Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20081124 - QPH APPROVED 1/22/2009 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING November 24, 2008 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met for a Quarterly Public Hearing continuation meeting on Monday, November 24, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Moses Carey, Jr. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Brian Ferrell COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Willie Best and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Members Samantha Cabe, Nathan Chambers, Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Mary Bobbitt Cooke, Larry Wright, Jeffrey Schmitt, and Tommy McNeill PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Jay Bryan, Brian Crawford, and Joel Knight A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRS Chair Jacobs welcomed everyone and went through the items at the County Commissioners' places. The yellow sheet was a substitute for the cover page for item C-6. There were also copies of PowerPoint presentations for C-2, C-4, and C-6. Commissioner Gordon recognized that there are five new Planning Board members tonight. Chair Jacobs expressed Commissioner Carey's regrets at being unable to attend because he is out of town. This would have been his last meeting as a County Commissioner. Planning Board member Jeffrey Schmitt chaired most of the items because Chair Jay Bryan was unable to attend. B. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Efland Sewer Rate Schedule Change: To receive public comment and possible BOCC decision on the new rate schedule for the Efland Sewer System. Note: This is not a Planning item and it is not referred to the Planning Board Kevin Lindley made a presentation on the state of the Efland sewer system. Efland Sewer System Proposed New Rate Schedule Efland Sewer System Background - Community need for Efland sewer system identified in early to mid-1980's S:\Minutes\20091124QPH.doc - Efland sewer system authorized by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners in 1985 - Currently have 213 customer accounts being billed for sewer service Efland Sewer System Rates - Current Rates o Set in 1987 o Rates have not increased in 20 years o Covered system costs then, but not now o Everybody who uses 3,000 gallons or less pays the same bill of$15.20 o Any usage over 3,000 gallons costs $4.50 per 1,000 gallons o Current rates generate about $63,000 per year - Current Costs o Town of Hillsborough charges about$140,000 to treat the wastewater from the system o Routine maintenance, electricity and phone service for the pump stations, billing and permit fees cost about$60,000 per year o Total annual cost is about$200,000 per year, compared to $63,000 in revenue - Capital Costs o Over the next ten years, there are several large projects that we know will need to be done o These projects involve replacing major pieces of equipment in the System's pump stations o These projects are part of the System's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) — mandated by our State-issued permit. o We are estimating their cost at$500,000 over the next 10 years o We need to be saving about$50,000 per year towards these capital projects Efland Sewer System— Revenue vs. Costs (graph) Efland Sewer System Proposed Rates - First increase—January 2009 o Base charge of$12.96 to all customers o Usage charge of$11.25 per 1,000 gallons used o No 3,000 gallon minimum charge Monthly Usage (gallons) Monthly sewer bill with current Monthly sewer bill with rates proposed rates January 2009 2000 $15.20 $35.46 4000 $19.70 $57.96 6000 $28.70 $80.46 - Second increase —July 2009 o Base charge of$15.55 to all customers o Usage charge of$13.50 per 1,000 gallons used o No 3000 gallon minimum charge S:\Minutes\20091124QPH.doc Monthly Usage Monthly sewer bill Monthly sewer bill Monthly sewer bill (gallons) with current rates with proposed rates with proposed rates January 2009 July 2009 2000 $15.20 $35.46 $42.55 4000 $19.70 $57.96 $69.55 6000 $28.70 $80.46 96.55 - Third increase —July 2010 o Base charge of$18.66 to all customers o Usage charge of$16.20 per 1000 gallons used o No 3000 gallon minimum charge Monthly usage Monthly sewer Monthly sewer Monthly sewer Monthly sewer (gallons) bill with current bill with bill with bill with proposed rates proposed rates proposed rates rates July 2010 January 2009 July 2009 2000 $15.20 $35.46 $42.55 $51.06 4000 $19.70 $57.96 $69.55 $83.46 6000 $28.70 $80.46 $96.55 $115.86 Kevin Lindley said that the Board is expecting staff to investigate any opportunities or programs to help low-income citizens who may have trouble paying the higher sewer bills. The staff has done this and he will be submitting a memo at the December 1St meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: George Whitted said that the rate is ridiculous. He was one of the first on this system and they were told that the rates were higher than what was needed to pay for the system. He said that he and his neighbors just received the letter of notification on Friday and rates would go up in January and again in July. He said that the figures should be examined again. He said that this is supposed to help the low-income families, but all of them will need help if these rates go up this high. Ben Lloyd said that there is a lot of concern in Efland about these rates. He said that the County is paying Hillsborough $140,000 a year and is only making $63,000 from the rates, so something is wrong. He said that when the bond issue was passed in 1988, that's when the trouble began. He said that this proposal is a 207% increase for the lowest usage. He is on the Board of Directors for Orange-Alamance Water, and the average customer uses somewhere around 4,000 gallons per month. He said that the problem is that this project was not completed when it should have been and there would have been more customers to cover the costs. He said that this would not work for the people in Efland because the citizens cannot afford it. Buster Graham lives in Efland and said that he has had some taps that have been guaranteed since 1988 for the sewer project. In the future, he thinks that a more practical approach would be a gradual increase in the sewer rate. He suggested increasing $5 a year for six or seven years. In the meantime, the tax rate on the property will probably double, and this tax revenue could be used to go against the sewer debt. If a new developer came in, then they could pay the maximum rate. He said that most people could adjust to a gradual increase rather than increasing the rate by $30-$40 right off the bat, since most of these people are on fixed incomes. S:\Minutes\20091124QPH.doc Art Milligan said that he just moved into Efland a year ago and received this notification letter last week. He said that the 200%jump in rates is out of the question for anyone, especially in an 18-month period of time. He is dissatisfied with the plan to try to adjust to the problem in front of the County. Annie Whitted asked who would pay for the school sewer system if it failed. Chair Jacobs asked if the school pays for sewer and Kevin Lindley said yes, the same rates. Chair Jacobs asked Kevin Lindley to update the County Commissioners on the plan. Kevin Lindley said that the plan is with the State now. He said that it would probably be 2010 before it is available for service. Chair Jacobs asked about the fee paid to Hillsborough and it was answered that the County pays 70% of the out-of-town rate, so the County pays more than in-town customers, but less than out-of-town customers. Chair Jacobs asked about the next steps for the rate setting and Kevin Lindley said that he is planning on bringing this back at the December 11th meeting to be able to implement the rate increase in January. Chair Jacobs said that written comments will be included as well. Kevin Lindley said that one customer called him and could not attend this meeting and she expressed concern over the rates. 2. Eno EDD (Economic Development District) Area Small Area Plan - Revise definition of "Eno Mixed Use" proposed land use category. Perdita Holtz introduced the new Special Projects Planner, Shannon Berry. Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan (SAP) Proposed Mixed Use Land Use Category Eno Mixed Use Current Definition: Land located in areas served or to be served by public water and sewer where a mix of residential, commercial, office, services, and light industrial uses are appropriate. Residential uses within Mixed Use areas should have a minimum density of six (6) units per acre. Examples of housing at this density include attached homes, patio homes, and apartments. Note: prior to adoption of implementation measures, a percentage or acreage limit on residential uses within the Mixed Use area should be determined. It is the intent to limit the amount of residential uses in the Mixed Use area to encourage the development of non- residential uses. Eno EDD Area Small Area Plan •Total planning area: 942 acres •Mixed Use area: 297 acres (excluding rights-of-way) •Recommended residential land area: 25% of mixed use area = 74.25 acres Whispering Pines SF res.= 54 acres Area for additional residential = 20.25 acres plus New residential units constructed above non-residential uses shall not count toward 25% acreage limit S:\Minutes\20091124QPH.doc Eno Mixed Use Proposed Definition: Land located in areas served or to be served by public water and sewer where a mix of residential, commercial, office, services, and light industrial uses are appropriate on a district- wide basis. Individual parcels may contain a single use or more than one use. New residential uses within the Mixed Use area shall have a minimum density of six (6) units per acre. Examples of housing at this density include attached homes, patio homes, and apartments. In order to encourage non-residential uses, no more than 25% of the acreage within the district shall be comprised of residential uses on single-use parcels. However, residential units constructed above non-residential uses shall not count toward the residential acreage limit. Proposed Schedule: •December 3, 2008 Planning Board meeting for recommendation to BOCC •January 22, 2009 BOCC meeting for decision regarding amendment to proposed land use category Commissioner Foushee said that the same concerns that the Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners have about the additional residential acreage are the same concerns that the task force had. The task force accepted the recommendations of the staff. Commissioner Gordon asked clarifying questions about the Durham's Urban Growth Boundary and Perdita Holtz said that Durham has consulted with Orange County on this. NO PUBLIC COMMENT Larry Wright asked if the Durham representative was at the task force meeting and Perdita Holtz said that he could not attend, but had no comments or reservations about the recommendations. Chair Jacobs thanked the task force and staff because he had raised reservations about the lack of allowance for residential to make this true mixed use, and this is a rational and adequate amount of opportunity to have true mixed use in this area. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to receive the proposed amendment to the Eno EDD Area Small Plan; refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no later than January 8, 2009; and adjourn the public hearing until January 22, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. REZONING of a parcel of property at 4115 Old NC 10 (TMBL 5.26.40/ PIN 9893-00- 8606) from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to Rural Residential One (R-1). Michael Harvey made this presentation. Review of a petition to REZONE a parcel of property at 4115 Old NC 10 from Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) to Rural Residential One (R-1) Property Vicinity Map (picture) APPLICATION SPECIFICS: •Applicant: Planning Staff/Dennis and Tracy Jones •Address: 4115 Old NC 10 S:\Minutes\20091124QPH.doc •TMBL/ PIN: 5.26..40/9893-00-8606 •Size of Parcel: 2.8 acres •Zoning: Existing Commercial Five (EC-5) Lower Eno Protected Watershed, •Township: ENO •Land Use Element Map (LUEM) Designation: Rural Residential •Proposed Zoning: Rural Residential One (R-1) —entire parcel Surrounding Land Uses: •NORTH: Across Old NC 10 there are several properties zoned R-1 with one (1) parcel zoned EC-5. •SOUTH/EAST/WEST: Properties are zoned R-1. There are several single-family residences surrounding the property. Request: •Rezone property from EC-5 to R-1, •The property owner has indicated that they are unsure why the property was zoned EC-5, •They are currently utilizing the property for residential purposes, •They have no interest in maintaining the commercial zoning designation on the property Zoning Officer Analysis: •The application is deemed to be complete in accordance with the provisions of Article Twenty (20) of the Zoning Ordinance, specifically Section 20.3.2, •The applicants have no interest, or intent, in developing/operating a commercial land use from the property. This represents a changing condition that makes the rezoning request reasonable as required under Section 20.3.2 (d) of the Ordinance, •The Zoning Officer has concluded that the request is reasonable and consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, which has the area designated as Rural Residential, as required under Section 20.3.2 (e) of the Ordinance. Staff Recommendations: •Receive the rezoning petition, •Conduct the public hearing to hear and consider public comment, •Refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the County Board of Commissioners no later than January 8, 2009, and •Adjourn the public hearing until February 3, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation Commissioner Gordon said that the Statement of Consistency should be Statement of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Jacobs said that, as part of the Land Use Plan Update/Implementation, there should be a systemic review and approach to everyone with an EC designation to see if they are still valid. Staff answered that this is currently ongoing. There are 20 properties now under study. PUBLIC COMMENT: S:\Minutes\20091124QPH.doc Dennis Jones said that he had no idea when he bought the property that it had an EC-5 zoning. He wants it to go back to residential zoning. Jeffrey Schmitt asked if there was any way that these 20 some properties could be wrapped together and Michael Harvey said that they would each need their own rezoning petition. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to receive the rezoning petition; refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no later than January 8, 2009; and adjourn the public hearing until February 3, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. REZONING of property at the intersection of NC 54 and White Cross Road (TMBL 6.30..7M /PIN 9749-40-0293)from Agricultural Residential (AR)to Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2). Michael Harvey made this presentation. Review of a petition to REZONE a portion property at 3010 White Cross Road (approximately 1.04 acres) from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2) Property Vicinity Map (picture) APPLICATION SPECIFICS: •Applicant: Vernon Davis •Address: 3010 White Cross Rd •TMBL/ PIN: 6.30..7M / 9749-40-0293 •Size of Parcel: 4.7 acres •Zoning: Agricultural Residential (AR), •Township: Bingham •Land Use Element Map (LUEM) Designation: White Cross Rural Community Activity Node •Proposed Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2) — 1.04 acres Surrounding Land Uses: •NORTH: •Across NC 54: several commercial operations and residential land uses •SOUTH/EAST/WEST: •Predominately single-family residential land uses with a commercial land use to the east Node Boundaries (picture) Request: •There is a septic system, and required repair area, located on the subject parcel that supports an adjacent commercially zoned parcel of property owned by Mr. Davis, S:\Minutes\20091124QPH.doc •Mr. Davis is concerned about his continued ability to have the septic system supporting his commercial operation on the AR zoned parcel of property. •Recent plans, published by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, indicate that there will be modifications to both White Cross Road and NC 54. These improvements will limit the available parking for the existing commercial operation and restrict access to the property. •Mr. Davis is seeking to rezone approximately 1.04 acres of the subject parcel to NC-2 and then recombine the property with his adjacent NC-2 zoned property, •If the request is approved, the septic system supporting the existing commercial operation will be properly zoned and could be recombined with the adjacent commercially zoned parcel of property Zoning Officer Analysis: According to Section 4.2.9 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, the maximum amount of land zoned NC-2: ... at any node shall not exceed nine acres, but a maximum of 5 acres shall apply where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in the Transition areas.' There is a similar prohibition on the amount of Local Commercial One (LC-1) zoned property within an established Node contained within Article Four (4) of the Ordinance. Zoning Officer Analysis (continued): In completing an assessment of the existing non-residentially zoned property within the White Cross Rural Community Activity Node, the Zoning Officer has determined: •There is approximately four point five (4.5) acres of existing property zoned Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC-2) within the Node, and •There is approximately four point two (4.2) acres of existing property zoned Local Commercial One (LC-1) within the Node. Staff is required to recommend the Board deny this request due to the following: •Approving the request would allow more NC-2 zoned property than allowed by the Ordinance. As there is already 4.5 acres of NC-2 zoned property this request, if approved, would increase the total acreage to 5.5 acres, Zoning Officer Analysis (continued) •There has been no evidence submitted indicating that the density within the Node is equal to existing densities within the various Transition Areas in the County, Staff Recommendations: •Receive the rezoning petition, •Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comments from all interested parties, •Refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the County Board of Commissioners no later than January 8, 2009 •Adjourn the Public Hearing until February 3, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation. Planning Board member Samantha Cabe asked clarifying questions about the transition area and the density and Michael Harvey answered. S:\Minutes\20091124QPH.doc Jeffrey Schmitt asked if there was any practical reason that this request would be denied by staff other than the technical implications. Michael Harvey said no and that staff understands the rationale and the need, but they are bound by the limitations of the ordinance as currently prescribed. PUBLIC COMMENT: Steve Yuhasz is the attorney for the applicant. He gave a history of the property. He said that when this property was first zoned in 1981, the property had a commercial building and was determined by Planning staff to be zoned as a commercial building. The adjoining property was in a different ownership at the time, so there was no opportunity to create a larger parcel to hold the commercial use. Mr. Davis acquired the commercial piece of property and in 1995, the septic system was installed to provide for the commercial use. At this time, there was no triggering mechanism whereby Planning would know that the septic system had been installed. Recently, the DOT has made some improvements to the NC 54/VVhite Cross intersection, and there is not a well-defined driveway into the commercial property. This is because the entire frontage along the property is used as the driveway onto the property. Since the improvements, cars are venturing more into Mr. Davis' parking area and it is becoming more difficult for cars that park there. Mr. Davis wants to make improvements to the property that would make it a safer parking area and also to incorporate the septic system onto the lot. Steve Yuhasz said that the staff agrees on the practical points, but the only problem is the ordinance. The ordinance says that normally, the maximum amount of NC-2 in a node is nine acres. This is nowhere near nine acres, so it should be a normal situation unless the exception applies, which says, "a maximum of five acres shall apply where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in the transition area." He said that he does not see any evidence that staff has done anything to study the relative densities as of today. He thinks that the zoning request should be approved and that the staff's objections are not well-founded. Commissioner Gordon said that the explanation that Michael Harvey gave had to do with policy, and he also discussed the transition areas. Brian Ferrell said that he would let Michael Harvey speak to the transition definition, but the point about whether or not there is a commercial use being made of a residentially zoned piece of property is one of the reasons that staff is saying that there is a sticking point. Michael Harvey said that the ordinance stipulates that normally the maximum of land zoned NC-2 at any node shall not exceed nine acres. It further says that a maximum of five-acres shall apply where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in transition areas. The staff interprets this to say that, within the node itself, if population density happens to be lower and is distributed more widely than what is in the transition areas in common, then the five-acre limit applies. Commissioner Gordon asked for numbers and Michael Harvey said that the population is about 22-30,000 and the density is one to two acres within the various transition areas. In Bingham Township, there are 6,211 individuals from the last census. It is the staff's professional opinion, that given the population of Bingham Township and within the node itself, that it does not meet the criteria for being more dense than the transition zones that are close to the density and should not be able to take advantage of the nine acres. He agrees that the staff and applicant are disagreeing on a technical definition. Commissioner Gordon suggested that when that was done a number of years ago that it was very hard to site the nodes. S:\Minutes\20091124QPH.doc Planning Director Craig Benedict said that in 1999 there was a re-zoning in this area that asked to exceed the five-acre limit and was turned down because there was no evidence in the change of conditions related to density. In 1999, it was discussed that the Comprehensive Plan would be updated in the coming years, and one of the first activities is to analyze the activity nodes that were developed in 1991 and find out the conditions that have changed. This needs to be reanalyzed. Chair Jacobs asked if there was a current septic problem and it was answered no. He said that he was confused about what was stated about modifications to NC 54. The information states that modifications "will be" made. Michael Harvey said that the information in the abstract is based on the application, which states that the improvements are pending. Steve Yuhasz said that when he started on this project in 2007, the plans had been published and were pending, but now they are completed. Chair Jacobs clarified that part of the original contention was the changes might have certain consequences, and now the applicant is saying that the changes have taken place and they did have consequences. Chair Jacobs said that the Board did talk about reexamining the rural activity nodes because they were too restrictive. He said that he would like to see some discussion of whether the circumstances have changed sufficiently that there needs to be an immediate fix, or whether as part of reevaluating the way in which activity nodes are going to cast, that the concerns that the applicant has could be addressed by the Land Use Plan implementation process. Steve Yuhasz said that, with respect to delay, the last rezoning was brought up in 1996 and the application was withdrawn pending a small area plan, which did not materialize. However, there is not an immediate need to approve this rezoning. He emphasized that it should move a little more quickly than the last suggestion that there be a small area plan. Vernon Davis said that the building was a 40's building and was a Masonic lodge. The bottom part was rented to a grocery store. During the time in 1940, DOT bought the right-of-way two different times and the building has already been moved one time. He said that it seems as if he is asking for an acre of commercial zoning, but he only wants a little more that the road took up so that he can conform to all of the County's standards. If he gets this approval, he will be legal on all points. His septic system has never failed. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to receive the rezoning petition; refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no later than January 8, 2009; and adjourn the public hearing until February 3, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. REZONING of several properties along Old NC Highway 86 from Economic Development— Limited Office One(ED-LO-1)to Economic Development Linear Officer(ED-LNR). Planner Robert Davis made this presentation and gave some background. The district before the changes allowed all types of uses to go on all of the land. Staff created land uses that would be more specific to the quadrants. This item is to revisit the implementation of the land use ED-LO-1 that was written in 2003. This should open up the potential properties for potential uses. He gave specifics on what could be included in this designation. Staff is recommending approval, sending it back to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and that it come back at the second meeting in February. S:\Minutes\20091124QPH.doc A Planning Board member asked clarifying questions about the wetlands and floodplain. He said that he does not know how there could be small plots without covering up the stream for parking, etc. Robert Davis said that there is a stream that goes up the back of the red line, which is also a buffered stream. There is not a lot of buildable area here. PUBLIC COMMENT: Debbie Braxton is a resident of Hillsborough, but was speaking as a Real Estate agent for Audrey Miller. Audrey Miller's property is listed at 2411 Old NC 86. There has been some interest in the purchase of her home for a small office and her property meets both of the zoning plans, but definitely meets the criteria of the proposed rezoning. The home is brick, which could be a small office with parking in the back. Her client is in favor of the rezoning. Sue Spaccarotella spoke on behalf of her mother, Audrey Miller. She said that her mom has decided to move after 59 years and her home is on the market. She said that they are now hopeful to sell the home with the amended rezoning. Robert Smith was representing his mother, who owns the land where Cornwallis Hills is. His mother needs to sell her property and they are in favor of the rezoning. He just wants to look out for his parents. Margo Pinkerton lives in Cornwallis Hills and said that she has a long history in planning. She said that the idea of small offices makes perfect sense for this land but there was a proposal on this property 18 months ago and the same concerns are current today. She said that one of the proposed changes in the zoning involves the buffers and this concerns her. She said that one acre of impervious surface produces 16 times more runoff than one acre of meadow. There is already flooding at the end of the neighborhood. She showed a picture of the flooding. She said that if buffers will be reduced and impervious surfaces are increased, the flooding will get worse. She asked if the Planning Board had consulted with the river keepers of the Neuse River. This is a very sensitive river with national sensitivity. She has concerns about parking behind buildings because the police cannot see what is going on behind buildings. She would urge parking in front or beside buildings. Jo Soulier lives in Cornwallis Hills. She said that last year the neighbors fought a medical complex because of the buffering and because the parking in the back of an office does not lend itself to safety. She agreed that parking should be offset to the side. She asked that the lower piece be a special tract where there is much discussion when a use comes up. Member of the Planning Board also gave their comments. Mary Bobbit Cooke asked how many times this area floods per year and the citizens said many times in the lower section (tract 2). Tommy McNeill asked clarifying questions and Robert Davis said that the impervious surface is the same for both designations, but the difference is the lot size. Robert Davis said that there is no requirement that parking go in the rear of the building. This is an area that Hillsborough would serve with water and sewer. Chair Jacobs said that there are tradeoffs here. He said that a six-story building located to the east of a residential neighborhood would be a big wall between the people and the morning sun. He spoke in favor of limiting access points and said that this proposal has nothing about limiting access points and in fact would make road capacity worse. S:\Minutes\20091124QPH.doc A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to receive the rezoning petition; refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no later than January 8, 2009; and adjourn the public hearing until February 3, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS: Review of Zoning Ordinance Amendments, specifically to the Economic Development Design Manual, to revise existing buffer regulations. Michael Harvey made this presentation. Review of a petition to AMEND the Orange County Zoning Ordinance with respect to landscape standards within the Hillsborough EDD Issue: •Existing EDD landscape regulations do not allow for, or promote, the adaptive reuse of residential structures, •There is no flexibility in current landscape regulations allowing for a smaller buffer when a single-family residence is being used for a non-residential purpose •The required buffer reduces the available land area for the lot, •There is no incentive to preserve or use the existing structures. Proposal: With this amendment, staff is proposing the following: •Include a new landscape standard within the EDD Manual for professional offices proposing to utilize existing single-family residential structures, •Reduce the required landscaped area to twenty (20) feet, •Establish a minimum planting height for such landscaped areas, •Encouraged shared drive-way access and cross easements for shared parking •The amendment would create more useable space, •The reduced buffer would allow for the existing structure to be used for non-residential purposes, •The amendment would make it easier to preserve the aesthetic quality of roadway corridors within the Hillsborough EDD Staff Observations: •This proposal is similar to recent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance establishing the Efland Cheeks Overlay Zoning District (ECOD), •Staff believes we have an opportunity to preserve existing residential structures while allowing for them to be used for non-residential purposes in designated economic development districts. Staff Recommendations: •Receive the rezoning petition, •Conduct the PUBLIC HEARING and accept comments from all interested parties, •Refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the County Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 8, 2009 S:\Minutes\20091124QPH.doc •Adjourn the PUBLIC HEARING until February 3, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation. Chair Jacobs and Planning Board members asked clarifying questions, which were answered by Michael Harvey. PUBLIC COMMENT: Margo Pinkerton asked if there would be a minimum height for the buffer and suggested having a maximum height for the buffer. Michael Harvey said that there are maximum heights in the ordinance but not minimum heights. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to receive the re-zoning petition; refer the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than January 8, 2009; and adjourn the public hearing until February 3, 2009 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation. Chair Jacobs encouraged the Planning Board and staff to consider this item before the other related item and see what was not adequately addressed as opposed to doing it in the order that it was presented. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn the meeting at 9:59 pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board S:\Minutes\20091124QPH.doc