Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-08-1994-IX-A +r 1 ORANGECOUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date:August 8. 1994 Agenda Abstract Item # sx_a SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT LOCATIONAL CRITERIA DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: May 23, 1994 Public Hearing Minutes Planning Director X2592 Proposed Text Amendments Excerpts - BOCC 3/15/94 Agenda Material PHONE NUMBERS: Draft 7/18/94 Planning Board Minutes Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 Durham 688-7331 Chapel Hill 967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance regarding locational criteria applicable to Economic Development Districts. The proposed amendments were presented at public hearing on May 23, 1994. BACKGROUND: When the Board of Commissioners approved the Economic Development District proposals on March 2,changes or amendments to the proposals were discussed and continued to its March 15 meeting. One major policy question discussed was the locational criteria of Commercial, Commercial-Industrial, Economic Development, and similar non-residential activity nodes. The Board of Commissioners approved a recommendation that proposals suggested by Commissioners Gordon and Insko be referred to the Planning Board for review with the understanding that 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. 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 Planning Board's report was presented to the Board of Commissioners at its May 2, 1994 meeting. The proposals related to clarification of the"Locational"or"Application" Criteria contained in the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance, respectively, are presented as an attachment, including the recommendations of the Ordinance Review Committee and Commissioner Gordon. At the public hearing, no citizens spoke concerning either the amendments proposed by the Ordinance Review Committee or by Commissioner Gordon. s 2 w The Planning Board considers the proposed amendments at its July 18, 1994 meeting and voted 9-1 to recommend approval of the amendments as recommended by the Ordinance Review Committee. Draft Planning Board minutes are provided as an attachment. RECOBEMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the proposed amendments per the Planning Board recommendation. 3 Commissioners no sooner than August 8, 1994. VOTE: UNANIMOUS IL RKMMM3=8 RELATED TO ECONOXXC DVILOPKENT DISTRICT a. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments (1) Section 3.4 - Locational Criteria (Economic Development Activity Nodes) b. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (2) Article 4.2.19 - District Statements of Intent and Application Criteria Marvin Collins presented for public comments additional criteria by which to evaluate the location of Economic Development Activity Nodes (Transition) . Page 31 of the agenda list the proposal by Commissioner Gordon and the recommendation of the Ordinance Review Committee. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR THE PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Gordon noted that she felt these economic development nodes should be located in areas which could be served with, water and sewer and not in areas which are not provided these services. She would like for the economic nodes to have the same criteria as industrial or commercial nodes. THERE WERE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS. MOTION A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Insko to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 8, 1994. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4-t. DAMS RELRTED TO OPEN SPACE/DEVELOP MT AREA PROPOSALS a. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (1) Section 4.1 - Overview of Implementation Strategies (Land Use Element Categories/Zoning District Matrix (Open Space Development Zoning District) ] b. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments (1) Article 4.2.6 Open Space Development (OSD) District (2) Article 4.3 Permitted Use Table (Open Space Development District) (3) Article 5.1.1 - Dimensional Requirements for Residential Development (Open Space Development District) (4) Article 6.30 - Development Standards for Open Space Development (OSD) Districts (5) Article 22 - Definitions (Open Space Development Area) c. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments (1) Section IV-B-12 Open Space Developments 4 PROPOSED ORDINANCE/PLAN AMENDMENT ORDINANCE/PLAN.• Land Use Element - Comprehensive Plan Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE.- See "Existing/Proposed Ordinance/Plan Revisions" below. ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT Staff Planning Board X_BOCC Citizen Other. STAFF PRIORITYRECOJEWENDATION. X High Middle Low EXPECTED PUBLIC BTARJWG DATE.•May 23, 1994 PURPOSE.• To consider amending the adopted Economic Development District proposals to reflect proposals recommended by members of the Board of Commissioners. IMPACTSQSSUES: 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 a recommendation that proposals suggested by Commissioners Gordon and Insko 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. 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 on the following pages, including all options considered by the Ordinance Review Committee. 5 EXISTING/PROPOSED ORDINANCE/PLAN REVISIONS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS 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 TEXT AMENDMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS 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 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 major arterial highways. They are subject to special design criteria and performance standards used to minimise 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 -RECOMMENDED BY ORD12VANCE REVIEW C0MW77EE 4. Urban services, such as water and sewer mains,are desirable, but not required if acceptable alternatives are available. OPTION#2-CONCEPT SUGGESTED BY COMMISSIONER GORDON 4. Urban services, such as water and sewer mains, are available or could be extended to serve the district. The wording in Option#1 was not added as part 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. 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. Locational Commissioner Gordon Ordinance Review Committee Recommendation Criteria Proposal Located on land with slopes of less than 15% grade. Where Land Slope Located on land with slopes of less than 15% slope. 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 areas and Hydrology Located outside of areas where 100-year flood-prone areas wetlands are present. Where flood-prone areas and wetlands and wetlands are present. 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 GOVERNMENT. 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. Existing Land Located in designated Ten or Twenty-Year Transition Areas. Use Ia' 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. Locational Commissioner Gordon Ordinance Review Committee Recommendation Criteria Proposal 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. V c 8 AffNOTATEa PAGPS PROM MM MARCH 1. 19Q4 BOARD OF COMKISSIONM AGENDA PACZ=. PAGFS T MOM 16 FOLLMW BY PAGE 5 CAO-RI eS 0 dA0161PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN TM AMENDMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH �i1 �•'�•�"'*� " ESTABLLSHbMNT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS K, L Amend Section 3.3 - Land Use Plan Categories by changing the sable of basic and detailed land use categories to read as follows: i ASTC r.=Br ORANGE COUNT'LAND VSZ pLM CtTEGn�rn�c DEVELOPED Urban Esisdng Urban Activity Node Proposed Urban Activity Node TRANSITION I0-Year Transidon 20-Year Transition Commsrdal Trmuitiat Aedvt-*X4 e Commermal-Indvssnal Trana ian Activity Node Zaomwdc Daniopnimt tTr+�cdaa) Aedvdty Node COMfUMM Rund Community Activity Node RURAL Rurat Buhr Rural Residential Agriaultural-Resid and al Rural Neighborhood Acdvity Node Rural Indussrial Acd&djy Node Agricultural Areas CONSERVATION Public Interest Area Water Supply Wa vhed Way Quality Cnbcd Area Rssou+=PnMemion Ana Near Hope Creel►Caridor Opert Span In addIdoo. amaod the labia of Lend Use Pian Category DesQfpd= to include a new category mdtM Tkon=io Dardopiment Activity Node' to read ss fa0awc Land in Transidon areas of the County which has bit�'Ord/br eaorsantie development acdvity Wasisdng of light induveria4 distribvnon, sPa« (75pie047 one-29a7' bulbs design*4 consvwted, and rnatrhetad as a tablt for an m offiw but able to areommodasr odw.. &g.,cumT iou",showroom, "uMWa=nM asaanbly or similar oPsrmions.). Such areas are located adjawa to interstwe and major arterial lughwdD% and subjaet to special dmgn aiMn4 and paforma=standards. 2. Amend Saction 3.4 - I.oestiooal Criteria by adding criteria by which to evaluate the location of G#50a&5 Eaaom"a Asti ity Nodes t'I?aasitionj. PLAIN cAT=RY•WONOWC DEVEIAPuENT ACTTVZTi'NODES / 17RAA1=ON AREA.SI dye• Land are as o :th 56 1 are h site /) �.•�/'t av 9 O wj T� Located outside of areas where 100;rearMood prone areas and wetlands are presen--:Firm C#ANGC .: Loo 'n areas hen detri tal Bevel ent im on I Stan �. �sC fide Ikno d uniq don en ponies, dli tats cmd an be r: s: n and truction CM Cpillill'diCi.. ated wh soi itio us t r dereiopinem-beams d T� of al stie d load cap de p�eent. in lurk eauld asonab d e11'ecac �y ties. oeated as w h s and '1* * s are present or d,g must s 'table -sits w s stems. �r�rfCJ"ra. Locand in areas adjacent to intsrstae•and major arterial high"ays, particularly those with the potential for providing occess to public ov sit facilities. Am= Usr Located within 10 minutes commuting tine front an Urban: area and designed so ,Acs business uses provided within developments limit the number of short distance commutes for goods and service• in ciesignand 7171 ZV72 w Located areas re develop uld have emmert, r import r�Cd uses ar:ags and or n the sang C� ` 1 can Si and cans pr does. �` where im !Deal. St e.I of ublic v�t fee r/4. Insr doss can be d through sue cons practices. Amend Sectim 3.3•Lsmd Use Gods and Dreg Parries, God ft to iadnde the following: •Tht'foliaeoing Foasormie Development (Trantsiskut) Activity Nodes have been designated: j •I-MISuckhorm (CH-3k and 1451US 70(ENO-2). And sevia tips foBowing (wm,,ftg to be deleted shown in new wording shown L1 �'tll,�A�G£ J< boiillior. ' 1Y4:.r.,SSAAY 6.7 JU foamuing ova in tft County are identified as appropriate for industrial uses and have T 4o bets dsssgr:attd as Conmmereia1-Intdustria!Nodes:strand Center(CK•1J ldiles North(CK•2); l vCoGAw Miles South (Ca.3k&w QWQ- lr and Harmon Young M-4 ,4 govE �Q�IJ%SJONS U ne Awng Ru Neighborhood Activity Nodes have ban designated:Toler's Store(CC Villine's Store 2R-3); Walnut Greve (CG-5); Underwood': More (LR•3) Fair{eld (CK-4); Coleman Loop(M-1);Law's Son(WO-U Adam and Eve(BH•1); Oak Grove(BR-3), and Calvander F"a Q and Blackwood Station 4a;3 as part of the Orange Caunrfd -[,arrbor�Jam PlamsiV Area hand Use Plans io P••t •f t o r�n Eitc t A�. TRA•t t �n.•► fan q tTM go ac •tan :_� rALr&. Located avay trot 4itas teat WOUld, if developed, ctssts a threat to un or idaatifisd bt the stata or federal f fns as sail CM4 1ain . Located in artaa vtiara gsaaril soil conditions } era suitable tac. urban uses because Of good drainage c3:ataetaristica and load bearing capacity for site do, lopaent. is 5arvi��=�*_�*± +*±•�. Located is asyas vhich are or could be V reasanably mad effectively served br centralised public services and utilities. Z Focused an tha iIItarteetiC a of arterial S Z and/or collector highways and entandInia -5 miles bay+oed such a. ineerseclims or within one aile• of Ian interstste interebaage. �. Located vithiia loss ftaJ 10 aia4te inq time UL fs"oa as Urban area. ;.. 7 i� rise III. Located within i 4 tied Tau or Twenty Year ?sansitiaa areas. . Located av,iky from areas vs�re 2 devslopment would have a detrimental, impact on native J agriaaltaral rise and savaged forest j Lind. Located in areas vitas moderate to tiigh popnlatias dse+sities. . . V' • • Located away :ar'ias• vbe s development would have a 4spaet an or fed.rally acIm vledged hlstozin-cultural sites or Coon" identified Public .Interest areas. .. .. Y : �+�tt �.e.�ar.a.► �i+r '� Edehe...:� a��taaw'�' ���/�� ��1L Zf ii Cali � I�'li2iL M LI Iln* IN= ✓ t. Loaated an lard vith sIq of 1080 than let grads. Et& MMIm N Loma" oatai" of 100-ys flood IP I areas "I r! C�arpr w • �llarsr•imam sl�ama• Coasted away frame sitar that vould, if create a threat to =Lqm or gedan4rted species as /id atitisd b► th, state-cc federal Y . Located in areas wbam gserssl *oil conditions era suitable tat urban uses because of good drainage ebaraetaristies and load bearing capacity for sift development. obite sarvic..iat{tities. Located in areas vhic& are or aeald be reasonably and effectively seed by caa3trali:ed public services and utilities. focused an the ion of artarial p F d/or collector highmye and .S silos bay she am oar within me ails of an interstate and tbia 1000 fiat of rail lines. 11 t =4M 2M- Located within lass than a 2.0 aiasta oas■aztin,g t " D front an Qrbaa area. J • Located within idinrtilied Tan or Twent;y_year Transitias asp. 14 ' Located away froze areas mare develbrbe t would bave a detrimental impact on pr'oductivs Wi=1tural uses and wed forest land. Located in arses with aoda=at* to high popalatiou dowities. t/. teriC aid c3ii4 0 Located away M"M areas. vhers dsvelopsent would havr a detrimental impact as state or lsdarally acknowledged histaric-cultaral sites .or CD=M" idaatitied public Intasvt areas. Man • ,M .• Laeated an land with slopes of less tbm ls% grade. Rvd"Lmm. Located outside Of 100-tsar flood pram- areas as identified by tae Coups of Im4nsass. die ash 1'ayst. Loeeted away twos sits that wvald, if devoloprd, Create a tkest to"unigUO ae paQan"Wed species as idantifisd by the cute ae federal govermsent. •..• Located is arses teeasa gsnsral soil conditions are sultabls tee = cite oavgp disposal wjet�. •����� �a.. ♦Lt{a■. Leeatei is areas drat trill not rNMirs urban-tom ss�stioM. . loaned as the t an of arterial and/or collect= s miles beyond sn+rh an -- �r �••_ cos eeataetiat. . a... Leatias is" by a arose-road that serv%@ ar a !coal arm fee tie am a omading rural and tars p ar eeadaims thses or aver oaiseeial os institutional land. sere . Located at sites wiu" rural areas . that would not ably intrude the existing laadseaps csasactar. 3LUM. Located in asses which Mould sarve the surzovinding low-4maity rural and ag=iMltmsaal noqulatian, - gawrally 1000-$000 psemonsf ..� Imated away tsar areas iftwa dWmloPsat would hav+a a dstrimental impact an stets at ledeacally aciauovlid"A bistosic-,cultunl sites as' County iasa►tUi d lablic Interest areas. 12 PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH ESTASLISFXENT OF ECONOWC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS L Amend Article 4219 • District Statements of Intent and Application Criteria (Economic Development (W) -G District) by revising it to read as follows (wording to be deleted shown in spins-Qwwi ; new wording shown . ,ur4 in boldface): Economic Development(ED)District 0 A a. Intent nt PuPPOe of the F,aonomic Development(ED)District is to provide locations*a wide range of l+wiwsaeei�►li jht industrial,iw�.vwwai, disaR3�ar;11�s�o�'eea. and rrscath awialretail use: oatsfssry bedldinii da*jr. d. aonw�, and mmiatad ss ssda6k Flee n w h'Pieolly includes aoaaavmodaae odor user;e;,wmeAoaae. 1� sue as arJfess but able to =@ion*or amilar opondona. A-SPIM WON 2 -am Such meat have been ftVeaed for eeioaornie daxla xwu tad are located Gig m ia�e tad vae0or arfvial higl wW& Tfsey►we suk"W to specud desist cuwta and imfo st ufirdr used m minimise impacts beyond de ipaes aaevrpicd by die um b. Applicadm Cruaia This district will usually bit applied when the fvkwing con&dons aast 1. " AV M. OP deMeeftp-m"27se affs Wd is located a4acast to a Federal Inderstate Highway, or a mgjv areal meld, and 2 The sift dfwid is located oubide Of.the Chapel Hill - Cwrbory Rural Buffer area as dedp weed in the adopord Comprthsnsys Plaa. an A- 3. Me wee The silt dsatriet shall not be located uithin•Mw aidcal area of a designated water supply watershed UAM swias,such as wader and sewer mains, art desirable, but not required if acceptable ahvwadvts an available. irilliw�(et 2 Amend Article 4.3-Table of Permitted Uses by deleting the list of permitted uses and providing the following D K- notation in the ED row: Ref iw m Ardcfs 629-Daaclopamu Starsdards for Economic Dwdgwwa(ED)Disttiete. 3. Amend Article 3.12 - Establishment of Dimendcnal Requirements (Schedule for Non-Residential O.(�, Development) by deleting the existing standards and providing the following notation in the ED row: ROr la Article 6.29-Da ioprnost Stmsdo-do for Fwn mio Developers W(ED)Distrfct: 13 Draft 7-18-94 Planning Board Minutes AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (5/23/94) a. Economic Development District Locational Criteria Presentation by Marvin Collins. This item is to consider proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance regarding locational criteria applicable to Economic Development Districts. The proposed amendments were presented at public hearing on May 23, 1994 . When the Board of Commissioners approved the Economic Development District proposals on March 2, changes or amendments to the proposals were discussed and continued to its March 15 meeting. One major policy question discussed was the locational criteria of Commercial, Commercial-Industrial, Economic Development, and similar non-residential activity nodes. The Board of Commissioners approved a recommendation that proposals suggested by Commissioners Gordon and Insko be referred to the Planning Board for review with the understanding that 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. 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 recommendaiton 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 it's April 12 meeting. The Planning Board's report was presented to the Board of Commissioners at its May 2, 1994 meeting. The proposals related to clarification of the "Locational" or "Application" Criteria contained in the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance, along with the recommendations of the Ordinance Review Committee and Commissioner Gordon are 14 included as attachments to these minutes on pages . Collins noted that the Ordinance Review Committee had strengthened the language throughout the criteria by the use of the word 'must' instead of 'should' , and clarifying that the criteria 'are' to be met instead of leaving the impression that compliance is optional. At the public hearing, no citizens spoke concerning the proposed amendments. The Planning Staff prepared the analysis of the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments and presented them to the Ordinance Review Committee of the Planning Board. The proposals have been amended as recommended by that Committee, and the Planning Staff concurs with the changes as recommended. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the text amendments as proposed by the Ordinance Review Committee. Reid asked if Orange County has adopted standards for alternative systems. Collins responded that there are adopted standards for conventional as well as alternative systems. The Environmental Health Department would determine the size of the system required; e.g. , the size of the septic field, based on the projected wastewater flows by the proposed non-residential use. Barrows asked for clarification of the proposals regarding flora and fauna and agriculture and forestry. Collins responded that Commissioner Gordon had recommended that economic development be located away from such sites. The Ordinance Review Committee/Staff recommendation is first that development be located away from such sites; however, if sites are developed where such situations exist, they must be protected through proper site design and construction standards. Collins noted that 'clustering' uses was one way of accomplishing this. Brown asked how the district would be applied and where. Collins responded it has been applied in two places, I-85/Buckhorn Road and I-85/U.S. 70. The proposed district at I-40/Old N.C. 86 was under study by a Work Group. Brown continued, asking if it could be applied anywhere. Collins responded no. He stated that there were four locations recommended for such districts by the Target Area Advisory Group of the Economic Development Commission. He explained the process by which the four had been presented at public jS hearing and that only two districts had been adopted. He noted that existing districts could be expanded, but new districts would be based on a recommendation by the Economic Development Commission. MOTION: Jobsis moved approval of the text amendments as proposed by the Planning Staff and Ordinance Review Committee. Seconded by Reid. VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed (Brown - in favor of Commissioner Gordon's proposals rather than the ambiguousness of the Ordinance Review Committee's proposals. She felt Gordon's proposals are more in keeping with the environmental concerns. She also felt the districts should be -served by public water and sewer) .