Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 08-22-1994 - C-1 (a, b, c, d)
ORANGE COUNTY 005 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: August 22, 1994 Agenda Abstract Item # C 1 a.b,c,d SUBJECT,. AMENDMENTS RELATED TO I-85/U.S.70 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEPARTMENT. Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes X No ATTAC)E13IENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicinity Maps Planning Director X2592 Proposed Text Amendments Excerpts - BOCC 3/15/94 Agenda Material PHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 Durham 688-7331 Chapel Hill 967-9251 PURPOSE: To receive public comment on a series of amendments related to boundary adjustments in the I-85/U.S.70 Economic Development District, and various approval procedures applicable to such districts. BACKGROUND: Boundary Adjustments When the I-85/U.S.70 Economic Development District was approved on March 2, 1994, several properties were split by the Economic Development District boundaries on either the Land Use Plan or Zoning Atlas. During the public hearings concerning the district proposals, the owners requested that all of their property be included in the Economic Development District category. CP-4-94 I-851U.S.70 Economic Development District Adjustments proposed to move the Land Use Plan designation boundaries to property lines are as follows: Current Proposed Township Tax Map.Block.Lot Acreage Designation Desianation Eno 5.25..90B 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 Maps showing the affected properties and proposed boundary line changes are provided as attachments. Z-4-94 I-851U.S.70 Economic Development District In addition to the Land Use Plan boundaries, 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. 006 Adjustments proposed to move the zoning district boundaries to property lines are as follows: Current Proposed Township Tax Map.Block.Lot Acreafe 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 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-Block-Lot Acreaste Area Area Eno 5.25..90E 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 Maps showing the affected properties and proposed boundary line changes are provided as attachments. Proposed Text Amendments. When the Board of Commissioners approved the Economic Development District proposals on March 2, 1994, changes or amendments to the Economic Development Districts proposals were discussed and continued to its March 15 meeting. Part of the discussion focused on a major policy question - Board of Commissioners review of economic development proposals. The Board of Commissioners approved a recommendation that proposals suggested by Commissioners Gordon and Inako be referred to the Planning Board for review with the understanding that the Planning Board would 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. Proposed amendments were presented 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 summarized below,including all options considered by the Ordinance Review Committee. The proposals are presented in detail in the attached ordinance amendment proposal. • 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 007 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. • 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 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. • 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. • 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 either the "Special Use Permit" or "Site Plan Approval" option is adopted. RECOMMENDATION: Article 20.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Zoning Officer's recommendation be presented to the Planning Board within 30 days of receipt of an application. However, Article 20.4 exempts any application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text by either the public or the County from the provisions of Article 20.3.Likewise, plan and/or atlas amendments initiated by the County are not subject to the 30-day provision.In either case, though, the public hearing is the time scheduled for presentation of the Zoning Officer's recommendation. Zoning Officer Recommendation The Zoning Officer 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 Zoning Officer concurs with the changes as recommended.Provided the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners find in the affirmative, the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the proposed text amendments. In addition, the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the proposed Land Use Plan and Zoning Atlas boundary adjustments. No decision is made on the proposed amendments by either the Planning Board or Board of Commissioners at the public hearing. Amendments initiated by the County are not subject to time limitations other than those specified by the Board of Commissioners. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends that the proposed amendment be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than October 3, 1994. 008 :N.. Pleasant Green Road .3,e I-851US HIGHWAY 70 � ,:„.... us Highwaq�o ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT . l j Proposed Eno Drive 4 '.#: Eno Riverz ',..�f i /• F _ no River State P -_--1 M r . • •- Noe- i - • '-'''' ''''''''-.• : . ' ' --,- - ' ' - --,' : *- _'Mt.Herman - ' V{{ Church Road • ,,-::> - JX o : < 7 .rt 1 :c- C '- fNff ' lc 4',.`, \ . a -s� r • y Legend • ,�� - • ".<..5,0.0.„� r ..M•6'wNrr Proposed EDD Boundaries �..- . —1:----.4..'.-- ,; .;;, ,•i1 Duke Forest •• • • Seo t. <per'. .f d �• '• rmil LowlMedium Intensity Residential '�,, N ;;;r•ail Existing Activity Node • ;"_"•”` "`L Rural Residential Southern Railroad 40 •,-mr"Vin�•: MTCILamdscape Buffer Open Space Areas SCHEMATIC PLAN Wildlife Corridor Recreation Corridor a••a.wor Powerline/Gasline Easements Potential Transit Access Economic Development&Stricts Design Manua/ Page 2•r.8 O 0 ca 11 I1IIIL ..It-L 1 'tile (14 SWIIF. .1 L - it .- - - �o`��N� ..,c‘• /c I 'fi I �: 5 66® o CP44 (H2)3130 �� c qa 1ia yla'�. SB2 24M 92 . a 01 AC 14117 213K 1527 AC.0C 126 •'1 11k i ' I1l4 �O O�OMi� 2105 ACTOG.1 ® N0�2.M __. • �/ • G 3�eC �C .. (6-;) _______Hor______1■111651' SUII 1)g q i gle IN) •- ?.1 193 AC � 1 �1 • it,i, u7a (,3, ■ .,.f-_ .r ,�qq,22 \ t 147ACCAL ` 1070 030: �� 1 42f ')" .0. �!1 f?j r iq..S 1 fi34i 61 `4. 5i� _ 1 ` Iwo* 1i(.7t;.lY-17!q :: i I ~ 00120 ^ Q \.- !S 1 1 ' (I.J �4 I 1 , `'� �'r`d 4: a. 'a1 '. i 10412 • • a !30 -1+ 632 AC. Q 367 AC. J r 1 rsi I '•' i t4 cC CAL ~` 1,}4K. u _ I1PC 1' 1 1,;., }. 7119 _1 �~ a 4 `S6) lIY6t his:! I 1 1 �'w ,r� �'I:•f� el ra (J I��•. -��_ _ Eli, INL PK ;� 1'•IL ; It):, .�� 1' ).23 AC.CAL. 89 . 1 5% , S h 1 94 = (14 SPACC5) �� 1 (4l 1.��^�•t.<. ii I .`I�) SJ DAL• ~' �._ 1 2. 7041 2AC. �, ,.... imr ► 1,1 t 1ftrn ''4$ 22 AC 1 - _•e • 2614 2 p 1400 017�e 102 p___ , -- - - - ►_ >� ICS 3207 I - _. - ...„,2-.....-- 10 04 AC �� q3} a r- _- --- �, .• 1 �y 92 130 rAi,"1/��/,I�'_ ,_ ......--r-2. w )', X •y`i0.'/ •t• 2.)K 4.291 A.C. VtT/. _ - — - ■?'; •;ix . IOU a M Q , �rr�l' C' a,�"T(O : 1234 �.. / ; 4$»� rac. cf;.i 96a3 W_+,� ::-------01: w �: 7 ;!: t1c^ / 7,az �' z I I t1 5 rank ;11I ( !I 5uC.►t %l ® I -u. 1 t - r �� 1 _ +HY4' 1 ,'�1 - aD _� 'j 4 •4 • - I lt, _ (' �' REVISED I 7 5 8 2A7AC 1 173 r�-- �'t- _;,� I 1 AC TOWNSHIP - -t_ _".. , , 1 1 TOWNSHIP r _ ;i14au•.• 37v 2.57 a:CAL 1 1 _ X -�_� t+.::'it. a•:•at,l-aa' I 4v-142 E WARM A H!CKS 60-141 Ai AL.:, • I 41- 15 t�R;1,y 1E.^RRl II NANCY WHI TAKE R 58-166 KA1MY 1.1t:'f.`1,: !f. ' 1•• . `► 1 'E'NUOO OUT FALL • 9.92 JOHN A SC.VILETI 52-106 1 1! ID3 Tilt. 14!:1. LLT NY 4.-II DUKE. P0WIl 1 '-96..f:,• Ii.: I/Au((SNAPMIC L 51-11} A91i11LAI T c :1,;•11.f•I '.. ' •-44 14 .V 133 LEGEND 301;2.•-1-•0802 - °'40■0440 -- --- - - 1A44 to,atoms, • i ORANGE COUNTY N C ..10..4 .0100•44[1.40.14:41 01 - - - .� ' ' ti_ 1U114.14WI:4 - _- -__ DA11.YIAP MAN, 1�•� q70 111010 hll X11! C.'. 1' -41,1 •'0444 IU010.1aw0.'Mal -- -- -- - -- -LL•.1/ .100.0.1410 0 ru:4 MI III •J c0 0•0401414 s 1- •4 1 141 ENO ((�'��A�II�� [[- A ,1(('�� •004. 440[4 0,1NIYI4 li) c44140i 0444 Q I ENO 1 OWr4S 1IP til/Il-•_ Eit. PROPO5E1D 'D15 1 T� c'i ' EXnwsco . z4q4 1 8 6/ 70 Ecto U c I.ELoPmcitrE lilt Pit nti`•ilSi�k:c:' ....._ ` - -1-4 - so. 144 SPACE. I.S•a_ _- ' --- —_-__ - -- --- - . r`1 n A s' , 2 tJ • r.' Ste • TOW •IUDs AC 1u.. • 1E14 nr. 161U ' 6S •1 i_I o . 21.193 Ac. © 17 a %C ;t;+. p Z46 AC. r'. l"'') r-4- 111' ON4 i. 11.:� ©�Q •t.7• G) Q.1.4.--11,4414 4 i Tt:Jr: 4 .."C 1• ' =_- 1 I ITAGCK1 . C9 � 633 1.• _� _ IN. N 5L' 1�ti i 4: K 'N i i�I .w. — ifik 0.401 p •`� C32 Al; 4 67ACCA. 1/1C 1 1 C=• ..i i1 +`1 , 1 1,116 as Az tas -�-� ENO Iit-PK N. &: q ;c ; �� —=—_ C� �. rA -.. j . .° ��1� 111 .�fCE51 .��� it.. & W1. 91 O 1 1_ ••.w Il. ,. , • ..... 0111.:11•/• ,too 2 97 © �� ���-- �__ i•''•►�••jj,,�� ?u y....:::._._. ___„_ . _...az.. ,; N„.,,,,,„,,h; ..r.,)44 Pet 0 ' i — - T?fib Ili Ai'(Ir .411,/, owe.. 21,, 44.4 0 1 00 I 4.291 AC. /�'��/ '++^ 9u,c Si•:-. t-► , a 23 1 ' r `7T�j r "I4 CA .. Y» a(. .-j �1 I 1... �- 11 !ti117A /_at �LMI Y7 Q 90 t� �/ •11!`11„- CD .34 @IC 1 N 6/YN: c- • ( 1 e II r . _pv. r_ -1 ' 7 ts,w It) ® .. 7_t�ac .►, arc 1 e o�r.c a► 1 .WINSHIP ._ , vilio.z.e) .; . ,. . , -�_, ,. ...t. 11 I I ,V ► .....JP w�� yt- 24 ELIZAALTNA NICKS 60-141 ,.1110.1 •! 1TY ONIA1 N NANCY Will 511-166 • KAINI LU1t`f.r.l U. 1.a •---- M 4u-- 4 ��Op Op� ` L . ••9G,5,4 M.:: _. ._ a• u I 1 1 41- 3 I4If1E KT IPNY AR`il ' 9.92 . • AI A• . CT 2-IOG AWIILiI il:A 1.1:411..:1.1.. !•'•44 ••• • - M sS- D5 3t 133 LEGEND %KZ 0902 •••••• _—- - - ••• ORANGE COUNTY NC. _0 P:22". /NOM D EDO/PR114 MeV • 044 w `� . ! 1,N YOU Iu,1: _�__ ,Wl�I.,YMrIWAV.IIN - I▪ ►C Y ::.,.1". 1 • 4 4.4 _ a PAOFoSt'D EW/sec 0 Of A 10 012 013 PROPOSED ORDINANCE/PLAN AMENDMLW ORDINANCE/PLAN Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Regulations REFERENC& See "Existing/Proposed Ordinance/Plan Revisions"below. ORIGIN OFAILMMLNr Staff Planning Board X BOCC Citizen Other: STAFF PRIORITT RECOIBM"ATION.• X High Middle Low EXPECTED PUBLIC BXARiNG DATE•August 22, 1994 PURPOSE- To consider amending the adopted Economic Development District proposals to reflect proposals recommended by members of the Board of Commissioners. IMPACTS/ISSUE& 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 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 reviewldiscussion 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. Although the Planning Board recommended that the options be presented at the May 23 public hearing, the Board of Commissioners, at its May 2 meeting, decided to withhold the proposals for further discussion. The proposals are presented below, including all options considered by the Ordinance Review Committee. 014 EXISTING/PROPOSED ORDRVANCE/PLAN REVISIONS: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE/SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT 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 -SPECL4L USE APPROACH(CONCEPT PROPOSED BY C0JCW Z IONER 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 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 Purpose Goal Six of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan is the promotion o f 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 Damlopmaets A 'minor damkWnze tt' is defined as a principal use when the floor area of the proposed development is less than 20,000 square feet,and the area of disturbed land; i.e., resulting in a change in the natural cover or topography, is less than 40,000 square feet Before any new site 'minor damlopnwnr 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: 015 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 oners in accordance with the provisions of-A-Ft:-ads !; P-lisamed Developmem Pinkpiaks Article 8-Special Uses. b) Mgjor Developments A "major development" is defined as a principal use when the floor area of the prnpased development is 20,000 square fleet or more, and the area of disturbed land; i.e.,resulting in a change in the natural cover or topography,is 40,000 square fleet or MOM Before any 'major development' map► be undertaken in an F.canamic Development District; a Special Use Permit must be approved by the Board of Commissioners in accordance with the provisions of Article 8(Special Uses)of this Ordinance. 6.28.3 Design Standards The design standards applicable within Economic Development Districts are shown on the following pages and are divided into two categories, Performance Standards and Design Criteria. The Performance Standards establish "land use intensity ratios", or ratios of mm human-m&Ae construction to natural features as well as standards to eliminate or mitigate nuisances and undesirable impacts on the environment. 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: 8.828 Economic Development District Site Plans 8.8.28.1 Additional information In addition to the information required in Subsections 82 and 84 tiie following shall be supplied as pmt of the application: a) A correprehenve site development plan,including all plans and documents required by Article 629 and Article 14.3 of this Ordinamm 016 8.8.28.2 Standards of Evaluation The following standards shell be used in deciding are an application for this um a) The site plan meets the criteria for site plan approual lisaed in Amick 14:4- b) The applicant has addressed agency ewnments saUdkd during the site plan review provew and/or C) The site plan adheres to the performance standards and design criteria applicable to Economic Development Districts as set fwth in Amick 629 of this ordinance or the applicant has proposed 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 Manua Discussion and questions related to the above proposals are identified below. a. Does the "special use"or "site plan approval" option satisfy the orieinal 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"maor''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 would be the same as the approval of one large project by the Commissioners. A final concern is the 20,000140,000 rule and its relation to water usage thresholds and permitted uses. As an example,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 ci ed th resholds 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 20,000140,000 rule either, noting that it concurred with Commissioner Willhoit's assessment. C. Are there variations of or alternatives to the 20,0W/40 000 rule? One option is eliminate the water usage and use category thresholds completely and rely solely on the 20,000140,000 rule. If there are still concerns about convenience stores and fast food restaurants, they should be allowed only as part of a multi-occupancy building. Another option is to use the provisions of Article 6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance as a threshold instead of the 20,000140,000 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. 017 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 time frames are involved in staff. Planning Board, and Commissioner approval options? Staff has 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.) OPTION#2-SUBDIVISION APPROACH(RECOMMENDED BY ORDINANCE REVIEW CO]CMlT!'EE) 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 II: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 art Economic 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: X-C. Economic Development Standards In renewing subdivision proposals for laved located in art Economic Diaxlopment zipping district,the Planning Staff and Planning Board shall consider the overall design of the proposal in terms of compliance with applicable performance standards and design criteria contained in Article 6.29 of the Zoning Ordinance - Develapment Standards for Ecanornic Development(ED)Districts.All such proposals sharll include the entire panel or lot of record as of , 1994, the g7be ive date a(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 parcel 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(RECOInGMED BY ORMNANCE REVIEW COM3017EE) This option is nothing more than the existing language adopted on March 2 by the Board of Commissioners. Optional wording has been provided(in boldface 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: 018 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 - 01.1 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(eUminadyW 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 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. Specifically, 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 019 general and specific standards and procedures for the issuance of a Planned Development Permit as set forth in this Article. Both Special Use 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 above, and the thresholds on water usage and permitted uses, sufficient controls were in place. OPTION#4-SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCEDURE 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 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: 6.29 Development Standards for Economic Development (ED) Districts 6.29.1 Purpose 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 Developments A 'minor deudopment is defined as a principal use where the floor area of the P oposed development is less throe 20,000 square feed,and the area of disturbed land,- i.e., resulting in a change in the natural cover or topography, is less than 40,000 square fiwL Before any new w--site '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. 020 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 Dirge Article 14.3 Site Plan Review. b) MR*Developments A 'mayor deueloprmaet' is defined as a principal use where the floor area of the proposed development is 20,000 square feet or more,and the area of disturbed laru4- i.e.,resulting in a change in the natural cover or topography,is 40,000 square feet or more. Before any 'major dwdopmenenuW be undertaken in an Economic Development District;a Site Plan must be appnxied by the Board of Commissioners in accordmwe with the provisions of Article 14.3(Site Plan Review)of this Ordinances 2. Amend Article 14.3 - Site Plan Review by adding a new subsection, Article 14.3.4, to read as follows: 14.3.4 Be,fare any'mayor d wdopment'mad►be undertaken in an Economic D&x&Wment District;the site plan must be submitted to the Planning Board for recommaedam n and the Board of Commissioners for aWu?aL Any such %Vhcafton, including the analysis and recommendation of the Planning Staff, shall be submitted to the Planning Board at the first regular meeting after the expiration of the 21-daffy period speeifed in Article M32 or any cdension thereof: The Planning Board shall,within 30 days of receipt of the Planning Staff recommendation,prepare and submit for the Board of Commissioners a recommendation concerning the disposition of the application. In making its decision, the Board of Commissioners may: a. Approve the application as submitle b. Approve the application ion subject to conditions;or C. Deny the application. Failure to meet the criteria for site plan approval listed in Article 14.3.1, to meet the perf+wmance standards and design crietena for Ewn amic Development Districts in Article 6.29,and/or to address again►comments solicited during plan review are grounds for denial of de appUca"L ORDINANCE REVIEW COMUI TEE REVIEW: March 29, 1994 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: 021 II Amend Article 6 by adding a new Article 6.29 • Development Standards for Economic Development (ED) Districts to read as follows: 629 Development Standards for Economic Development (ED) Districts z 6.29.1 Purpose Goal Six of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan is the prvrncacn of economic development which emphasizes kcal anplaymest needs while preserving the charccaer of communities, and protecting the natural ent irorsma:c To the ass, these pron aors are established to crease review praaoduires and appropriase design standards for applicanton within portions of the Development District: county targeted for economic d ur-km:est activities; e.g., Eeolanur Al "ate nom net '�xlopmens a,bs idata. in an may riradcsaiiot u an Faonornie Daxlopnaertt District; a site pima mast be approved and a wring con:plianee pmt issued in accordance with the provisions of Article 14 (Sim Plena Approval Procedures) o f this Ordinance Prior no CAsate. of an appficatices for site plan doomed, applicants will be required to meet wuh representatives of the Planning wad Inspections, and Economic Development Departments /4C40170 i' �&Poles,p regulations, and fee: applicable m development proposaLa. f Q, 7 roam/ Nonstop darelopme ntpoposals in art&Gnomic Development District will be reviewed by the Naming and Inspections s far compliance with the standards contained in �r �, the following sections Snit raise will also be varied out in azordasae with the a f 44a'c1e 14.3(Sim Plat Reim)of this ordinance. provisions -Ar In adt:Miaa b the submittal repsirenetsie contained in Article 14.2$ a complete application shall also include °`'J°r ��UPI�at srt L elaatran far math prod wad 2. A nsinima=of two(2)dressings o f sections through the site iZ1i ng misting and proposed grader, es wail as the relationship of different tits features. • •Pailare ttt weer the cumin 1b'site plan approval !laced in Article 14.3, to address agency aaninanae sodomised drug the plan rasa proms, asdkr to adhere to the design standards appliesnbit within lean de Dwlapneat Districts will result is denial a/a daxlopmast application he such eases, the deaelopesoat plans will be returned to the applicant with a tam eulaetatiat of the reasons far denial and the changes required for the application m be or woad. An applicant shall here the gni=alrevising the daotlopsest plats to comply with the site plat and design eriin&As at aliernasien, the appdicaat tsar also submit the plats for the review and appoval of the Planning Board aad Board of County Cammisaionere in meardanoe with the of Article T lmtatd east Districts or a at►s. 619.3 1 t/w s.� Gi.•e • �i..r�i.:c� — •It L . Ado;se. ,� aye/. ✓res sad, /• / O.K. C w,�t �� 'Op= . Ms abt� g teethe Peonansit Development t�rterf foaming pages and are didded bolo two cave District: me shown on the ahem/t S> Standards and Design Ctiserid The Pertbrniance Standards atabllish land use inutasa:y ratios a trsa.H or ratios • eonsonesione to natural features as mall as aaadarls a elinsinaae ar niititays=AMMO=and ursdesircble impact?on 022 E Ad cluininirsent, both natural establish standard,f�► architectural parising and circul and , and dgnz a:d lighting Le, hag the teen 'f the sic and hag it neat• to :he surrounding ate relates m :he (The v orb highlighted in • ' format bas been revised to reflect the revue+ organization and content of the Desna Manual-) 0.V.45- amend Article 7 by revise;Article 7.2.1 to include the PD-ED Planned Development-Economic Develop=er.: District as a permitted Planned Development District u follow= 7.2.1 fstabtishment of the Planned Development Dist3ica Planned Development direness that correspond to the following districts au chorurd:rt.fir-::e 4 are hereby created: R-13 PD•X R•13 R-8 - PD-H-R-8 R-S • PD-H• R-S R-4 • PD•H•R-4 R-2 - PD-H•R•2 A-i • PD-H•R-1 RB • PD-1:1•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 •0%-i I.1 • PD -I.1 1-2 • PD •I.2 1.3 - PD •13 . ID • PD-ED PW-I• PD •PW-I PD-3[V PD •R PD •MEP OP Amend Article 7 by adding a new Article 7.21•PD•ED Planned Development-Economic Development Out.--.c: to read as fogaw►e 7.21 • P3�VT•gCONO3dG DEV OP�IVT DISTRICT CI G n / and requirements apply °PD-ED Planned D velopment•Ecnnornu Distil i ec en �° mcoe, 7=-1 faigaterigratigkignsmaggs a,4evC PD-ED a laerioee may be established its aaardasae with the general procedures and /'CN/S/osfs requirements net forth in Article, 7.1 through 79 mid with die inteltaliCI and in locaaans us =dance with the Canprehossioe Plena and the Tanning Ordinance and Atlas. The purpose cif this aft let it to pride for properly located and planned nat•reside:_. 1 darelaprnov aonai est with Orange County's Strategic Plat for Economic Development. Spsciflosily, this direr is intended to provide a+ apparsursiry for dwelop+nou ply submitted&mar the prvndaa a of Article 629(Daaelapenost Standards for Economic 023 do not CA47e• " P+ t(ED)Diarical of this ordintpue, m be considered for apP"eval when such pl 1' Meet the criteria for ate plan approval listed in,y dt, 1�.. neCeSS4-e7 // 2. Address ?comments solicited during the sits plan �,� and/or //ICor�/o%r rG 3. Aciltere to the design standards applicable within rev/5?o'cs >a fords in• cle 619 of this ordinmsec Economic D`t"!Qp"'°rt Dis�r1 as L d which propose a design solution which is equal to err better than could be obtained ugh the application Ar the criteria and stmsdmrle aaat�ed in the Design 3[anzici,. he last sentence beginning'and which...' was added following discussions with the County toraa'f to clarity that failure to adhere to criteria and standards, and/or address mments is not sufficient grounds alone for application acceptance agency acceP and consideration.) sada eases application for and appreaol of a srsed by the�d and specific standard,_ Roused �xloprr issuance o District shall be pmant Posit as set forts in this Article. of a Planned 024