined as a principal use where the floor area of the Proposed development is kss than 20,000 square feet,and the area of disturbed land i-e-, nmddng in a change in the natural cover or bpography, is kss than 40,000 square Before any asw site 'minor development• may be undertaken in an Economic Development District, a site plan must be approved and a zoning compliance permit dr 4,4 issued in accordance with the provisions of Article 14(Site Plan Approval Procedures) of this Ordinance. Prior to submission of an application for site plan approval, applicants will be required to meet with representatives of the Planning and Inspections,and Economic Development Departments to identify policies,procedures, regulations, and fees applicable to development proposals. Plana for development proposals in an Economic Development District will be reviewed by the Planning and Inspections Department staff'for compliance with the standards contained in the following section. Such review will also be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Article 14.3 (Site Plan Review) of this ordinance. In addition to the submittal requirements contained in Article 14.2.2, a complete application shall also include: 1) Building elevation drawings for each proposed structure; and 2) A minimum of two (2) drawings of sections through the site illustrating existing and proposed grades, as well as the relationship of different site features. Failure to meet the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3, to address agency comments solicited during the plan review process, and/or to adhere to the design standards applicable within Economic Development Districts will result in denial of a development application. In such cases, the development plans will be returned to the applicant with a written explanation of the reasons for denial and the changes required for the application to be approved. An applicant shall have the option of revising the development plans to comply with the site plan and design criteria.As an alternative,the applicant may also submit the Plans for the review and approval of the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners in accordance with the provisions of Develepffiefit DistmW Article 14.3 Bit¢Plan Review. b) Mcor its A 'nuVw development' is defined as a principal use when the floor area of the PnPand development is 20,000 square feet or more,and the area of dishated fan- i.e.,resulting in a change in the natural cover or topggraphy,is 40,000 square feet or moe. Before any 'mqW devekpmenf nW be undertaken,, in are Eaonomie DaWWment District;a Site Plan must be appmued by the Board of Commissioners in accordance with the p udsions of Article 14-3(Site Plan Review)of this Ordinance. 2. Amend Article 14.3 - Site Plan Review by adding a new subsection, Article 14.3.4, to read as follows: 14A4 Before any'mgjor dams p cif may be u ndatandn in an Reovnornie DevelopmentDisb*4 the site plan must be submitted to the Planning Board far recommendatiorn and the Board of Commissioners for aPProval.Any such apphcadiaa, including the analysis and recommendadois of the Planning Staff, :ball be submitted to the Planning Board at the fire regular meeting of w the cguration.of the 21-day Period specified in Article 14.3.8 or any cd a m tbereW The Planning Board shall, within 30 days Of YwuPt Of the Planning Sto f'rrecommendation,prepare and submit for the Board of Commissioners a concerning the disposition arf the application. In making its daasian, the Bond of Commissioner MW - CL Appr+oue the gw4cartiorn as submittao b. Approve dw applieadorn subject to oandi iorns;or 415 C. Deny the application. F01M to mat the criteria for site plan appmual listed in Article 14„31, to mat dw papa sianda r and design crietena;fvr Economic Deue4xnent II istrz t in Amick 629, and/or to address agwy cmment:solicited during plan review are grounds for demd of the apphcaa ftm OTHRR PROPOSALS 1. Amend Article 4.2.19 - District Statements of Intent and Application Criteria [Economic Development (ED) District] by revising it to read as follows: Economic Development (ED) District a. Intent The purpose of the Economic Development(ED)District is to provide locations for a wide range of low light industrial, distribution, flex space, office, and research service/retail uses. Flex space call P� typically includes one-story buildings designed,constructed,and marketed as suitable for use as offices but able to accommodate other uses;e.g.,warehouse,showroom,manufacturing,assembly or similar operations. Such areas have been targeted for economic development and are located adjacent to interstate and ma41or arterial highways. They are subject to special design criteria and performance standards used to minimize impacts beyond the space occupied by the use. b. Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: 1. The district is located adjacent to a Federal Interstate Highway,with direct access to a major arterial road. 2. The district is located outside of the Chapel Hill - Carrboro Rural Buffer area as designated in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 3. The district shall not be located within the critical area of a designated water supply watershed. OPTION#1 -RWO"INDED BY ORDINANCE REVIEW COJMTTEE 4. Urban services,such as water and sewer mains, are desirable, but not required if acceptable alto nadues are mailable. OPTION#2-CONCEPT SUGGESTED BY COAdId=IONER GORDON It Urban services, such as water and sewer mains, are ausaillabk or could be extended to save the district. The wording in Option #1 was not added as port of the Economic Development District proposals but existed previously as Article 4.2.19 b) 6. of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Gordon proposed no new wording, so the text provided simply tracks that used in the "Public Services/Utilities"locational standard. ORDINANCE REVIEW COMN TTEE REVIEW: March 29, 1994 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: MEMORANDUM 4� To: Board of Commissioners From: Alice Gordon �Kc- Subject: Recommendations - Economic Development Districts Proposal Date: February 28, 1994 Included below is a list of recommendations for action on the proposal for the Economic Development Districts (EDDs). Please refer to my "Points to Ponder" memorandum of February 11 for further information. Establishment of Nodes Motion: That we approve the establishment of two of the three Economic Development Districts, namely, A. I-85/Buckhorn Road EDD B. I85/US Hwy 70 EDD, with the specific changes to Orange County land use-regulations being given in subsequent motions. Action on the l-8 5/Buckhorn Road EDD and the 185/US Hwy 70 EDD A. Problems with the EDD Proposal for Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance Changes 1. Proposed standards fail to require that commercial development a. have public utilities (such as water and sewer service) b. be located in areas that are planned for higher population densities (transition areas and towns) although our current regulations in both the Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance do contain these provisions. 2. Proposed standards are "fuzzy" so that a lot of judgment is involved. B. Betommended Actions to Address These Two Problems Motion: That changes to the Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance that are made to implement the Economic Development Districts Proposal will include the following elements: 1. Land Use Plan Use the type of locational criteria found in our current Land Use Plan. The current criteria are clear an requir, nodes to have both public utilities and medium to high pop on density. Details of the changes will be given elsewhere. tconon:ic Ce-Teiopmcnt Disc zc;,; ?roposal - Gordon 4-7 ?3p 2. Zoning Ordinance a. Change the proposed text so that public utilities including water and sewer are required, as in our current regulations. b. For r aaj E developments, prezone the two districts and use the Desi n Manual for standards, bit have the responsibility fora g the commissioners. pproval lie with Comment: There is a major judgmental component in the fuzzy standards. For projects with a large impact, that judgment should be exercised by the commissioners. Minor developments could still be approved by staff. c. To implement this approval process for major developments that are proposed to be permitted as uses by right: i. Define a development as minor if - floor area is less than 2 0,000 square feet , and area of disturbed land is less than 40,000 square feet Otherwise it would be a major development. ii. Approve projects using a special use permit that would indicate that the approval would be given if design standards are met. (Note: Another possibility would be to require site plan approval by the Planning Board for major developments.) Detai3p of the changes will be given elsewhere. -� • :-.' Other Issues A. Monifioring'of the Economic Development Districts I am Pleased that the most recent Planning Board recommendation (A.5 of March 1 packet) includes monitoring of the EDDs and that the monitoring will include a fiscal impact (cost-benefit) analysis as well as a check to see whether the EDDs meet certain goals of the Strategic Plan. If the BOCC approves major developments, this would give us an even better feeling for how well the EDD process is working and whether changes are necessary. I also hope that any unaddressed issues raised in Section V of My February 11 memorandum will receive further consideration B. Overall Criteria for Projects in All Economic Development Districts. In Section IV of my February 1 1 memorandum, I suggested that certain overall criteria be used for developments in the EDDs. We should do a more complete evaluation of this approach. MEMORANDUM 48 To: Board of Commissioners and Manager From: Alice Gordon AAF Subject: Points to Ponder - Economic Development Districts (EDDs) Date: February 11, 1994 Included below is a list of points to ponder while you are considering the proposal for the Economic Development Districts. 1. Lend Use Plan According to the December 6 BOCC agenda packet, "the Board of Commissioners asked that specific parcels be identified for pre-zoning for economic development purposes in a manner consistent with the Orange County Land Use Plan.' A. Existing Nodes. In the current Orange County Land Use Plan, commercial - industrial nodes exist in the 185/Buckhorn Road area and in the 185/US70 area. Thera is no existing nods In the 140/01056 area (and only a small percentage of transition area), so the ED node in this area is not consistent with our current Land Use Plan. 8. Criteria for Location of Activity Nodes. The "locational criteria' for "commercial- industrial transition activity nodes" and for "commercial transition activity nodes" differ from the locational criteria for "economic development activity nodes (transition areas)" in systematic ways. For exampl e, here i s a compact son usi ng three of the crf teri a, name]y, 1 and slope, public services/utilities, and population density. Land Slope Com Ind - 'Located on land with slopes of less than 15N grade Ec Dsv - "Located on land with slopes of less than i 5N grade. Where 1109as of 152 or greater we Meant, gn can be provided de throuch arguer site design and construction oraeticas " Public Sdnhces/Utilities Com Ind - 'Located in areas V1�. Hch are or could be reasonably and effectively served by cen&a)1z9d public services and utilities." Ec Dev - "Located ggn rly in areas which are or could be reasonably and effectively served by public services and facilities. When located in areas where such services and facilities are not present or DIannad. general soil condi ti ns m.u-st be sui tabl e for on-site sew 9e disposal sy is ems." Points to Ponder - -`--�` - Gordon 49 Population Density Com Ind - 'Located in areas with moderate to high population densities.' Ec Day - 'Located in areas with, or d for= moderate to high population densities. C. Comments/Questions/Recommendations I. Why were these changes made in the existing lend use plan? It would have been helpful if such changes had been highlighted. 2. Note that the 140/01d 86 proposed node is in the Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Zone. It is also close to the Rural Buffer, a part of the Joint Planning Arse with Chapel Hill and Carrboro. 3. It appears that no useful purpose is served by adding a new land use plan category. We should continue to use the existing land use plan category, 'commercial-industrial transition activity node.' 4. The 140/01d 86 node has more unaddressed issues than the other two nodes. If. Design Mgnugi It appears that the Design Manual has sections where fuzzy standards are Utilized. For example, consider sections 3.1 'Archi tectuai Design' and 3.2 'Landscape Design' (found in the version of the manual I have, which may or may not be the latest version): A. 'Fuzzy' Stenderds It is hard to know whet is expected of a developer, given the way the manual is written. For example, in section 3.1 concerning 'compatibility with neighbors' we encounter this sentence: 'Unless there are overriding concerns or poorly defined aspects, a new building must reflect the architectural character of surrounding buildings in the following ways:' (a list follows) An example in section 3.2 concerning 'preservation of existing features' is found in the following sentence: 'Wherever possible, access to views are to be preserved for adjacent property owners and passing motorists.' Also in section 3.2 is this guideline for landscaping parking areas: 'Where practical, lowering the grade of the parking lot from existing street elevations may aid in obscuring views of outomobiies while promoting views of architectural elements of the structures beyond.' Points to Poneer - Gordon so Throughout the manual, terms such as 'wherever possible' and 'where practical' make the standards fuzzy and as a result there is a lot of staff judgment involved In deciding whether or not the standards have been met. 8. Mixing of Objective Standards and 'Fdzty' Standards Objective standards (e.g. setback requirements) and fuzzy standards are mixed together in a textbook-like format. C. Comments/Questions/Recommendations 1. Who will make the judgments required to implement the design guidelines? Will additional staff be required? Will they be trained as architects? 2. How will the Design Manual get changed? Will the SOCC need to approve changes? in other words, how does the Design Manuel work in relation to the Zoning Ordinance and any other land use.regitletions? 3. It would appear that the Design Manual should be made more concise and more objective. The fuzzy standards should be separated from the objective standards, so that everyone can more easily ascertain what is required. I11. Costs One important question is whether the Economic Development Districts will be of benefit to the county financially. There are several aspects to this question. A. Water and Server Service. One important concern is who will provide the water and sewer infre- structure for the economic development districts. What will the provision of water and sewer cost? Who will pay for it? Of particular note is the statement that future sewer line extensions for the IeMuckhorn node are possible from the Efland sewer system. (See the Analysis and Evaluation section for this node in the December 6 80CC packet) What about connecting to the system In Alamance County? 8. Tranewletion As with water and sewer service, we need to know how transportation facilities will be provided and who will pay for them. Will there be public transportation facilities so that workers can get to their jobs without relying exclusively on the automobile? C. Cost/Benefit Anelgsis Even if the SOCC will not require a cost/benefit analysis before approving Economic Development Districts, we need to decide now what kind of analysis will be required later. Points to render - Gordon 51 D. Comments/Questions/RBCOtnmendetlons 1. Who w111 provide water and sewer service and at what cost? 2. Who will provide transportation facilities and at what cost? 3. What elements does the BOCC wish to have included in the cost/benefit analysis? IV. Criteria for Projects in All Economic Development Districts The goals of the Strategic Plan include the 'creation of diversified and environmentally safe businesses ...to provide jobs for county residents and to increase the non-residential taxi base..." Of course the creation of economic development districts cannot accomplish all the goals of the Strategic Plan, but the districts can be more directly targeted to achieve the goals if overall criteria for developments were added to specific uses allowed in the economic development districts. The following are the overall criteria suggested for developments in Economic Development Districts 1. low water usage 2. little or no production of hazardous waste or pollutants 3. little or no heavy truck traffic, low noise levels Staff has already done some work on the low water usage criterion, but the BOCC needs to consider the following questions: I. Should developments whici violate the criteria be allowed, even with a special use permit? 2. How would each criterion defined? 3. Should there be other criteria, such as en assurance that the jobs would be for county residents or a pertain level of wages would be paid? V. Pilot Projects Since tde approval of Economic Development Districts has an unknown outcome, should some kind of pilot project.approach be utilized? Here are some questions to consider: I. Should the uses in each district be further differentiated and some comparisons in outcome made later? 2. Should there be a period during which the DOCC has some role in the approval of major development projects? 3. Would it be prudent to allow additional uses to be permitted through a planned development process? 4. There is other information described on these pages which could be gathered. The general question Is what aspects of the EDDs does the BOCC wish to monitor. Would a two or three year period be appropriate? TOTAL P.05 '2 ANNOTATED PAGES FROM M MARCH 1, 1994 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA PACKET. 5 PACES T TERO(IGH 16 FOLIadm BY PAGE 5 (CAdwJCS 1f)4'"'&1PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH ESTABLISHMENT /leTtS� OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS K, L Amend Section 3.3 - Land Use Plan Categories by changing the table of basic and detailed land use categories to read as follows BASIC CA=Iff ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN CATEGORIES DEVELOPED Urban Existing Urban Activity Node Proposed Urbane Activity Node TRANSITION 10-Year Transition 20-Year Transition Commercial Transition Activity Node Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node Fkanotnie Danloprment(7r="orn) Activity Node COADIUNITY Rural Community Activity Node RURAL Rural Buffer Rural Residential Agricultural-Resides dal Rural Neighborhood Activity Node Rural Industrial Activity Node Agricultural Areas CONSERVATION Public Interest Area Water Supply Watershed Wager Quality Critical Area Resource Protection Area New Hope Crate Corridor Open Space In addition, amend the table of Land Use Plan Category Descriptions to include a new category entitled"E000amit:Develop neat Activity Node' to read as follows ACTlV1TYNODL Land in Transition areas of the County which has bash spmfieally targeted for eeonoffuc development activity consisting of light industrial,distribution, 47194 servia/rdad uses, and/ks span (typically one-story buildings designed, constructed, and nu rhmd as suitable for use as of fists but able to accommodate other uses;e.g.,warehouse,showroom, manufacturing assembly or similar operations.). Such areas are located adjacent to interstate and major arterial highways, and subject m special design criteria and performance standards. OAmend Section 3.4 - Locational Criteria by adding criteria by which to evaluate the location of G/fi4NG 5 Economic Development Activity Nodes Pransitionj. PLAN CA7ZGORY ECONOWC DEVELOPACWT AC77YI77 NODES [T 7iANSi*l70N AREAS] �se Land Sloor ate as o s th % 15 are pent,Pro ided h site n tr on ti s. x>7� 53 Located outside of ands where 100yeer flood prone area and wetlands an present-Wnrrr CNANOZ a '' // l'' Loc n areas hen detri tal dove! fede kno ent im on 1 Stan l�tSe. d uniq ndan en peeies, :Idli tats orridw an be tr roe r si n and smuction cgs. COdln!'d/t i.. seed ' wh so itio tit r derelep++rerrtbecae of nag iris is d load cap or de nt: seed ly in hick could asonab d effectiu ly Publi :ces lilies. ocated as w h s and 'I' s are must s 'table -site w e ' stems. V • Located in areas adjacent to interstate•and major arterial highways, Ir,particularly those with the potential for providing access to public transit facilities. Zwrr user Located within 10 minutes commuting time from an Urban area and designed so that business uses provided within developments limit the number of short distance commutes for goods C U, and se vices. In Ig en �'SG Located m areas develop uld have etrimen can uses � site re and cons or en the sting !11•• AcJ/V t m ties. pOle as where ntal devel nt im n local, St c or are site or ublic does cart be d through site d cons practices. Amend Section 3.5 •Land Use Gaala and Draft Policies, Goal Si:, to include the following: G/+l'4/Yt .7U*Adlotvfng Fkanomw Development (Trmts w n) Activity Nodes have been designated' �I •1-85/Buckhom (CH-4 and 1.851US 70 (ENO B). And revise the fa0owing (wording to be deleted shown in voilm gym; new wording shown in C11A,I6-s-5 /F ba ftm): NZCSSAAY d.7 The fvllaWng areas in the County are identi fled as appropriate for industrial uses and haue To been designated as Commercial Industrial Nodes:Efland Center(CK 11 Miles North (CK•2); r�✓COLpo� Miles South (CK-3}; "Pw WXQ and Harmon Young(HB-4). f�govE /Q�'!/ISION'S The following Rural Neighborhood Activity Nodes have been designated:Toler's Store(CG-3); Ylline's Store (ZR-3); Walnut Grove (CG-5) Underwood's Store (LR•3); Fairfield (CK-4); Coleman Loop(HB-U Law's Store(ENO-1);Adam and Eve(BH•I); Oah Grout(BH-3); and Caluander W.AM Q and Blackwood Station (�T-;) as prt of the Orange Coiurty-Chapel -Cw•rbwo Jaw Plmtning Area Land Use PIwL 54 P«t of C o rA r eLe t ll t_ t �Tt a•� }ci J tTy A6 0r. !1 n and rau„JR. Located away troll iitas -that would, if developed, create a throat to =ign4 or MUnSsred species as identified by the state or federal javernmsat. C�editI ��. �. Located in areas wSare gsaaral soil conditions } are suitable for. urban uses because of good drainage characteristics and load bearing capfecity for site develops�ent. Located is asIeas which are or could be reasonably and effectively served -by centralised pcttlic services and utilities. Z Focused on that intersection of arterial Q and/or oolleelor highways and aYtandliaq .S Ril" beyond such � iatesseetioe�s or withia one Rile of ikn interstate interchange. O �. Located With3w loss than! 10 miaoate eoRR�utinq time %d from an Orben at�ea. V,� fwd Use. Located within identified Ten. or qty Year Transition areas. 4' Located av,ey from areas Where develop ont rvold have a detrimental impact oa productive a9rfealtoral uses and fanged forest land. LUM . Located in areas With moderate to high Population dsatsfties. . Located away frow areas.whwe, development Won Id have a ds�trifsftal ifpeet on or federally aZnt ile dhistorle-cultural sites or eowq identified Public 1�: Ust t.,r. tsr.ew � '(�.+� �d o rt a r..:� al•r ea..'�' �t J• :i . .. Z�. ...............* ego . .i ........ .. .... . . ... .. . . . . . . aN _ '��Ot y@lZR�'i 10as ✓ Loaatid on lad with slq of lesi thaw 1Sg grads. V�ls Imt cam 14 . I.00sled 01"i" Of 10 flood prone areas f- as� 0 identit by the Corp* o! engineers. vrdtwLoosted my from sites that would, if awi• aseate a threat to unique or species as /ideatitisd by the slats-oc federal . - - V . Located in areas Where general soil conditions are suitable for urban uses because of good draissaga characteristics and load bearing capacity for site development. Located in areas which are or could be reasonably and effectively served by centralised public services and utilities. (k.t. . Focused m the iate=aeetion of arterial p FVE,tt/or collector highWays and .s ailes bay ood such intersections or within aae Rile'af an imtar�state a and hin 10 00 feat of rail lines. 55 u t Located within lass than a 10 aiauta �aw�utii�g tom► D frog an Qrban area. Transitiae Located within id+intitiad Tan or west'Y-year . �.._o�.,....� _� _ . Located away froe areas Thera davalbVRant Vauld have a detrimental i=pact on productive agricultural uses and aanaged forest land. ViOmiatign L�U- Located in eras with aodarata to higti popalation� densities. b��zOt1C � �1Mw1 y'--- . Located away from areas. vhere de"lopsent would have a detriaeuttal ia�act an state or tadasally z acknowledged, histariecu - ltural sites or County identified public Are". . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .... . . . .. . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..... ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iris car�ooats loom ACIMT s'! sous Located an land with slapas at low than 13% grade. . Loapated outside o! 100-year flood prove areas as ideettitied b7l the Cbtps of Eaginars. Place and �,�... Located awy free sits& that would, it devralaped, areete a tknmtt to unique or species as idraR,ifi M by the states or federal gov"-=Mt. Locat d in are" where nd re general soil citions ass amitable few as-ante swap disposal Systsr. ALUM- Leoatsd is areas that will .not require urban-type serrioes. . Focused as the intm -act an of arterial and/or sou mtoe highm"m and extending .5 riles beland such an inter"ian,,= Xo . se=*r of a leeel�asr for traatasised by a Crop-road that rur I and farms PC"P-U t adid oontaLus tuna or woes mi�eial ar institutional land. astir. - . . Located at sites within rural areas that would Hart l intrude upoes the existing laadseapa . Located in areas which weld serve the l.av-44e0ity natal and agricultural population, guzarally 1000-5000 persaos. Bissaric and itvrel. TAcated army tress areas --bez t dwmlcpss,nt would have a dWrtriseatal impact an state or federally acknavledged histomio-evltsral sites ar Coumrty identified Public Interest Aram. 5ta Amend Section 3.8 - Cheeks Township-Plan by increasing the number of activity nodes from four to five and adding a description of the new activity node, CK-5, to read as fonows: R8F8R"CB: CB 5 a-85/Buckhorn) LOCATION:I.85 and I.40, Buckhorn Road(SR 1114), and U.S. 70 PLAN CATEGORY Economic Development (Transition)Activity Node ANALYSIS AND EVALUA?YON.-This node is located at the intersection of an interstate highway and collector road Access is also available from a major arterial road.Major non-residential land uses in the area include Hancor Products and the Orange Alamance Water System office and mater tank. Scattered residential development is also present,particularly along Buckhorn Road and just south of the Southern Railroad The tract includes the Southern Railroad and is crossed by a gas pipeline as well as a Duke Power Transmission line. The area is on the western edge of the Upper Eno River watershed and contains gently rolling topography.lnterffubvet strewu which cross the property fiow south to join Sevenmae Creek. Soils not suitable for development are found along the streams. The area is preseretly spud by a antral water system (Orange-Alamanaj and future seiner line czensions are possible from the Efland sewer system. Since the area u located in a water supply watershed new development will have the option of limiting the amount of impervious surface (buildings,parkins, ere.)or installing uW detention basins for stormwater oontrtd New development mast also comply with po formance standards established specifically for Economic Development Activity Nodes. Access to dhu site is best provided by-way-of a service road acunding from Buckhorn Road to Redman Road (SR 1311). The uustern portion of the area nearest to Buckhorn Road is but suited for servicelretail land uses,while the remainder is appropriate for a mix of light industrial,distribution, flex spas, and a f fia uses. Section 3.9-HfiLboeoSt T by hxreasing the num of ' ' nodes from four e e TC. and a&ft a deemiption of the node, H34, to read as f C�m4 a-/O/Oid N. ) 0N:I.40101d N.C. W Churton Extension) PLAN :Boonamie )Activity Nods ANAL AND l9 :This node is at the intersection an interstate 'ghw and a minor road w server as a major la ugh. The nds aaee oe:t 9W Railroad and inch the 8Q intercium e. Abe Nis and 1.4 there are some to s slopes and soil w h may mi&iet but mat development Most of the includes over 7.5 percent: 1 pas over V pouat am found along drainagewco Soils uns table for develop fairly co mmat thrust aouduvestern portion of the Some . categories are res ted due to slope, while limitations due to uvb us low s Cates Creek its tri flow through the site so to northeast. The fT p n along Cates C could save separate use but should not be eons'derable restriction o de opment. A signi ant area of and forest has also been i 'fled in proumity to C C kin the Inoue of the Natural Are and Wildlife Habitats of a County(Site E07). then si ni f ieant eul resoura m be neeo and protected during is the remains the'N Chapel H' Road', as shown on a s by Georgt Tate in I. areas should be pre serve as open s or buffer areas through proper site design and construction practices. 5? th the exception of a low-density subdivision, �Wgecoach Run, d from N.C.86, then w d be significant disrup n of areas with a dehdal character, onal development h been pl d however,to d verse impacts on eigli ring resider al co unities.Moderate ens:ty resi al and low ntenss office develop ent h been toe and/or atural vegetati buffers rotai to ' existing ghbor from mo interssi usu. Bet a the I.40/ d N.C. 86 interch ge se as a maj access poi to HUl sbo ugh, retention of v etative uffers along Old N.C. 6 d also p the c of that ay. WIthout i rst, the abil- of. !d N.C. 86 to h additional traffic ay hinder some develop t urtherrnortI the for vehicular ac to Old N.C. 86 is d from within the si N ess, the existence nearby public w sewer services, access to the in ays makes the le for dev opment, incl ng light 'ndustrial, bution,flex office, an /retail uses. ads of the in tats Sys te and rail also adds to the pound of the as part a transit system. 8. Amend Section 3.10 -Eno Township Plea by revising the dewriPtim of activity node ENO-2 to read C kN as followm !F RZPER8WCJL-ENO-2(Eno)Q-aslUS 70) YEass d r LOCAMN:r-85 and U.S. 70 TD PLAN CATzma �/{ICD�C/o r� Economic Development(Transition)Activity Node ANALYW AND EVVALUATIOIV.•This node is located at the i+t on of an intantate highway and ��o�4 a mgtor arterial road and includes a trvo-mik stretch along U.S. Highway 70. The area is also lQOV/S/D S soviced by a spur of the Southern Railroad The entfre area is located in the Lower Eno River watershed,with Modes Creek and other tributaries flowing north through the area toward the Eno Rive: Floodplaw on Rhodes Creels could be a somewhat restrictive for dankpn e" Soils unsuitable for dsvelopment are located primarily along the streams. Slopes between 7.5 and 15 pertast are scaured throughout du are%homaer,the majority of the area slopes are less d= 7.5 povent Slopes ow 15 p&MV are conewvVed along the drainageways. Existing land uses range fmns adjacent mobile horns parU to a variety of service and commermal *um& 27W*;% gWropn4ft u4W developmsnt is prgjecled for this area New =vn&eial and industrial user should be gasanlly wore fined oo the areas Louth of US 70 and 1.85 in order to reduce negative impacts an the Eno River Store Park. Arnett along UA 70 may be difficult fcult in areas of rood rwo or stMep slopes,however,the widening of I-85 and the associated redesign of the interchange =9 PMM&greaw axess to adjazuK proP"s& Modova-density residential and low intensity ofJin development hat been located and/or natural vegetatux buffers retained to 'screen' existing ndribarhoo is}horn mac inta"Ve uses. 7. Amend Section 3.12 - Cbapei HM Township Plan by revising the last paragraph in the subsection, Distribution of Lad Use PI=CAtegmus, to reed as follows: That are no activity nodes in Chapel Hill Township north of the JPA.An�;iw +r' n-o"a Economic Development(Transition)Activity Nodew OW-ow in Hillsborough Township (10-M, however, actvsds N.fir•.ss r..r slightly beyond the Chapel Hill Township line. 04hrea The node in Hillsborough Township crosses the Duke Power transmission line north of Donis Road and is adjacent to 1.40 east of Old N.C. 86 in the northwutern corner of Chapel Hill Township. 58 O8. Amend Section 4.1 . Overview of Implementation Strategies by adding an "Economic Development Activity Node' row to the "Land Use Element Categories-Zoning District Matrix". The subsection. 'Zoning Ordinance% would also be amended (as follows) to add a description of the 'Economic Development Activity Node' category. EC0N0MICDEVE10PJMTAC77V rYNODE:Identifies areas in Transition areas of the County which have been specifically targeted for economic development activity consisting of light industrial, distribution,flex space,office,and service/retail uses.Such areas are located adjacent to interstate and mgior arterial highways, and subject to special design criteria and performance standards. The applied zoning district is ED (Economic Development). The subsection,"Economic Development Plan', is also proposed for revision and would read as follows (wording to be deleted shown is supAs tWougk. new wording shown in boldface): &Nnomio Davlop cent Pima The physical land use planning activity cannot be separated from economic considerations. In determining the appropriate pattern of land use for the County an assumption is implicitly made regarding the ON of growth favored and the response of the economy to such growth. Conscious efforts to broaden and diversify the economic base of the area and promote certain forms of economic developmant should eomplemW physical planning considerations affecting land use patterns, particularly as they impact on the masimization of opportunities for County residents for housing and work, and the protection of the environment: . The Orange County Industrial Facilities and Pollution Control Authority was created by the Board of County Commissioners on October 23, 1978, and formally organized on Math 5,1979,is to work toward the establishment and expansion of manufactunng companies within Orange County. Creation of this Authority made it possible for manufacturing companies to be eligible for Industrial Revenue Bonds. In December 1982,the Orange County Economic Development Commission(EDC)was established and charged with carrying out an economic development program for all portions of the County and its constituent municipalities. The EDC's purpose is to increase economic daelopment through clear, locations an sstratgw d poliew which stimulate balanced development at appropriates rages in suitable Osls of the MOOF accomplishments of the EDC has been the preparation of a Strategic Plan for Oftno County's Economic Development. The Plan was adopted on Math 8, 1989, including a goal tax '...intone the desired quality of life—by encouraging economic development through investment in human resources, the expansion of existing businesses, and the creation of diuersified and environmentally safe businesses...to provide jobs for county residents and to increase the non-residential tax base...'. As one means of implementing the Plan, a resolution was adopted in October, 1990 by the Planning Board and the Economic Development Commission establishing procedures to address comprehensiue planning and economic development matters of mutual interest. lid Use Element C-Me orics - zoolin g District Matrix �..•.`�/��' ��.`'`.. ?J Zolling Disllicls INU US : ELEMENT CATE-001tlS R-s E A RR AA R-1 R-1 RA R-I) I.0-1 NC-2 CC 1 GC 1 I;C-1 (III Is It go 1:1 11 s 1.11) lal 1111(fc( • licullulal Residenlial • • gal Residential • gnomic Develop Activity Node silty RcswemiaE Transition • • • • ____ Joel IJitl T1.111silion 1'enuil Adalinislladon by Municipalities under Ilse provisions of Ilse Joint Planning Agrrcrllcnl- Conlacl appropriale Municipality lot Applicable "tuning Standards iburu '1'1a11siliuu tic 1111cocst Atea _ • 11 Neiglsbollsolxl Activity Nodc • • d Community Activity No/le • • _ fly Comm ucial Activity Nodc • • • • • _ 1 Imlusuial Aclivily Nixie ily Industrial Activity Norte _ 0 • • ly Couuucrcial-lnd. Activity Nodc • • • • _ •_ • • • Ln fv0 PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH ESTABLISHMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS L Amend Article 4219 - District Statements of Intent and Application Criteria (Economic Development (ED) District) by revising it to read as follows (wording to be deleted shown in sapjjsg Qw new wording shown G,IA�fC in boldface): !' Economic Daulopment(ED)District a. Intent The Purpose of the Economic Development (ED)District is to provide locations for a wide range of his light industrial, kedis"ewii, distributive Jies qmm office, and nesoa+ch servierjretail uses Pies space typically includes one-SWY cgs de=g94 co#u&ucft4 and marketed as suite for rase as awes but able to aaaoRnmodate othc uses;td,rvazhouse�shororoar+,mare astern*.ar similar operations. Such areas have been&wTe ed for aeonarnic darrlopnnent and are located adjama to inswitate and mepw arve ial highways They► are subject to special design criteria and Pafo mom standard:used so minimize impacts beyond the space oaupied by the use. 0 Application Criteria (i�A This district will usually be applied when the following Iona ons exist: 1. Sim The dk ict is located acVaeent to a Federal Interstate Highway, wish dipses weese to or a mgjar artvial road. esd Sim- A-04neft-As-i'M 2 The sib distriet is located outside of the Chapel Hill - Carrboro Rural Buffer area as designated in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 3. Xi am T)ne sins district shall not be located within a the critical aria of a designated water supply watershed G Q Urban services, such as water and saver mains, are desirable, but not required if acceptable ternatim are available. iriiliwt 2. Amend Article 4.3-Table of Permitted Uses by deleting the list of permitted uses and providing the following OA-, notation in the ED row: Refer to Artiek 629-Darrlopment Standards for F.canomie Development(ED)Districts. 3. Amend Article 5.1.2 - Establishment of Dimensional Requirements (Schedule for Non-Residential D K Development) by deleting the existing standards and providing the following notation in the ED row: Refer to Ardele 629-Dax4nw nt Standards for Fkanomic Darel*ment(ED)Districts �l C. Amend Article 6 by adding anew Article 6.29 • Development Standards for Economic Develo Districts to read as follows: pment (ED) 629 Development S for Economic Desaeloflmemt(ED) Districts 6291 Pumax Goal Six of the Deed Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan u the Pmmoden of economic dank nient which anphasraes toed employment needs while preseving the clnaractu of aanmumidts and protecting the natural aunronmeut; To that en4 these PrvvLu ms are estnhlished to create raAew praaedures and appropr iame dcd8n standards for applicadon within POrda+s of the aoumty ft%vad for eronamie daxlopment aedoides; e.g., Economic Daxlapment Districts. 829.5 ' w/ �b/yl,����� �t/ivt R'CTlivsTia� ra>rlaprrront may be undatstiat in aim F.aorrormie Daxkpnent District, a sits plan must be approved std a inning c=Pdmm Pmt issued in accordance with the / prarsrio�ts of Ardck 14 (Site Plan Approval Procedures) of this Ordina cL Prior to /1 G f6 mission of aen applzcOd"'fir sits Plan gWct*appliemnb mill be required to meet with Mco,p ae& G idantifj►policies�pumdures, nwu toy d� °D Gt,/r�►rov� Plans for daxlapnmantPrgxwaL*in an Eaamamic Dam4prment District will be rernewed by the Planning amd Inspecdans ��cmgdiaiae uidi the standards eomtaaned in Pr �, doe lbllarning seetio n.Such retnew mill also be carried Gp,ksu<<SS/�Grs o f Ar dele 14.3(Sits Plan ReLuw)of this adinanrti out m aeaordanae wide the prosrisions /+ In addWan in doe submittal mgldre moot:oomtaimed in Ardck 142?, a complets application shall also inchidc L BUMM dmudm*=G&W fur maeb PVPD"d sthxbuw and 2 A msinirmurm of tray(2)a6Woings of nedorrs dtrtwgh doe site illustradng adsdng mid propomed grades. ass well ass doe nladornship of dif jier+vnt site*atures. Failnnre 10 nerd the arose for site Plat approoal listed in Article 14.4 to address agency oeAmuner wha bd during the plan mnere process,and/or to adhere to doe design standards ap bcobls raidun Feomomie Drareloprment Districts mill result in denial of a daxlopmest 41MUCE nom. In such cases, doe daxlopmett plans mill be returned to the supplicant with a roriMn cwknaftan of du reasons for denial and the changes required for the apphcadon to bin approved An appliemU shall halm doe ophan of revising die dsmkprmett plans go campy►with the site plat and design aitrsim As an allernadm the app wWd HuW also submit the plans for the rMezu and approaal of the Plmnning Board and Board of County Canrmusime s in accordance with doe�vn-�oLu of Arliele 7 lmirred Dish ie& 6.26.3 aloe Owe•,r/ ,.. �(sire o0�i:.'r v.K. C w,1c ,2�AD :sue �o :��. ��.-� r�s�►osrs,d, /. y 2o�t�r'ta►.� The design AW dadt GPplicabk within Eao armie Development Districts are shown on the fOUQw=9 PoCer and are dwided inn am ca0rgories, Lwbm�9" rum G a S> Pb fonmMM Standards and Design Crimma, ?Ise Pw farrmmnae Standards establish'land use intend.-y r aloe Op do AM dinowisfidi OpdWind �am d.N or r MMM eornstrucdon, to natural features as well as standards to chminaoe or midges nussau+es and undesirable impacts on �2 the aurironmen4 both naWrd The Design Gwdeknes Critain-mrpl..�� establish standmds jar lmtdseaW d5d arthitecturol features,panning and tsrt:uIdd,04,serviCC and storage, and signs and lighntinC i.e.. how the use efus'the sits and hao it relates to the surrounding area. (The wording highlighted in -soilfis Qwemoo format has been revised to reflect the revised organization and content of the Design Manual.) 0.E -5. amend Article 7 by revising Article 72.1 to include the PD-ED Planned Development-Economic Development District as a permitted Planned Development District as follows: 72.1 Establishment of the Planned Development Districts Planned Development districts that correspond to the following districts authorized in Arncle 4 are hereby created: R-13 - PD-H-R-13 — - R-8 - PD-H-R-8 R-5 - PD-H-R-5 R-4 - PD-H-R-4 R-2 - PD-H-R-2 R-1 - PD-H-R-1 RB - PD-H-RB LC-1 - PD-C-LC-1 NC-2 - PD-C-NC-2 CC-3- PD-C-CC-3 GC-4 - PD-C- GC-4 ON - PD - ON 1.1 - PD -1.1 I-2 - PD -1.2 1.3 - PD -1.3 ED - PD-ED PW-I- PD -PW-I PD -JWU PD -R PD -IMP Amend Article 7 by adding a new Article 7.21-PD-ED Planned Development-Economic Development District to reed as follows 4*. / 721 PD-ED P DEVELO 0102VT-ECONOMQC DEVELOP3t�NT DISTRICT CAo«yG / 1' Tlx JfotlambW rtguladow and requirtmasts apply to PD-ED Planned DamhVinvet-Economic hecess �° ��� /nco���721.1 PD-ED Dim iet:Ddiinition and Intent PD-ED distrieb may be established in a=ordmnae with the soma: procedures and nqu r emertls set jorllt in Arbeles 7.1 through 79 and with the intensities and in locations in accordance with the Cornprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and Atlas. The Purpose of this disbiet is to provide for properiy heated and planned non-residential dexlopme:nt corsdstemt with Orange County's Strasegio Plan for Economic Development Spedfieally, this disbiat is inpvnded b jormde an oppordunity for development plans, submitted wader the prumuons of Article 629(Daxlapment Stmndmds for Ecoomw �3 DaftllooPment=)Districts]of deis ardinar o go be considered for apprtwat when such plans I. . bled the crnterna fW sate Plan approual listed in Amick 1� /t'C°CGSSa.rr // Z Address agency comments solid ttd daring the site Plena rMiew Process; and/or 3 Adwry to the design standards applicable within&Womic DamLopme nt Districts as /'ea�sloxs sa fartk in Article 629 of this ordinmuX and which propose a design solution which is equal ter ar better thane could be obtained through the applieatiaa of d w eriteria and standards oonetairted in tee Design Manual. (The last sentence beginning"and which.••"was added following discussions with the County Attorney to clarify that failure to adhere to criteria and standards, and/or address agency comments is not suffcient grounds alone for application acceptance and consideration.) In such cases, for and gWmal of a Phnm d Dee;eI*nwet District shalt be by the SMffal and V=fic ward*and Pvmdures for the issuarux of a Planned rim I FMI: Permit as act"in dais Article. 6. Amend Article 22 • Definitions by adding a definition of"Economic Development Activity Node" to read as p.K. follows; Inumic Dodoon ext Acdaity Node Land in Transit M areas of dne Canary which has been 4ndflecay to for awnomie divdWonast =*;itl► aonsisdng of light industrial, disbO Mien, f a span+, office, and svvwv'Yv W uses Such areas are located adjacent to inkr&%to and meow arterial highwade,and subject to spedal design aitoia and paAwma:nce standards Plex sparx typically irneluder me-story buildings da grned constructed and marrieted an=dMbk for uas as o 7km but abk to aeewLmodaft other user e;., warehouse, shamvoans,a asaorsblj►or similar apsratim& e.5 iofG : , 1- /7 OSSiblG 4 S�e 613G lie•.erw►t� de'�e�j,►.•re.�cT eti.�vrrGa-eJ�. ice! 7i e.r. C,a,S eS l - Y I That residential uses be eliminated from the list of permitted uses allowed in Secondary Development Areas in the 1.40 101d N.C. 86 Economic Development District. That Section 14, subsection entitled'Water Supply&Sewage Dispose, be revised to include a statement encou`_agknr the installation of'dry' C 74 sewer lines, at the time of site development, where septic systems are used&or* with utility providers to establish incentives for installation of such lines, including a waiver of tap-on fees �� r That Section 11, subsection entitled 'Schematic Plans', be revised to include a statement that property owners and/or developers,particularly those with large tracts of laud, are encouraged to prepare plans which .oOIS �.t!rs reflect market forces while providing a coordinated'theme'or'blend"of Aeceot-r compatible uses. In addition, encourage. the Economic Development ?Commission to continue its efforts to involve/communicate with all landowners in accomplishing the same goal. 6. That the Economic Development Districts be monitored for at least 2.3 years as suggested by the Commissioners to identify the following impacts: a. What will be the fiscal impact; e s ' fi pact; i.a, on the County's omuting budget and tax base,of non-residendal developme t in the,Zw c Development Dis,tri5ts? G�MSII�ei^ / ,r c,�-rte 6 2 b. What additional residential growth will t:enerated as a result of the Ewnamic Development Districts? (1) How many of the employees working at businesses in the Economic Development Districts live in Orange County? (2) How many of the jobs will be filled by new us. existing residents? (3) What will be the fiscal impact of new residential growth attributable to the Economic DaWapment Districts? G What wages will be paid/are being paid by businesses which locate in the Economic Development Districts? The Planning Board recognized that confidentiality and/or legal limitations may limit the availability of some data. P That all references to'special use'approval be clarified to mean approval of a special use permit through the planned development process. Gt/ j The vote of the Planning Board wa3 urmnimow (11-0). Copies of the draft Planning Board minutes are attached which detail the discussion of the Planning Board on all issues referred to them by the Board of Commissioners. TO, BOCC FROM: Verla insko SUBJECT: Economic Development Districts DATE: March 7, 1994 Here is my thinking oa the questions Alice raised at the 3/1/94 meeting. 1. Re: Locational Criteria The BOCC made a major policy change on Tuesday night. The old policy stated that the Commissioners would locate industrial and commercial development near existing population centers. The new policy states that the Commissioners are willing to locate industrial and commercial development gust about anywhere in the county -- in IDDs. The question Alice asked us to discuss is: Do we want to make this kind of sweeping change? If so, why. I don't fully understand the implications of this change nor can I justify it to my own satisfaction I got stuck on Tuesday because the I-40/01d 86 node doesn't conform to the old locational criteria. and I kept confusing the two questions. But, I missed the point We should not create a broad policy to fit one exception(or one Intersection). We should deal with the big policy question first-- where should ttuivatrial development be located? If we like the old locational criteria,for the general policy and we st LU want a node at I-40, then we decide how to make both rMags work Maybe we create a rural IDD that is distinctly different from an urban IDD. Anyway, this question deserves a full discussion. 2. Re: A*BOCC review process for large projects? I support having the Commissioners, planning board or someone other than staff review and gtve the final approval for the larger projects — at least for the time bang. I like the idea of an abbreviated review based on some==beer of acres of disturbed land but I don't have a strong opinion on how big the project should be before the review process licks in. The . question for me on this issue is, who is accountable for possible mistakes? cr. John Link, Ted Abernathy, Marvin Collins s ? Ell � lolo jC_2R�T38 3/iS!!t A4„ PRQCE88 791 RDDRIB TNO Tn PROPOSED 1KLI+IDIr_L' 5 TO =3 TWO 322IONZ. Commissioner Gordon said that with regard to the two economic development districts, there are two major policy questions. one deals wit: the location of commercial, industrial, economic development and similar non- residential activity nodes and the other deals with County Co=issione-rs review of economic development proposals. These are both explained in detail in the agenda abstract. With regard to the first policy question, Commissioner Gordon said that the previous locational criteria in the Land Use Plan required that major commercial activity nodes be located in areas in or near population centers with centralized facilities such as water and sewer.! (urban nodes with urban services) The particular locational criteria on page loa that are relevant are public services and utilities, population density,j soil conditions and existing land use which would imply urban uses. she said that when the EDDs were approved with the particular land use changes, more' intensive land uses in many other parts of the County that are essentially, rural were also allowed. klthough there were not a lot of changes for the" EDDs,- Commissioner Gordon feels that there are implications that need to be considered for the future. The second policy question has to do with Boarla review of economic development proposals. She feels that although the landr is prezoned, it does not necessarily mean the County Commissioners must bell removed from the review process. She feels that because the standards area, fuzzy and require a lot of review that the Commissioners should have some[" review function for large developments. This could be a fairly simply special i process where the only specific condition would be to meet the Design- .ndards. She made reference to the information in the agenda abstract and_; _�narized some of the key points: She asked the Board to consider these two;; policy questions. Commissioner Willhoit noted that with regard to the County Commissioners getting involved in the process of interpreting whether or not the project meets the criteria in the Design Manual, that this is a good example of a need to distinguish between policy issues that the Board is l suppose to be involved with and the staff applying the policy to a proposal.. He feels the Design Manual is a good document which provides a much more k detailed guidance that what they have had in the past. The issue of somer arbitrary level over which the Board would make the decision as opposed to smaller developments is exactly the opposite of ,what he would suggest. The total impact of developing 200 acres is the same it it is developed as one or twenty ten acre developments. He would not reserve approval of the big developments for the Board. He feels the policies and ordinances in place' address the total development regardless of its size. Zn fact, he feels tha businesses may go the minor economic development route to avoid bringing it before the Board which would have the opposite ,affect of what they want t � achieve. He feels the Board needs to be involved with the policy issue an then let the staff apply it as stipulated. A Commissioner Gordon said that the ordinance is structured so tha}. a zajcr subdivision is so defined to prevent putting together a lot of wino., subdivisions. She feels that if something has a large affect, the Board should have a chance to review it. With regard to the policy questions, ythinq about the EDDs is in the Design Manual. She is not proposing that . 'f (07 t c 8 the County Commissioners worry about the 9=11 details. She is concerned about the tr t:f is patterns, water and sewer se,-vice - major things that wou13 e working at a po impact the County -- not minor details. They would be working level. Chair Carey does not want to get involved with policy decisional that have been given to the staff to implement. The staff has more time tot apply the policy decisions than the Board. He is not convinced that the Board needs to be involved once they have decided a policy issue. He suggested referring these two recommendations to the Planning Board for their review. Commissioner Insko asked if Commissioner Gordon's concern is that the Design Manual is not specific enough or that -the staff will not inter-prat= the Design Manual the way the Board wants it to be interrupted. Cotatcissione, Gordon noted that the manual is not straight forward. If the Board id interested in pursuing these two policy questions, a detailed analysis needs to be done by the staff. If the Design Manual was very specific, the staff could do it. She feels that there will be unanticipated issues that the Boardf cannot perceive where there will be a lot of Judgment involved and that the; Board should take responsibility for large projects with the main focus otl approving them Am a timely manner. Commissioner Insko agreed that when there is a new concept put intAr, place, it is hard to think through all the outcomes. Commissioner Gordonl clarified that the Board would only be looking at large developments and '.ressing major policy Questions like traffic flow and water and sewer. Commissioner Willhoit said that in order for the Board to turn down4 a project because of an unanticipated impact or outcome, the Board would need to be very specific. PUELSC CQNKgr!s Am Joyner said she served on the original target committee to decide what kinds of industry was wanted. She feels that the concerns about traffic patterns and water and sewer are taken care of in the selection of the EDDs themselves. There have been many studies about water and sewer in these particular areas as well as traffic patterns and these concerns have been, addressed. she asked why she, as an employer, would come to Orange County and wait 3-6 months when she can go to Durham, Person, Chatham, Caswell or� Alamance County and know today whether she can move in tomorrow. Employers�e don't come to this County because they don't know what they can or cannot do in answer to a question from Commissioner Insko,' Ann Joyner noted that there have been studies which show that .alternative systems can be even better tha public sower. wells are also sufficient as long as the groundwater is not . endangered. She feels that if there are specific concerns about the Desig Manual, they need to be addressed. She gave examples of businesses which di not need water and sewer. Commissioner Willhoit made reference �o the Buckhorn area and the question of water and sewer and said that he would like to see a sanitary district established which will generate revenues to pay for the extension o4 --ter and sewer from the Efland line. This would not prohibit a stnaOU .alopment like a bank which could operate on .a septic system until sewer ... _vice is available. Creating a sanitary district will provide the mechanism for financing water and sewer. iv (c8 9 I A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Co=issione: Znsko to refer the amendments as outlined in this agenda abstract to the Planning Board for their review and request that they look at alternatives f o: the review process besides bringing it back to the County Coamissioners. The Planning Board's recommendation to the Commissioners will be made in time fc: the amendments to be heard at the May public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS .L 1► URZ TRWINS • S•40/0LD 66 EC' WOXIC- D ? DTBT4T= The Board decided that a work group would be formed with two City, of Hillsborough Commissioners, two County Commissioners, two from the Orange County Planning Board, two from the Hillsborough Planning Board and two :ram the Economic Development Commission. Chair Moses Carey, Jr. and John Linkwill bring back to the next meeting a charge, process and timeline for this work .group. They will also recommend a procedure for receiving input from the neighbors in this area; The County Commissioners will appoint the Chair Hof this work group. z 2,, Comm cm=esiomte This item was postponed to the next meeting. iL unx Mo"s C0QW=TY DirPELOF= ADOLESC r AFTER SCHOOL a The Pine X=lls Community Center and the YMCA of Chapel Hill have- tntly obtained a grant from the Greater Triangle Communities Foundation to crate an after school program for adolescents at the Pine Knolls Community, Center during the school year. They would like to continue this program" during the summer and neat school year. They are requesting S5 ,000 from the Board of County Commissioners to fund maintenance for the operation of the' after school program- for the next two years. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by: Commissioner Znsko to approve an allocation of $600 to the Pine Knolls Community Center to be used for maintenance for the next three months. VOTE: UKAX=OUS Albert Kittrall will help Debbie Horton of the Communit y`# Center complete the paperwork necessary to request additional funds as may baj needed for the next year for this project. LL MM ?OB "P!2= TKMTB TO BOARDS AND QWMISSIONs 1► notion was made. by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner, Insko to amend the resolution. which outlines the process for citizen: appointees by the County Commissioners to the. various County Boards ani ., Commissions by adding the following paragraph as a subsection to number 4 : "When the appointments are presented to the County Commissioners= for their consideration, a list of all those who have applied and are eligiblQi for appointment will be included in the agenda. If someone is recommended for'`,: appointment, the abstract will give the source of the recommendation. " VOTE: UNANIMOUS X. AEpOR_TS &. p(MICZLIARY RM CM[gM 2Ty ADVTBORY COMIrTTSE's AMMAL REPORT 1994 (49 EDD Staff Development Review S M TAW T F S April S M T July ? F S 1 4 APPLICATION DEADLINE 8 ACCEPT/REJECT APPLICATION 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEGIN PRELIMINARY STAFF REVIEW 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 APPLICATION DISTRIBUTION FOR AGENCY REVIEW 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 AGENCY COMMENTS DUE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 26. 27 28 29 BEGIN COMPILATION/REVIEW OF AGENCY u U U V U 30 31 31 May 5 DISTRIBUTE PRELAdINARY STAFF REPORT February 10 STAFF APPLICANT �W� G August S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 30 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Z7 28 28 29 30 31 March September S M T W T F S S M T W T JFS 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 11 12 13 14 13 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 April October S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 31 May November S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 29 30 31 27 28 29 30 June December S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 19 20 21 22 23 Z4 26 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 328/1994 1994 ?° EDD Planning Board Plan Review January Aril July S M T W T F S P S M T W T F S 1 4 APPLICATION DEADLINE 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 ACCEPT/REJECf APPLICATION 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 BEGIN PRELIMINARY STAFF REVIEW 15 APPLICATION DISTRIBUTION FOR AGENCY REVIEW 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 AGENCY COW#ENTS DUE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 BEGIN COMPILATION/REVIEW OF AGENCY 24 25 26 27 28 29 W 30 31 COMMENTS 31 May 5 DISTRIBUTE PRELIMINARY STAFF REPORT 10 STAFF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MEETING S M T February F S MANAGER REVIEW OF PLANNING BOARD AGENDA August 11 COPY AND DISTRIBUTE PLANNING BOARD AGENDA S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 16 PLANNING BOARD MEETING 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 NOTIFY APPLICANT 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 27 3 28 29 30 31 Mazes September S M T W T F S S M T W T JFS 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 April October S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 9 10 11 12. 13 14- 15 17 18 19 ZO 21 22 23 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 31 May November S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 29 30 31 27 28 29 30 June December S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 5 6 7 8 910 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 328/1994 1994 August Public Hearing � January S M T w T F .S July July S M T w T F 5 1 ; [naetxndenoe Dav 3 4 S 6 7 8 5 APPLICATION DEADLINE 1 9 10 11 12 13 13 15 11 APPLICATION ACCEPTED/REJECTED 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 OTHER AGENCY COMMENTS SOLICITED 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 I7 18 19 20 21 2: 20 BOCC M94 Absaam;Due 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3 24 3 26 27 28 29 21 BOCC 8814 Agenda Review 24 25 26 '7 :$ 29 30 30 31 August 31 S POST PROPERTY/NOTIFY OWNERS NOTICE TO NEWSPAPERS February PS 8/1514 Absttaas Due S M T W T F S 8 BOCC Regular Meeting(NOTICE APPROVAL) August —_ PS 8/1514 Review S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 10 PUBLISH NOTICE(1u) 1 2 3 s 5 0 PB Revised 811314 Abstracts Due 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 11 PB 9/15M Agenda Distribution 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 13 PB R�u�l�ieesuts REVIEW) li 13 16 17 18 t9 '0 20 21 22 24 25 ;� 16 PUBLISH NOTICE�''rnd) 22 PUBLIC HEARING(Hi!>:b Mgh) 21 3 3 24 25 26 :7 27 28 September 28 :9 30 31 S Labor Div 9 PS 9/19*Abaraets Due March 12 P8 9/1914 Review S M T W T F S 14 PB Revised 9719M Abstracts Due September - 15 PB 9/1914 Aida Disuibutton 5 M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 S 19 PS Regular Meeting(RECOMMENDATION) 21 BOCC 10(314 Abaraeu Due 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 22 BOCC IW.V 4 Agenda Review 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 October 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 3 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 4 NOTIFY APPLI�/REVISEIMAPS 23 26 27 28 29 30 S M SAWN T F S S M T O WET F 5^ 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 3 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 13 16 9 10 11 12 13 14 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 Zs 23 26 27 28 29 24 23 26 27 28 29 30 30 31 May November S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 4 7 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9. 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 23 24 25 26 27 29 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 29 30 31 27 28 29 30 June December S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 3 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 13 16 17 18 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ,19 20 21 —" 23 24 25 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 J26 27 28 29 30 19 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1?^_.'1993 r � DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 4/12/94 72 was that there will be some strategies that are part of this process and help to focus growth. He noted that the Triangle Transit Authority is not in the land use/land control business. That was granted to the counties and cities. General discussion followed regarding traffic problems that will hopefully be addressed with transit system. Mr. Ritchie indicated he would be making this presentation to the Board of Commissioners at a mid-May meeting. b. Ordinance Review Committee Recommendations - Economic Development District Proposals Presentation by Marvin Collins. This item is to report the recommendations of the Ordinance Review Committee concerning proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance as related to the Economic Development Districts. When the Board of Commissioners approved the Economic Development District proposals on March 2, changes or amendments to the Economic Development Districts proposals were discussed and continued to its March 15 meeting. The discussion focused on two major policy questions: 1. Location of Commercial, Commercial-Industrial, Economic Development, and similar non-residential activity nodes; and 2. Board of Commissioners review of economic development proposals. The Board of Commissioners approved the recommendation that the proposals be referred to the Planning Board for review with the understanding that: 1. The Planning Board's recommendation to the Commissioners will be made in time for the amendments to be heard at the May public hearing; and 2. The Planning Board will consider a variety of approval options; i.e. , Staff, Planning Board, and Commissioners. At its March 21, 1994 meeting, the Planning Board referred proposed amendments to the adopted Economic Development Districts to the Ordinance Review ?3 Committee with instructions to provide a recommendation to the Planning Board by its April 18 meeting. The proposals are those suggested by Commissioners Gordon and Insko (copies attachments to these minutes on pages ) . The amendments were provided to the Ordinance Review Committee for review/discussion on March 29, 1994 . All amendments related to the proposed I-40/Old NC 86 District were deleted. This item is for review and discussion only. The proposals will be placed on the Planning Board's April 18 meeting for recommendation. Waddell reported from the Ordinance Review Committee, noting that there seemed to be two approaches to this issue. One approach was the desire to reduce the number of meetings, requirements, and hoops through which a developer must jump in order to get commercial development in Orange County. The thought was that by streamlining the process and spelling out just what commercial enterprises must do and making the process shorter in time, we might protect the County and provide for more growth in certain selected areas. Waddell continued that it appeared to the Ordinance Review Committee that Commissioner Gordon's suggestions seemed to introduce more steps in the process, thereby going back to the prior paradigm of meetings and/or "hoops" for the potential developer to jump through. The Committee attempted to strike a balance between optimizing the flow for the developer along with the protection of the environment and the interests of the County. Waddell continued that the proposals the Commissioners approved on March 2 were the results of an eight- year process that attempted to strike equal ground. It appeared to the Committee that Commissioner Gordon's request was more toward the old process with the additional reviews/steps rather than that which had been developed over the past eight years. Brown asked what happened to the cost-benefit analysis. Collins responded that one of Commissioner Gordon's original suggestions had been that the districts be monitored for two to three years. The Planning Board and Staff had recommended that concerns of cost-benefit analysis be addressed through monitoring of two to three years (or longer) and the preparation of an annual report for the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. Waddell r 75 noted the Committee felt that some of the questions, such as whether the employees live in Orange County and salary information, infringe on the privacy and confidentiality of the companies and employees so they should be voluntarily answered through a survey. He felt they could not be "forced" to give out that kind of information. Brown asked about a model for monitoring the districts. Collins responded that a model has been developed, and it was requested for the next Planning Board meeting. Collins responded that little development will occur within the next year, thus, it will be some time before there is something in a district to model. Waddell noted the discussions had indicated that development would not occur in the district before the next eighteen to twenty-four months. Buildout could possibly occur over the next five to ten years. Brown responded that perhaps they should be monitored to at least 50% buildout. Waddell stated that he would like to review growth in the districts over the next two to three years to determine the types of questions that should be asked. He did not feel that enough is known at this time to determine those questions. Brown noted that she had some copies of economic development cost-benefit analyses from other states and she would be willing to review them and provide information to the Staff that could be applied in Orange County. Waddell asked what Brown saw as the purpose of this. Brown responded she was particularly interested, like Commissioner Gordon, in the effect on the budget. She was also interested in the hiring policies and the types of wages being paid. Waddell asked how such questions could be reconciled with the privacy of the employees. Brown responded that the information could be asked for whether or not it would be supplied. She felt the goal is to have good paying jobs in the County and that it was a part of the original economic development goal to have jobs that were above minimum wage and could provide a reasonable living standard. Brown reiterated her interest in the impact on the operating budget as well capital budget. -T(o Collins clarified that Staff is prepared to monitor the districts for two to three years.. He continued that it is known what information to "capture" for the Staff, Planning Board and Board of Commissioners to make an assessment as to whether criteria are being met. Jobsis responded that, thus far, no business has moved in from which to make assessments. Brown responded that was her reason for suggesting a percentage of buildout as opposed to time. Collins noted that the districts would be monitored until buildout. Brown stated that she supported the recommendations of Commissioner Gordon and stated she would like to discuss why Staff did not adopt the Special Use Permit part and the 20-40. She indicated concerns with the assumption of "cutting the process down" . She felt that the period of time was not excessive. Collins explained the approval process. She was concerned that there was not sufficient time for public input without the public hearing. Jobsis stated that there have already been a series of public hearings and the viewpoint came out in those hearings that businesses did not locate in Orange County due to the long and expensive process. She continued that there had been a vote of the Commissioners after the public hearings endorsing Economic Development Districts, and she felt to reverse all of that now would be regressive. She noted the eight years of work that had gone into this process with many community meetings and public hearings as well as recommendations by the Planning Board and vote by the Board of Commissioners. Brown responded that she was concerned with the Special Use Permit process for the special types of businesses. Waddell stated that the hearings and meetings already held had determined the types of businesses that are appropriate for the Economic Development , Districts. Brown continued expressing concern that public comment is being eliminated at any point in the process. Burklin stated that he felt the public hearings had been held "up front" and the list of uses had been provided for discussion and review. He continued that he felt a reasonable list of uses had been determined. Brown expressed concern that small community businesses would be affected by large businesses and not heard if other public hearings were not held. Scott stated that there is much more time than one night involved in a public hearing. He felt that specific areas had been designated and appropriate uses had been determined. He felt it must be made feasible for business/industry to locate in Orange County, and he felt that has been done with the Economic Development Districts. He felt endless regulations and restrictions were being imposed that would not encourage businesses to locate in Orange County. Brown responded that she did not see Scott's logic. Jobsis stated that she felt that there were definite differences of opinion that were not reconcilable. She felt that many of the Planning Board members felt that the package of guidelines would insure favorable business development. She noted that it may not be reasonable at this time to continue discussion, particularly since a recommendation will not be made until the regular Planning Board meeting on April 18. Waddell agreed with Jobsis and indicated all of Brown's concerns and questions will be considered at the April 18 meeting when a recommendation will be decided upon for the Board of Commissioners. AGENDA ITEM #5: PLANNING BOARD ITEMS a. May 31, 1994 Joint Meeting - Planning Board and Board of Commissioners Waddell asked that Planning Board members let Staff know if you will be unable to attend. Burklin asked that Collins provide information at a later meeting on how the Planning Board is to interface with the Triangle Fixed Guideway Study. Collins responded that Mr. Ritchie will be presenting the study to the Commissioners in May and that may be an item that could be on the agenda for the joint meeting of the two Boards on May 31. Meeting adjourned 10:00 p.m. 78 DRAFT PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 4/18/94 AGENDA ITEM #11. MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING (5/23/94) a. Proposed Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments - Economic Districts Presentation by Marvin Collins. This item is to consider proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations as related to the Economic Development Districts. When the Board of Commissioners approved the Economic Development District proposals on March 2, changes or amendments to the Economic Development Districts proposals were discussed and continued to its March 15 meeting. The discussion focused on two major policy questions: 1. Location of Commercial, Commercial-Industrial, Economic Development, and similar non-residential activity nodes; and 2. Board of Commissioners review of economic development proposals. Proposed changes and questions to address are identified in the March 15 Commissioners' agenda abstract (a copy is an attachment to these minutes on pages ) . The Board of Commissioners approved the recommendation that the proposals be referred to the Planning Board for review with the understanding that: 1. The Planning Board's recommendation to the Commissioners will be made in time for the amendments to be heard at the May 23 quarterly public hearing; and 2. The Planning Board will consider a variety of approval options; i.e. , Staff, Planning Board, and Commissioners. At its March 21, 1994 meeting, the Planning Board referred proposed amendments to the adopted Economic Development Districts to the Ordinance Review Committee with instructions to provide a recommendation to the Planning Board by its April 18 meeting. The proposals are those suggested by Commissioners Gordon and Insko, and included in the Commissioners' March 15 agenda abstract. Zq Proposed amendments were provided to the Ordinance Review Committee for review/discussion on March 29, 1994. Subsequent to that meeting, the report of the Ordinance Review Committee was presented to the Planning Board at its April 12 meeting. Since the April 12 Planning Board meeting, the proposals have been drafted in standard "amendment" format. Sections of the Land Use Element and/or Zoning Ordinance which were not proposed for change have been eliminated as have amendments related to the proposed I-40/Old NC 86 District. The Commissioners are to establish a process to address concerns related to that proposal. The Planning Staff recommends that the proposals of the Ordinance Review Committee be recommended to the Board of Commissioners for presentation at the quarterly public hearing on May 23, 1994. Collins distributed information to the Planning Board on a list of questions presented to him by Board member Brown. (That information is an attachment to these minutes on pages . ) Collins also reviewed the changes/options requested by Commissioner Gordon and those proposed by the Ordinance Review Committee. (That information is also an attachment to these minutes on pages . ) MOTION: Jobsis moved that the recommendations of the Ordinance Review Committee be presented for public hearing on May 23, 1994. Seconded by Barrows. VOTE: 8 in favor. 1 opposed (Brown - would like to see all of the options presented at public hearing for the specific reasons that Commissioners Gordon and Insko pointed out that this is a significant change in policy. She noted she would also like the recommendations for the cost benefit analysis, water and sewer and transportation criteria be included. b. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment ( 1) Article 20.6 - Public Hearing Notice Presentation by Mary Willis. Willis noted that this amendment will allow for mass mailings to be advertised in the newspapers with a map as opposed to large mailings of individual notices. This does reflect the State legislation. So a • 8 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 20.6 PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE THEREOF ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _x_ Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X High Middle Low Comment: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 23, 1994 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To amend notification requirements for amendments to the Zoning Atlas. IMPACTS/ISSUES: Effective January 1, 1994, the North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 153A-342) allow for certain rezoning actions to be advertised through enhanced newspaper advertisement instead of notification by mail to all affected property owners. The Zoning Ordinance currently requires that the owners of all property proposed for rezoning, and the owners of property within 500 ' of the area of the rezoning, be notified of the public hearing by first class mail. In addition, the notice of the public hearing is published in a twice in a local newspaper during the period 10 to 25 days before the public hearing. The proposed amendment specifies situations in which notification by mail of individual property owners is not required These situations involve: - the rezoning of 640 acres or more; - the rezoning of fifty or more parcels; - amendment to the zoning text; and/or - adoption of a watershed protection program . The proposed amendment would allow for rezonings which met one or more of these criteria to be advertised in a local newspaper for four consecutive weeks. The advertisement would include a map of the proposed rezoning. The minimum size of the advertisement would be 1/2 of a newspaper page. 82_ Zoning text or map changes which involve a particularly large area (such as the recent watershed protection amendments and zoning of Little River and Cedar Grove Townships) could be advertised at less cost for materials and staff time through newspaper ads. Although the publication costs would be greater, other costs, such as postage, copying, preparing and stuffing envelopes, and sorting by zip code, would be greatly reduced. The larger size of the newspaper advertisement, the inclusion of a map as well as text, and the increased frequency of publication should result in an equivalent public exposure of the proposal. The proposed amendment provides the option to utilize newspaper advertisements in lieu of first-class mail, as provided in G.S. 153A- 343. EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: 20.6 PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE THEREOF 20.6.1 A public hearing shall be held by the Board of County Commissioners before adoption of any proposed amendment to this ordinance. Notice of the public hearing shall be given by publishing said notice at least twice in a newspaper of general circulation in the County, stating the time and place of such hearing and the substance of the proposed amendment. This notice shall appear in said newspaper for two successive weeks with the first notice appearing not less than ten ( 10) days nor more than twenty- five (25) days before the date set for the public hearing. In computing the notice period, the day of publication is not to be included, but the day of the hearing is to be included. 20.6.2 Except as provided in Article 20.6.4 of this Ordinance, the Zoning Officer in the case of amendments to the zoning atlas shall post on the applicant' s affected property a notice of the public hearing at least ten days prior to the date of said hearing. 20.6.3 Except as provided in Article 20.6.4 of this Ordinance, in the case of amendments to the Zoning Atlas, written notice shall be sent by certified mail to the affected property owner and all adjacent property owners not less than fifteen days before the hearing date. Adjacent property owners are those whose names and addresses are currently listed in the Orange County tax records and whose property lies within five hundred feet of the affected property. f 83 If amendments to the Zoning Atlas are proposed by the County, notice shall be sent by first class mail to all affected property owners and to all adjacent property owners within 500 feet as provided above. The Zoning Officer shall certify the mailing of all such notices to the Board of County Commissioners. 20.6.4 Notification of affected property owners by mail as required in Article 20.6.3 of this Ordinance is not required in the following situations: (11,) The proposed rezoning involves an area of 640 acres or more contained in 10 or more separate tracts in separate ownership EXCEPT where the rezoning involves zoning of parcels of land to less intense or more restrictive uses; or LL The rezoning directly affects more than 50 Properties, owned by a total of at least 50 different property owners; or .0 The reclassification is an amendment to the zoning text; or (4 ) The proposal involves adoption of a water supply watershed protection program as required by G.S. 143-214.5. Where this subsection eliminates the notification of property owners as required in Article 20.6.3, the proposed rezoning shall be advertised once a week for four successive calendar weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the area of the rezoning The advertisement shall include a map showing the boundaries of the affected area The map shall be at least one-half of a newspaper page in size. Property owners who, according to the address shown on the most recent property tax listing, reside outside of the county' s Jurisdiction or outside of the circulation area for the newspaper shall be notified by mail pursuant to Article 20.6.3 above. The Zoning Officer shall certify the mailing of all such notices to the Board of County Commissioners. In addition to the published notice, one or more Prominent signs shall be posted immediately adjacent to the sublect area reasonably calculated to give public notice of the proposed rezoning ********************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: January 19, 1994 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: 1136! i , 11, •1 ii. H II 415;)A 335 199:$ClINIULATIVE SUPI'l EMENT 153A-343 §153A-343 COUNTIES §153A-343 (b) The first class mail notice required under subsection (a) of 153A-335. "Sul division" defilled. this section shall not be, required in the following situations: (1) The total rezoning of all property within the boundaries of rs Pamiuslank 1',sitsylvaniu should be .11l,ken from a county or a zoning area as defined in G.S. 153A-342 1!1!,:1, T...."Ykiuo. 1991 file 1-11. —1kiloe unless rezoning involves zoning of parcels of land to less (14"g , 972. s 1 195. intense or more restrictive uses. If rezoning involves zork- fly voluk,.,I ,.,I it ws 1991 Ills ct a 1,l.olLulo should he stricken from the 10921 , 9"t col.v I... ........ valurae ing of parcels of land to less intense or more restrictive V.— l9ig, :149 for uses,notification to owners of these parcels shall be made by mail in accordance with subsection (a) of this section; (2) The zoning is an initial zoning of the entire zoning jurisdic- Part 3. Zoning. lion area; (3) The zoning reclassification action directly affects more than § 153A-3-110. Grant of power. 50 properties,owned by a total ofat least 50 different prop- erty owners; CASE NOTES (4) The reclassification is an amendment to the zoning text;or (5) The county is adopting a water supply watershed protection program as required by C.S. 143-214 5. In any case where this subsection eliminates the notice required by F S pl. 09 (W)N C subsection(a)of this section,a county shall publish once a week for four successive calendar weeks in a newspaper having general cir- culation in the area maps showing the boundaries of the area af- § 153A-3-11. Purposes it, view. fected by the proposed ordinance or amendment.The map shall not be less than one-half of a newspaper page in size.The notice shall CASE NOTES out be effective for property owners who reside in the area ofgen- eral circulation of the newspaper which publishes the notice. Prop- Applied o, •-o-91-11, v T-11 of kerty owners who reside outside of the county's jurisdiction or out- , 1116 N C ,kpp 12J S E 2d 537 side of the newspaper circulation area, according to the address 4 n192, listed on the most recent property tax listing fur the affected prop- erty,shall be notified by mail pursuant to this section.The person 153A-3.12. I)isti-icts; zi.iiing less titan entire juris- or persons mailing the notices shall certify to the board of commis- sioners that fact,and the certificates shall be deemed conclusive in diction. the absence of fraud. In addition to the published notice,a county shall post one or more prominent signs immediately adjacent to the CASE NOTES subject area reasonably calculated to give public notice of the Vro- posed rezoning.(1973,c.822,a. 1; 1985,c.595,a. 1; 1987,c.807,a. Zooll.g mack Requirement 'flo. .1 the area being zoned slid a full text of 2; 1989 (1teg. Sess., 1990), c. 980, 9. 2; 1993, c. 469, s. 2.) aloe, ....I I...,.o.c like ­ooiy to like zoning indinkince....ked lice rquoed 1,for file.11(kie county Friji.-Ile v lbmt.lt Comity. 106 N C Lines]Modification.—Session Laws dinance for adoption of amendments to w Lon -niLd, 1993.c.271,a I(repealed effective Jan- the zoning ordinance The ordinance .1., Jq­I I.....io ouill'.1......I it.11 App 231,416 S E 2d 42 1.c.ri domed, I_a l.y o­Lusts,duly a loop 332 N U 147, 419 S E 2d 571 (1992) uary 1.1995 except for Forsyth and mu- may provide for different thucii oful,ph- nicipublies located therein by Session callibly based on the stage of the zoning Lows 1993,c 469,a 41st) classification action on file effective § 15IA-3-113. Method of procedure. Editor's N to. — date. I it I The 1)(lairkil of Collunissioners shall,in accordance wilh the pro- • Seationin La:a 1993, c 469. which "if the city or county is subject to a Zoning regn- amended this section,in as 5 and 6 pro- local act repealed by Section 3 of this visoijis of this A fault. piovide for the manner in which vi ea. act,the ordinance prevails over soine or Ltl olus and ovsi:,ict 1();Is and the boundaries of zoning districts shall See 5 lot Inuo act becornes effective all of lite local act if the ordinance so I, doctimovd, established, iiid culorced, and from little to time January 1, 1994,except flint as to any provides (it changed The procedures adopted pill-- city or county, if becuroeb effective at "Alli'llsis section does not apply to For. sitilill 14, section shall provide that whenever there is a zoning any lone between like dait lot ratification with County or counicil)aInied located 4 Lissifil'al lon adios involving it parcel of land, like owner of that of this act slid January 1, 1994 if the within that county pastel.11,lilud its Shown oil the County tax listing,and the owners of city or county.as approp,late.adopts an "Stu 6 Nl •loh act becomes effective ;III pilitt.l., of land abutting ilim parcel of land US Shown on the Ordinance placing it into effect at such January 1.1995 as to Forayih(:utility or (minly(ax 11"filig,shitil be mailed it notice ofthe proposed classill- earlier Jute Adliptionuftioubuidinance any municipality located within iba( MMM iA loll by first class loall lit the last addresses listed fill-such owliers in Subject to the plocedural require county,but it becomes ellective lil any .., the colloty tiix abstracts The person or persons mailing Stich ments of G S 160A:164 or (A S finke hetwee.n file date of ratification of rrnll '11.111 cel-lify to lice Board of Cute In lbsioners that fact, and 153A-323,as appoupriale,but nut to any this act still January 1, 1995 if the ulu- tie,illetl oiiclusivt!fit the absence of It aud. Pr0CedUlUl FetJollclilelit of the­ooig tir- iocipubly or Furby(h Cuunty,as applick- 98 99 Ak 4153A-344 199J CUNIULATIVP SU1111LEMENT 91153A-344 §163A-344.1 COUNTIES 4153A-353 adopt. Ali ord-nall— placing it Fr4nw.o. 1993., :1158,4 15,ad to Or § 153A-344.1. Vesting rights. "11",At d"i. A,bolgwu sag,• in o,hini..., by vsruw I S­k,loku ,it­,h I. olq­t 1.111.place I...V1133,C 469•a 3.Ill.local loothfi- CASE NOTES d"I.1—lone'nent. of G S 160A:161 or callous ior Al.xiintlel, Cabarlus. �.'S.,153A,323.ub aplooloruile,bill flat t�aljwbn. Iredell. Johnston. Militill. .. y lot­dutal r.l.mo,on-ul of the lJoudolph.Wake,and Yadkin should be Cited in Nello L 'Veer Co.v.Orange 6".doption of Atink,fal atticketo Iforn tile insin volume Section County, 810 F. Supp. 679 (M.D N.C. Ih..rdl 3(b)W, 469 provides that nothing A" 1992). ua air may pra.id,,for diffir.ni did—of like section affect* &toy .1.1.11,ability b.-d.0 the oa.g.of tile adoplod lmdo,r tit.unihod Ity of Say all "an.oll Classification on if.e cil.c repealed fly 6 3(3)prior to the elle.tive § 153A-348. Statute of limitations. 11- late J.1..1 , 469 lie ordinance prevails over ouluke Of Effect of Amendments. 455.S..look Laws of 1987. The 199:1"meodon.111,effedive Juno- CASE NOTES enjed by l'bilpter 271, Sarosum at y 1,1994,alkh"I file oluluasction I'l I do*- of I993, if the ordinance do pro- ignutiun. Ili oubaection, 40) substituted Stated in Nello L.Tear Co.v Orange ,glistratis"for"wintraclu;provided that County. 910 F. Supp. 679 JM.D.N.C. 1993.c 469.8 :flat, ,1' Illsa ornten,e does not apply In lite Case 1992). 1-live January 1.1991,retWall,Various of it total rezoning of all property wiffin, Ditto.Including tile following local 11-11 the boundalles of a county onto" the ji,uluan, to ilia A,.cllou gedsion. laws Fe—ning involves zolunif of pRICAN of Part 4. Building Inspection. 199:1,c 101,A.to Wilke. 1993,c 1.19, land to less Intense uwoi or down zoning .. to Stakes, 199A, c 156, as to Ili whit-it ca".11"li4icatloo to tiviliela of witiouga. 1993.c 267, as it) Davidson thookkat,parcels shall be-naide by mad in § 153A-353. Joint inspection department; other ar- t Odom, M3.c 271,a.to It—king- accordance with flua uection",and added rangements. 1993, c 296, a to No.b and Mulasecil-1- (III A county may enter into and carry out contracts with one or more CASE NOTES other counties or cities under which the parties agree to create and support a joint inspection department for enforcing those State and Cited to Fviuo-ll-v flarlovit('ounlY. county, 810 F Sapp 679 (M V NG local laws and local ordinances and regulations specified in the 118 NC App 2:14, 416 SEM 421 1992) agreement. The governing loodies of the contracting units may 1991t, N'tho 1, 1'... C. . Orange make any necessary appropriations for this purpose. In lieu of's joint 'no Lction department,a county may designate an inspector train anot ter county or from a city to serve 114 a Mem- i 153A-344. I'llinning agency; zoning plan; certifi- ber of the county inspection department, with the approval of the cali011 to board of Commissioners; rover inj body of the other county or city,or may contract with an mdivi(us who is#lot a city or county employee but who holds one of amendments. the nVicable certificates as provided in G.S. 163A.351.1 or G.S. 160A It.1. The inspector, if designated from another county or CASE NOTES city under this section,while exercising the duties of the position,is a county employee.The county shall have the same potential liabil- Ankendinent lichl Not Applicuble choling operation of a quarry on such ity,if any,for inspections conducted by an individual who is not an o Di-fend"niko. - whe'e the u......uld lutqWlty would not apply 10 defendants. employee of the county as it does for an individual who is an em. 11,,d(o_.as,,f_ubnce..lablisin,jos t!,u,lwell v Sloth. 101i NC App 187, ployee of the county. The individual with whom the county con. loalt- of low 111461 del,lidanis node 415 S I,2J 770.girl denied, 3:12 N G • tracts shall have errors and omissions and other insurance coverage .,ho.nlial xito-nobt t,m for the 146. 419 S E 2 51i9 119921 acceptable to the county. (1937,c. 67; 1941, c. 105; 1947, c. 719; aim of a quarry on the proloo-1 I y In'Joes Cited Ili F.i".1h,v Iforlwit County. 1951,c.651; 1959,c.940; 1963,c.639; 1965,c.371; 1967,c.495,a, con Ili g..1 faill.aid In rousuce upon 101i NC App 234, 416 SE2d 421 1; 1969,c.918;c. 1010,a.4;c. 1064,sit. 1,5;c. 1066,it. 1; 1973,c. lie sp•,ial title per nul previously 119921. No,110 I. 'I'eer ('a v Orange 822, 8. 1; 1993, c, 232, a. 1.) .unled by 1h, 7.,un.it nuanl, a later ('aunty, 810 t' Supp 679 IM 1)N C owndoo•ut by the Zoning li.ird Ink, 19921 Effect of Amendments.--The 1993 oniendinent,effective June 28.1993,re wrote the atiscand paragraph CID 1A 100 101 840 e7 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT t ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS f REFERENCE: ARTICLE IV-B-3-d-1 ROADS (Private Road ' Justification Criteria) i ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff X Planning Board BOCC _ Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X High Middle Low 1 Comment: r PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 23, 1994 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To include, as justification for a private road, the preservation of site features which preserve or enhance special or unique characteristics of the immediate area surrounding a proposed subdivision. t IMPACTS/ISSUES: On March 20, 1994, the Planning Board considered an appeal of the Planning Staff decision regarding a requirement for a ` private road in a Minor Subdivision. The r Planning Board acknowledged that maintaining a gravel road would be more in keeping with the unique characteristics of the property and the surrounding area than would a paved public road. A sketch of the subdivision is attached. A total of five lots are proposed to be created from two existing lots. The property currently contains four mobile homes. Two of the proposed lots each contain one mobile home, and one lot contains two mobile homes. If approved, the subdivision would allow the placement two additional residences. The property is located adjacent to a church and cemetery. The church owns t about 1/3 of the land underlying the existing private road easement. The church is opposed to the use of a public road because it would provide unlimited public access to the cemetery, where problems with unauthorized access by youths has occurred in the past. t 88 The existing road continues beyond the proposed subdivision and beyond the cemetery to serve six additional lots. Because surrounding property has been developed, the existing road will not be extended. The six lots range in size from 1.3 to 1.95 acres, none of which could be further subdivided and meet minimum lot size requirements outside of the right-of-way. Foxfire Lane could not be constructed as a public road beyond the subject property due to its sharp curvature around the existing cemetery. However, the private road justification criteria of the Subdivision Regulations did not include any criteria which would allow these characteristics to be taken into account. As a result, the Planning Board upheld the Staff decision requiring dedication of a public road. If the applicant wishes to continue to pursue subdivision approval, the subdivision will be presented to the Board of Commissioners through the Major Subdivision approval process. The Planning Board requested that the Ordinance Review Committee consider an amendment which would allow for specific characteristics of the neighborhood to be taken into account in determining whether a subdivision road will be public or private. The amendment is not proposed solely to address the subdivision discussed above. The subdivision does, however, provide an example of a situation which the Staff and Planning Board believes is not, but should be, addressed in the existing private road justification criteria, The Planning Staff and the Ordinance Review Committee discussed the proposed amendment on April 6, 1994. 1 1 cTAME6 L. bLALOCK AC,- 5. qq ti AC- was I.# 4c.,r4j. 1 1 � IVwMH AtZCq I NnjcdrED AP 45k j)o� 90 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: IV-s-3-d-1. Roads - Public roads are generally required in all subdivisions and will be required where it is found that: 1. The subdivision roads would be accepted by the State for maintenance . . . . ; or i 2 . The subdivision roads extend existing roads which are public; or 3. The subdivision roads are part of a development which is located in an area designated as Urban or Transition on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; or 4 . A proposed road is designated as an arterial or collector on an approved Thoroughfare Plan for a municipality or in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan; or 5. The subdivision roads are part of a non- residential development . . . . . However, private roads may be allowed in a subdivision where, in the judgment of the Planning Board and with the approval of the Board of County Commissioners, it is found that the nature and location of the subdivision with respect to other development and the Comprehensive Plan are such that a private road is justified. In determining whether to permit private roads in subdivisions, the following design features will be considered: 1. The location and design of the subdivision is such that it clearly preserves the rural character of the County through: a. The provision of lot sizes and building setback lines significantly greater than required by ordinance provisions. . . . . . Compliance with this standard is assured; and/or b. The retention and/or provision of landscaping and use of clustering of dwelling units to screen the view of the subdivision from public roads, maintain a wooded or forested character, maintain scenic views, or preserve wildlife, botanical, historic, archaeological 4i and/or recreation sites; and/or C. The preservation of site features which directly enhance the special or unique cultural. historical, archaeological or biological characteristics of the immediate area. 2. The number, location and/or size of lots to be located in the subdivision are such that, even if constructed to State standards, the streets would not be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or other State requirements. 3. Recreation and/or open space areas, including lands containing significant botanical, wildlife, historic and/or archaeological sites, are to be dedicated and/or preserved through restrictive covenants in amounts significantly greater than required by standards for recreation/open space dedication. 4. Significantly larger than required stream buffers and lot sizes, and/or other design features are proposed as part of a subdivision to be located in a Protected Watershed as designated on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to reduce the amount of impervious surface and cause infiltration of storm water runoff to prevent the pollution of water supply reservoirs. 5. Topographic and environmental features, such as streams, steep slopes, or watersheds, that would be adversely affected by the use of roads constructed to State standards because of factors such as significant amounts of earthwork (cut and fill) that would contribute to increased run-off of stormwater and siltation. 6. The site is already developed to 100% of the capacity which could be achieved after approval of the subdivision and some or all of the non-conforming aspects of existing development on the site will be made more conforming as a result of the proposed subdivision, and all conforming aspects of the development will remain conforming. 7 . There is only one subdivision road proposed. Its length does not exceed 350 ' , it serves no more than five (5) lots, its grade does not 92- exceed 9%, and the land being subdivided is not connected to or part of another subdivision required to be served by public roads. In addition, the average lot size within the subdivision is at least 40,000 square feet. ********************************** ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: April 6, 1994 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: �3 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS r REFERENCE: SECTION II - DEFINITIONS SECTION III - APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: _x_ Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: High _x,! Middle Low Comment: ► EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 23, 1994 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To allow subdivisions of five or fewer lots to be approved through the minor subdivision process if public road dedication or improvement is required. IMPACTS/ISSUES: In some cases, private road justification criteria are not met in a subdivision of five ' or fewer lots that would otherwise be eligible for the Minor Subdivision review process. Any subdivision which includes a proposed public road must be processed as a Major Subdivision, regardless of the number of lots, so that the Board of Commissioners can accept the dedication of the road right- of-way on behalf of the public. The proposed amendment would allow for the subdivision approval to remain administrative through the Minor Subdivision process, even if public road dedication were required. After approval of the subdivision, the offer of right-of-way dedication would be presented to the Board of Commissioners for acceptance, as an administrative matter. EXISTING & PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: SUBDIVISION, MINOR - A division of a tract of land that does not: ( 1) Create more than five (5) lots, including the residual acreage, from any one ( 1) tract of land in any twenty-four (24) month period; widening existing L (3 2 ) Extend public water and/or sanitary sewerage systems other than laterals to serve individual lots; (4 3) Necessitate the installation of drainage improvements which would require easements through one ( 1) or more lots to serve other lots; and (5) At the option of the applicant, involve vesting of the subdivision for a period greater than one year. III. APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES 4 i. III-A. General Provisions III-B. Classification of Subdivisions All subdivisions shall be considered major subdivisions except those defined as minor subdivisions in this Section. w A "minor subdivision" is defined as the division of a tract of land that does not: ( 1) Create more than five (5) lots, including the residual acreage, from any one ( 1) tract of land in any twenty-four (24) month period. (3 2) Extend public water and/or sanitary sewerage systems other than laterals to serve individual lots; and (4 3) Necessitate the installation of drainage improvements which would require easements through one ( 1) or more lots to serve other lots. III-C-3. Review and Approval Procedures Upon acceptance of a minor subdivision application, the Planning Department shall determine if the plat and application conform with all applicable regulations, including any applicable conditions of an approved Special Use Permit. Auxiliary documents as required by Section III- C-2 above shall be submitted by the Planning Department to the County Attorney for his/her review and recommendation. After receiving a complete Final Plat, the Planning Department may submit copies of the Final Plat and accompanying material to the officials and agencies listed q5 in Section III-D-2-b for their review and comment. The officers or agencies to which the plan is submitted shall provide a certification to the Planning Department as to the suitability, provisional suitability, or unsuitability of the proposal. Recommendations of the review officers or agencies may be incorporated as conditions of approval of the subdivision. The Planning Department shall take action on an application solely on its findings as to compliance with applicable regulations and conditions and shall: (a) Approve the application; (b) Approve the application subject to conditions; or (c) Deny the application. The Planning Department shall notify the applicant of its action, including any conditions attached thereto, within forty-five (45) days following acceptance of the application, or within such further time consented to by written notice from the applicant. If the Planning + Department fails to render a decision within the specified time period, or extensions thereof, the application is approved as submitted. III-C-4. Action Subsequent to Approval The Planning Director or his/her designated representative shall endorse approval on a reproducible mylar original of the Final Plat if the Planning Department approves an application either with or without conditions. If the subdivision requires or includes the dedication of right-of-way for a public road then the offer of dedication shall be presented to and accepted by the Board of Commissioners and a Certificate of Dedication (as required by Section V-D-6-b of this Ordinance) shall be endorsed by the County Manager prior to endorsement of the Final Plat by the Planning Director. • ,t,t**,t,t*,t*******,t*t,tt******,t,t,r*,t*,t ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: April 6, 1994 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: s �� . a 97 PROPOSED ORDINANCE/PLAN AMENDMENT ORDINANCK/PL": Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Regulations REFERANCE; OSD - Open Space Development Zoning District See "Existing/Proposed Ordinance/Plan Revisions"below. ORIGIN OFAAWIDUM .• X Staff' Planning Board BOCC Citizen Other: STAFF PRIORMYREWAaC9NDATION.• X High Middle Low E"BC7TD PUBLIC REAM NG DATK May 23, 1994 PURPOSE OFAMENDMSNI% The proposed amendment adds language to the beat of the Zoning Ordinance to create a new zoning district entitled "OSD - Open Space Development". The proposal includes dimensional requirements, permitted uses, and development standards applicable within the new district. 1111PACTSIISSUER- Proposed amendments to the beat of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan are being presented at public hearing on May 5, 1994. The amendments seek to create a new"Open Space Development Area" land use plan category and are based on the following: 1. The provisions of the Hillsborough Cooperative Planning Agreement; 2. The work of the University Station Planning Group, and 3. On similar amendments presented at public hearing in 1992. On the same date, consideration will be given to applying the new classification to the University Station property. If the amendments are approved, the developers of the project could apply for rezoning and planned development approval.However, staff has identified the lock of specific standards in the Zoning Ordinance through which to implement the intent of the Open Space Development Area land use category. The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance seek to correct this problem. EXISTING OWEVANCE/PI.AN REVISIONS:No changes to the existing text are proposed. PROPOSED ORMNANCK/PLAN RSVISIONS: 1. Amend Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance by adding a new Article 4.2.6-Open Space Development (OSD)District to read as follows: 4.2.6 Open Space Development (OSD) District a) Intent The intent of the Open Space Development (OSD)District is to provide locations for low-intensity residential development and supporting recreational,community 98 service,educational,and small-scale commercial uses.The primary purpose of the district is to provide an alternative to conventional subdivisions in rural areas. Such clustered development is intended to better harmonize rural development with designated Urban or Transition areas in the Comprehensive Plan through the conservation of agricultural and forest land, and historic and natural area b) Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: 1. The site is within an area designated as Open Space Development Area by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 2. Water and sewer service is available to the site or is to be provided as part of the development process or the lot size for individual uses is appropriate for the method of water supply and sewage disposal. 3. Vehicular access must consist of direct access to a street or streets designated as either arterial or collector by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Access to transit corridors is desirable but not required. 2. Amend Article 4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance - Permitted Use Table to add the Open Space Development (OSD)District and include the following list of permitted uses within that zoning district: Day Care Facility By Right Dwelling, Single-Family By Right Dwelling, Two-Family By Right Dwelling, Multiple Family By Right Family Care Home By Right Group Care Facility Class B Special Use Residential Hotel Class A Special Use Botanical Gardens &Arboretums By Right Church By Right Community Center Class B Special Use Governmental Protective Services By Right (Police& Fire Stations, Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments) Parks, Public &Non-Profit By Right Schools, Elementary, Middle, By Right & Secondary Traasmiss. Lines Class B Special Use Governmental Facilities & Office By Right Buildings Water & Sanitary Sewer Pumping By Right Stations Clubs or Lodges; Social; Fraternal By Right Clubhouses Riding Stables Class B Special Use Recreational Facilities (Non-Profit) By Right Recreational Facilities (Profit/Non-Profit): By Right Golf Club & Country Club Historic Structures: Non-Residential/Mixed Use Class A Special Use A q 9' Non-residential uses may be permitted as part of an open space development but only in &=rdance with the provisions of Article 7 - Planned Developments. 3. Amend Article 5.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance - Establishment of Dimensional Requirements (Schedule forResidential Development,Single and Two-Family,Multi-Family,Residential Hotels, Rooming Houses, Etc.) by adding the Open Space Development (OSD) ,zoning district and providing the following notation in the OSD row. Refer to Article 6.30 - Development Standards for Open Space Development (OSD) Districts. 4. Amend Article 6 by adding a new Article 6.30 - Development Standards for Open Space Development(OSD)Districts to read as follows. 6.30 Development Standards for Open Space Development (OSD) Districts All open space residential development with density greater than one unit per two acres shall be required to set aside and preserve significant amounts of open space in accordance with the development standards specified herein. 6.30.1 Percentage of Open Space The minimum percentage of land that shall be designated as permanent open space, protected by donation to or through a conservation easement held by Orange County, a recognized land trust or conservancy, or by a homeowners association, shall be as specified below: Based on the work of the University Station Planning Group, a range of options is provided.) a-1. A minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the total tract area shall be designated as common open space. (This option is based on the resolution adopted by Town of Hillsborough.) a-2. A minimum of thirty percent(30%)of the total tract area,after deducting "Primary Conservation Areas" as defined below, and land required for street, railroad, powerline, and similar rights-of-way, shall be designated as common open space. (This option is based on the resolution adopted by Orange County.) b. All common open space shall be restricted from further subdivision through a permanent conservation easement or restrictive covenants in a form acceptable to Orange County and duly recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds Office. 6.30.2 Location of Open Space The location of open space conserved through cluster development shall be consistent with the following guidelines: a. Open space shall be comprised of two types of land. "Primary lop Conservation Areas" and "Secondary Conservation Areas". The first category shall consist of wetlands, water bodies, 100 year floodplains and alluvial soils, and slopes greater than 25%. b-1. In addition to the Primary Conservation Areas, the remaining land necessary to comprise thirty percent (30%)of the total tract area shall be designated and permanently protected as Secondary Open Space. (This option is based on the resolution adopted by Town of Hillsborough.) b-2. In addition to the Primary Conservation Areas and land required for street,railroad,powerline,and similar rights-of-way,thirty percent(30%) of the remaining land shall be designated and permanently protected as Secondary Open Space. (This option is based on the resolution adopted by Orange County.) C. Secondary Open Space may include farmland, natural areas and wildlife habitats,wildlife corridors,mature woodlands,historic and archaeological sites, recreation uses such as parks, community commons or greens, play fields,and golf courses,landscape buffers, and scenic views or viewsheds. In the case of recreational uses,no more than fifty percent (50%) of such use(s) may be counted toward satisfying the Secondary Open Space requh�ements. 6.30.3 Density Standards a-1. Open space developments that preserve at least thirty percent (30%) of the total tract area in common open space may be developed at a density of not more than two units per gross acre. (This option is based on the resolution adopted by Town of Hillsborough.) a-2. Open space developments may be developed at a density of not more than two units per buildable acre. "Buildable acreage" is the amount of land remaining after deducting Primary Conservation Areas and land required for street, railroad, powerline, and similar rights-of-way from the total tract area (This option is based on the resolution adopted by Orange County.) 6.30.4 Dimensional Requirements Within open space developments,the following dimensional standards shall apply: Minimum lot size: 10,000 square feet Minimum lot width: 75 feet Minimum front and rear yards: 25 feet .4 (O� Minimum side yards: 10 feet Maximum building height: 25 feet Minimum distance between building 400 feet areas of cluster lots facing across a village common or green: These dimensional requirements may be reduced but only through approval of an open space development in accordance with the provisions of Article 7-Planned Developments. 6.30.5 Utility Requirements Open space developments may be served either by: a. Individual wells and septic tanks on each lot; or b. A community water and/or sewage disposal system designed,constructed, and maintained in conformity with all applicable state, federal, and local rules and regulations; or C. Connection to a water and/or sewage disposal system operated by a municipality,association,or water or sewer authority. System extensions shall be sized only to serve the open space development(s) for which the system(s) are extended. 5. Amend Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance by revising Article 72.1 to include the PD-H-OSD Planned Development-Housing-Open Space Development District as a permitted Planned Development District as follows. 7.2.1 Establishment of the Planned Development Districts Planned Development districts that correspond to the following districts authorized in Article 4 are hereby cited: R-13 -PD-H- R-13 R-8 -PD-H-R-8 R-5 -PD-H - R-5 R-4 -PD-H -R-4 R-2 -PD-H - R-2 R-1 -PD-H - R-1 RB -PD-H- RB OSD -PD-H - OSD LC-1 -PD-C - LC-1 NC-2 -PD-C - NC-2 CC-3 -PD-C - CC-3 GC-4 -PD-C - GC-4 01.1 -PD - 0I-1 I-1 -PD - I.1 I-2 -PD - I-2 I-3 -PD - I-3 ED -PD - ED PW-I -PD - PW-I t o 2- PD - MU PD -R PD - MB P 6. Amend Article 22-Definitions -of the Zoning Ordinance by adding a definition of"Open Space Development Area"to read as follows: Open Space Development Area - Land adjacent to Urban or Transition area which are generally non-urban in character and which will remain as such. Land in this category will generally contain low-density residential uses (e.g., no more than two units per acre) which may be served by individual wells and septic tanks or by public water and sewer. Public water and sewer would be an option available to large-scale developments, or a combination of small developments.All open space residential development with density greater than one unit per two acres would be required to set aside and preserve significant amounts of open space (e.g.,at least 30 percent of the total project acreage or,another option under consideration,at least 30 percent of the developable area of the project after certain undevelopable open space areas such as wetlands and steep slopes are excluded). 7. Amend Section N-B of the Subdivision Regulations by adding a new Section 1V-B-12,Open Space Development, to read as follows. IV-B-12. OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT All subdivisions located in an OSD-Open Space Development zoning district shall conform to each and all of the requirements of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance applicable to that district. v/�p D••iii+YiFt+YtMttitiittiiiiiititfityiiiiiiiiiiiiiittitiiiiiiitiiiiti OD DD INANCS RKIMWCVJEN11 l K REItd . PLANNING BOARD RKVL&W. BOCC REVS